Council of Indian Muslims (UK)

M Ghazali Khan

Everyone has been taken by surprise by the unexpectedly impressive victory of Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party’s (Baja’s) poor show in recent parliamentary elections. These results have particularly been welcomed by religious minorities, specially the Muslims.

In contrast to other political parties, Congress has been a popular party in India that has ruled the country for 50 years. In the 80s, however, it started losing ground to the BJP. Not because BJP had offered the Indians any revolutionary economic or welfare reforms and benefits but merely for its anti-Muslim stance. How then all of a sudden anti-Muslim feelings became an overpowering phenomena?

Having been repeatedly rejected by the Indian voters since 1951, as Bharatiya Jana Sangh, the coming to power of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1996 for 13 days, then, as a coalition, NDA, in 1998-99, and for a third term in 1999-2004 was a big achievement for a sectarian party. Although since then it has been losing public support and has been unable to capture power in the centre, it has succeeded in forming governments in different states.

The causes of BJP’s sudden popularity in the 80s are very interesting because in the highly tense and communally charged atmosphere of early post-partition days it was much easier for a party like the Jana Sangh to exploit the prevailing extreme anti-Muslim feelings and win elections. It was much easier for the Hindutvaites to raise anti-Muslim hysteria in the 1950s because Muslims alone were con­sidered to be responsible for the par­tition of the country. However, the publication between 1970 and 1983 of secret and official documents (Transfer of Power 1942-47) that hitherto had been in possession of the India Office Library present a different pic­ture of that period. In the light of these documents Gandhi, Nehru and Patel (on Patel’s role also see http://www.coimuk.org/content/founder-partition-india) appear to be as much responsible for the parti­tion as was Mohammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan. The paradox is that at one time Jinnah was hailed as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity¹ who had advised Gandhi not to bring religion into politics. In 1910 he even moved a resolution deplor­ing the extension of a separate electorate to Muslims by the Minto­ Morley Reforms although he him­self had been the beneficiary². He had warned Gandhi not to encour­age fanaticism of Muslim religious leaders and their followers by coop­erating with Khilafat (Caliphate) Movement.³ He accused Gandhi of creating schism and split: "... not only amongst Hindus and Muslims but between Hindus and Hindus and Muslims and Muslims and even between fathers and sons ... in almost every institution".⁴

Gandhi's reply to Jinnah was: "I claim that with us, both the Khilafat is the central fact, with Maulana Muhammad Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow, that is my religion, from the Mussalman knife".⁵ The Veteran BBC journal­ist, Mark Tully, quotes Minoo Masani, who was a member of the Constituent Assembly in 1945: “... the majority of people, including Nehru and Patel, were impatient and wanted the Muslims to get out, so they could be masters in their own homes without any fur­ther delay. The egotism of Jinnah on one side, and Nehru on the other came in the way of a united India being independent... "⁶

At last opportunism played its role and divid­ed the Indians. In 1947 a separate land for Muslims, Pakistan, was created and savage riots engulfed the region. There were wide inci­dents of loot, arson mur­der and rape. "Communal infection had spread to the common man, pene­trating his mind so that he became temporarily a pervert. Cruelty for him turned into glory and treachery, arson, loot murder dishonoring of women, and killing of children became a moral imperative. The elemental passions of men were in action and Government and public organizations were very often helpless against their fury."⁷

Within a decade of these events India successfully established itself as a secular liberal state. The country adopted a constitution envisaging for a secular state and setting up an independent judiciary. Despite some of of his mistakes in dealing with ­the Muslim League⁸, in the post 1947 era under Nehru's leadership Congress remained a pluralistic and non c­ommunal organisation.

However, in spite of Congress's central lead­ership’s commitment to the cause of secularism, the country could not rid itself completely of the communal legacy of 1947. From time to time anti-Muslim riots continued to take place, suspicion continued to be cast upon Muslims and discrimination against them in Government and private sectors remained widespread. But the communal hatred and violence of the 80s and 90s surpassed all previous records.

Why and how all of a sudden did the political wing of a fascist organisation, RSS, openly and shamelessly propagating violence against country’s religious minorities succeed in gaining such an unprecedented support in a country known for its secular ideals? Why all of a sudden did the masses whose memories of partition and resulting communal frenzy had begun to fade, fall prey to the BJP's anti-Muslim propaganda? Was there something that the Congress had failed to deliver? To get answers to these questions we need to look at the different ideologies of the Congress leadership and the situation which led to the formation of Jana Sangh resulting in the 90s in BJP’s rise to power.

