My friend Saif Ahmad Khan has written a piece (http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2013/04/indias-islamophobic-icons/) alleging how these great national icons of India (as also Patel and Ambedkar, but I won?t venture into discussing ?these two personalities, and I? accept his point of view on these two) were prejudiced against his Muslim community, and I was surprised to see this, for I have no doubt about Saif?s secular, progressive and nationalist credentials (and this strongly worded refutation in this piece is not in the least meant personally). He has relied on some of the quotations of those historical figures, but has perhaps not seen many many others. Perhaps he doesn?t realize that half-truths can prove to be more dangerous than lies. His biased piece (though I believe not deliberately so) has the potential to make Hindus lean towards being anti-Muslim and Muslims lean towards being anti-Hindu, and in the context of Indian Muslims, even make them lean in favour of being anti-national. The piece can even help Pakistanis in engaging in anti-India propaganda (though this is not to suggest that I am classifying all Pakistanis as anti-India propagandists; on the contrary, readers may refer to this piece of mine-http://wordpress-200526-602825.cloudwaysapps.com//do-we-know-enough-about-the-pakistani-liberals/), but the counter-argument can be that the truth must be told, but he perhaps doesn’t realize that this is a biased, one-sided picture of the truth, not the truth holistically. In fact, he has, though I’m sure not deliberately, quoted statements out of context, just like Islamists (Islamism is not to be equated with Islam, just like Hindutva and Zionism can’t be equated with Hinduism and Judaism respectively) and Islam-bashers quote Quranic verses out of context. The comments, however, hardly headed in the right direction, with someone questioning whether the Islamic world had made any worthwhile contributions in the sphere of science and technology (I wonder how that had any relevance to the topic at hand, but here?s an answer to him – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt5RMZCNiKc, Top 10 Muslim Inventions, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sa-aiyar/swaminomics/Lessons-from-Samarkand-for-madrasas/articleshow/2549012.cms and http://www.scribd.com/doc/522630/Muslim-Scientists) and someone else rightly pointed out that only presenting a critique of Islam doesn?t justify that person being branded an Islam-hater and he appealed to non-Muslims to not hate Muslims, but he got carried away quoting a website presenting a distorted interpretation of the Quran, which suggests that the peaceful verses disappear towards the end of the book, though the Quranic verse ?you unto your religion, me unto mine? (109:6) actually appears towards the end of the book.
Saif has been an ardent critic of Muslim communalism as much as he is of Hindu communalism as these pieces – http://saifahmadkhan.wordpress.com/tag/hate-speech/ ? and http://saifahmadkhan.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/hinduphobia-among-misguided-muslims/ – demonstrate, but the piece I am rebutting seems to suggest that only Muslims are victims of prejudice and it is inappropriate to blame Muslims for the partition of the country or for terrorism. Well, it is a fact that the Muslim League did partition this country, and though Gandhi, Nehru and Patel made some errors of judgment, and the Hindu Mahasabha too had been responsible for fermenting communal hatred, the primary blame must lie on Jinnah. This is an interesting chapter of our history, on which I should perhaps dedicate another piece, but let me say this ? the fact is that most Muslims then supported Jinnah?s Muslim League and it was only a minority that supported the Congress, looking up to leaders like Gandhi, Nehru and Maulana Azad.
As for terrorism, it is true that there have been non-Muslim terrorists in India and abroad, about whom I have written in some detail in this article-http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2013/03/anti-muslim-prejudices-is-it-fair-to-associate-muslims-with-terrorism-or-vice-versa-part-7/, but for the acts of terrorism committed by Muslims, whether in India or abroad, the blame must be put on those Muslim perpetrators, though not the entire Muslim community or Islam as a faith, and as for those advocating ludicrous conspiracy theories (and I very well know that Saif is not one of them), I may just cite this video of the eminent Pakistani journalist Nadeem Paracha – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bYcKNTwkMM. In fact, even Saif’s video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=787H1xsWiKY – can be cited in this connection!
