Apropos Mohd. Fazal's article on the rights, interests and aspirations of the Muslim Indians, one must recognise that they are as eager for participation in the development process as any other group, and they aspire to nothing more than fair share in the fruits of development. They are as eager as anyone else for the education of their children and for the livelihood of their youth.

The problem lies not in their involvement in some priority concerns, call them religious or emotional, if you like, but in the general denial and deprivation of a vast majority of the people and, in particular, of the Muslim Indians who are projected as communal, pro-Pakistan. anti-national, obscurantist, fundamentalist ... Such projections justify distrust and injustice and even violence and, at the very least, deny them the sympathy and support they deserve in the larger national interest.

Having said this, let me say that Muslim family laws are based on the Quran and the Hadith which may be interpreted but cannot be abandoned. Family laws are personal in the sense, criminal and civil laws of the State arc not. The comparison is not relevant because India is not a Muslim or Islamic State and during the Freedom Movement, Muslims were guaranteed non-interference in personal law. However, I personally favour codification.

Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has a historic and symbolic importance. Why should its Muslim character sought to be changed? Yes, educational progress does not rest with the AMU. It needs educational infrastructure in all Muslim concentration areas in accordance with the national norms. But let Mr. Fazal explain why have the Muslims been deprived so far?

Urdu is not a Muslim monopoly. No language is ever a group monopoly. It is an Indian, a national, language. Yet it has been consistently denied its rightful place in administration, education and information. Children whose Mother Tongue is Urdu are denied the opportunity to learn Urdu. Why?

Babari Masjid, whether the then Prime Minister took his advice (the same as that of the VHP) or not is immaterial. What is material is that a mosque cannot be shifted, certainly not to provide space for another place of worship, in a secular state. Mr. Fazal is not explicit on what he wants the Muslims to do now. Surrender the site?

After the Demolition?

Mr. Fazal's knowledge of the Holy Prophet's life is terribly inadequate. The Treaty of Hodaibiya was between the Holy Prophet and the Quraish of Mecca, who were not Jews. Ilas he read the Treaty? Hodaibiya does not mean surrender but patience and foresight.

[Mohd. Fazal is a former Member of Planning Commission and presently Governor of Goa. His article appeared in The Times of India].