Politics of Faith, Muslims in Indian Politics – 2006

Muslim leaders take another shot at religion-based politics

Who or which social group in this country does not have a political party? The Hindus have it. The Yadavs have it. The Dalits have it. The Kurmis have it. The Tamils have it. The Maharashtrians have it. The Assamese have it. Name a social group, a region or a caste and you have a political party bearing their tag. The era of Gandhi, Nehru and Indira is an old story wherein a national leader worked for the country and promoted the interests of Indians without ‘caste, colour or creed’ discrimination. Those were times when leaders of stature, with a single national political party called the Congress, ruled the roost – both at the national and the provincial level. Those were times when Indians thought of and for India and not for caste, community or creed. It was an era of the politics of service for the nation.

We now live in different times. We live in an age when politics is largely the game of pygmies who win elections promoting a caste interest or a community interest and no national interest whatsoever. They indulge in less people service and more self-service. Politics is now like any other trade or commerce where politicians jump onto one political bandwagon or other political front and make hundreds and thousands of crores as people are left waiting for the next election so as to punish them.

Gone is the era of Big Dads in politics. And the time for national parties is over. We live in an era of alliances when politics is no longer national. It is not even provincial any more. Indian politics is fragmented and is increasingly becoming caste and community oriented. So in this competitive era of caste and communal politics even Muslims have begun to think of forming their own political party. The logic being, if Dalits can have it and Yadavs can have it, why can’t Muslims have it too? After all, in terms of the population ratio Muslims are the second largest group in the country. They played a crucial role in unseating the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from power in 2004, after the Gujarat massacre, and threw out the Congress party in 1996, after Narasimha Rao failed to protect the Babri Masjid in 1992. No political party can govern India for long unless it enjoys Muslim support. Muslims have emerged as kingmakers of a sort in Indian politics.

But even 57 years after independence their time in Indian politics is yet to come. They have very genuine grievances. Muslims complain that they are used as a ‘vote bank’ by various political formations and once an election is over, no one cares for them. They are left with the sole option of voting out a party in self-defence. Muslim politics does not move beyond the game of survival wherein you vote out one party only to protect your very identity. This is indeed shocking and frustrating for the Muslim community. Not only are Muslims in India victims of the worst kind of communal violence but they are also at the lowest rung of development in the country. Their literacy rate is abysmal. Their job representation in both the public and private sector is shockingly low. Their representation in legislative bodies is also dwindling. They have genuine complaints against Indian politicians who have taken them for a royal ride a little too long. They are no longer willing to vote for their security alone. They now want growth and development as well.

The post-partition Muslim generation is impatient to catch up with others in terms of development. It does not suffer from the partition complex. It has contributed no less than any other community or caste to the national development index – in every walk of life. Yet it suffers from all manner of problems ranging from security to unemployment. This generation of Muslims wants empowerment and is rightly disappointed with all political parties. After all, it has been two years since they came to power and even the Manmohan Singh government has done little to solve Muslim problems.

Taking advantage of the general Muslim disenchantment with traditional secular parties and the growing political fad for communal and caste parties in the country, a group of Muslim politicians thought of starting Muslim parties at the provincial level. The first man who sensed the Muslim mood and cashed in on their growing disappointment with secular politics was Badruddin Ajmal of Assam where Muslims living in different pockets amount to more than 30 per cent of the population. Ajmal along with the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind had backed the Congress party in the last assembly and the last parliamentary elections. But the Gogoi-led Congress government did exactly what other governments have done with Muslims in the past. Once the elections were behind them, they did nothing to tackle the problems facing the Muslim community.