And though I would like to believe that the Muslims in present-day India are loyal to the country and I know for a fact that a very large number of them indeed are (including thousands serving in our military and paramilitary forces), I also know for a fact that there are many who are not (and some of these fellows burst crackers on Pakistan?s victory in Indo-Pak cricket matches, and the more extreme among them are members of terror outfits like the Indian Mujahidin, some of whom have been proved guilty and convicted in courts of law, and having said that, I equally strongly condemn mass murders of Muslims by Hindu extremists), something even their co-religionists concede; so, unfortunately, I cannot, as an Indian, accept Muslims in general ?as patriotic citizens of the land without any skepticism? as Saif would like us to. Far too many Indian Muslims, including educated ones, are more concerned with the fate of the Muslim ummah than the fate of India, as is visible on online intra-Muslim discussion forums (though there are also far too many Hindus on similar forums hurling the crassest of abuses against Islam and Muslims, and their conception of loyalty to India only extends to this; they never discuss what?s right and wrong with our laws or economic policies, and if they do, it?s only in the context of bashing political parties in opposition to the BJP and Shiv Sena, and mostly, it?s the Congress that they bash) and it is, therefore, no wonder that hate-mongering Muslim politicians like the Owaisi brothers speak the language of concern for the ummah ?under threat from Hindus, Jews and Western powers (and this is not to suggest that the language adopted by Hindutva hate-mongers annoys me any less).
Also, Saif, it seems, is trying to write off the issues of Muslims? self-ghettoization and exaggerated portrayals of victimhood. These are facts that liberal Muslims like him should be vocal against and not write off as non-existent!
Now, I shall straight away deal with each of these personalities cited by Saif (barring Patel and Ambedkar) one by one and clarify that he has mentioned half-truths.
1) Swami Vivekananda – An effective counter to Saif?s allegations has been given by me in this piece – http://wordpress-200526-602825.cloudwaysapps.com//misuse-of-swami-vivekananda-by-extreme-elements-in-the-saffron-brigade/.
2) Rabindranath Tagore ? Though in the context of Vivekananda, Saif has mentioned that he did acknowledge that all religions were true and he has mentioned such clarifications for other leaders he has mentioned (like Gandhi and Nehru), he has surprisingly overlooked Tagore?s appeal for humanism (this philosophy has been beautifully explained on this Islamic site – http://newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/hiranmay-karlekar/the-philosophy-of-harmony/d/7377).
Saif cites a letter written by Tagore in which he mentions Christianity and Islam as religions belligerent to other faiths, seeking to take everyone else in their fold. While there may be an undertone of bitterness in what Tagore said, it is a fact that Christianity and Islam are proselytizing religions, and as a Hindu, Tagore may not have liked this fact about them, but that does not necessarily make him someone prejudiced against Christians or Muslims.
On the contrary, Tagore proudly proclaimed himself to be a product of ?three cultures, Hindu, Mohammedan and British? (it?s significant to note that in spite of his avowed opposition to British imperialism, which reflected in his opposition to the partition of Bengal and renunciation of his knighthood following the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, he told Indians to never let their contempt for British imperialism translate into hatred for the British civilization in totality) and he wanted the Hindus to be tolerant even to those Muslims who followed Sir Syed Ahmed Khan?s philosophy of loyalty to British rule (for disagreement? in the sphere of political opinion ?certainly did not them any less human), and repeatedly emphasized that humanism should be above Indian nationalism (I have cited this idea of his in this piece of mine – http://wordpress-200526-602825.cloudwaysapps.com//we-want-cameron-to-apologize-will-the-indian-state-apologize-for-its-own-crimes/). Amartya Sen, in his book The Argumentative Indian, pointing to how Tagore was a strong critic of chauvinistic nationalism and consistently emphasized in many of his writings that humanism must always override nationalism, writes ?
?As early as 1908, he put his position succinctly in a letter replying to the criticism of Abala Bose, the wife of a great Indian scientist, Jagadish Chandra Bose; ‘Patriotism cannot be our final spiritual shelter; my refuge is humanity.? I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds, and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live.?? His novel Ghare Baire (The Home and the World) has much to say about this theme.? In the novel, Nikhil, who is keen on social reform, including women?s liberation, but cool towards nationalism, gradually loses the esteem of his spirited wife, Bimla, because of his failure to be enthusiastic about anti-British agitations, which she sees as a lack of patriotic commitment.? Bimala becomes fascinated with Nikhil?s nationalist friend Sandip, who speaks brilliantly and acts with patriotic militancy, and she falls in love with him.? Nikhil refuses to change his views:? ?I am willing to serve my country; but my worship I reserve for Right which is far greater than my country.? To worship my country as a god is to bring a curse upon it.?
As the story unfolds, Sandip becomes angry with some of his countrymen for their failure to join the struggle as readily as he thinks they should (?some Mohammedan traders are still obdurate?).? He arranges to deal with the recalcitrants by burning their meager trading stocks and physically attacking them.? Bimla has to acknowledge the connection between Sandip?s rousing nationalistic sentiments and his sectarian ? and ultimately violent ? actions.? The dramatic events that follow (Nikhil attempts to help the victims, risking his life) include the end of Bimla?s political romance.
This is a difficult subject, and Satyajit Ray?s beautiful film of The Home and The World brilliantly brings out the novel?s tensions, along with the human affections and disaffections of the story.?
