SECULARISM

Shahabuddin's Reply to Muslim Super-Secularists

A Rejoinder to Seema Mustafa

I must confess that the argument of Seema Mustafa's article "Muslims, Secularism and Secular Parties" in your issue of January 6, 1996 is not clear even to an initiated reader like myself.

Much before December 6, 1992 dawned, the year 1971 constituted a psychological watershed for the Muslim Indians and since then their rejection of pan- Islamic rhetoric of the orthodox Right and their commitment to secular politics have never been in doubt. The demolition of the Babari Masjid came as a shock and caused agony to the Muslim Indians because they had rightly put their faith in the efficacy of the secular order, based on equality and justice and supported by the rule of law. It is, therefore, not that on December 6, 1992 Muslim Indians suddenly woke up to the imperative of the secular order for a religious minority.

The Muslim Indians with the exception of Kerala, which has very special circumstances of its own, are not known to have voted for any Muslim political party or its candidates even in Muslim concentrated constituencies since 1971. However, the fact remains that as a target they look upon the Muslim components of the leadership of secular parties at national, regional or State levels and Muslim MPs and MLAs of such parties for the defence of their legitimate interests and the articulation of their genuine grievances in an increasingly communalized environment. The fact also remains that most of such persons failed to come up to the expectations of the community because, in order to ingratiate themselves with other leaders of their parties and to project themselves as secular, they became ultra- secular. For them even to ventilate a genuine grievance or to suggest a remedial measure to meet the situation became a taboo. Herein lies the genesis of the disenchantment of the Muslim masses with the so-called Muslim leadership which, I repeat, is nothing more than the sum total of the Muslim component in the leadership of various political parties. This discontent of late has been transferred to the secular parties, in the government or in the Opposition, and even to the secular order itself.

Leadership is an organic growth: it does not drop from the heavens or sprout from the earth overnight. All efforts by the government and by secularists like Seema Mustafa in the aftermath of the tragedy of December 6, 1992. to support and substitute, and even to supplement, the traditional leadership have failed. Official patronage, generous facilities and conveniences, financial flows, statements in seminars and symposia, and articles in intellectual journals do not create an alternative leadership. So, the old guard, whatever their failing, is back in business and the secular parties are busy making deals with them on the eve of the general election. In fact, the system has given birth to a new generation of vote-breakers whose services are being engaged resulting in such fiascoes as witnessed in Batley, Darbhanga and Kanpur.

When there is a demand, there is a supply. And our intellectual secularists including academicians and journalists, bearing Muslim names, are not above washing their hands in the waters of the flowing Ganga. In the process, even the Ulema who are largely secluded in the seminaries have come to the fore and are being feted and feasted in five-star comfort, dressed up and presented in the court of the Raja as well as those of the pretenders as the delivery-men for Muslim votes. As to the visible promotion of education and employment, one welcomes it but that does not relieve the secular government and the secular parties and the self-appointed champions of the secular order from the duty and responsibility of fulfilling the legitimate demand for more schools in Muslim concentrated areas and more jobs for the Muslim youth. But even the educational trend among community Muslims predates 1992, since we are yet to be advised and any serious initiative taken officially or privately after December 6, 1992.

Seema Mustafa has been silent on educational facilities and resolutely opposed to reservation in public employment. However, she has not stated how she proposes to bring the unemployment among the educated unemployed Muslim youth, short of reservation, down at least to the level of the national average. Why does she fight shy of demanding more primary, middle and secondar schools, more ITCs, more ITIs, more polytechnics in Muslim concentration panchayats, blocks and districts?

Seema Mustafa tries to blame the Muslim communities for the private and in some cases government - inspired and perhaps also Sangh sponsored- endeavor to keep the Babari Masjid pot boiling through the Muslim mainstream consensus is to keep it on the back-burner and to press for expeditious adjudication and to wait for the judicial verdict but not to sign away the Masjid-site. She names shadowy organizations which are trying to fill the agitation vacuum but do not represent the community.

Seema Mustafa also articulates a very dangerous thought. If every articulation of Muslim grievances and any demand for remedial measures within the bounds of the law and Constitution will help the Sangh Parivar, then should the Muslimi Indians and their well-wishers take a vow of silence? In a democracy only the creaking wheel gets the oil and if the target community is silent, one does not see even the most secular parties coming to their rescue. But her thought perhaps represents the electoral strategy of some secular parties which wish to run with the hare and hunt with the hound and do not wish even to pay lip-service to the cause of defense of minority interests an essential element of the secular order - for fear of losing "Hindu' votes. These parties do not realize that the "Hindu" votes are already lost to them, but the "Hindu" votes do not constitute a majority yet and if such parties wish to keep their Muslim support, they have to tread the path of truth and justice. They cannot win wholehearted endorsement of the Muslim masses (or of any oppressed section) in a democracy by looking the other way, maintaining eloquent silence and pushing the ugly under the carpet.

In the last sentence, Seema Mustafa has seemingly recognized that the Muslim Indians have sonic legitimate aspirations. Will she spell them out and call upon the secular fraternity at least to use them as window-dressing for their manifestos? In the circumstances that will be solace enough.

(Source: The Mainstream, 17 February,1996)