Much has rightly been written and spoken on the abject failure of the institutions of secular India over the years in containing the forward quick-march of militant Hindutva from 1986 onwards; from the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992 to the point where we have now arrived: A de facto Hindu Rashtra. But little has been written or said about the failure of the Muslim religious and political leadership in reading the writing on the wall and seizing a window of opportunity it was provided well before the centuries-old mosque was reduced to rubble and the subsequent anti-Muslim violence (Bombay 1992-93, Gujarat 2002).
In September 1991, as the conflict over Ayodhya was headed towards the abyss, Parliament passed the Places of Worship (Special Provisions), Act 1991. Supported by all political parties except the BJP and the Shiv Sena, the new law stipulated that with the exception of the ongoing Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute pending in court, “the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day… No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof”.
A month later, in October 1991, I wrote an article that was published by the Sunday Observer (now non-existent) under the heading: “Why Muslims must now gift away the masjid”. My main argument was this. The Sangh Parivar’s agenda was not limited to a mosque in Ayodhya. Ayodhya was just a station on the way; Hindu Rashtra the final destination. The real battle was between two radically opposed ideas of India: Secular India or Hindu Rashtra? Couching the same as a Hindu-Muslim conflict works to the great advantage of the Sangh Parivar. Muslims, I urged, should not fall in this trap. Sadly, the community’s leadership did precisely that.
Based on my conversations with a cross-section of ordinary Muslims, I had argued that the community’s leadership should grab the opportunity provided by the 1991 Act. As a return gesture, it should unilaterally relinquish its claim to the disputed site, gift it to the government of India with the plea that a grand Ram Mandir be built there with the blessings and under the guidance of non-communal Hindu seers. This, I believed, would earn for Muslims enormous goodwill among millions of ordinary Hindus, would halt, even reverse, the growing communalisation of the majority community.
For writing what I did, I was slammed both by my non-Muslim secular friends as by many Muslims. “The Babri Masjid belongs to secular India, not just to Muslims. Who are you to talk of gifting it away?” fumed the former. The latter claimed the Sangh Parivar was talking of liberating 3,000 mosques: “If we concede one today, tomorrow they will ask for all the remaining”.
Had my suggestion found favour, a magnificent temple in the name of Maryada Purush Bhagwan Ram could well have been built in Ayodhya long ago with the active participation of Indian Muslims. In doing so, they could have recalled the century-old poem of poet-philosopher Muhammad Iqbal: Hai Ram ke wajud pe Hindustan ko naaz/Ahl-e-nazr samajhte hain unko Imam-e-Hind (India proudly proclaims Ram as its own/The knowledgeable recognise him as India’s Imam).
Iqbal is not the only one. Non-sectarian Muslims have for long cited a verse from the Quran which says that Allah has sent his messengers to every country and nation at different times in history. How then could a country as large as India be an exception?
The Muslim leadership could have relied on contemporary examples from Saudi Arabia where mosques have often been demolished over time “in the public interest”. Some Muslims had even procured a fatwa at the time from a Saudi religious head in support of such an act. But Syed Shahabuddin (who resigned from the Indian Foreign Service to enter politics) and Imam Bukhari of Delhi’s Shahi Jama Masjid, leaders of the two competing Babri Masjid Action Committees and their band of followers opted for a head-on confrontation with those leading the Ramjanmabhoomi Andolan. A week before my article was published, newspapers across the country had splashed a photograph in which Shahabuddin is seen, all smiles, beside the sword-wielding, pro-Khalistan Simranjit Singh Mann. How would this image have been received even by non-communal Hindus?
Having prevailed over the Rajiv Gandhi government (also 1986) in the Shah Bano matter — precedence to shariah over the law of the land — little did they realise that the Sangh Parivar would turn this “Muslim victory” on its head. If faith is above the law of the land for the minority community, why not the faith of the Hindu majority?
I can do no better today than to copy-paste here the concluding paragraph of my 1991 article: “Hitherto, Muslims have fought for the retention of the Ayodhya mosque under the banner of the Babri Masjid Movement Co-ordination Committee. If only the Muslims could demonstrate the capacity for generosity and political sagacity, tomorrow’s battles against Hindu theocracy could be fought on a very different terrain — under a secular, national banner, with Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians fighting side by side. If only Muslims were to seize the initiative that today clearly lies in their hands”.
Had Muslims seized the initiative then, we all would likely be living in a different India today.
The writer is convener, Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy and co-editor, Sabrang India online
The eccentricities of tide-poolingPremium Story
Main Atal Hoon movie review: Pankaj Tripathi nails Atal BihariPremium Story
Abraham Verghese on his new Kerala-based colonial-era epicPremium Story
Anyone But You movie is a bland romedyPremium Story
Making sense of 2023 through Indian writersPremium Story
'Delulu is the solulu': Can faking it till you makePremium Story
Indian Police Force is all surface, minimal depthPremium Story
Rise of DINKs: Why more couples are now opting forPremium Story
In The Beekeeper, Jason Statham returns in a stinging actionerPremium Story
Had Muslims seized the initiative then, we all would likely be living in a different India today
25
13
20.01.2024
Much has rightly been written and spoken on the abject failure of the institutions of secular India over the years in containing the forward quick-march of militant Hindutva from 1986 onwards; from the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992 to the point where we have now arrived: A de facto Hindu Rashtra. But little has been written or said about the failure of the Muslim religious and political leadership in reading the writing on the wall and seizing a window of opportunity it was provided well before the centuries-old mosque was reduced to rubble and the subsequent anti-Muslim violence (Bombay 1992-93, Gujarat 2002).
In September 1991, as the conflict over Ayodhya was headed towards the abyss, Parliament passed the Places of Worship (Special Provisions), Act 1991. Supported by all political parties except the BJP and the Shiv Sena, the new law stipulated that with the exception of the ongoing Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute pending in court, “the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day… No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof”.
A month later, in October 1991, I wrote an article that was published by the Sunday Observer (now non-existent) under the heading: “Why Muslims must now gift away the masjid”. My main argument was this. The Sangh Parivar’s........
© Indian Express
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