After independence Congress came to the helm of affairs of the country. During the long struggle for independence Congress's leadership successfully united Indians. Its leaders managed to absorb and reconcile a wide range of ideas. In 1947 among its ranks there were three important intellectual groups. One of them wanted to shape India into a liberal-democratic state with secular and democratic constitution; the second wanted to form a socialist state; and the third was working for the establishment of a state embodying Hindu traditions and values.⁹ Since Congress had established itself in public life, these groups had two options: 1) remain in the Congress and exert pressure; 2) form a new party and isolate itself.¹⁰ Even within the Hindu traditional­ists there were serious differences in approach. However, they all looked towards the Home Minister, Vallabbhai Patel, for leadership rather than the Prime Minister, Jawahar Lal Nehru. Although both worked together closely, their differing ideologies made them incompatible. Nehru was commit­ted to secularism while Patel looked upon Indian Muslims with suspicion, to such an extent that at a public meeting in Lucknow on 6 January 1948 he openly denounced Muslims for not condemning Pakistan's activ­ities in Kashmir: "It should not surprise Muslims if doubts were entertained about their loyalty. They could not ride on two horses. Those who were disloyal could not remain in India for the atmosphere would become too hot for them."¹¹

Issues in relation to the minority prob­lem became more serious, complicat­ing the problem of choosing, at the end of August 1950, the national president of the Congress. One of the candidates for the post was a veter­an Congressman belonging to the Hindu traditionalist group, Purshottomdas Tandan. Nehru dis­approved his candidature as unsuit­able: "Unfortunately, you have become to large numbers of people in India some kind of a symbol of this com­munal and revivalist outlook and the question rises in my mind: Is the Congress going that way also? If so, where do I come into the picture, whether it is the Congress or whether it is the Government run by the Congress? ... I feel that this elec­tion would mean great encourage­ment to certain forces in India which I consider harmful. Hence my diffi­culty and my distress."¹²

Patel supported Tandon's candi­dature and Nehru opposed him. However, in spite of Nehru's oppo­sition Tandon did win the election. Nehru refused to work with Tandon but was persuaded to reverse his decision. Later Tandon was forced to resign as president of the Congress. Things became worse in the wake of an agreement signed on 8 April 1951 in Delhi between Nehru and Pakistani Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan on the question of minorities in the two countries. A Hindu tradi­tionalist and Minister of Industries and a former President of Hindu Mahasabha Dr Shyama Parsad Mookharji differed so much from Nehru on this agreement that he resigned from the Cabinet.

A Hindu party

Although relatively a moderate Hindu, Dr Mookharji was so upset by the outcome of the Delhi pact that he proposed to the leader of RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) Dr Mahadev Sadashiv Golwalkar to form a separate party for the Hindus. In his view the pact did not and could not achieve anything for the protection of Hindus in Pakistan.

The RSS was formed at Nagpur in 1925 by Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, a former teacher at the Benaras Hindu University. Coming from Maharashtra, Hedgewar did not take his inspiration from reli­gious traditions but from the Maratha war band led by Shivaji and his suc­cessors who fought against Mughal rule in India.¹³ From its founding it has played an active role in anti­Muslim militancy in India.¹⁴ It recruits youth volunteers (Swayamsevaks) and gives them mar­tial training. Its aim is to form a Hindu Rashtriya (Hindu state) where, according to Golwalkar:

"the foreign races ... must either adopt the Hindu culture and lan­guage, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture i.e. of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate exis­tence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly sub­ordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no priv­ileges, far less any preferential treat­ment - not even citizens’ rights. There is, at least should be, no other course for them to adopt. We are an old nation; let us deal, as old nations ought to and do deal, with the for­eign races, who have chosen to live in our country."¹⁵

Otherwise:

"German race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the Race and its cul­ture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races - Jews. Race Pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan [India] to learn and profit by."¹⁶

After Mahatma Gandhi's assassination by Nathu Ram Godse, believed to have links with the RSS, the organisation was banned. Everyone was outraged except a few supporters of the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha who went to the extent of distributing sweets to celebrate the killing of a person whom they regarded to be too much pro-Muslim.¹⁷ On that occasion Mookherji not only resigned from the Mahasabha but even accused the Hindu Mahasabha of communalism because it believed in establishing a Hindu Rashtra. Later when Mookherji proposed to Golwalkar to form a Hindu party, he told him that like Hindu Mahasabha the RSS believed in Hindu Rashtra too. However, Mookherji acknowledged that "he had made an inadvertent remark and expressed full agree­ment on the Hindu Rashtra ideal".¹⁸

Interested groups, including lead­ers of Hindu Mahasabha and RSS, were gathered in Delhi and on 21 October 1951 a new party for Hindus Bharatiya Jana Sangh (Indian Peoples Party) was formed with Mookerji as its president.

By 1967 the Jana Sangh had reached to the peak of its popularity which had faded by the elections of 1970. This defeat forced it to join other parties to offer a joint opposi­tion to Mrs Gandhi's Congress. During the emergency of 1975-77 like all the leaders of other parties, its leaders were arrested and impris­oned. After the lifting of emergency in April 1977 it was dissolved and merged with its allies to form the Janata Party which gave a humiliating defeat to the Congress. During this marriage of convenience the Jan Sanghis took maximum advantage and appointed their supporters and sympathisers at key posts in govern­ment departments¹⁹; and its General Secretary Atal Bihari Vajpaee was appointed as the Foreign Minister. By 1980 almost all of the Jana Sanghis had left the Janata Party and in April 1980 they formed the Bharariya Janata Party (BJP).