Communal Muslim players are once again hawking aggressively for a Muslim party. Such a move will only help revive Hindu communalists. It is time for ordinary Muslims to be cautious of such Muslim players. Else every Indian province could produce at least one Modi to ‘teach Muslims a lesson’ as indeed happened so tragically in Gujarat
 

Ajmal is a successful post-partition merchant who has made it big in the perfume business. This apart, he was backed by the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, which has considerable influence among Assamese Muslims. With the Jamiat’s backing, Ajmal took the plunge and formed an ostensibly secular party (the Assam United Democratic Front – AUDF) for the Muslims of Assam, managing to win 12 seats in the legislature, two of these being won by non-Muslims. He has been gloating over his success and claims to have made it big for the Muslims of Assam. A dubious claim indeed as his bête noire, Gogoi, is in fact back as Assam’s Congress chief minister and Muslim representation both in the state legislature and in the new government is lower than the last time. Besides, both the Assamese Hindus as well as the tribals feel threatened by a Muslim party. This may generate a backlash against the state’s Muslims and may revive both the BJP and the Asom Gana Parishad, (AGP), which have so far played the anti-Muslim card in Assam.

The success of Ajmal’s political experiment in Assam though dubious in real terms has generated a ripple effect in Muslim politics, especially amongst the Muslims of Uttar Pradesh. Muslims constitute a large chunk of the votes in numerous assembly segments in Uttar Pradesh. If they vote as a united bloc, they can be the deciding factor in many elections. Encouraged by the Assam experiment, two Muslim outfits have been formed in Uttar Pradesh recently. Maulana Kalbe Jawwad of Lucknow leads one, the People’s Democratic Front (PDF), and Imam Ahmed Bukhari of Jama Masjid, Delhi, heads the other, the Uttar Pradesh United Democratic Front (UPUDF). The PDF brings together the All India Muslim Forum, National Loktantrik Party, Momin Conference of India, All India Muslim Majlis, Parcham Party of India and the All India Muslim Mushawarat among others. According to newspaper reports, soon after both fronts were announced, they merged under the PDF banner. Both Jawwad and Bukhari swear by the Muslim cause. Both blame secular parties for the ills befalling Indian Muslims and both come from a religious background.

On the face of things, in this age of caste and communal politics, a Muslims-only party sounds both logical and appealing. After all, even nearly 60 years after independence, no secular party is willing to work towards the uplift of Muslims. So what do Muslims do? But the problem with Indian Muslims is that they are not Yadavs or Dalits. They are a community that carries the baggage of history. It is a community that has in the past played the communal card and carved Pakistan out of the Indian subcontinent. Indeed, Muslims who live in India have nothing to do with Pakistan. They played no role during partition nor do they have any lingering sympathy for Pakistan.

But history, as TS Eliot wrote, has ‘cunning passages and contrived corridors’. Those cunning passages and contrived corridors of history are essentially the collective neurotic memory of a tragic past that generates a false sense of siege amongst a large group even long after the actual threat has disappeared. Hindu communal forces led by the RSS and the BJP take advantage of those ‘contrived and cunning passages’ of history to transform Indian Muslims into the ‘Hindu enemy’ working to carve out another Pakistan.

Over the past two decades all of us have seen how successfully the sangh parivar worked on this Hindu siege mentality and managed to build a Hindu vote bank as also to marginalise Indian Muslims in Indian politics. So deep-rooted is the post-partition Hindu sense of siege that Narendra Modi could successfully paint Gujarati Muslims as ‘Mian Musharraf’, managing even to win an election on hate politics in December 2002. No amount of secular cajoling, even by liberal Hindus, could persuade the Gujarati majority to shed their sense of siege and defeat Modi who masterminded the most cynical and worst ever massacre of Muslims in independent India. Gujaratis saw Modi as their defender and voted overwhelmingly to bring him to power to defend them from the ‘terrorist Pakistani Muslims’ living in their midst.

Among Hindus this false sense of siege is based on the collective memory of the formation of Pakistan. Once tickled, it revives the partition trauma when some Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah had ‘worked against the Hindus’ and partitioned their motherland – the ultimate refuge for the security of a nation. This neurotic memory is revived only when Hindus perceive Muslims as coming together to promote ‘their cause’ much as Jinnah had done for them once before. At once, the Muslims among them become the enemy within and those who stand up against the Muslims become Hindu heroes.

