Ayodhya, Hindu Muslim etcetera

I know that any blog on sensitive issues is dangerous. It might result in losing friends and alienating people. However it is time to be a little bold.

There have been many views on the Ayodhya judgment. Most heaved a sigh of relief calling it a balanced judgment. Hindus are predictably happy as they stand vindicated. Muslims are not happy, they feel further alienated in a Hindu dominated society. Many Muslim intellectuals decried the judgment calling it biased and unfair. Many Hindu intellectuals have done the same (i.e. calling the judgment biased and unfair and decrying it, esp. the acceptance of Ram's legitimacy).

I have no opinion on the judgment or on the core issue. It is pointless to assume as all the intellectuals seem to assume that Hindus and Muslims can be bhai bhais, that there is no problem between them. On the other hand it is prudent to accept that the relationship is mired with problems for the past thousand years, and then try to see what can be done to address the problem.

First, the nature of the problem -

Muslims (or at least a section of Muslims) have never accepted the fact that they are now dominated culturally by the same people whom they dominated for nearly 500 years. This lack of acceptance was partly responsible for the two nation theory and partition. Post 1992, the feeling has increased because Muslims have become increasingly insecure and protective about even minor incursions into what are known as Islamic values, culture and ideals - in short the religious and social practices. It is not a local phenomena, but is a worldwide phenomena. Backlashes are also prevalent across the globe, esp. in Europe. This is evident through the rejection of "multiculturalism" by Germany (read Turkish culture, as German culture is anyway predominant in Germany), call for ban of Burkas in France and Italy, rise of the Neo Nazis and extreme rights, coining of the derogatory term "Paki" which is applied to all South East Asians in general regardless of their origin.

Hindus on the other hand always perceived that despite being a numerical majority they got a raw deal as the so called minorities always dictated terms, be in political space or intellectual discourses and writings. So what began as a "backlash" soon became a right to be assertive.

The feelings on both sides are nurtured and nourished by the community leaders, political class, intellectuals and the media. By attacking one and overlooking the deficiencies of others, by resorting to vote bank politics, by simply "hating" a particular ideology, by refusing to be tolerant and yet preaching tolerance these sections do their best to further increase the chasm. And the menace of global terrorism, riots, sustained campaigns by media in hunt of sensational stories further fuel the apprehensions of both Hindus and Muslims and make them even more defensive, so much so that the people who would have probably in ideal situations taken a more balanced and pragmatic view of the situations became intolerant and outright hostile. This is further evident in Kashmir, which was one of the most tolerant regions of India even 50 years back.Now it is virulently intolerant. Some blame it on the Pakistan's influence, others on the growing dominance of the Wahabism over Sufism. Whatever be the reason the fact remains that there is widespread discontent and disharmony.

Problem no 2  is Disbalance in terms of approach and belief. Whatever one set does the other set expects an equal commitment, when that is lacking it leads to discontentment. Hindus do not get a subsidy from Government to visit religious places while minorities do, nobody in their sane mind would propose a religious subsidy to Hindus as that would mean political harakiri. Minority run institutions enjoy special privileges while Hindu run institutions don't. In the 1980s Ramakrishna Mission embraced a controversy because the Marxists conveniently created problems for mission run institutions, through labour movements and non coperation of the Jyoti Basu run state government. Mission wanted to get minority status in order to protect the institution sovereignty which is enjoyed only by the minorities. That was a desparate attempt no doubt but it shows the partisan approach in a so called secular country. Liberal Hindus often consider and rever Islamic prophets and men of god ( need to look into the crowd which visits the Sufi shrines or Dargas). A reciprocity of similar nature is considered as a blasphemy in Islam and no Islamic scholar or Maulana of sane mind would even consider praising a Hindu holy man or god or scripture. So the chasm is wide enough and there are many hawks and doves on either side to further widen it.

There is a need today of the level headed pragmatists from both sides (not the so called secularists though, because they tend to add fuel to the fire) to come forward , putting aside all prejudices, communal feelings, and hostilities and try to understand each other. Mutual understanding is the first step towards acceptance. One of the greatest persons in Hinduism who understood Islam was Swami Vivekananda. He always preached on the positive sides of Islam - the universal brotherhood, the piousness and adhering to rules, and called it 'Vedanta in practice'. He also dreamt of an India with a Hindu brain and Islamic body, implying an India based on the great principles of Vedanta and its practical form. There are many Hindus who subscribe to those values and they have no problem in accepting a liberal and tolerant Islam as their near and dear one.

Similarly there were great Islamic scholars like Dr. Syed Muztafa Ali who understood the core principles of Hinduism very well and there are still several scholars in Islam who does so but nevertheless whose voice is not heard in the frenzy of the intolerants, fundamentalists, secularists and leftists.

Let these persons come forward and extend their hands of friendship. Thats the first step towards mutual understanding.