It is interesting to note that in Jana Sangh's first manifesto there was no mention about the "liberation" of places of worship which, in the 80s, became BJP’s only goal. This issue did not only give BJP a suc­cess but also swept old sectarian hatred in all over India.

The Jana Sangh merely concentrat­ed on economic issues. Parts of its programmes which referred to issues of concern to Hindu national­ists were relatively moderate.²⁰ And definitely far more moderate in com­parison to BJP's fascist campaign of the 80s.

Muslim Grievances

 In addition to various other factors, Pakistan was the creation of Muslims' fears that in a free India they would have to live under the majority (Hindu) rule. And these fears were not without a genuine reason. According to the well-known Indian journalist and the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, Rajmohan Gandhi: "Congress ... was ungenerous in that year, 1937. Blindness lay behind its failure to give Muslims a visible share in its ministries...The blind­ness was not new ... as far back as the 1880s most Hindus associated with the Congress were unaware of Muslims’ fears of one man one vote ... Congress's inability to speak in an Indian rather a Hindu idiom gave a fillip to separatism."²¹

Although on the assurances of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Jawahar Lal Nehru that they would be safe, a large number of Muslims decided to stay in India²² yet social justice and security for them remained and still remains a dream. Although the generation accused of partitioning the country is no more, Hindutwaites, who are present in almost all the parties, do not hesitate in taking advantage of the political blunder of partition. Even during the recent election campaign, a BJP candidate in New Delhi asked his supporters to shout ant-Muslim slogans blaming the Muslims for partitioning the country. This situation has not let the Indian Muslims think positively about their meaningful role in India. Besides a general demand for job opportunities in police and other government departments since 1947, their main grievances/demands have been: 1) protection of Muslim Personal Law; 2) recognition of Urdu as a second official language; 3) the minority character of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU); 4) in 1986 the additional problem of the protection of the Babri Mosque; 5) and most recently the addition of the alleged involvement in terrorism of Muslim youths. However, here we will briefly look at the first four points.

Muslim Personal Law

 Interestingly in 1947 while an anglicised Muhammad Ali Jinnah-led Muslim League opted for an inde­pendent Muslim land, an organisation like Jamee'at­ul-ulma'-e-Hind²³ (League of [Muslim] Theologians of India), associated with the famous seminary of Deoband opposed the cre­ation of Pakistan and sup­ported the Congress. In addition to other factors the reason why Jamee'at had supported the Congress was that it had been assured that the Congress would protect Muslim Personal Law (Shari'ah).²⁴

As such there is no provi­sion for a separate Muslim law in the Indian constitution. On the contrary, Article 44 of the Indian constitution directs the State to secure a uniform civil code for all the citi­zens. Muslims' contention has been that the right to freedom to practise their religion is meaningless without being able to be governed by Muslim fami­ly law. Even in British India, they argue, suits regarding marriage, divorce, inheritance, wills, legacies, adoption etc were decided in accordance to Muslim law.²⁵ At the time when Indian con­stitution was being framed, Muslim members of the Constituent Assembly debated against Article 44 (then 35) - so much so that the author of the constitution Or A. R. Ambedkar had to assure them:

" ... no one need be apprehensive of the fact that if the State has the power, the State immediately pro­ceeds to execute or enforce that power in a manner that may be found to be objectionable by Muslims or by Christians or by any other community in India. We must remember - including Members of the Muslim community who have spoken on this subject - that sover­eignty is always limited ... because sovereignty in the exercise of that power must reconcile itself to the sentiments of different communities. No Government can exercise its power in such a manner as to pro­voke the Muslim community to rise in rebellion. I think it would be a bad government if it did."²⁶

Since 1947 cases related to matri­mony, inheritance, wills and adop­tion are being decided in civil courts in accordance to the Shari'ah. However, the legal ambiguity of this issue was highlighted in the controversial Shah Bano case during 1987 in which civil courts awarded alimony to a divorced Muslim woman. The decision provoked countrywide demonstrations and protests by Muslims. Commentators on Indian politics believe that the then Prime Minister Late Rajiv Gandhi surrendered to Muslim opinion and passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill.²⁷ As such the bill did not, nor was it meant to, solve the problem.

