Fwd: ‘Mr. Jaswant Singh! What if you were a Muslim? –Dr. M.K.Sherwani
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sherwani Mustafa<firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:43 AM
Subject: 'Mr. Jaswant Singh! What if you were a Muslim? –Dr. M.K.Sherwani
'Pasbaan mil gaey Kaabey ko sanam khaney se'
'Kaaba has got the protectors from the idol house'
'Mr. Jaswant Singh! What if you were a Muslim? –Dr. M.K.Sherwani
The real motive of Mr. Jaswant Singh in praising Jinah and asserting that Muslims in India were treated as 'aliens' notwithstanding, he deserves all praise for bringing this reality before full public glare. Demonizing Jinah, it is a historical fact, was a conspiracy hatched by Nehru and Patel to put the entire blameof partition on Muslims of India, so as to project them as a hallucination for unifying the divergent Hindu society. The Congress was successful in this venture and kept Muslims under psychological fear so that they would resign themselves to their subordinate status in Indian polity. It was the reason of this ugly legacy that political assertion by Muslims has always been branded as their pre-partition mindset. The Congress experiment was so successful that different so-called secular parties which emerged during the course of timealso deliberately followed this experiment so as to perpetuate the Muslim status as a vote bank. Its impactwas so pernicious that the whole concept of 'secularism' has come to revolve around it directly or indirectly, and the community has always remained content with the false promises of 'security'. Parties may come and go, Muslims may rush from one to another, but their fortune is unlikely to change except for a few doles off and on.
Mr. Jaswant Singh is fortunate that he is not a Muslim otherwisehe would have been prosecuted for sedition or associated with 'Lashkare-Toiba.' To make the point specific, I am producing my own article which had expressed almost the similar views, and the consequence was the 15 years ordeal with criminal prosecution under sections 124a( sedition) of Indian Penal Code. The fact itself speaks of how Muslims have been looked upon with suspicious eyes.
( This article was published in Radiance Viewsweekly , Delhi in 28 October- 3 November,1984 issue. On the basis of this article , the Government of India launched in 1985, criminal proceedings under sections 124a (sedition) and 505(b) of Indian Penal Code. The Criminal case (State VS Ameenul Hasan Rizvi and others) numbering 159 of 1985 continued at Tees Hazari Courts, Delhi till 25 July, 2000 .Besides myself, the other two accused were the editor, Syed Ameenul Hasan Razvi and Printer, Mohammad Iqbal Warakwala. After the acquittal , I wrote a book 'SECUALR HORROR - A TRUE STORY OF FIFTEEN YEAR ORDEAL WITH INDIAN SECULARISM' in which I narrated my harrowing experiences during the trial of the case. It was published in 2002 by Pharos Media and Publishing Pvt. Ltd., D-84, Abul Fazal Enclave,1, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi ,25. (<www.milligazette. com>online bookstore)
Dr. Mustafa Kamal Sherwani, LL.D.
Chairman,All India Muslim Forum, Lucknow , India
Secularism vis-à-vis Hindu Chauvinism
************ ********* ********* *
When we talk of secularism it does not denote the meaning and definition of a particular system which carries the same connotation and practice in all the states, characterized by this word. What the essence of the word 'secularism' is, depends upon a variety of factors existing in a particular state , e.g. the composition of the society , the potentiality of the minority groups and the prevailing international circumstances. To my mind the concept of secularism presupposes the existence of more than one religious entities otherwise there can be nothing towards which the state may show a secular outlook.
Human history has made it abundantly clear and a free-lance thinker does admit that some societies adopt secularism in a real sense of the word without any fluctuations, and some have to adopt it reluctantly just for the sake of a safe survival in the international community. For example, the Islamic secularism , though in the contemporary parlance termed as theocracy, is the real manifestation of what the secularism in fact signifies, because it envisages a real responsibility of the majority community towards the religious freedom and social and economic protection of all the religious groups. One may easily witness this secularism in all the states which have been declared as Islamic Republic. The other category is very well represented by our Indian secularism which in practice is nothing short of Hinduism, and which in turn is the synonym of Indian nationalism.
Shrewd Via Media
In this context , if we dispassionately analyze the reasons which compelled our national leaders , including a staunch Hindu like Mr. Patel, to adopt secularism ,and tolerate in India, such a large number of Muslims, especially when the country was partitioned on Hindu-Muslim basis , and Pakistan was declared a Muslim state , we may easily conclude that it was on account of circumstantial constraints and not a voluntary act. Our national leaders were well aware of the fact that there are so much inherent contradictions in the Hindu society that it was not and can never be united by common fundamental religious principles, and , therefore, the only device to introduce a certain spirit of coherence in it was the hypothetical deterrence of Muslim domination.