These tactics surface only when Muslims come together on a common platform and start indulging in the politics of cacophony. It has happened in recent times between 1986 and 1992 when India’s Muslims first came together under the All India Muslim Personal Law Board to protect their personal law after the Shah Bano judgement. Soon after, once the gates to the Babri Masjid were unlocked in 1986, the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee was formed to protect the mosque. Both the Muslim Personal Law Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee ostensibly worked to defend the Muslim cause but in actual terms they only indulged in the politics of cacophony using high decibel Muslim rhetoric. This tickled the Hindu sense of siege and it was the BJP that soon became the Hindu hero.

The rest is recent history. We have been witness to how one-time political outcasts, the BJP, turned overnight into a party of Hindu heroes and grabbed power, leading eventually to the massacre in Gujarat. If there had been no Muslim platform, there may well have been no Hindu platform either. This is a crude historic and psychotic factor that Indian Muslims have had to live with it.

Now let us put aside the debate about the pros and cons of a Muslims-only party and take a look at the current political scenario. The BJP lost power in 2004 and has since been undergoing the worst kind of crisis; it is divided down the middle and its credibility is at its lowest. The average Hindu priority is growth and development, not identity. There seems to be little chance of the BJP coming to power or its leadership sinking its differences to revive the party in the near future.

Amidst this politically hopeless scenario for the BJP, if Muslims start indulging in the politics of cacophony as they did in the 1980s and 1990s, there are bright chances of the Hindu sense of siege being revived. The formation of not one but many Muslim political parties under a traditional conservative leadership with demands such as reservations for Muslims in legislative bodies, etc. is bound to reawaken the Hindu fear. It will undoubtedly encourage the RSS parivar to use every trick in its kitty to revive the BJP as an alternative to a Muslim platform. Besides, various Muslim formations in different states will undoubtedly split a united Muslim vote bank, much to the advantage of the BJP, which then, even with minority Hindu backing, would manage to corner power for itself as it did until recently – by splitting the secular and the Muslim voters. So forming a Muslim political party today means serving the BJP and its actors like LK Advani and Narendra Modi.

But for how long should Muslims put off working towards the interests of their own community, and this merely out of fear for the BJP? Well, a sensible and mature community would or should first like to finish off its principal enemy to ensure permanent security. If Muslims vote unitedly in yet another election and the BJP loses power for another term, Hindu communal forces could well be marginalised for a long, long time to come. But if the Muslims are divided as they were in Assam, with their own parties working for them in most states, the BJP may soon be back with a bang. It is for Muslims to decide whether or not they should first work for their security, which must, ultimately, lead to their progress and development as well. Or whether they should, as in the 1980s, commit the blunder of forming their own platforms and lose both security as well as the little progress that security necessarily brings.

Backing Muslim parties in the prevailing scenario could only mean hara-kiri for the Muslim community. One hopes and prays that better sense will prevail amongst Muslims, who have committed too many mistakes in the past and have had paid dearly whenever their leaders have indulged in the politics of emotional hyperbole rather than the mature politics of good sense. Communal Muslim players are once again hawking aggressively for a Muslim party. Such a move will only help revive Hindu communalists. It is time for ordinary Muslims to be cautious of such Muslim players. Else every Indian province could produce at least one Modi to ‘teach Muslims a lesson’ as indeed happened so tragically in Gujarat. n

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2006. Year 12, No.116, Cover Story 1

The newly launched Muslim fronts in UP claim to take their inspiration from the experiment in Assam. But the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, the main inspiration behind the emergence of the AUDF, insists that though mistakes have been made, the AUDF is meant to be a "genuinely secular party" and never a purely Muslim outfit. Maintaining that a separate Islamic or Muslim party can only harm the community’s interests and help communal forces, it charges both Imam Bukhari and Maulana Kalbe Jawwad with misleading the Muslim masses and leading them towards potential disaster.

