Have Muslims been reduced to second-class citizens by the Indian state? Will they not be allowed to have basic civil and citizen rights as ordained by the Constitution of India? The recent controversy about wearing hijab within school premises is a pointer to what can happen if this tendency is not rebutted strongly.
This is also an indication that a section of society, under the patronage of state power, is hellbent on disenfranchising the Muslim community of its basic rights. Whether Muslim girls should be allowed to wear the hijab or not is a debatable subject. I am of the view that no woman should be subjected to any kind of societal pressure and have the freedom to choose to wear or not wear either the hijab or a ghoonghat (veil). The important question is: why should a woman cover her face? This not only robs her of her basic human rights but goes against the concept of equality.
Therefore, I believe that Muslim girls should be discouraged from wearing the hijab. Wearing the hijab was an issue between the school administration and the Muslim community. Hindu boys had no business to protest and pass derogatory comments, but this was done in a very organised fashion and a mob was created to intimidate the Muslim girls.
The government did not make any effort to stop them; rather, the Muslim community was condemned. The state did not come forward to help the young girl, Muskan, who was heckled and threatened by a group of saffron-scarf-wearing Hindu boys chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’.
She was criticised for saying Allah-u-Akbar. This is an indication that the Indian state is colluding with lumpen elements and turning into a mobocracy and the days are not far when a few will decide who will wear what and how, not only for the minority community but also for the majority community. Hijab is not the only issue on which a section of the majority community has protested.
Very recently, a group of Muslims were not allowed to offer prayers in the open areas in Gurugram, Haryana. Though these places were officially designated by the local administration in consultation with the Muslim community, nonetheless in an organised manner, a group of Hindus gathered and protested where Muslims were offering prayers and the state government, instead of standing by the Muslims, colluded with the protesting Hindus.
Similarly, the consumption of beef was made a big issue by the Hindutva forces. Such hysteria was created around the issue that many Muslims were lynched by mobs. Akhlaq, Pahlu Khan, and Junaid are a few examples. Top leaders of the BJP kept quiet and a few openly aligned with the accused. Instead of helping the victim’s family, Central ministers were seen garlanding those who had been convicted by the courts for the lynching.
A stand-up comic who happened to be Muslim was not allowed to present his show because a local BJP leader had complained to the police that the comic might say something which might hurt the religious sentiments of the majority community.
The artist was later arrested, jailed for more than a month and denied bail many a times on the excuse that he might say something which might offend Hindu sensibilities. It is to be understood that in real terms, he did not say anything which was offensive but was punished - not for any actual crime but for imaginary intent. Whereas in Haridwar, at a so-called Dharma Sansad, a call for mass killings of Muslims was given by so-called religious gurus.
Despite the general outrage, the state and the Central governments led by the BJP did not make any effort to punish them. The force of law was unmoved till the Supreme Court intervened and took the cognizance of the matter. People like Yati Narsinghanand had a free run, making all kinds of provocative statements against the Muslim community.
What would have happened if similar statements had been made by the Muslim clergy against the Hindu community and their religion? All hell would have broken loose. Examples like these make for a frightening story. A story which weaves a narrative that Muslims will not be allowed to eat what they want, their women won’t be allowed to wear what they desire, they won’t be permitted to choose a profession that they aspire for and finally, they will not be free to freely profess their religion either. Whereas as law-abiding citizens of the country, Muslims have the same rights as the majority community.
The Constitution does not discriminate between the communities. When the country was partitioned on the basis of religion and Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, the framers of our Constitution had had the option to declare India a Hindu Rashtra. Hindu religion could have been made the state religion, like Islam was recognised in Pakistan, but this temptation was not entertained by the leaders.
They followed the great tradition of the Indian civilisation, accepted the basic ethos that India is a land of diversity, pluralism is the key and the rainbow coalition of religions makes it more beautiful and robust. The Constitution makers deliberately did not follow the Pakistan model. They rejected the two-nation theory propagated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, M S Golwalkar of the RSS and Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Although India had been divided by the war cry, ‘Islam in danger’ given by a section of the Muslims, the Congress led by Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Sardar Patel was unanimous in the view that the Muslims who had rejected the option of going to Pakistan and had stayed back in India well aware that they would remain a minority, should not feel threatened by the power of numbers; that they would have equal rights and the majority must ensure that the minority would not be illtreated or made to feel insecure.
Today, if the members of the majority community, instead of protecting the rights of the minorities, are placing obstacles in their path so that they won’t be able to live like free citizens, then the state should intervene. Unfortunately, the state seems to be a willing accomplice in this deep-rooted conspiracy.
The state-sponsored persecution of Muslims will have far-reaching consequences. This might lead to the ghettoisation of the community but if the sense of helplessness gets acute or unbearable, then it could take the route of radicalisation and if that happens, it would be disastrous for India as a nation.
As of now, two major trends are emerging in the community. One, the community has gone silent, it has stopped talking or reacting to the provocations. Secondly, the community is in the mood for introspection. It has reached the conclusion that the clergy has immensely damaged the community and that the leadership of the community should pass to more secular-minded people; education and entrepreneurship should be given higher priority.
A few Muslim scholars are of the view that if this process continues, then the present crisis might turn into an opportunity. And the Muslim community might emerge stronger. But the bigger question is – if the majority, i.e., the Hindus are willing to understand that they are on the wrong path, that sectarianism laced with bitterness and hatred will do more damage to them than their intended enemy.
The community which believes in ‘Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava’ and ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ should introspect where it has gone wrong. Why has the community allowed itself to be hijacked by bigots and lumpen elements? It has to think why the land of Swami Vivekanand, who used to say that a ‘Vedant mind and Muslim body’ would make India a strong nation, has become the abode of those who spread venom against Muslims? Sardar Patel was right when he said that the ‘idea of Hindu Rashtra is a mad idea’.
Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar had no confusion in his mind when he said that despite his reservations about a few practices in Islam, a Hindu Rashtra would be disaster for democracy and should be stopped at any cost. Today, the issue is not hijab, it is not Muslims who are persecuted, it is the basic idea of Hindu civilisation which is in a crisis and it has to be confronted and no price is big enough to stop the madness.
(The writer is Editor, SatyaHindi.com and the author of Hindu Rashtra)