Thus ever since independence , the communal riots were engineered with twin objectives, i.e. the subjugation of Muslims and the initiation of the process of unification amongst Hindus.As regards secularism, it rather thrust itself upon the leaders because India as a declared Hindu state could never survive in the international community for two reasons. Firstly, Hinduism is a territorial concept, and as a religion has nothing to offer in the international arena in order to compete with other dominant religious philosophies of the world, i.e. Islam and Christianity, and secondly, as a theocratic state it could not survive in the wake of the overwhelming Muslim population and the oil-rich Islamic states in the world. Thus, the only way open to our national leaders was to discover a shrewd via media which could, on the one hand, make Hindu philosophy as the salient feature of the Indian administration, and ,on the other, use the pretext of secularism to show its credentials in the outside world.
It was from this viewpoint that secularism was adopted as a hypocritical measure , and the nationalism was sought to be interpreted in the context of Hinduism. As a part of this strategy, the Muslim culture was gradually sought to be eliminated , though religious freedom to the extent of prayer was accorded, and the Muslims were looked upon with suspicious eyes as the symbol of disruptive forces and anti-national elements. Whenever there are reports of conversions of Hindus to Islam in a voluntary manner – a practice which is guaranteed by the Constitution – a lot of hue and cry is raised against it , saying that the foundations of Indian secularism are based upon the Hindu majority. Besides, in every department and at every place , there is so much depiction of Hindu culture, either by way of idols of gods and goddesses or otherwise , that even a cursory glance makes one believe that India is not a secular but a Hindu state.
In other words, what is done by a Hindu or under the nomenclature of Hinduism, howsoever anti-national it may be , is brought within the precincts of nationalism, but whatever is done by a Muslim , howsoever replete with nationalism it may be, is bound to be branded as anti-national : thus leading to an inevitable conclusion that nationalism and Hinduism are the two facets of one single phenomenon , and communalism and anti-nationalism are the inseparable ramifications of Islam.
Muslim heroes are always condemned as foreign invaders, and Hindus who revolted against the well-established Muslim administrations are heralded as nationalists who gave up their lives for the preservation of Indian nationalism. If the South Indian Hindus oppose Hindi , it is a regional problem, and if a Muslim does it , he is a communal element. If Professor Vasudeo Singh vociferously criticizes his own party's decision about Urdu, he remains as much faithful to the party and the nation as ever, but if a Muslim Minister or legislator even praises the government's decision in this regard, it is interpreted by the persons like Mr. Balraj Madhok as the Muslims' reversion to the pre-partition policies.
If the Hindus of South burn the effigy of Ram and worship Ravan, it is nothing but the regional differences in Hindu rituals , but if a Muslim makes even a fair comment in these sensitive matters , it is his attempt at destroying the Hindu culture. If Hindu scholars produce misleading historical facts to convince the masses that Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar were built by Hindu rulers, they are praised for their wonderful research work, but if a Muslim dares to present the correct picture , he is pooh-poohed as the supporter of those who allegedly ruined the Hindu society and its culture.
If the same trends continue, the time is not far off , when shocked by the overwhelming rush of Hindu devotees to the mazars of Muslim sufis , some brilliant Hindu scholar may startle the nation by proving through his astonishing research work that the great saints like Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer, Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya of Delhi , Haji Waris Ali Shah of Deva, Hazrat Shah Mina of Lucknow and many others were in fact Hindus and their names were changed under the Muslim rule.
Apart from the above , the developments in Punjab may well establish that the sophisticated arms allowed into golden temple and nothing else done by the Sikhs was termed as a separatist or secessionist activity till the time they did not vehemently assert that they are non-Hindus . Once the government was convinced that by saying that Sikhism was totally distinct from Hinduism, the Sikhs really mean business , the separatist tendencies could no longer be tolerated . Paradoxically , the government and Hindu masses are still bent upon inculcating into the minds of Sikhs that they are Hindus , and their secessionist trends are being brushed aside as a momentary aberration of one of the two real brothers against the other.
Not only this , the dismissal of Farooq Abdullah's ministry was hailed all over the country , and the opposition parties raised voice against it just for the namesake, because fortunately or unfortunately, he happened to be a Muslim. This may just be contrasted with the similar fortune of Mr. N.T.Rama Rao which triggered off the nation wide outcry, resulting into his reinstatement. The controversial and the most sensitive cow tallow scandal was hushed up and given a silent burial as the persons involved in it were the Hindus , the great devotees of cow. God forbid, had there been even the remotest association of Muslims in it , the country would have certainly witnessed nation wide communal riots.
In view of the above facts, no impartial observer can evade the logical conclusion that under the garb of secularism, India is a Hindu state, and Hinduism is a symbol of nationalism . Therefore, it is my humble suggestion that either India be declared a Hindu state or secularism must be observed and practised in its letter and spirit.