Navaratna S. Rajaram Extra-territorial Loyalty in the Past
Gandhi's first major act upon gaining control of the Congress was to (launch) Non-Cooperation Movement known as the Khilafat (sic). It was for the restoration of the Sultan of Turkey who had been defeated in the War. The Sultan had pretensions to being the successor to the Caliph - a claim not recognized by the Muslims outside India. So it was a strictly Indian movement but with a foreign focus - in support of a transnational theocratic institution of no relevance to India ...
With the benefit of hindsight one can see that the Khilafat Non-Cooperation Movement (as it was called) was a watershed in more respects than one. First it sowed the seeds of Muslim separatism leading to the Partition. Second, it marked the eclipse of the nationalists in the Congress and the dominance of the moderate wing that was willing to make compromises with the British on basic principles like Swaraj ..
... Gandhi ... was prepared to concede separatist demands of the Muslim leadership to achieve unity! . Gandhi said: "We talk of Hindu-Mohammedan unity. It would be an empty phrase if the Hindus hold aloof from the Mohammedans when their vital interests are at stake. This vital interest' was the restoration of the Khilafat in faraway Turkey at the cost of national freedom! On this the eminent historian R.C. Majumdar commented.
"If a hundred million Muslims are more interested in the fate of Turkey and other Muslim states outside India than they are in the fate of India, they can hardly be regarded as a unit of Indian nation. By his own admission that the Khilafat question was a vital one for the Indian Muslims, Gandhi himself in a way admitted that they formed a. separate nation; they were in India, but not of India." (Source: The Organiser, 19 September, 1999)
SK Sadar Nayeem Targets of Hindu Communalism Today
In the years immediately following independence and partition of India, the position of Indian Muslims vis-à-vis Hindus was being viewed as a trilateral one, with the presence of Pakistan an essential factor. During this turbulent period of Indian history, the continued presence Lof the Muslims in India even after the creation of Pakistan was thought to be against "a natural cultural ecology", hence unnatural, even though the Muslim masses never wanted Pakistan ...
... The partition of India ... created an illogical, yet inescapable situation for the Indian Muslims who did not go to Pakistan in 1947. Under those circumstances, if the Hindu attitude towards Muslims in those years had been "a mixture of indifference tinged with contempt and fear", that attitude was understandable. But gone are the days of isolation of Indian Muslims from the vast majority of the country. No doubt, the majority of Hindus believe in secularism and largely because of their secularism, India remains a secular country. And 50 years after the partition 200 million Muslims, more than the entire population of Pakistan, live in secular India without either being subjugated or swallowed by the Hindu majority.
Therefore, the survival of Indian Muslims with honour in independent India, puts a big question mark on the very rationale behind the creation of Pakistan itself. Unfortunately, the current Kargil conflict showed that as far as India's secularism is concerned, all problems are not yet over. There are still people whose political careers thrive on stirring the communal cauldron ..
People like Bal Thackeray and his Shiv Sena sprang into action to find out who among Indian Muslims is not nationalist. After Ali Mian, the next in queue was Dilip Kumar ... Bal Thackeray cannot call himself a nationalist when he has always tried to destroy the secular democratic fabric of the Indian nation. Therefore, what right has he got to ask proof of nationalism from the Indian Muslims?
The question now is, who will rein in those elements who are trying to communalise the Kargil conflict by projecting Indian Muslims as anti-national in order to reap electoral benefit ... (Source: The Statesman, 22 September, 1999)
Rafiq Zakaria Bright Future in Motherland
... Today all Indian Muslims wish that India had remained united. There would then have been five important states (Punjab, Sind, the Frontier, Assam and Bengal) under Muslim majority rule; consequently they would have exercised considerable influence on the Centre. Today they hardly have a voice in Delhi.
Time is, however, the best healer; Indian Muslims are gradually getting over their misfortunes. But they have realised that they have no friends; to survive they must rely on their own strength. They must work hard and make themselves useful to their motherland. They are beginning to re-orient their approach to life and its problems. They have begun to cultivate Hindus to win them over, for they are aware that goodwill begets goodwill. They are now less inclined to waste their energies on non-issues. Their main concerns are education and employment.
Functioning in a free, democratic and secular set-up, their vision has broadened ... The poor, who form the vast majority, have still a long way to go but even they are planning ahead for their children ...
On the whole, Indian Muslims are marching ahead, facing new challenges bravely. The 20th century has been a tragic period, full of pain and anguish for them, but the new millennium promises a more hopeful and prosperous future. And who knows? They may be able to show the right path of enlightenment and progress to the Muslims all over the world and play an effective role in re-uniting India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in a loose federation ..
(Source: The Times of India, 15 August, 1999)