Reminding the Central Government of its longstanding constitutional demand in May 1995 the Supreme Court asked it to enact a uniform civil code.²⁸

Any interference in Muslim Personal Law is rightly seen by Muslims as an attack on their existence, individuality and identity. The BJP on the other hand has always used it as an example of preferential treatment being given to Muslims by the gov­ernment. However, unfortunately, Muslim lead­ership has not shown any practical willingness to protect the rights of Muslim women enjoined by the Qur'an. It is also interesting to note that the movement launched by the Jamee'at in the 1920s was in fact directed towards protecting Muslim women’s rights. For exam­ple in its sixth annual session in 1925 the Jamee'at had adopted a resolu­tion declaring, " ... as an insult to the Shariat the adherence by certain Muslims to the non Islamic laws based on customs and usage (like) excluding women from inheritance ... "

Urdu

 Urdu, an Indo-Arian language evolved in the Mughal era and became the lingua franca of the country. Its evolution is attributed to the interaction of different ethnic groups in that peri­od. With strong Persian and Arabic flavour it is based on Hindi. It was equally popular among Hindu and Muslim elites.²⁹ In the words of Maulana Muhammad Ali Johar, “Did Muslims bring Urdu from Arabia or Persia or Afghanistan? No it was in the Indian camp and mar­ket-place that they picked it up and eighty percent of the words used in their daily intercourse are such as will have no meaning for an Arab or Persian or a Turk or an Afghan ...”³⁰ However, by 1867 Hindus started seeing it as a Muslim language in which most of the Indian Islamic literature and Muslim history had been written.

As partition of the country came, Urdu was replaced by Hindi. Recognition of Urdu in any sense was seen as a concession to Muslims although according to 1971 census in UP Urdu speakers in UP were recorded as 10.5%, 8.8% in Bihar, 7.5% in Andhra, 9.0% in Karnataka and 7.2% in Maharashtra.³¹

After several movements all over the country, (including a signature campaign led by Dr Zakir Husain, who was to become President of the country in 1967) in 1972 Mrs Indira Gandhi appointed a committee for the promotion of Urdu known as Gujral Committee. The committee presented its report in 1975 recom­mending the establishment of Urdu medium primary schools where the population of Urdu speakers in an urban or village exceeded 10%, enforcement in Hindi speaking states of a three language formula for the schools, which would include Urdu as compulsory along with Hindi and English.

The report was suppressed on the insistence of senior cabinet Jagjivan Ram.³² As a result of government discriminatory policies the enrol­ment of Urdu speakers in primary schools and the publication of Urdu newspapers sharply decreased.

Aligarh Muslim University

 AMU (then MAO College) was founded by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in 1877 for the educational upliftment of Indian Muslims. In 1920 it was granted the status of a University through Aligarh Muslim University Act 1920 which provided for the compulsory religious edu­cation of the students, a residential character, and administration by Muslims. In 1951 through an amend­ment Act the original charter was changed in all three aspects. This move was in clear violation of Article 30 (1) of the Indian constitu­tion which says:

"All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice." It should be clear here that the AMU is not a theological institution. Even at the time when this bizarre action was taken by the government, there was a sizeable number of Hindus in staff and students.

When the Muslims brought the case in the court, ignoring a histori­cal fact, the Supreme Court held that the AMU was not founded by the Muslims but came into being through an act of the Parliament. In 1965 another Amendment Act was passed which threatened the auton­omy of the institution. It triggered Muslim agitations all over the coun­try.³³ In order to win back Muslim votes Mrs Gandhi brought one more Amendment Act in 1972 but it served no purpose. In the 1981 Amendment Act, however, the minority character of AMU was explicitly recognised, satisfying Muslim opin­ion.³⁴

Babri Mosque and Competition for Hindu Votes

 Until 6 December 1993 there stood a historical mosque in Ayodhya in the Northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh known as Babari Mosque. The Mosque was built by Mir Baqui, a General of the Mughal Emperor Babar, in 1528 to mark the con­quest of Mughal Army over the Pathan King Sikandar Lodhi, a Muslim. According to the Hinduwaites, however, the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu tem­ple that had existed there since the eleventh century AD. There is no evidence in history that any temple existed on the site of this mosque. A joint report submitted in 1991 to the Minister of State for Home Mr S. K Sahay by four well-known historians concludes:³⁵

1. No evidence exists in the texts that before the 16th century (and indeed before the 18th century), any veneration attached to any spot in Ayodhya for being the birth place of Rama.
2. There are no grounds for sup­posing that a Rama temple, or any temple, existed at the site where Baburi Mosque was built...This con­clusion rests on an examination of the archaeological evidence as well as the contemporary inscriptions on the mosque.
3. The legend that the Baburi Masjid occupied the site of Rama's birth did not arise until the late 18th cen­tury; that the temple was destroyed to build a mosque was not asserted until the beginning of the 19th cen­tury... 
4. The full-blown legend of the destruction of a temple ... is as late as the 1850s. Since then what we get is merely the progressive reconstruction of imagined history based on faith.

The BJP /VHP /RSS would not accept any argument based on his­torical evidence or legal grounds. Hindu leaders including the "mod­erate" Atal Bihari Vajpayee made it clear that the issue could not be solved by the courts and that Muslims should hand over the mosque to the Hindus.