In this context, Communalism Combat found the two-part article published by the Urdu daily, Qaumi Awaaz, highly educative. Though long, we think it is an important political document. Therefore we are publishing below a translation of the two pieces. The author of the articles, Mohammed Salman Mansurpuri is a special invitee to the Jamiat’s national working committee. That he is clearly articulating the Jamiat’s position on the entire issue is also indicated by the fact that he is the son-in-law and nephew of the current Jamiat president, Maulana Syed Arshad Madni.

In a country such as India, the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind considers Muslim communalism to be as dangerous as Hindu communalism for the country and the minority community. This has been the Jamiat’s consistent and clear stand since the partition of the country and until today. The Jamiat strongly believes that in India we must never seek a solution to any of our problems on a communal basis. Instead, we must speak the language of what is fair and what is not, oppression and justice, backwardness and progress. That is why even on the issue of reservations the Jamiat has been demanding quotas for Muslims not on a religious basis but on the grounds of their backwardness.

The experience of 59 years since independence tells us that every time any issue is given a communal complexion, Muslims are the losers and anti-Muslim forces have gained strength. But these days it looks as if it is the season of ever new political fronts among some Muslims. And citing the example of the Assam United Democratic Front, the Jamiat is also being seen as party to it… It therefore seems necessary to place before the public an account of the efforts made by the Jamiat in recent years to initiate a political party, of the Jamiat’s perspective on the issue and the context in which the AUDF took birth, and the character of the AUDF. This is important so that people understand how they are being misled by certain political leaders who are misrepresenting the Assam example.

In March 2003 preparations were in full swing for holding, at the Ramlila grounds in Delhi, the 27th conference of the Jamiat on a grand scale. There was great excitement as preparations were in full swing across the country. In this context, I felt that our objective should not be limited to gathering a crowd. Instead, why not think of some concrete plan for the betterment of the country and the community, especially something that could increase the political weight of the minorities and the backward castes. I thought the Jamiat should take the lead in this direction. Accordingly, emphasising the need for the emergence of a genuinely secular party in the country, I prepared a proposal. The highlights of this plan were:

a. The name of the party must be such that it does not suggest that it was a party for people of only a particular religious community.

b. The constitution of the party must be such that it remains open to people of different faiths.

c. The party’s office bearers must include non-Muslims.

d. The party’s doors must be open to people from different sects and communities.

e. The Jamiat as an organisation must not become a part of the party but maintain the role of watchdog.

f. During elections such a party must seek alliances with different regional parties; it must not fight alone.

g. A large number of seats must be offered to like-minded, sincere non-Muslim candidates.

After my draft was ready, the principal of Moradabad’s Madrasa Shahi, Maulana Asad Rashidi saw it and expressed his total agreement with its contents. On March 4, 2003 I faxed a copy of the draft to the Jamiat head office. In the evening Maulana Mahmood Madni phoned me to say that the draft had been approved by the Jamiat’s president, Maulana Syed Asad Madni, and that the same would be presented for deliberations before the plenary session of the forthcoming conference.

After a lot of discussion and debate the draft was cleared by the plenary session and a seven-member committee was agreed upon to take the proposal forward. The members of the committee were:

