Muslim leadership in India

AN OPEN LETTER TO MR. AMULYA GANGULY:

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Dear Mr. Amulya Ganguli,

I have read your article on Muslim 'leadership'.

I jot down few points that have come to my mind while reading.

1. Jamiat and Darool Uloom had a long history of both religious as well as politico-social vision, impacting Muslim existence.

It is not that out of lack of vision that they had stood against partition, against Jinnah and had supported Congress. They did make a big mistake, in fully depending on Nehru's persona to feel that a 'secular' Brahmin is and will be ready to find a place for the Muslim in United India. Congress leaders, let Muslims down, by prioritizing complete, unhindered, exclusive, unshared power in Brahmin hands and allowing India to be partitioned. The vision of Nehru and Patel was flawed, as whatever high minded they appeared, their priority was to first get power at all costs ---- even at partitioning the country. ( The same charge can be equally levied on some other prominent leaders from the sub-continent --- like Bhutto and Mujib who wanted themselves at the helm of affairs, even if their country is all cut up and divided.

So you should not blame the Darool for lack of vision. You may blame them for simplemindedness and being unlettered in ways of Chanakya politics. Their priority, rightly or wrongly, had remained the consolidation of their religious heritage, and they had never prepared themselves to rule the country. They were fully aware that they the clergy, may fight in defending their community, but for actual take over of India and governing it, they were never equipped and they had never made an attempt to equip themselves. 

It is evident that the thought of regaining Muslim paramountcy over India, would definitely has been always lurking in the community sub-conscious, but even people like Sir Syed, who tried to copy Brahmins, educating themselves in the art of governing a country, through cooperation with the British, had a very vague and unorganised attempt. Anything resembling a definite vision of Muslims in the world, was first presented by the Aurangabad-born Syed Abul Ula Maududi. He had a vision not only for India but formulated a detailed vision for Pan-Islamism. He wrote and wrote and wrote openly. And his writings had great influence, both in India and In the Muslim world, especially post WWII when one after another colonial powers relinquished their hold on their Muslim colonies. The two liberating ideologies that fought for space in the Muslim world, were Communism and 'Islamism'. With a Soviet base favouring Communism, the liberated Muslim countries fell for it and Islamism could only remain as the agitating opposition.

Regretfully, in actual life, Mualana Maudoodi too became the victim of the Brahminical conspiracy of dividing India, and departing from Darool line, he chose Pakistan as his new 'karam bhoomi', to put his vision into action. Thus he left India and Indian Muslims in a limbo. His followers here tamely chose to keep out of politics. 

2. When Muslim vision is visualized and promoted by secular thinkers, they feel Muslims should join the mainstream by relinquishing their 'Islamic' trappings. This is a tall order. There is some genius in belonging to an all-encompassing religion and not compromising with others, unless on one's own terms.

3. I must admit that unlike 3% Brahmins in undivided British India, Muslims at about 30% of the total population, if following Amulya Ganguli's advice, had joined the mainstream and shun the exclusivism ( ironically, a la Brahmins), that was and is anathema to Islam, they would have better chances to identify with the aspirations of Dalits, OBCs and Tribals. Unfortunately, that was not possible due to the elite being more feudal-minded than egalitarians. 

4. The question remains who will bring Muslims into the present mainstream. 

There are two opposing groups, the Islamicists, and the Progressive. The Islamicists have mass following, but only now, grudgingly, and ironically after 9/11 if not after Babri, are opening up to the outside world realities, starting with a home-grown secularization of Madarsas. This has alarmed Brahmins both in Congress and in Saffron camps. The Afghan element is hugely disturbing to India, and there is a feeling, that Home Minister Chidambaram's attendence at Jamiat meet, was to send a message to Taliban that India is fully cooperating with the hard-core religionists who are the inspirations for Taliban, having learned their religious ropes at Madarsas around North Pakistan refugee camps, when Afghanistan was fighting a liberation struggle with the Soviets.

The Muslim progressives are pathetically out of tune with the community. They have no voice, no trust, no leverage, except their role in Media, where they appear to take up issues pertaining to Muslim security, but at the same time making impractical demands on Islamists for 'dubious' and 'symbolic' reforms. 

Unless both of these camps find a common ground, there is no question of an 'effective' Muslim leadership to emerge in peaceful India. Wars and civil upheavals have other dynamics. And that will certainly suit the Brahmins. 

(An open question --- will Brahmins make peace with the Muslims? Shah Waliullah, a seer, is reported to have said, that renaissance of Islam in India will come at the hands of Brahmins. Dr. Mohammed Iqbal was one such Brahmin, who though a third generation Muslim, never forgot his Brahmin roots')

Regards

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai