NATIONAL POLITICS

Mohammad Sayeed Malik on 'Muslim' Politics

It is an insult to the intelligence of the Indian Muslim community in general, and Muslim voters in particular, that they are sought to be fooled again and again over at touchy issue by a section of their co-religionists who claim to be the community's 'real' well-wishers. The phenomenon is not confined to any particular quarter but is almost uniformly spread across the spectrum.

This hypocritical solicitude comes mainly from two categories: those whose irresponsible belligerence in the past had landed the community into the emotional trauma of December 6, 1992 and those who lacked the moral courage to stand up and be counted when it might have made a healthy difference.

In the first category there are the leaders of the two Babari Masjid Committees; in the second, Ghulam Nabi Azad, C.K. Jaffer Sharief and the other Congressmen whose ostensible community-consciousness seems to be patently misplaced.

Azad and Sharief are not known to have made any effort, to say nothing of taking the plunge, to assert their representative positions towards averting the ugly occurrence. Evidently, their personal ambition got the better of them, just as is happening today, three years after the demolition of the Babari Masjid structure.

Were it not so, Azad and Sharief would not have behaved so very similarly in the wake of the December 6, 1992 demolition and so differently at this point of time. Azad is apparently in two minds about whether an 'apology to the Muslims by the Congress and its government is called for, Sharief, on the other hand, has swung to the view that the ruling party leadership does owe an apology to the minority community.

Not that Azad does not mention the incident while courting his co-religionists: only that his breast-beating sounds odd, coming as it does so belatedly. Nor, for that matter, does his shrill charge that 'the BJP is the only culprit', carry any conviction. In a different sense, Sharief too seems to have discovered his community- consciousness rather late in the day.

Far from evoking any response or securing Muslim votes for the Congress, this myopic approach comes as an affront to the commonsense and political intelligence of the minority community. The community has made it clear, more than once, whom it believes to be responsible for the demolition and why Congress leaders might have retrieved their credibility with the community to which they feel compelled to turn to today, had they just stood up and said a word or two when it was not a sin to do so and when it would not have hurt their individual ambitions. Even after the demolition they could have safely done so in the tone and tenor in which they are trying to do now and rendered a service to their party. Instead, they had put up a pathetic performance at the most crucial moment.

The Union cabinet held its first meeting after the demolition around 6 pm on December 6, 1992. Azad did not utter a word as if it were of no concern to him. Sharief merely expressed his sorrow. The two cabinet ministers, one of them also a member of the Congress Working Committee, did not think it obligatory to tell their colleagues of how the situation of their party and government could be redeemed. On the other hand, the three-and-a-half hours long cabinet meeting saw Makhan. Lal Fotedar eloquently assessing the situation and also. suggesting the possible damage-control measures. Madhav Rao Scindia supported Fotedar's suggestion that all the BJP-controlled state assemblies should be dissolved and the state governments dismissed immediately. V.C. Shukla wanted only the Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh assemblies to be dissolved. Arjun Singh did not speak at the cabinet meeting on that fateful day. It was much later that Singh mooted the idea of the government and the Congress party tendering an apology to the Muslims.

Fotedar's outspokenness on December 6 eventually cost him his ministerial post. That, however, is a different question. Azad and Sharief might have. managed to save their jobs the latter though only for some more time - but they have forfeited their credibility with the minority community.

Yet when they or their ilk seek to venture into the inhospitable terrain, under electoral or any other compulsion, it is undoubtedly going to be a losing bargain for the party to which they belong. As the wise old adage goes, successful salesmanship goes hand in hand with credibility.

(Source: The Sunday Observer, 25 February, 1996)

Shahabuddin's Reply to The Sunday Observer, 1 March, 1996

 Mr. Mohd. Sayeed Malik's article "Muslims Let Down By Co-Religionists" is an eloquent condemnation of the 'Muslim' representatives in the Government and the ruling Congress but, to balance the record, he also attacks the Babari Masjid Movement for landing the community into the emotional trauma of December o. 1992'. The Babari Masjid Movement came into existence as the Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee in February 1986; in October, 1988, there was a parting of ways with the formation of the All India Babari Masjid Action Committee. Basically, this was a split between the hawks and the doves. Mr. Malik has criticised the Rabari Masjid Movement, as a whole, without any evidence. Can he cite a single statement by the Rabari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee (BMMCC) which amounts to 'rabble-rousing' or 'shrieking and crying". From the very beginning, the BMMCC adopted the strategy of peaceful and democratic agitation in support of its demand for 'settlement by negotiation or by adjudication'. Can anyone find anything wrong with this demand? The only alternative strategy was to remain a silent spectator and to let Hindu chauvinism sweep all historical mosques away, as it indeed intended to. It is easy to be wise with hind sight! I do not recall any advice by Mr. Malik to the BMMCC between 1986 and 1992 to change its course or its strategy or its demand or even to forget about the Babari Masjid or to sign it away!