Tagore was sad about the deteriorating Hindu-Muslim relations. To quote him ?
?Some time ago this cleavage between Hindus and Muslims was hardly as pronounced as now.? We were so mingled together that we did not perceive our difference.?
He squarely criticized the Hindu communal chauvinists for provoking a similar counterpart from the Muslims in the following words –
?A day came when the Hindu started being conscious of the glory of Hinduhood.? He would no doubt have been highly pleased if the Muslim had then acknowledged his glory and kept quiet, but the Muslimhood of the Muslim started asserting itself for the same reason as the Hinduhood of the Hindu.?
I may further add that Rabindranath Tagore was a Brahmo Samajist, and his father Debendranath Tagore had been a prominent leader of the Samaj, the founder of which, Raja Rammohan Roy, was a great admirer of Christianity and Islam, for their opposition to idolatry and emphasis on human equality (for more on this, please see – http://books.google.co.in/books?id=E-rhlwKBYw0C&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=raja+rammohan+roy+islam&source=bl&ots=n3euadUYcc&sig=TzxPSXxQM0iutw71rIbAPl45uCo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k9iTUaGLNYW7kgWslIHABA&ved=0CHYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=raja%20rammohan%20roy%20islam&f=false).
Further, the final contention that will help me rest my case when it comes to Tagore. While many may not be aware, the song Vande Mataram has more stanzas than we sing as our ?national song?, and in later stanzas, the motherland is likened to Goddess Durga. Since Muslims strictly do not worship anyone other than Allah (which is similar for Jews and Christians in terms of only worshipping who they consider the one true God), in 1937, Tagore, in a letter addressed to Subhash Chandra Bose, who was then still in the Congress, stated the following, which clearly shows how much he respected Muslim religious sentiments –
?The core of Vande Mataram is a hymn to goddess Durga: this is so plain that there can be no debate about it. Of course Bankim Chandra does show Durga to be inseparably united with Bengal in the end, but no Muslim can be expected patriotically to worship the ten-handed deity as ‘Swadesh’ [the nation]. This year many of the special [Durga] Puja numbers of our magazines have quoted verses from Vande Mataram?proof that the editors take the song to be a hymn to Durga. The novel Anand Math is a work of literature, and so the song is appropriate in it. But Parliament is a place of union for all religious groups, and there the song cannot be appropriate. When Bengali Muslims show signs of stubborn fanaticism, we regard these as intolerable. When we too copy them and make unreasonable demands, it will be self-defeating.?
Further, in the same letter, he says ?
?Bengali Hindus have become agitated over this matter, but it does not concern only Hindus. Since there are strong feelings on both sides, a balanced judgment is essential. In pursuit of our political aims we want peace, unity and goodwill?we do not want the endless tug of war that comes from supporting the demands of one faction over the other.?
In fact, it was for this very reason that Vande Mataram was not chosen as the national anthem and those stanzas are not sung as part of the national song, though some Muslims and Christians still have a problem with the national song, owing to their repugnance to the idea of worshiping the motherland (something I have discussed in detail in the third last paragraph this article of mine – http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2013/02/anti-muslim-prejudices-clearing-the-historical-record-impartially-part-2/). But at least, the extracts of the letter I have cited prove beyond any doubt that Tagore was, by no means, anti-Muslim, especially considering that he had composed the music for that song, though he had not written its lyrics.
I must also point that Saif himself has referred to this letter in his recent video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alokrtlH7Bg ? and he was probably not aware of it when he wrote the piece I am refuting.
It may also be mentioned that Tagore?s song Amar Sonar Bangla has been chosen as the national anthem of Muslim-majority Bangladesh.
3) Jawaharlal Nehru ? Saif has acknowledged that on the whole, Nehru was secular, but Saif alleges that Nehru was not completely free from anti-Muslim prejudice, and this is something I strongly disagree with. Nehru?s commitment to secularism was total, and during the partition riots, he risked his life trying to protect Muslims in Delhi. He was as vocal a critic of the Hindu Mahasabha as of the Muslim League. In fact, he has even written in his autobiography published in the 1930s ? ?Muslim communal leaders said and did many things harmful to political and economic freedom, but as a group and individually they conducted themselves before the Government and the public with some dignity.? That could hardly be said of the Hindu communal leaders. ? And though I am as much against Hindu communalism as I am against Muslim communalism, I wonder if Nehru would have said the same thing in the late 1940s, when Jinnah was fanatically demanding Pakistan citing the most illogical and even inhuman contentions (he told the Cabinet Mission that Indian Muslims? and Pakistani Hindus? rights could be safeguarded by inflicting atrocities upon them if their co-religionists in the other country maltreated the minorities there ? this is certainly not a dignified position to take, nor was it dignified on Jinnah?s part to not shake Maulana Azad?s hand during the Cabinet Mission deliberations) and his followers even resorted to terrible mass murders (?direct action?) for the purpose.