How did it all start? Soon after partition, taking advantage of Muslims' demoralisation and their miserable situation on the night of 22-23 December, a group of Hindu youths entered the mosque and installed the idol of Rama.³⁶ This act was done in the presence of police­men who had been posted there after an earlier assault on the mosque on 13 November 1949. The man, a Hindu priest and then General Secretary of District Faizabad Congress Committee, Akshay Barharamchari, because of whose initiatives a first conspiracy to install idols inside the mosque was foiled, was attacked and beaten in his house for speaking the truth. However, after the installation of the idol, the next day rumours spread in the town that Lord Rama had appeared to claim his temple. Riots that fol­lowed the incident were quelled. The District Magistrate, K.K. Nair, with whose complicity idols were brought, refused to remove them.³⁷ Nor were the real culprits pun­ished. One of them, Abhot Ram Chander Das, in an interview to the New York Times of 22 December 1991, confessed that he was one of those who had put the idol inside the mosque. However, as he neared his retirement, Mr K.K. Nair admitted his complicity in the affair and was made to resign only to become a martyr and be elected as an MP.³⁸ While a title suit pended in the High Court from 1948 to 1986 the mosque continued to be used as a temple, worship went on and Muslims were prohibited from entering it and had to keep clear up to a radius of 200 yards.39 

A case regarding the Babari Mosque-Rama Janam Bhoomi dis­pute had been pending in Allahabad High Court for 37 years. Until 1 February 1986 the Babari Mosque­-Rama Janam Bhoomi dispute, was a local issue. Very few Indians knew or were interested in it. As Peter van der Veer observes: “I regularly visited Ayodhya from 1977-1984. The disputes seemed to have more to do with who among the monks would receive which part of the donations than with any attempt to launch an attack on the mosque."⁴⁰

In 1984 Vishva Hindu Parishad, founded by one of Mrs Indira Gandhi's most trusted friends, Dr Karan Singh, started a campaign for the liberation of Rama's birth place. (Later Rajiv Gandhi sent Dr Karan Singh as India's Ambassador to the USA) On 19 December 1985 a Hindu delegation comprised of some retired officials met the then state Chief Minister Mr V.P. Singh and warned him that unless the "Temple" was handed over to them by 8 March they would launch a mass move­ment and forcibly occupy it.

The general view is that by passing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill in 1986 Rajiv Gandhi realised that he had alienated Hindu vot­ers. The fact is, however, that the Muslim Women Bill was a sequel to the pressure mounted by Hindu organisations.⁴¹ So Rajiv Ghandi tried to please them by having the Mosque opened for Hindu worship.

According to the BJP's former Vice-President and editor of RSS's weekly organ Organiser, the late K.R, Malkani: "The authorities informally asked the VHP to move an application for the unlocking of the premises, with assurances of positive response. But the VHP said it was interested in the unlocking and not in going to court. So Congress got a junior local advocate, one Omesh Chand Pande, to move an application on January 21 in the Munsif court. On January 28 the Munsif declined to pass any orders. An appeal was, therefore, immediately filed in the court of District Judge ... The Court there­upon ordered on 1 February that the locks be removed ... “42

It was at this juncture that the Temple(s) liberation campaign was taken over by the BJP.43 The BJP transformed a local dispute into a symbol of a threatened majority. And from here Advani and Rajiv appear to be in competition in establishing a monopoly on Hindu vote.

In a second move in 1989. Rajiv started his election campaign from Faizabad barely 6 kilometers from Ayodhya. There he announced his conviction in establishing Ram Rajya (Hindu state).44 However, when in power he allowed the VHP 45 to lay the foundation stone of the pro­posed temple flaunting orders of the Allahabad High Court which, on 8 November, had declared the place as disputed. According to Malkani: "Union Home Minister Buta Singh" had "even suggested that Rajiv" might "be available for foundation laying".46

One of Rajiv Gandhi's former associates and a min­isterial colleague Arun Nehru says, "When I asked Mr Rajiv Gandhi who is showing the worship in the disputed shrine at Ayodhya on Door Darshan [Indian TV] two days after it was unlocked, he did not reply; he merely smiled and observed it was tit for tat for the Muslim Women's Bill”47

On 6 December 1992 the Babari Mosque was demolished by 5000 kar Sevaks (Hindu volunteers) in the presence of 25,000 central paramili­tary personnel. These forces equipped with stun grenades, rubber pellets and rubber bullets just stood there as mute spectators to vandalism and mockery of law.48 Writes Malkani: "Advani's own feeling is that the P.M. advisers—whether in the PMO, Ayodhya Cell or the Intelligence Bureau — had advised him that a showdown was inevitable and it was better to have it now rather than later, close to the next elections. This feeling is confirmed by the fact that between November 18 and December 6 the P.M. [Narasimha Rao] made no con­tact with Advani."49

Malkani even says that at Advani's son's wedding Mr Rao had asked RSS's late Chief Balasahb Deoras to let him know about their plans when they decided to demolish the Mosque.50 The late Malkani was an RSS trained BJP vice-president. This group is known for spread­ing disinformation and, to use the lan­guage of India Today, they are "Masters of Deception". So what­ever has been quoted above from his book has to be taken with a pinch of salt. After all, he had been the editor of Organiser which in its issue of 24 September 1989 informed the readers that "on the historic morning of 23 December 1949 the idol of Sri Ramachandra and Sita Devi miracu­lously appeared in the Janamasthan".51 [birth place of Rama]

However, what is more revealing is India Today's claim in its 31 December issue that Mr Rao was getting all the information from Ayodhya and was being advised by his trusted colleagues to take action. But he did not take any notice of this advice.

