Muslim Politics in Secular India: Chapter 8

[Vipul Kashyap]

MUSLIM POLITICS IN SECULAR INDIA (by Hamid Dalwai) (Part 13 of 17)

8

HUMANISTIC MODERNISM
THE ONLY SOLUTION

In the preceding chapters I have discussed the nature of the Indian
Muslim problem. In this context,, one ought of consider Hindu
communalism. However, I believe that Hindu communalism in India has
sprung up primarily as a reaction to Muslim communalism. If Muslim
communalism is effectively eliminated, the root cause of Hindu
communalism will be destroyed.
This is not the only reason why I consider these two forms of
communalism on differnt levels. As I have stated earlier, the Hindu
community already has within it an influential liberal elite which is
conscious of fundamental human values and is committed to them. This
small but influential class of liberals continuously fights Hindu
communalism. Such a liberal elite does not exist amont the Indian
Muslims. This is the Chief reason why I do not regard the two
communalist forces as being on the same level. Basically, Muslim
communalism is aggressive and expansionist; Hindu communlism is a
defensive reaction. However hard Hindu communalist leaders may try,
they cannot make Hindu communalism aggressive beyond certain limits.
By its very nature, Hindus society is not well-knit. Liberal Hindus
are well organised and they are continuously trying to check
aggressive communalism. Even during the post-partition days when
communal feelings ran high, Hindu communalists could not subjugate
the forces of secular nationalism among the Hindus.
However, the Hindu assumes various forms. It will be useful to
study the Hindu mind in contrast with the Muslim mind. Hindu society
allows free expression. This opens out a certain inlet for new and
different ideas. A Hindu can take up extremely wrong positions at
times and even try to propagate highly non-conformist views. Such a
wrong-headed Hindu can even muster up some support. As a result, we
simultaneously find among the Hindus people who are extremely tolerant
and humanistic and also others who are extremely cruel and
narrow-minded. The Hindus wears many masks. In a sense, Hindu
society is a multi-headed organism. Sometimes this creates great
complications. It also explains the indecision and the ambivalence of
the Hindu mind. It postpones decisions and avoids frankness. At the
same time, it tries to obtain full credit for its independence of
mind.
Of course, there is another side to this. This other side is
equally important in the context of Muslim politics and the
Hindu-Muslim problem. As I have observed earlier, Gandhi and Nehru
had recognised the fact that Hindu society had refused to accept the
Muslim challenge. But Hindu communalists failed to recognise this. I
must obnserve here that Hindu society lacks the dynamism without which
no national challenge can be faced. For centuries it has been in the
doldrums. It is yet to find a direction. I am not referring to the
controversises raging in this country today. The real question is
whether we have enough dynamism and sense of direction to overcome
these controversies. American society has such dynamism and so too
the Russian. In comparison to the Russians and Americans, the
Europeanms are losing their dynamism. And therefore, they are being
left behind. It must be remembered that dynamic nations go on
extending the spheres of their influence. sometimes they may expand
geographically; sometimes, their expansion is cultural; and sometimes
their influence spreads in the form of economic and political
influence. Today, India is a shrinking nation in this sense and this
points to the lack of dynamism in a majorrty of Indians. It is not
the leadership alone which is responsible for this waning of
influence. English society overthrew Chamberlain to prove how a
dyuanmic society can reject weak leadership. However, even in periods
of difficulty we have been unable to overthrow our weak leadership.
Our leadership is merely a symbol of the weakness of Indian society as
a whole.
Does Muslim society then have such dynamism? The answer is, `No.'
We have recently witnessed how Arab power shrank up within only
twenty-four hours. Nowhere in the world today do we find a dynamic
influence of Islamic culture. These are the symptoms of a debilitated
society. Islamic dynamism is preoccupied only with spreading
religion. Muslims call this dynamism; in fact, it is only a
hang-over of barbaric mediaevalism and it contains the seeds of its
own destruction.
How they are we going to explain the spectacle of the Hindus'
helplessness in the face of Indian Muslims? The creation of Pakistan
cannot be attributed to Muslim dynamism. Pakistan was created by the
Muslims in collusion with a third party. It is a sealed chapter now.
However, the conflict continues. It is a conflict of two attitudes.
The Muslim mind is basically expansionist because it dreams of
religious expansion. The Hindu is conservative. He would not
transcend self-imposed limitations. This habit of the Hindu is
sometimes expressed in an absurd form. He decides not to enter
Kashmir which is a part of his own nation. He refuses to everyone,
including himself to enter Naga territory. These are symptoms of
decadence.
When I talk of expansionism, I should not be misunderstood as its
advocate. I am not suggesting that a society ought to be
expansionist. After all, the modern conscience provides a yard-stick
to determine what kind of expansion is ethically justifiable. I
expect a dynamic Hindu sopciety of the future to develop a modern
conscience. I believe that if the Hindus were sufficiently dynamic,
the Hindu-Muslim problem would be solved. For if the Hindus were
dynamic, they would subject the Indian Muslims to several shocks which
