Dear Sir -

Thank you so much for the work you, or whoever took the pain to type the text out, took in making this series of posts available online!

However, I must ask - would it be possible to put up Chapter 3 of this book? All the others have been uploaded.

It is with enormous difficulty that I have been searching for this text across both the internet and various libraries in my city. The text has been prescribed at the college level, and it is simply unavailable to students whether to purchase or to
access online (aside from this string of posts).

I hope this message reaches you, else the students shall have to make do with the material I have, with much gratitude.

Thank you,

--
The Seeker



On Friday, September 2, 1994 at 5:07:48 AM UTC+5:30, Vipul Kashyap wrote:

2

READING THE MIND OF
INDIAN MUSLIMS

The previous article was a brief review of the problem of Indian
Muslims and its solution. i have described the symptoms of a disease
and outlined its treatment without naming the disease as such. One of
the reasons for doing so was to focus attention on certain aspects of
the problem at the very outset. I also wanted to show how certain
pitfals cannot be avoided when one begins to discuss a problem from
the end to the beginning. My main reason, however, was to invite my
Muslim frieds to do some necessary critical introspection so that they
might start the discussion in a frank and systematic manner.
It is my experience that the arguments of Muslims leaders always
sound like the arguments of defence attorneys in a court of law. In a
court of law the lawyer's sole interest is to win his case. The
argument is addressed to a judge, who is a third party and who gives
his verdict in the end. If a lawyer defending an alleged murderer
argues the defendant's case effectively, his client is acquitted even
if he in fact is a murderer. The sole emphasis in this kind of
argument is on convincing the judge. Muslim leaders in India argue in
much the same manner. One does not know whether they expect some
judge to give a favourable verdict in the end. For instance, most
Muslim leaders in India advance the old argument that Muslims were not responsible for partition, and even argue that Hindus alone were
responsible for it. Of course, there can be different arguments as
to who really was more responsible for partition but it is factually
wrong to suggest that Muslims were not responsible for partitioning
the sub-continent. When Muslims say this, they do not want to claim
merely that they were not responsible for partition. Their claim is
much larger; they want to claim that it was not the Muslims who
demanded the partitioning of the sub-continent.
History provides some clues to the strange behaviour and arguments
of Indian Muslim leaders. Indian Muslims always tried to impose their
own demands on Hindus with the help of the British, who were a third
party in the position of a judge. It was enough for the Muslims to
have presented effective arguments to the British. If one recalls the
entire history of the efforts made to solve the Hindu-Muslim problem,
one can easily verify this. It was Muslim leaders who obstinately
held that the Hindus should not be granted freedom unless Muslim
demands were met. When they saw that the judgement in this dispute
was to be given by a third party, they tried to tilt the balance in
their own favour even by resorting to an unscrupulous and fallacious argument, and the Hindus who were eager for independence conceded
their demand. It is not important to discuss how the third party
arrived at its verdict. The important thing is to remember the
historical fact that the Myuslims got their verdict from a third
party. They never even paused to consider that the real decision was
to be taken by the Muslims themselves in collaaboration with the
Hindu majority. They looked at the dispute as if it was matter of
litigation and could never think of the possibility of a compromise.
In short, Indian Muslims committed the most grievous sin of
obstructing the movement for Indian independence. They took undue
advantage of the presence of a third party. They refused to arrive at
a compromise with the Hindus. Muslims in the entire sub-continent
were responsible for this. But there is an important difference
between Indian and Pakistani Muslims. Muslims in Pakistan did not
have to face the consequences of this wrong-headed agitation. In fact
if the agitation were to succeed, it would be of benefit to them.
And therefore, it must be said that Pakistani Muslims deliberately
took a wrong step the consequences of which were to be suffered by
Muslims who were to remain in India.