1. Maulana Syed Asad Madni (the late Jamiat president).

2. Maulana Syed Arshad Madni (the current president).

3. Maulana Habibur Rehman Qasmi.

4. Imam Syed Ahmed Bukhari.

5. Shakeel Ahmed, advocate.

6. Maulana Mahmood Madni.

7. Mohammed Salman Mansoorpuri (This writer).

On the morning of March 8 while I was in the office, I was asked to see the president in his office immediately. Maulana Syed Arshad Madni, Maulana Mahmood Madni and Maulana Habibur Rehman Qasmi were also present. Maulana Mahmood Madni said, "Yesterday you all decided on the formation of a secular party and you have made me the convenor. I feel so burdened by this that I could not sleep all of last night. Please hand over this responsibility to someone else as I do not feel capable of it." Then he himself suggested that Imam Bukhari be made the convenor. But the president strongly opposed the suggestion and said that an undependable person cannot be given such a responsibility. After considerable deliberation it was decided that Maulana Mahmood Madni must remain the convenor. It was also decided that instead of announcing the decision to launch a genuine secular party we should say that we would endeavour towards the same and for this the seven-member committee would be given three months’ time to explore the possibilities and then submit its report. Accordingly, this suggestion was put before the working committee and the same was accepted.

It is a fact that until then Maulana Mahmood Madni, I and many others had illusions about Maulana Bukhari. We all felt that compared to his late father, Abdullah Bukhari, he was more sober and closer to the national mainstream. Therefore if he were to abide by the principles of the Jamiat, he could greatly benefit the country and the community. On the evening of March 8, a special session of the Jamiat conference was held at the Shahi Jama Masjid. Initiating the proceedings, Maulana Bukhari said, "Today ushers in a new chapter in the history of Muslim unity."

Those who want to establish a Muslim political party on communal lines are agents of anti-minority Hindu communalists
— Maulana Asad Madni, former president of the Jamiat, in the official mouthpiece of the Jamiat, Al-Jamiat, 25 December 2003-1st January, 2004

But our illusions about Maulana Bukhari were shattered immediately thereafter. The very next day, March 9, when he was invited to speak in support of the proposed secular party at the plenary session at the Ramlila grounds he showed his true colours. Addressing a gathering of lakhs, he exceeded all limits of decency while castigating secular parties in general and the Congress in particular and, in incendiary language, tore the Jamiat’s plan for a new secular party to shreds. Two statements of his were particularly indicative of his mindset.

One, he said that Ahmed Bukhari does not believe in any kind of tact or diplomacy. This one statement was enough to make it clear to me that the community can expect to gain nothing from such a leader… His second statement, which shocked everyone even more, was that in this country Hindus will be Hindus and Muslims will be Muslims and there was no way the two could work together. It was evident from this statement that the Imam Saheb was talking the language of the RSS. Clearly, he had not the least interest in the betterment of Muslims; all that mattered to him was cheap popularity.

Such a statement from the Imam Saheb was not only against the principles of the Jamiat but also against the basic teachings of Islam. Despite this, Jamiat leaders showed exemplary restraint to avoid any unpleasantness at the session. But we realised the big mistake we had made in inviting Imam Bukhari to address the plenary and felt a deep pang of conscience for having given undue importance to such an incendiary person. Not just the leadership but the entire assembly was deeply upset by his statements.

After the conference, for quite some time the issue of forming a new and genuine secular party became a hot topic for discussion among Muslims. Meanwhile, the Jamiat was engaged in exploring the possibility of such a political formation. At the May 22, 2003 meeting of the seven-member committee, in order to take the plan forward I proposed a four-point questionnaire and suggested that the same be widely circulated among the different units of the Jamiat as also among prominent political and religious leaders for their feedback. The same questionnaire was then issued under the signature of Maulana Mahmood Madni and publicised through advertisements in the media.

We started receiving feedback to this questionnaire and on June 16 the preparatory committee decided to invite sober Muslim and non-Muslim political leaders and opinion makers from all over the country for a consultation on the issue. The consultation was held on July 20, 2003. The consensus that emerged was that while there was need for a new secular political party, such a party should only be launched after a sizeable section of non-Muslims and different sects among Muslims had been convinced of its need. It was strongly felt that a premature launch of the proposed political formation would do more harm than good.

Following the consultation, the Jamiat thought it appropriate to cold-storage the plan for the moment. But efforts in this direction continued to be made at the state level in several states. In many places, programmes were organised to invite Dalits to dine with Muslims. Contacting and establishing an equation with Dalit leader Udit Raj was a part of this programme. Similarly, in Andhra Pradesh contacts were made with Dalit and tribal leaders.