Muslims Betrayed 

Post Independence, Indian Muslims gave their allegiance to the Congress. They saw Congress's sec­ularism and philosophy of pluralism as the only chance of survival. A major­ity of Hindus on the other hand saw Congress as a Hindu party.52 Apart from Nehru and of course Muslim leaders like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, a great number of its leaders openly opposed each and every demand from Muslims. It is really surprising that the first attack on Muslims' fundamental constitution­al right came in 1951 when AMU was deprived of its minority character. And this occurred during the premiership of a committed liberal secularist like Jawahar Lal Nehru, the education ministry of a Muslim like Abul Kalam Azad and the vice-chancellorship of Dr Zakir Husain. This move alone would have been sufficient to convince the Hindu vot­ers that Congress was a Hindu party in whose government Muslim min­isters would be just show pieces.

Only one year after the death of Nehru, his daughter Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister. She too claimed to be a liberal secularist but did not hesitate in using religion, pushing Punjab into tur­moil by creating a terrorist like Bhindranwale.53 It was she who continued to deny a fair election to the Kashmiris and provided legiti­macy to the separatists. During her eight years’ rule she used secularism and religion alike, as it suited her. During her notorious Emergency Period it was the Muslim community that ­suffered most. To quote Tariq AIi: "The demolition of Muslim houses in the areas around the old Jama Masjid (Mosque) in order to 'clean up' Delhi for the property specula­tors sealed the fate of Emergency. The president of India, a Muslim, personally pleaded with Sunjay to go slow. He was ignored. Sheikh Abdullh, the veteran Kashmiri Muslim leader, came to Delhi, plead­ed with Mrs Gandhi to intervene on behalf of Delhi's Muslims and pre­vent this humiliation. He was effec­tively ignored ... Jag Mohan, the Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority, a Chamcha a rogue and a communalist sneered at one deputa­tion: ‘so you want to create a mini Pakistan in the heart of Delhi’.”54

In each of her election manifestos she gave assurances to Muslims about the minority character, the status of Urdu and job opportunities. But when in power she would forget all her promises. The result was that ordinary Hindus got the impres­sion that it was to their cost that Muslims were being given undue preference. The fact, however, is that, as Mark Tully puts it "During her last period in office ... Mrs Gandhi ... tried to forge the Hindu community into a solid vote block ... The catalyst for this new political synthesis was the Hindu revivalism sweeping through India."55

According to M. J. Akbar: "Hindu revivalists began saying that in Hindu-Majority India it was Hinduism, not Islam, that was now in danger ... Mrs Gandhi often dis­played an anti-minority instance. She kept hinting that the Muslims in India had still not given up their destructive games; there was always talk of a "foreign conspira­cy behind any problem related to Muslims."56

In 1978 the Janata Party govern­ment, led by late Prime Minister Murarji Desai, set up a Minorities Commission. Two years later a com­mittee was set up to study the minorities’ condition. In 1983 Mrs Gandhi unveiled a programme that promised more jobs and easier loans to the Muslims. But what happened afterwards? Gopal Singh's report was suppressed until it was released by V.P. Singh. According to India Today: "The status of the Muslims became the best guarded secret in the coun­try. And an ideal target for propa­ganda."57

Indeed in Congress's governments Muslims have been appointed as ministers but they were of no use to the Muslim community. They were not supposed to speak against injus­tice. Muslim education ministers and presidents could not utter a sin­gle word on the abolition of the minority character of the only educa­tional institution of its kind. How helpless a Muslim minister can be on Muslim isssues and what is expect­ed of him on these problems is obvi­ous from an article by the then Deputy Commerce Minister, Mr Salman Khurshid, the grandson of the first Muslim President of India Dr Zakir Husain. In the wake of the demolition of the Babri Mosque:

"I am constantly being asked to respond to unprecedented vandal­ism as a 'Muslim'. This comes from sympathisers and detractors alike. Why are the Muslim ministers silent? Why are the Muslim minis­ters refusing to give up their cursis [posts]? ... On Shaha Bano, AMU and Jamia they questioned the right of Muslim ministers and MPs to speak. They were called to resign because they spoke. Today they are called upon to resign because they are not speaking! Read between the lines: Muslims must speak only to destroy themselves and their coun­try”.58

The worst anti-Muslim riots broke out during Congress's governments in which police went berserk but there is not a single shred of evidence that any Muslim minister or MP from the ruling Congress Party ever con­demned it or any officer involved in these incidents was punished.