But Indian Muslims have committed an even worse sin. They not
only relied on a third party but also participated in a movement which
aimed at creating a separate nation comprising all provinces which had
a Muslim majority. In short, in order to solve their own problems,
Indian Muslims as a whole came to an understanding with the British as
well as with the Muslim majority provinces; and they refused to make
any compromise with Hindus.
What was the nature of this understanding? To solve our problems,
argued the Muslims in the sub-continent, a sovereign and independent
state comprising provinces with a Muslim majority had to be created.
In this new state Hindus should be in a minority. That way only, they further argued, would Muslims in India have security. This argument
is known as the hostage theory. In the middle ages the cruel and
inhuman practice of holding human beings as hostages was quite common.
It is tragic that Muslims in the sub-continent resorted to this old
practice to solve their problem.
` But the interesting thing is that while Pakistan needed some
Hindus at least as hostages she did not even keep a sizeable number of
them in her territory though the subcontinent was partitioned only
because Muslims decided to experiment with the theory of hostages. At
the time, several observers had warned that this theory wouyld create
a problem of minorities in both India and Pakistan and that in both
countries politics would be centered on vengeance wreaked on the
minorities. A prominent Muslim intellectual had issued this warning
in a book published before partition. Shaukatulla Ansari, at present Governor of Orissa, in his "Pakistan-A Problem of India" published in
1944, has made a very significant observation. He predicted that if
the sub-continent were to be partitioned, it would be partitioned in
an atmosphere of bitter hostility which would last for generations and
would be difficult to eliminate. All of us are witness to the
accuracy of his prophecy.
Muslims in India agreed to remain in India as hostages in
accordance with the theory propounded by the Muslim League. Why
should Indian Muslims complain about it now? Do they say now that
this entire theory was wrong? No; their only complaint is that Hindus
have started implementing the theory. They are not worried whether
Hindus are themselves unhappy about the theory. Their only demand in
that the theory should not affect themselves. All Muslim leaders
following the theory demand that there should be no anti-Muslim riots
in India. If one asked them any question about the fate of Hindus in Pakistan, they would dismiss it. I have already observed that among
Indian Muslims there still is no liberal class whose members would
take an honest and just view of things. It is sufficient for Muslim
leaders in India to argue that Hindus in Pakistan are not treated in
an unjust manner. If one points to instances of injustice done to
Hindus in Pakistan, Indian Muslim leaders have a ready answer. They
would say that it is a problem of Pakistan with which they are hardly concerned. On the other hand, they would criticize the questioner for raising an issue which has to do with Pakistan and not with
themselves.
The question which arises here is: Why do indian Muslims make the obviously false claim that Pakistan Hindus are treated with due
justice? And why did Indian Muslims earlier refuse to rely on the
conscience of Hindus to get full justice for themselves? I shall
begin with the first question. Those who claim that Hindus in
Pakistan get due justice assume that this entire problem is still a
case pending trial in a court. They still imagine, perhaps quite
honestly but no doubt unrealistically, that if they argue forcefully
enough there still is a third party to give them a verdict in their
favour. They do not see the plain fact that the third party has
already left the sub-continent and that, in India, it is replaced by
the defendant in the case. Now the judge's position is occupied by
Hindus. If it is justice that the Indian Muslims expect, they have to
win the confidence and goodwill of the Hindu majority. Do these
Muslim leaders honestly believe that arguments like those of lawyers
in a court of law are going to secure justice for them? But they
refuse to look at this problem in a sober and realistic manner. For
they still believe that a third party is going to judge their case and
that all they need to win their case is an effective argument, however fallacious it may be, coupled with the right amount of pressure. They
do not clearly name who the third party in the judge's position is
today. But one need not go very deep to find out what is fairly