history has spared them. Muslims would be left with the one stark
alternative to perish if they did not wish to change. And any society
prefers change to extinction. Hindus can accept the challenge of
Muslim politics in India only by developing dynamism and a balance of
mind. But to develop such dyanmism Hindu orthodoxy itself has to be
liquidated. The caste system has to be eliminated. The Hindus must
embrace modernism. They must create a society based on fundamental
human values and the concept of true social equality. Unfortunately,
the Hindu mind lacks balance. Even those Hindus who have accepted
modernity, justice and brotherhood as their guiding principles
sometimes support Muslim communalism. Some avoid speaking against it
and some even indirectly encourage it. Those Hindus who ought to be
combating communalism today seem, instead, to be trying to put the
clock back. They are supporting obscurantism, revivalism, the caste
system and the cult of the cow. This is a process which would drain
Hindu society of whatever little dynamism it may still have. There
have to be enough Hindus trying to modernize the Hindu society and, at
the same time, opposing the irrational politics of Muslim communalism.
I hope this would happen. For that would precisely be the process by
which the Hindu-Muslim problem can be eliminated. Muslim communalism
today makes the most of the rift between liberal Hindus and
communalist Hindus. It is ironical that Muslim communalists gain the
support of Hindus, both liberal and communalist. The Muslim
communalist demand for making Urdu a second official language in Uttar
Pradesh and Bihar has been supported by the so-called modernist Hindus
under the impressive label of secularism. The `secularism' of such
Hindus encourages the anti-secularism of the Muislims. These
so-called secularist Hindus are opposed to e creation of a common
personal law because it might desplease the Muslims. They support
Sheikh Abdulla and suggest measures which are bound to result in
giving Kashmir over to Pakistan to settle our disputes with that
country. When members of the Jamaat-e-Islami are arrested for
demonstrating against President Nasser in New Delhi, these
`secularist' Hindus promptly protest. They back the Muslim agitation
against the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, publishers of the controversial
book on the Prophet. When Hamid Dalwai's novel Indhan (`Fuel') raises
a storm of protest from Muslim fanmatics, these so-called Hindu
secularists would support the fanatics and oppose Hamid Dalwai. When
Mr Chagla attempts to straighten up the communalist twist given to the
Aligarh University issue, under the pretence of being anti-Congress
the secularist Hindus would just sit on the fence. Such, in short,
are the ways of the so-called secular Hindu.
Consider, next, the orthodox Hindu. He stages an agitation
against the proposed removal of the word `Hindu' from Banaras
University, and secures the support of the Muslim League. He would
start an agitation for a ban on cow-slaughter and Muslim communalists
would support even that. For when they support him on such issues,
both of them can establish a united front against Mr Chagla, and then
the Muslim communalist would also be left free to stage nation-wide
agitations for a re-display of the Prophet's lost hair. He can bully
critics of the Prophet. In short, he will always turn Hindu
revivalism to his own benefit. It must be remembered that the
obscurantism of one community helps to strengthen the obscurantism of
other communities. If Hindu obscurantism is attacked and eliminated,
it would also be a strong blow to Muslim obscurantism.
Who then is really fighting Muslim communalism? The answer is, a
handful of modern Muslims. Mr Chagla in fact leads the modern
libneral Muslims. And all of us know Mr Chagla's situation now. He
is opposed by the Muslims and unsupported by the Hindus.
There is no doubt that the picture I have painted of Indian
Muslims is terrible. But it is true. One would be deceiving oneself
if one tried to believe it was otherwise.
This, however, is what we observe on the surface, On the surface,
Muslim society appears to be mediaeval in its make-up. Yet, somewhere
deep down, a change is taking place in this society. There is nothing
dramatic about this change. It is largely imperceptible and indeed
very slow. It is a process which began quite a few years ago. It has
still tcover many stages before it reaches its completion. Sir Syed
Ahmed Khan represents the first phase in the modernization of Indian
Muslims. He wanted to modernize the Muslims although he was still
opposed to the Hindus. Jinnah and Iqbal represent e second phase.
In the beginning, neither Jinnah nor Iqbal was anti-Hindu. However
later they began to talk in the name of Islam and this Islamism
ultimately led to anti-Hinduism. This is where the process of Muslim
modernization was arrested. The Hindus, on the other hand, had
progressed much further. Raja Rammohan Roy represents the first phase
of Hindu modernism. Many of his views were similar to those later
held by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. For instance, the Raja, like Sir Syed,
thought that British rule was a divind gift to India. Savarkar
represents the second phase; he wanted to modernize Hindu second
phase; he wanted to modernize Hindu society, although he seemed to
emphasize technological modernity more than scientific outlook out of
pragmatic considerations. Nehru represents the third phase. Nehru
was modern in that he was firmly committed to democracy and the values
of an open society. It is interesting to see that the Hindus had a
Savarkar and a Nehru almost simultaneously. The two phases