Despite its Hindu stance, the Jana Sangh was unable to attract the Hindu vote because there was nothing that the Jana Sangh was promising that was not being offered by the Congress. In 1948 Congress govern­ment in UP had idols installed in a mosque and converted it into a tem­ple. In 1950 a Union Cabinet Minister K.M. Munshi started a campaign to rebuild the famous temple of Somnath destroyed by Mehmood Ghaznavi. As such there was nothing wrong with the rebuild­ing of the temple and fulfilling the dream of the Hindus. What was sig­nificant was the use of words by K.M. Munshi and the Home Minster Vallabbhai Patel. They both saw this act as a symbol of the revivalism of Hinduism. The funds for the build­ing of the temple were provided by the Congress-led government of India and on 11 May 1950 the pres­ident of India inaugurated the tem­ple. Compare this action to the refusal by successive Congress gov­ernments to allow Muslims to pray inside the mosques—so called "pro­tected monuments" — of which 300 are in Delhi alone.

Thus, on all the issues the Jana Sangh failed to defeat the Congress. When the Jana Sangh was revived in 1980 again it did not have any more drastic promises to offer to the Hindus. However, when the temple liberation movement, initially launched by the VHP, was taken over by the BJP and Congress appeared to be losing ground, Rajiv had the doors of the occupied mosque opened for Hindu worship. Then he promised the establishment of a “Ram Rajya”. He even allowed the laying of the foundation stone of a the pro­posed temple on the land of Muslim Waqf Board (Muslim Trust) misap­propriated by the BJP in violation of Court orders.

But Rajiv, son of a Zoroastrian father, brought up in the Westernised Nehru family and married to a Catholic, was not to be taken seriously by the Hindus. He could not be more Hindu than the high caste leaders of the BJP. He was losing.

After Rajiv's death it was Prime Minster Narasimha Rao's turn to dance to the tune. He too could not counter the Hinduness of the BJP leaders. By now innocent people had been brainwashed. He kept fid­dling while the Babri mosque was burning; this fire also burnt the houses of Muslims in several other cities. Rao did not bother to visit any of these places. He, however, did promise to rebuild the mosque. Why? He told India Today that he did not want to wait until the then Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Shareef had done so. Meanwhile, BJP became confident that it was ready for a general election in the country. While his party already had more than five thousand mosques in its list to demolish, Advani asked the VHP to go ahead and prepare for the mosque of Kashi. Of course Congress could not play a more Hindu card than this.

BJP’s rule in 1998-99, and in 1999-2004 and then as an opposition party gave the its voters the chance to see that its leaders were in no way better and no less corrupt than any other party in India. Having seen the ugly face of its hate and divisive politics they have given their verdict.

Epilogue

The results of the 2009 elections give two clear messages: 1) the majority of Hindu voters has rejected BJP’s sectarian and opportunistic politics; 2) under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s leadership Muslims see the Congress party as being different from Indira Gandhi’s and Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress. This conclusion is not without any ground. Coming from a religious minority Dr Singh does appear to understand Muslims’ grievances. Addressing a gathering of Urdu journalists he recently said that being a Sikh he understood the concerns and problems of the Muslims. He proposed forming committees, comprising of respected Muslims from different states to look into any case of harassment of innocent members of the community.

“In India Muslims are sometimes targeted and Muslim youth harassed in the name of terrorism,” he said and asked security forces to observe “zero tolerance” for the violation of human rights in dealing with such cases.

This was not the first time that he so openly sympathised with the Muslim community. In June 2007 he had empathised with the mother of an Indian national, Dr Hanif, who was detained in Australia for being a terror suspect. “I could not sleep after watching the mothers of Indians in custody,” he said. Before that he had asserted that Indian Muslims had the first right to the country’s resources. During his previous tenure he commissioned the Sachar Commission Report which for the first time brought to light Muslims’ under-representation in jobs and education. 

However, during his five years’ tenure, despite his good intentions, Singh has not been able to make any significant difference in restoring Muslims’ confidence in the system. His failure to do so is a testimony to deep-rooted hatred and the anti-Muslim mindset of politicians and bureaucrats.

But regardless of how noble one’s views are, translating these thoughts into action is the real test of one’s sincerity and honesty. Dr Singh’s sincerity and honesty will be tested by how quickly he implements his plans and what practical measures he takes to restore the confidence of Muslims and other religious minorities’ confidence in the system. Muslims have expressed their trust in the Congress and now it is up to its leaders to honour their trust. However, in the absence of a strong Muslim leadership the chances of any radical change in government’s policies towards Muslims are not very bright.