obvious: Indian Muslim leaders believe that in their dispute with the majority in India. Pakistan is the third party occupying the position
of the judge.
I must say that the leaders who think so are still living in the pre-Independence age. Some months ago, I had an opportunity of
meeting Dr A. J. Faridi, leader of the Majlis-e-Mashawarat. Dr Faridi
claims to have a balanced view of things. He also believes that one
ought to point out the mistakes committed by Indian Muslims. But it
is an interesting experience to discuss this issue with Dr Faridi.
Once one enters into an argument with him, Dr Faridi has the knack of
evading the very principles he himself professes. For example, when I
asked him why Hindus were driven out of West Pakistan, Dr Faridi came
up with the fantastic answer justice that if Vallabhbhai Patel had not
sent planes to bring them back the West Pakistani Hindus would not
have come back to India at all. in short, Dr Faridi is against any
injustice done to anyone. In that respect he is a perfect secularist.
But if one choose to go into factual details about the injustice done
to Pakistani Hindus, Dr Faridi would categorically assert that there
had never been any act of injustice towards them. On top of this, Dr
Faridi is always ready to declare that he would protest the moment he
learns that there has been any injustice done to Hindus in Pakistan.
However, Dr Faridi always insists on being `convinced' and, as one
might guess, it is very difficult to convince Dr Faridi.
Let us now consider some ot the views of Mr Mohammad Ismail
President of the All-India Muslim League. In an interview given to
U.N.I. before the last general elections, Mr Mohammad Ismail said, "If
I am convinced that the Hindus of Pakistan are ill-treated or that
they are forcibly converted to Islam I would not hesitate to criticize Pakistan. For Islam does not permit such injustice." In short, Mr
Mohammad Ismail is always prepared to say that if Pakistan ever
treated her Hindus badly he would consider it to be a very wrong
thing. The real question therefore is of determining empirically
whether Pakistan really does so. It is a question of assessing plain
facts. it is the responsibility of whoever argues with Mr Mohammad
Ismail to convince him that it is a fact that Pakistan treats her
Hindus unjustly. Once he is able to convince Mr Mohammad Ismail
about the truth of this proposition, the rest follows quite easily.
As soon as he is convinced, one would find Mr Mohammad Ismail
unsheathing his sword and brandishing it against Pakistan. But wait!
Nothing of this sort is really going to happen. For even if Pakistan
does in fact treat her Hindu population badly, to convince Mr Mohammad
Ismail of it is not an easy job. In fact, Mr Mohammad Ismail has
decided not to be convinced on this point by anyone.
When Mr Shri Prakasa was indian high Commissioner in Pakistan he
had a very significant experience at Karachi. In this book "Birth of Pakistan", Mr Sri Prakasa has noted the following incident: In one
place a Hindu temple was broken into. Mr Sri Prakasa brought this to
the notice of a Crntral Minister of Pakistan. He urged the Miniser to
give police protection to the temple. But the Minister refused to do
so. What he said is quite memorable. He said, "Islam has given us
the notion of perfect justice. How, in the circumstances, can a
temple be broken into at all? Such a thing is unthinkable in an
Islamic state."! Mr Sri Prakasa was obviously flabbergasted. It was
a fact that the temple was broken into, but an Islamic state is
always perfectly just. And all Muslim leaders would readily point to
the idea of justice in Islam whenever such allegations are made. They
do not find it necessary to go into the facts of the matter. If there
is any injustice done to the Hindus in Pakistan, it would be a
verifiable proposition. But if facts are different from the claims to perfect justice made by an `Islamic justice', Muslims do not use the criteria used for verifying facts by ordinary people. When they do injustice, they apply the canons of `Islamic Justice'. When injustice
is done to themselves they would demand justice by universally
accepted principles and would demand an application of the universal
criteria of evidence. As to themselves, since Koranic justice is
supposed to be equitably applied in an Islamic state, Muslim leaders
believe that an Islamic state is always just. It is only others who
err. Therefore, outside the Islamic state, Muslim leaders insist on
the universally accepted principles of evidence and inference. Such
are the double standards they apply.
Can Pakistan ever hope to get a better lawyer than Mr Mohammad