Saif has described Nehru as somewhat prejudiced against Muslims, considering his (Nehru?s) usage of the word ?aggressive? (which may not always be synonymous with ?violent? in its most literal sense and is often used in a more metaphorical sense; consider usages like ?he aggressively markets his brand? or better still, to quote Nehru himself from his autobiography to understand his usage of the word ? ?Gandhiji, of course, continues to be a vital force whose non-violence is of a dynamic and aggressive character”) to describe Christianity and Islam (and in this context, both the religions, going by mainstream interpretations, very fervently advocate that they are, respectively, the only way to God), but that, by itself, doesn?t take us very far in classifying him as being prejudiced against Islam or Muslims.
In fact, in the context of the Crusades, Nehru writes in his autobiography that as much as he tried to examine them impartially, as an Asiatic, he always ended up being biased in favour of the Arabs!
Furthermore, Saif has quoted Nehru as saying that after the Turks and Mongols took over the mantle of Islam from the Arabs, Islam lost much of its intellectual stirring and was primarily misused for military conquest and also became more rigid in practice. This is something even Muslim and Islamophilic scholars accept, and this surely does not translate into hatred for Muslims.
Saif also points out that Nehru has also mentioned that the Muslims who came to India did not bring anything substantial in the spheres of polity, economy or science; again, this is indeed true. They did bring with themselves new languages that influenced indigenous ones (Urdu is a product of the confluence of Hindi, Persian and Turkish) and contributions to fine arts, architecture, cuisine and attire (something Nehru fully acknowledged and appreciated), but nothing substantial in the fields of polity, economics or science; this is a fact ? have we heard of any political economist like Chanakya or scientist like Arya Bhatt in the Sultanate or Mughal periods? (And I would assert that the achievements of ancient India are as much the heritage of Indian Muslims and Christians as the Hindus; if Iranian and Egyptian Muslims can take pride in their pre-Islamic heritage and Greeks in their pre-Christian heritage, there is no reason for South Asian Muslims and Christians to not do so, and a good many, in fact, do, not only in India but even Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and the Maldives.) So how does mentioning it make Nehru prejudiced against Muslims?
4) Mahatma Gandhi ? Saif acknowledges that the mahatma was an admirer of Prophet Muhammad (and I may add, the Quran; he knew the Arabic language and often read the Quran in its original text in that language), but accuses Gandhi of having made certain negative generalizations about Muslims as people. In this context, it is necessary to understand that Gandhi clarified time and again that Islam stood for peace and tolerance, and though many Muslims were aggressive, it was because of the sociological factor of a minority psychosis and as for Muslims of non-Indian ancestry, for having descended from nomadic warrior societies. Gandhi also said that the Sikhs were an aggressive lot for their own historical reasons, and going by history, even Christianity had a bloody record, but ?not because Jesus was found wanting, but because the environment in which it spread was not responsive to his lofty teaching?.
Gandhi did acknowledge that Islam had produced great soldiers of non-violence. In a speech he delivered at Calcutta (now Kolkata) to a gathering of Indian Christians, he made it a point to mention the following, even though it was not particularly warranted, since the speech was on Christianity and non-violence ?
?In my opinion, it is not true to say that Islam is a religion of the sword.? History does not bear that out.?
Some of Gandhi’s closest comrades happened to be devout Muslims like Maulana Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (the latter is known as Frontier Gandhi).
In fact, in Gandhi?s case, he continued to plead for peace between Hindus and Muslims till his last breath, and his very last fast, which was to be unto death, was to stop the killings of innocent Muslims in Delhi, and his prayer meetings included verses from the Quran in spite of protests by Hindu extremists. He did not abandon his tolerance, in spite of being aware of the threat to his life from Hindu (and Muslim) extremists, and it was his strong commitment to ensuring that Muslims who chose to stay back in India get their due that cost him his life, which was taken by a Hindu extremist, who, during his trial, accused Gandhi of being a Muslim-appeaser (Saif has strangely not even so much as acknowledged these facts). And yet again, I rest my case!
The author has written four short books, namely ‘Anti-Muslim Prejudices in the Indian Context’, ‘Women and Sport in India and the World ‘, ‘Onslaughts on Free Speech in India by Means of Unwarranted Film Bans’ and ‘The Right to Self-Determination of Pakistan’s Baloch’. He has been involved in making a television serial on the great freedom fighter Maulana Azad.
