India is a multi-religious society and it has been so all through its known history. Pluralism... has been strength of Indian society rather than its weakness. It is also a fact that Hinduism has been a non-doctrinaire, non-formalistic, umbrella religion....
...Islam was non-native religion which originated in Arabia. Secondly, as far as north India was concerned, it came along with the Muslim conquerors though the Sufi saints also accompanied them. So it was seen as a religion of aggressors. Thirdly, and this is also important, Islam was highly doctrinaire in nature unlike Hinduism....
...Muslim elites wanted to buy peace with the British rulers so that they could concentrate on education and thus consolidate their position... The masses, led by the 'Ulama (theologians), were impatient with the British rulers and wanted to throw them out, if necessary, by joining hands with the Hindus...
...The 'Ulama'... always stood by Indian National Congress and Indian nationalism while the Muslim elite led by Jinnah and others developed separatist trend in Indian politics which culminated in formation of Pakistan. Hindu and Muslim elite could not agree on division of power among themselves and thus decided to separate. The 'Ulama' had rightly argued that partition is neither in the interests of Islam, nor of Muslims. It was not in the interest of Islam as Islam in the sub-continent will be weakened by division and not in the interest of Muslims as those Muslims who would remain behind would not only suffer but remain weak. And this is precisely what happened...
The Ulama also felt that there was nothing in Islam which went against composite nationalism...
The...Ulama also argued that the Indian National Congress had assured Muslims that they would be free to practise Islam in free India and that no change would be made in any Islamic law unless the Muslims themselves consented to it....
However, the real fight was not about religion but about the share in power between the Hindu and Muslim elites and no satisfactory formula to either side could be found and ultimately India was divided leaving its own bitter legacy behind....
Muslims constitute a significant section of Indian society... The Indian National Congress adopted secularism as a sheet anchor of its political policy... For Jawaharlal Nehru... secularism was a matter of creed. He was... passionately committed to the concept of secular polity. Nehru... was of the opinion that it was the prime responsibility of the Hindus to make the large number of Muslims in India feel at home and not see themselves as second-class citizens existing on sufferance.' He also evolved a criterion for success of secularism. The test of success, Nehru felt, was not what the majority community thinks but how the minority community feels...
...Even during Nehru's Indian state, could not strictly enforce (the) notion (of a secular state).
The Indian way of life is less individualistic and more communitarian. It is this communitarian way of life which creates serious problems for Indian secularism and religious pluralism. Every Indian citizen, though she or he enjoys constitutional rights as an individual, but behave as a member of some caste or community socially as well as politically. No major social or political decision can be taken by individuals as individuals but only as members of some caste, community or collectivity. No wonder then politicians aspiring for votes have to make appeals on the basis of these castes and communities. It is very difficult for any politician, however committed to the concept of secularism, to ignore this elementary fact of Indian life. Each political party has, therefore, to evolve its own strategy in this regard.
...Political parties... have to appeal to the Muslims as a community in as much as they also have to appeal to certain Hindu castes, specially the scheduled castes and tribes commonly known as Dalits.... The Hindu communal parties who aspire to get the Hindu vote... denounce such appeals to Muslims as their appeasement... Every ruling party extends assurances to Muslims that the Shari'ah law which is considered divine in origin will not be interfered with.
The Hindu communalists resent this non-interference in Muslim Personal law and demand the scrapping of it and replacing it with a common civil code...
Muslims argue that Shari'ah law is part of their religion and religious identity and hence cannot be allowed to be tampered with.... The secularists and rationalists... too argue, though from a different point of view, that there should be no place for different personal laws in a secular and democratic India... What is of interest to us here is that Muslims refuse to agree to any change and would vote collectively against any government which interferes in or tampers with, the Muslim personal law...
...The democratic polity is essentially a competitive polity and in a backward pluralist society this competition takes place often on religious lines. With the deepening of the democratic processes every religious community has become quite conscious of its voting power and its importance to the political system and tries to use it to the maximum advantage. Needless to say both the communities compete with each other in asserting its importance which naturally leads to competitive aggressiveness. This competitive aggressiveness is displayed through religious symbols like the Shah Bano issue or the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babari Masjid controversy. The symbols by themselves are not as important as the pent-up feelings on more secular issues behind them.
The Muslim aggressiveness on the Shah Bano issue was quite understandable. They had greatly suffered in many major communal riots which began with Moradabad in 1980 as if in a new phase of communal violence... In these riots it is Muslims who mainly suffered due to partial behaviour of the police. Also, due to aggressive propaganda by the Hindu communal elements who felt their identity was threatened and that they must assert it equally aggressively to pressurise the government. Also, on the whole their economic situation was far from enviable.
There is no denying, says Mushirul Hasan, that they (Muslims) have been at the lowest rung of the ladder in terms of the basic categories of socio-economic indicators of development...
Thus economic situation of Muslims is quite dismal on the whole. Wherever they have made some progress locally... they face constant threat of communal violence...
Thus Muslims have been feeling suffocated for number of years and occasionally their frustrations come out through some aggressive religious movements on issues like the Shah Bano... or the Babari Masjid... These movements thus should not be seen in isolation from the total Muslim situation in India.
However, it does not mean that religious assertion is solely due to the material situation of Muslims in the country. There are a number of other factors as well. Political assertion of Islam in Iran and rise of Islamic movements in other parts of Islamic world, what is generally referred to as Islamic fundamentalism... A section of Muslim leadership in India has acquired vested interest in the aggressive assertion of Islam and Islamic identity. Also, Muslim society had been divided along caste lines... In the past and now lower castes like Ansaris and Qureshis are acquiring a measure of economic affluence in middle-sized cities and towns and they need in greater measure their Islamic identity and religious assertion for social legitimation vis-à-vis Muslims of traditionally high status. Also, a large percentage of Muslim artisan class as such is generally more formally religious than other classes. Also, their oppressive and exploitative conditions, on one hand, and their increasing anonymity in big growing cities, on the other, make them even more religiously oriented. This religiosity of the lower middle class Muslims is exploited by the political leadership.
...Upper caste Hindus have taken maximum benefit of modernisation and economic change in the country... (There) is an attempt on their part to use religious militancy to subdue other minorities especially the Muslims and low caste Hindus. Thus a situation of outright confrontation between Hindus and Muslims has developed and often results in outburst of communal violence.
Hindu militancy has found its expression in Ramjanmabhoomi issue...
...This confrontational posture resulted in a series of communal riots in UP, Bihar and other states in October-November, 1989 when throughout north, central and western India consecrated-brick processions were taken out by the VHP in collaboration with the BJP and the RSS...
The BJP exploited this issue to the maximum and increased its strength in the Lok Sabha in November 1989 elections from two to 85. In a pluralist society in a backward country, religious confrontation between the two communities can assume very dangerous proportions. Democratic competition, in a socially and economically backward society can often degenerate, as the Indian case shows, to competitive communal militancy resulting in manslaughter...
In a religiously pluralist society, peace and harmony can be ensured only within the framework of democratic secularism... Successive Indian governments have, in their eagerness to win or retain political power, tampered with this secular spirit of the Indian Constitution. Whatever the political compulsions, such tampering with secular values will weaken unity of the people... and unity of the country. Secularism must be strengthened to preserve Indian pluralism and pluralism must be strengthened to consolidate secularism.
(Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Bombay, 3 November, 1990)