Ismail? However, Mr Mohammad Ismail would never admit that he pleads
on behalf of Pakistan. Perhaps it does not even occur to him. There
are a number of similar examples. When questioned, these Muslim
leaders indignantly claim that they are one hundred per cent Indian,
that have fully identified themselves with the aspirations of this
nation, and that they regard the Hindu majority in India as their fellow-citizens. What, however can one make of these claims when they
are seen in juxtaposition with the actual behavious of Muslim leaders
and the opinions they frequently express? Even while they claim to be perfect nationalists, Muslim leaders advance arguments to support the Pakistani claim on Kashmir. In the same way, they argue that all
Pakastini infiltrators in Assam are in fact Indian Muslims. It
follows that they do not believe in any rules to determine
citizenship. They are prepared to go to any absurd length to argue
that Pakistani infiltrators are in fact Indians. At the same time,
they admit that all Pakistani infiltrators should on principle, be
evicted from India. They claim that they have no quarrel with Hindus
as such; and yet at the same time they issue religious rescripts
objecting to the recitation of the Koran after Nehru's death on the
ground that such a recitation is not permitted by the side of the dead
body of a kafir. They want Dr Zakir Husain to be the President of
India. However, they are quick to point out that it is unbecoming of
a good Muslim to take the oath of office in Hindi or to obtain a
benediction from the Shankaracharya. While justifying the creation of Pakistan, they would also argue that they have nothing to do with
Pakistan which is a foreign country like any other. They compete
with one another to vouch for the peaceful intentions of Pakistan.
Who is responsible for disturbing the peace in the sub-continent?
Their answer is ready: it is the mistakes of the Indian leadership
that have created all the trouble that exists in the sub-continent.
Indian leaders according to these Muslims have never been recounciled
to the creation of Pakistan and hence they bear animoisty towards that country. Pakistan quarrels with India over Kashmir. Once Kashmir is
handed over to Pakistan these people argue, there would be no quarrel.
It is obvious, they feel, that India has created hostility with
Pakistan by not giving up Kashmir.
I would like to point out that these views extend to even further extremes. There is an organisation of Indian Muslims known as the Jamaat-e-Islami. The objective of this organisation is to establish
an Islamic State in India. Margdeep, the Marathi organ of the party
once wrote, "Religious conflicts in India are not likely to be
resolved easily. Only when all Indians embrace a single religion,,
religious conflicts in India would end."
If one tries to view the inconsistencies in the views of Muslim
leaders quoted earlier in the light of the above quotation from
Margdeep, it will be obvious that Muslim leaders are engaged in a
gigantic jehad-a holy war-against Hindus. this war would be over only
when all Indians have embraced Islam. to achieve this objective,
Muslim leaders are prepared to indulge in all kinds of acrobatics. It
is quite true that they regard themselves as Indians. For they look
forward to ruling the entire nation.
Why did Muslims demand Pakistan? The answer is obvious. Muslims
believe that their community is a separate nation. Why did they
follow Jinnah? This too is obvious. Jinnah's anti-Hindu views
attracted them. In this context, one ought to remember that as long
as Jinnah had not propounded his two nation theory Muslims did not
accept him as their leader. The reason for all this are quite clear.
Muslims were fiercely anti-Hindu. As soon as Jinnah inflamed their
communal passions. Muslims supported him. The passion proved to be so consuming that Indian Muslims failed to see its simple consequence
which would turn them into a minority everywhere in India.
However it must be pointed out that the support of Indian Muslims
to the creation of Pakistan was not entirely based on emotional
frenzy. It was also based on the theory of hostages. At the same
time, Indian Muslims believed that India would eventually be ruled by
Islam. The creation of Pakistan was only the first step towards an integrated Islamic state in India. One has only to recall Jinnah's tactics for the
creation of Pakistan to see this point. he tried to induce the
princely States in Rajasthan to join Pakistan. He tried to get
Junagadh merged with Pakistan. He instigated Hyderabad to rebel
