I am shocked and surprised by the "final solution" to the problems faced by the Muslim Indians proposed by Prof. M.A.M. Khan, in your issue of June/July, 1997.
Undoubtedly, there is a gap between precept and practice in the working of the Secular State in India. There always is in all human institutions. That never justifies abandoning the goals of human endeavour.
The Holy Quran envisages a multi-religious world, free of all coercion, leaving every person free to profess, practise and propagate his religion.
The world is multi-religious. Indeed the coming World order will be, will have to be, multi-religious. Will Dr. Khan state which religious groups will form the ruling elite and which will have the status of "Zimmis" in the coming one world? The Muslims constitute a minority group in the world. In the foreseeable future, they do not appear to be in a position to become a majority or to "conquer" the world and impose a Pax Islamica, in which all non-Muslims shall be Zimmis. So will Muslims like to be "Zimmis" of a non-Islamic world government?
The modern secular state is not anti-religious, it recognises religion as a legitimate social institution, respects all religions and treats all religions and all citizens, irrespective of religion, equally and in situation of inter-religious conflict it maintains non-alignment and neutrality towards the religious groups involved. To this extent, a truly secular state which does not deny any benefits to or deprive any person, individually or collectively, and acts in accordance with justice and equity, is consonant with the divine model.
In the world of today, all social groups, within any state, demand recognition of their religious, linguistic or ethnic identity and yet participate or at least aspire to participate, on equal terms, in the management of the society and share political power and economic opportunity and enjoy social status. Mankind has no doubt a long way to go to achieve equality and to realise the goals of human rights and minority rights. But what is significant is that there is universal recognition of and adherence to such rights. Should mankind turn around and reverse its direction? Should this be proposed for any state member of the world community? If not, why choose India where the most significant experiment in peaceful co-existence of religions, cultures, languages, castes, regions and ethnicities is going on. The Indian caravan is moving forward despite many obstacles and pitfalls. But the Muslim community, despite the discrimination, persecution and humiliation that it has suffered from time to time, is moving with the caravan. It has not reached the stage of frustration and fatigue to stop and to surrender to the Hindutva forces.
Prof. Khan's suggestion reminds me of Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi's deposition before the Munir Commission in which he favoured the establishment of a Hindu state in India as a counter-part to an Islamic state in Pakistan.
Muslim Indians refuse to sacrifice their interests for the logic of reciprocity? Muslim Indians shall not give up their religious identity and yet shall be, de jure and increasingly de facto, equal citizens of the secular democratic Indian state. Citizenship is not an imaginary privilege; it is a constitutional and legal right, justiciable through the judicial system and enforceable through legislation.
If the Indian State, which is today under siege by the Hindutva forces, was to go under, with or without Dr. Khan's advice or the acquiescence of Muslim Indians, the latter shall lose their right to equality, their claim to identity and will come under pressure from the historical forces of cultural and religious assimilation.
Why and how should Dr. Khan assume that the Hindu State in India shall be more vigilant and effective in protecting the rights of Muslims as "Zimmis" than the secular state has been in protecting the right of Muslims as "citizens"? Why should Hindu India be any more acceptable by the international or the "worldwide or global Muslim community" than secular India has been? How can the OIC become so powerful and effective as to impose and enforce binding international commitments on the Indian State through "legitimate intervention" when the latter fails to protect its Muslim minority? No, the strength of the religious minorities lies in their own ability to mobilise the system and in their own strength to organise themselves against injustice and oppression on the basis of the Constitution and the rule of law.
One question: why does not Dr. Khan begin with the USA and ask the Muslim Americans whether they would like to become second class citizens and "Zimmis"?
On National Commission for Minorities
The Government of India, Ministry of Welfare have not conducted any ... study to identify the major religious minorities who are socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged particularly those below the poverty line. (Source: LSUQ No. 100/29.7.1997 by M. Sirpotdar & S.K. Gangwar)
