HINDU-MUSLIM DIALOGUE

Iqbal A. Ansari on Hindu-Muslim Differences

Sources of such conflicts between any two large communities living together may be traced to a clash of real or perceived political and economic interests, as well as to the varying perceptions on socio-cultural and religious-civilizational issues. The level of conflict periodically crosses danger mark leading to violence, which itself contributes to the sharpening and widening of conflict.

The Constitution and the institutions established under it provide mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts. The provisions on equality of citizens, coupled with the incorporation of the principle of affirmative action for deprived and disadvantaged groups and those on the educational and cultural rights of minorities, may ideally be considered adequate to take care of inter-group conflicts. But if ideal conditions for the working of the Constitution do not exist, the reasons may be sought in the culture of power politics, the judicial system and the law-enforcement machinery, besides the non-egalitarian traditional base that makes us accept unfair and unjust treatment of the other communities.

Even if conditions on the ground improve enabling the constitutional scheme to become a reality, the sources of conflict may not disappear. There are grey areas in the constitutional provisions related to freedom of religion, secularism, cow protection and minority rights whose content and implications do not appear to have been settled either by the judiciary or through political consensus. There is also a mismatch not only between institutions created by the Constitution and India's traditional social, cultural and political institutions, but also between the secular nation state's goals and the civilizational aspirations of the people.

Among the issues that have the potential to be used in aggravating communal divide are: (i) history, especially that of medieval India in the context of the role of Islam (ii) Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura as special cases of the legacy of history (iii) characterization of one by the other community as malicha and kafir (iv) conversion (v) cow protection (vi) separate domains of Hindu and Muslim religious cultures and common areas of secular regional cultures (vii) communal riots (viii) the status of Urdu (ix) perception of discriminatory practices against Muslims and perception of their appeasement (x) Muslim Personal Law and uniform civil code (xi) Muslims loyalty to India (xii) perception of threat of Islamic fundamentalism by Hindus and of assimilation by Muslims.

Issues like these being interrelated, an effort towards reconciliation can be expected to influence the future course of Hindu-Muslim relations by a wider sharing of insights and by involving community leaders in favoring a comprehensive agreement. There is a need to undertake a study of these and similar issues with a view to advising community leaders as to how to resolve them.      It should, for example, be possible for Muslims to voluntarily declare that they will not slaughter cows for any purpose, and also to reassure Hindus that there is no design to induce conversion of weak and vulnerable groups of Hindus and through lure of money and jobs in the Gulf. Banning cow slaughter by a Central legislation may come into conflict with the demands of secularism, but its coming into effect through a compact will not pose any problem.

Similarly, the demand for repeal of the constitutional provisions under Article 25 to propagate religion will be a retrograde step violative of basic norms of democracy, but it should be possible for the two communities to declare that neither is politically motivated to convert others by fair and foul means. Further, it may be an exercise worth attempting to understand what makes small sections of Muslims behave in a way that seems unpatriotic to the average Hindus. It should also be possible to ensure that Urdu enjoys the right to survive as a language in its traditional script, especially in UP, without undermining any legitimate interests of Hindi.

Given the right perspective, it should not lie beyond the realm of the possible to amicably resolve the issue of Ayodhya - if Muslims can be reasonably assured that compromise will yield permanent peace dividends in terms of impartial enforcement of law to protect their lives and honor and also in terms of their due share in national life.

(Source: The Indian Express, 19 January, 1996)