against India. His propaganda that riots took place in India alone disregarded its consequence in Pakistan itself. What did the Muslims expectg? They expected Hyderabad to become independent. They
expected Bhopal to follow. Junagadh had already joined Pakistan.
Kashmir had a Muslim majority and would therefore naturally go to
Pakistan. They expected all princely States to refuse to join India
and to proclaim their own independence. They predicted balkanization
of India, from which Muslims would eventually benefit. These hopes
were later proved to have been false. Sardar Patel merged the
princely States within the Indian Union and thus shattered their
hopes. This is why Muslim leaders hate Sardar Patel. One can easily understand why Dr. Faridi insists that it was Patel who brought Hindus
from Pakistan to India.
In my opinion, Muslim society still mentally lives in the
pre-partition world. I would like to cite another personal
experience. Sometimes ago, I visited Agra where i met a few educated
Muslim youths. I asked them only one question: "Today you complain
that Hindus are suspicious of you. I think this is an inevitable
consequence of the creation of Pakistan. Why did the educated Indian
Muslims in India fall to see the terrible consequence of partition?"
These young men came up with a significant answer. They said: "We
would have remained a permanent minority in India. A nation is
governed by the whims of the majority. We would have been utterly
helpless." In fact, Indian Muslims are even today a minority. If any
thing, they are such a smaller minority now than before partition.
But when Indian Muslims express the views mentioned above, they
believe that they have freed themselved from Hindu domination. One
can understand such views if they are expressed by Pakistani Muslims. However, one finds that views which might be expected to be voiced by Pakistani Muslims. However, one finds that views which might be
expected to be voiced by Pakistani Muslims are in fact voiced by
Indian Muslims. The reason is painfully obvious. Indian Muslims
still regard themselves as Pakistanis, and they believe that their emancipation has been ensured by the creation of Pakistan. They
expect Pakistan to deliver them fully someday. And therefore they
indulge in fallacious and hypocritical arguments. Those who cannot
resort to such arguments simply blame the Hindus for injustice done to themselves.
In sum, Muslims cannot reconcile themselves with the nationalism
of any country where they are in a minority. They wanted Pakistan
because they feared to remain a permanent minority, and they also knew
that the creation of Pakistan would not solve the problem of Muslims
in this sub-continent. A Muslim periodical recently observed that
while partition had solved the problem of some Indian Muslims, the
problem of other Indian Muslims, the problem of other Indian Muslims
was yet to be solved. Mr Suhrawardy said in a speech after partition
that partition had solved the problem only of Muslims in Pakistan. It
was necessary he said, to tackle the problem of Indian Muslims. And a
little before this he had observed in a public meeting in Calcutta,
"Is Pakistan our last demand? I will not try to answer this question;
but I can say, that is our latest demand." Each time the latest
demand would be a new one. One might ask, "Which is the last demand?"
It is obvious that the last demand is going to be Assam and then for a corridor to link the two wings of Pakistan. I hope my readers are
familiar with Mr Bhutto's views in this direction. Those Indian
Muslim leaders who loudly proclaim that they have nothing to do with
Pakistan should have assailed Mr Bhutto. However, it is significant
that none of them uttered so much as a word of protest against Mr
Bhutto's statements.
What, according to the Muslims, is the solution to the problem of
Muslims in India? It seems that the only solution which occurs to
them is the establishment of an Islamic state in India. The
Jamaat-e-Islami has already a programme to achieve this objective.
And what if they fail to achieve it? They they would seek to
establish within the sovereign state of India a sovereign Islamic
society. This idea of a state within a state, and a society within a society, appeals to them. One has only to take a look at the
nine-point programme of the Majlis-e-Mashawarat to know this. The
Mashawarat has demanded that the Indian Parliament should have no
power to legislate in matters concerning Indian Muslims. Salahuddin
Oweisi, a member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly has in
fact publicly suggested, "There should be a separate Muslims state
within each state of India."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)