NATIONAL POLITICS
Iqbal Masud in The Pioneer, 11 December, 1995
Will Mr. Narasimha Rao's chadar make Muslims forget the humiliation of Babari Masjid and the following genocide? They may do so for other reasons but hardly because of the chadar. They know it, Mr. Rao knows it. But the ritual must be gone through. Why this farce and hypocrisy?
Nirad C. Chaudhuri (Autobiography of an Unknown Indian)says of Hindu perception of Muslim round about the Swadeshi Movement of 1906, "First, we felt a retrospective hostility towards the Muslims for their one-time domination of us, the Hindus, secondly, on the plane of thought we were utterly indifferent to the Muslims, thirdly we had friendliness for Muslims of our own economic and social status with whom we came into personal contact. Our fourth feeling was mixed concern and contempt for the Muslim peasants whom we saw in the same light as our low caste peasant, in other words, as our livestock". Remarkable. Give or take a phrase or two from the description of 90 years, is not 1906 the same as 1995? Are these not the same feelings engendered by the Sangh Parivar propaganda against Muslims in the 1990s?
But to get back to 1906, Chaudhuri points out how both, Bengal renaissance and the Swadeshi Movement, did not have a place for Muslims. "The renaissance was a feast to which the Muslims were not invited". Of all the "Muslim watchers" in India, Chaudhuri has been the most probing and insistent, though biased. He blames the post- 1947 Muslim plight on their "fighting" and "winning" a lost cause in 1947. In the Continent of Circe he has a whole chapter on Muslims: "The Least of the Minorities". He begins the chapter by apostrophising a Muslim lady in burqa (veil): "Lady, your whole community was under a veil." It is the most ruthless analysis of Muslims in India I have read. And in their heart of heart most non-Muslim leaders of all parties agree with it. Why cannot the Muslims make an effort to integrate? Cycle of Hostility.
Chaudhuri points out that the Hindu-Muslim relationship is not bilateral but trilateral. Pakistan and now Jammu & Kashmir has come into it. A silent accusatory finger is pointed at Muslims when the US steps up aid to Pakistan or "militants" in Jammu & Kashmir. At the end of the powerful chapter, Chaudhuri calls Indian Muslims a "lost cause". Why is the "lost cause" being wooed today? Now the differences between 1906, 1947 and 1995 have to be established.
The basic "divide" from 1906 onwards (was) accentuated by the impending departure of the British. This trend reached its climax in 1947 with well-known results. The post-1947 Congress policy towards Muslims did not really depart from the "lost cause" analysis. But for electoral reasons it sought to sweeten the pill for Muslims.
By and large the Congress after 1947 followed the British pattern as far as the Muslims were concerned. That is, secure a minimum degree of physical security for them... Gradually the police all over India became anti- Muslim in mental approach. It was "them" as separate from "us" - an expression I heard as early as in 1947 in Madras. It was not used in a hostile fashion but casually as a statement of fact. So in riots the Muslims increasingly got it in the neck. But a show had to be made of affirmative action. In fact, Nehru wanted "mass contact" with Muslims as early as in 1937: This phrase showed the Muslims were outside the pale of Nehruvian thought as much as the Bengal renaissance masters'. In Thy Hand, Great Anarch (p.465-71), Chaudhuri details the farce which resulted when the aristocratic Sarat and Subhas Chandra Bose invited the maulanas to their house in obedience to Nehru's command... I realised how expertly Chaudhuri had caught the difference between "Hindus" and "Muslims". Nehru after 1947 had become totally anti-Pakistan! Thus began the dreary cycle of hostility which continues today. No special attempt was made to improve the lot of Muslims. No Forgetting Babari Masjid.
Indira Gandhi sought to use Muslims, hence the famous 15-Point Plan, etc. Mrs. Gandhi used to ask Muslim ministers mechanically: "Well, what have you done for Muslims?" without really expecting enlightenment. She gave general directions to increase Muslim employment but they were never so precise that they could not be got around. Perhaps, that was her intention.
The Rajiv Gandhi Government saved Muslim Personal Law but gave away Babari Masjid. The Rao Government collaborated by inaction in its destruction and also in the genocide which followed. Now the Muslims are told: "Take the chadar, keep your personal law, forget all about the past and vote for us."
Despite the non-Muslim total indifference/ignorance of Muslim psychology (as charted by Chaudhuri), does Congress believe this elementary therapy will work? Sharad Pawar reportedly said brutally to a friend at the last Assembly elections: The Muslims have no alternative." That is the silent assumption behind the chadar. Two questions arise: One, Is the Muslim vote really "critical"? Two, Are the Muslims going to vote en bloc? My answer is negative on both counts. With the kind of drive now being mounted by the BJP, the Muslim vote might become non-critical, unless, of course, substantial dissent arises on the non-Muslim side because of the caste factor.
Secondly, I doubt if the Muslims will vote en bloc. The Muslims will not forget Babari Masjid or the genocide. But this generation has a life to lead.
So they will vote for their interests. A chadar will not buy them now.