Refrences

1. ^Singh Anita Inder, The Congress and the Hindu Muslim Problem In the Indian National Congress Centenary Highlights edited by D. A. Low. Oxford University Press. Delhi 1988
2. ^Jalal Aisha, The Sole Spokesman. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1994
3. ^Seervai H.M. Partltion of India Legend and Reality Tripathi Private Ltd. Bombay 1994
4. ^Jalal Aisha, The Sole Spokesman. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1994
5. ^Ibid quoted from Young India of 20 October 1921
6. ^Tully Mark and Masani Zareer, From Raj to Rajiv, BBC Books. London 1988
7. ^Indian National Congress, Congress Bulletin (Allahabad) 31 December 1947
8. ^In his autobiography India Wins Freedom Maulana Abul Kalam Azad gives a detailed account of Nehru's mistakes which foiled last attempts to avoid partition.
9. ^Graham B. D. Hindu Nationalism and Indian Nationalism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990
10. ^Ibid
11. ^Ibid
12. ^Ibid
13. ^Ibid
14. ^Veer Peter der Religious Nationalism, University of California Press, London, 1994
15. ^Golwalkar Madhav Sadashiv We; or, Our Nationhood Defined, Nagpur 1939
16. ^Ibid
17. ^Azad Abul Kalam, India Wins Freedom, Orient Longman, Madras, 1988
18. ^Graham B. D. Hindu Nationalism and Indian Nationalism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990
19. ^Ali Tariq, Nehrus and Gandhis, Picador, London 1991
20. ^Graham B. D. Hindu Nationalism and Indian Nationalism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990
21. ^Gandhi Rajmohan Understanding the Muslim Mind, Penguin Books, 1990 Delhi
22. ^Ali Tariq, Nehrus and Gandhis, Picador, London 1991
23. ^Brass Paul R, M,,, Cambridge Hi<torl/ of I"dia Th •. l'"lili"" of I"dia Si"Ct, I"del~'I"lmce Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990
24. ^Ibid
25. ^Mapila Succession Act 1918, Mapila Wills Act 1928; Cutchi Memons Succession Act 1920. Cutchi Memons Act 1938. North West Fmntier Province Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act 1935 and Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937.
26. ^Constituent Assembly Debates Vol VII
27. ^TuIly Mark No Full Stop In India, Penguin, London, 1991
28. ^India Today, 11 July 1995
29. ^Ganhhi Rajmohan Understanding the Muslim Mind, Penguin Books, 1990 Delhi
30. ^Quoted by Ganhhi Rajmohan Understanding the Muslim Mind, Penguin Books, 1990 Delhi
31. ^CLM, XXIII referred by Brass Paul R in The New Cambridge History of India IV.1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990
32. ^Ibid
33. ^Ibid
34. ^Ibid
35. ^The report titled Baburi Mosque or Rama’s Birth Place Historians’ Report to the Nation was prepared by RS. Shanna, a retired Professor of Delhi University and ex chainnan of Indian Council of Historical Research; Professor ON. Jha of Delhi University; Professor Suraj Bhan Dean of Faculty of Social Sciences, Kurukshestra University: and M Athar AIi a Retired Professor of History Department of AMU Aligarh and ex President of Indian History Congress.
36. ^Veer Peter van der Religioll" Nlllio"alislIl University of California Press, London 1994 Hllri;flIl19 August 1950
37. ^Veer Peter van der Religious Nationalism University of California Press, London 1994
38. ^Impact International London 28 February 1986
39. ^Ibid
40. ^Ibid
41. ^Veer Peter van der Religious Nationalism
42. ^Hasan Zoya Changing Orientation of the State and the Emergence of Majoritarionism, in the 1980 published in Communalism in India, edited bv Panikar KA, Manohar, Delhi, 1991
43. ^Malkani K. R The Politics of Ayodhya Har-Aannd Publications, Delhi 1993
44. ^Veer, Peter Ven Der, Religious Nationalism
45. ^Impact International, London, 24 December 1985
46. ^TuIly Mark No Full stop in India, Penguin, London, 1991
47. ^Malkani K. R The Politics of Ayodhya
48. ^Quoted by Mushirul Hasan in Anatomy of Confrontation edited Gopal Sarvapalle, Zed Books, London 1991
49. ^India Today, 31 December 1992
50. ^Malkani K.R. The Politics of Ayodhya
51. ^Ibid
52. ^Quoted by Noorani AR in Legal Aspects to the Issue. published in Anatomy of Confrontation, edited by Gopal Savepall Zed Books, London 1991
53. ^Graham B. D. Hindu Nationalism and Indian Politics
54. ^TuIly, Mark and Jackb Satish Amritsar, Mrs Gandhi’s Last Battle, Jonathan Cape, London 1985
55. ^Ali Tariq, The Nehrus and the Gandhis, Picador, London 1991
56. ^TuIly, Mark and Jackb Satish Amritsar, Mrs Gandhi’s Last Battle, Jonathan Cape, London 1985
57. ^Akbar M.J. India Tile Siege Within Penguins Books, London 1985
58. ^India Today 31 January 1991 
59. ^Sunday 27 December 1992