overlapped. Muslims in India have yet to produce their Nehru or even
Savarkar.
However, a new generation of Muslims is emerging in India today.
One can see the first glimmers of a geunine modern humanism in them.
In the vast mass of a mediaeval Muslim society one witness a few young
Muslims who have a modern, humanistic and rational attitude. They are
still scattered and isolated like islands in a vast ocean. Their
modernity is reflected in what they speak and write. It is seen in
their actions.
It may be useful to cite a few examples. Some educated Indian
Muslims show the signs of a newly emerging attitude of unbiased
detachment. For instance, Professor Mohammad Yasin's book, Social
History of Islamic India. Professor Athar Rizvi's work analysing
Muslim revivalism in the 16th and 17th centuries, and Professor M.
Mujeeb's book Indian Muslims, reveal a new attitude of critical
detachment. This kind of modern attitude is also shared by Professor
Mohammad Habib and the Head of the Department of Political Science at
Osmania University, Dr Rashiduddin Khan. During my recent visit to
Aligarh I had a chance to meet and talk to some men and women students
as well as some of the teaching staff. Even among them I found the
hopeful signs of a critically introspective attitude. In many cities
in Northern India not only is the purdah fast disappearing but there
is also a rapid spread of education among Muslim women. Many of these
have married men of other faiths. It is significant to note that
these men of other religions who married Muslim women were not urged
to become Muslims. All these trends indicate the emergence of
modernity among Indian Muslims.
Are we going to welcome these new trends? Are we going to
encourage them and let them flourish? This is what we have to decide
now. We have to check Pakistani expansionism and protect our borders.
We have to adopt a clear and decisive long-range policy towards
Pakistan. We have to support Muslim modernism in India. We have to
insist on a common personal law for all citizens of India. All
marriages in India must be registered under a common Civil Code.
Religious conversion should not be allowed, except when the intending
convert is adult and the conversion takes place before a magistrage.
Children born of inter-religious marriages should be free to practise
any religion but only after they reach legal adulthood. If either a
dargah or a temple obstructs the passage of traffic on a thoroughfare,
it ought to be removed. Government should have control over the
income of all religions property. The income should be spent on
education and public welfare alone. It should not be obligatory to
mention one's religion and caste (even today, the admission form used
in schools compels students to state their religion). The Banaras and
Aligarh Universities should be declared national institutions of
higher learning and their constitutions should be modified for the
purpose. The special status given to Kashmir should be scrapped. All
Indian citizens should be free to visit Nagaland. There should be
opportunities for the development of Urdu; even schools which use Urdu
as medium of instruction should have full protection. However, the
demand for giving Urdu the status of the second official language of a
State should be firmly resisted. The status of all Indian women
should be governed by a single, common Civil Code. The purdah should
be legally banned. The question of a ban on cow-slaughter should be
settled strictly with reference to the agricultural and economic
development of the country. Family planning should be made compulsory
for all, for example, by compulsory sterilization of one of the
partners after the birth of the third child. Those Muslims who oppose
these reforms should not be entitled to full citizenship rights. For
instance, they should have no right of vote. They should not be
eligible for receiving the benefits of any social welfare scheme.
Those Muslims who oppose reform on the ground of religion should be
governed strictly according to the Shariat law in its entirety. For
example, if they are caught stealing, their hands should be cut off in
public. If they speak a falsehood, they should be publicly wipped. A
Muslim woman who is found guilty of adultery should be stoned to death
in public. i hope those who insist on following the Shariat law will
not indeed find this separate code of crime and punishment for
orthodox Muslims outdated. If so, they should not seek to apply the
Shariat only partially.
The only answer to the communal problem in India is secular
integration of all the peoples of India. If the question is viewed in
this light, liberal Muslim modernism would be strengthened. Today we
have a suitable climate for the emergence of a strong modernist
movement among the Muslims. Muslims no more enjoy power. Muslim
orthodoxy without power is like a serpent without its poison fangs;
only its tail would wriggle. In future we need not discuss the
Hindu-Muslim problem. We should discuss a common Civil Code and
launch a movement for it.
For all this to happen, the present division among the Hindus
should cese to exist. Those Hindus who want to counter Muslim
communalism unfortunately try to strengthen Hindu revivalism. And
those Hindus who went to lead the Hindus and ultimately the whole of
this nation on the way of modernity are unfortunately supporting
Muslim communalists. This has to change. I am on the side of all
Hindus who oppose Muslim communalism; but when the same Hindus help
revivalism, I am opposed to them. I support all those who want to
modernize the Hindus; but when they adopt a policy of not opposing
Muslim communalism, I oppose them. If the Hindus develop a proper
balance of mind, I believe the present tensions would soon begin to
resolve.