Shahabuddin's Letter to The Pioneer, 1 February, 2000

I wonder what purpose is served by your publishing such letters as the one by Mr. M.M. Sankhdher (Anti-thetical to India, 29 January, 2000) which is nothing but an exercise in personal vilification on false premises. I imagine Mr. Sankhdher is upset because he cannot respond logically to the points I make in my statements and letters.

However, to oblige him, I would like to state solemnly, with Allah as my witness that I am not anti-Hindu or anti-Hinduism but that I regard the ideology of the Sangh Parivar as anti-democratic, anti-secular and anti-national and its activities as directed against the religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians.

I further submit.

That India is my homeland and I am a citizen by birth and not. by the grace of Sankhdhers and that I owe everything I possess to my homeland, to all its people That, I have never sought to impose 'Muslim identity on Indians', that I would like every religious, linguistic, racial, caste even regional group to preserve and defend its identity, to be what it likes to be and to be accepted as such and recognised as a legitimate social group, with full right to participation in governance and development and to an equitable share in its fruits.

That, I preach secularism, not only to Hindus but to all religious groups in my country, because that is the only approach that can keep this multi-religious country united, peaceful and happy and on the march forward.

That, I have never defended use of violence to attain political ends - by Hindus or by Muslims, in India or elsewhere.

That, I regard Religion, Nation and State as distinct categories and that is why I have always regarded the Two Nation Theory as nothing more than a political gambit by Jinnah to support his quest of Pakistan. I have always regarded the Partition as á great tragedy, particularly for the Muslims of the Sub-continent.

That,. I have never called India 'Muslim India' but in my view there are many Indias - Brahman India, Shudra India, Dalit India, Adivasi India, Tamil India, Bengali India, Maratha India, Muslim India, Hindu India, Sikh India and Christian India etc. All these Indias are indivisible, inseparable in space; they inter-penetrate each other and together make the splendid mansion called India. But each must be accepted and its contribution recognised. This is what would make India great.

That, I may have provoked Sankhdher against the Muslims but I have never provoked Muslims against Hindus because, as a minority group, their security lies in good-neighbourly and fraternal intercourse with the Hindus, but on the basis of Freedom, Equality, Justice and Dignity.

That, I stand for Indian Culture which is not static, which is ever-evolving, which has the capacity to absorb the best of all cultures, east or west, modern or ancient but it is NOT Hindu culture of the Vedic or the Puranic Age. Nor is India well served by the out-dated concept of 'one country, one culture, one language' or the philosophy of Hindu Nationalism. What we need is Multi-Culturalism and not Cultural Nationalism.

Mr. Sankhdher may satisfy his ego by misrepresenting and distorting my views imputing unfounded notions to me and drawing false conclusions. But I challenge him to quote any writing or statement of mine to support them. In return, I ask him only one question: does he still stand by Guru Golwalkar's Thoughts?

India: Watan and Dar-ul-Ahad-wal-Aman

Shahabuddin's Letter to The Pioneer, 21 Jan., 2000

Apropos Shri Prafull Goradia's foray into the domain of Islamic theology, may I remind him of the Holy Prophet's off-quoted saying "Hubbul Watan menal Iman" (Love of the homeland is part of the Faith), so the Muslim Indians do not need any lessons in patriotism from the RSS or its spokesmen.

And there is no reason why one's faith be in perpetual conflict with one's motherland. Therefore, it is possible for a Muslim to love his religion as well as he loves his motherland. As Maulana Mohammad Ali, the great freedom fighter, stated that when the question relates to the sincerity and progress of India and the welfare of the Indian people, he, as a Muslim, is first Indian, second Indian and nothing but an Indian and when the question is one of freedom and dignity of Islam, he, an Indian, is first a Muslim, second a Muslim and nothing but a Muslim. Man's personality is multi-dimensional and a particular dimension comes to the fore depending upon the circumstances.

Muslim Ulema have come to the consensus that apart from Dar-ul-Islam (a territory in which Shariat is the rule of law) and the Dar-ul-Harb (the territory in which it is not and which is at war with Dar-ul-Islam), there is Dar-ul-Ahad-wul-Aman, the territory which is neither but has an external compact with a Dar-ul-Islam or an internal compact which grants freedom of religion to Muslims and protects their security, dignity and their rights as citizens.

To sum up, India is both 'Watan' and 'Dar-ul-Ahad-wal-Aman' for Muslim Indians. Participation in its progress, its protection and its well-being is their religious and human duty, so long as the 'internal compact' (call it Constitution based on Democracy and Secularism) is not violated.