Meanwhile, an important development took place in Assam. The IMDT Act legislated by the state Congress had at last provided some security to Bengali-speaking Muslims in the state and widespread harassment by the police had stopped. But the Supreme Court struck down the Act and the Bengali-speaking Muslims were once again faced with the spectre of deportation. The Jamiat believed that the Act would not have been struck down if the Congress government in Assam had argued its case properly.

Because of this, at a state level meeting of the Jamiat at which Assam’s chief minister, Tarun Gogoi was present, the late Maulana Syed Asad Madni, then Jamiat president, used strong words. He warned that unless the wrong was set right in six months the Jamiat would topple Gogoi’s government. When the government did nothing in those six months to resolve the problem, state Jamiat president Badruddin Ajmal Ali and his colleagues started making contacts with different tribal groups and organisations in Assam. Thus the ground was prepared for the formation of a united front along with the Assam Labour Party (which represents tea plantation workers), the Assam Harijan Unian Samaj (a political formation of Dalits) and others. Some dissident Congress leaders were also invited to join. The proposed alliance was also welcomed by various Muslim bodies in Assam, including the Jamaat-e-Islami.

After all the groundwork was complete, the party was launched at a well attended meeting held in Guwahati on October 13, 2005. The then Jamiat president, Maulana Syed Asad Madni and other top leaders of the Jamiat were present on the occasion. What was launched was in every sense a secular front. While Badruddin Ajmal Ali was made the president, three of the five vice-presidents of the front were non-Muslims. Their names are:

1. Shri Bharoj Lal Arvi Das, president, All-Assam Harijan Unian Samaj.

2. Shri Gautam Prasad Goswami, former Congress leader.

3. Prof. Kamal Lane Bhattacharya, former Congress leader.

The general secretary of the front, Aditya Link Satha (Bimasa) too was a non-Muslim who, incidentally, won his seat in the recent polls. Similarly, Shri Shyam Sundar Choudhary, a Dalit leader, was one of the secretaries of the front. Thus, five of the 11 office bearers of the front were non-Muslims. It should be evident from this that the newly formed front was by no means a Muslim organisation (as is being done these days) but a front that Muslims in Assam formed along with non-Muslims from the backward and exploited sections. This front gave itself the name Assam United Democratic Front (AUDF) and started preparing for elections.

The front was formed a few days before Ramzan. On his return from Medina the Jamiat president, Maulana Syed Asad Madni retired to Deoband for the month of Ramzan as was his usual practice. A day after Id, Maulana Madni went into a coma following an injury and remained bedridden until his death on February 6, 2006. Thus, in its very formative stage, the front was deprived of the guidance of the very influential and popular Jamiat president.

Since the AUDF was the first product of the Jamiat’s efforts at a new political initiative, it was critical that it retained its secular character and every possible precaution taken to prevent a communal climate at election time. The success of the front depended, and still does, on it retaining its secular character. It was essential that anyone who is perceived as a communal or an incendiary leader be kept away from the election campaign. Similarly, it was also necessary for religious institutions and madrasas to refrain from open participation in the campaign. It was equally necessary to include non-Muslim colleagues in every statement and in public rallies so that a clear message went out to the entire country that a united front of Muslims and Hindus had entered the electoral fray in Assam.

Bukhari’s statement, which shocked everyone even more, was that in this country Hindus will be Hindus and Muslims will be Muslims and there was no way the two could work together. It was evident from this statement that the Imam Saheb was talking the language of the RSS. Clearly, he had not the least interest in the betterment of Muslims; all that mattered to him was cheap popularity

But I am sorry to say that knowingly or unknowingly the AUDF leadership in Assam took some steps as a result of which the AUDF’s secular character was tarnished and Maulana Badruddin Ajmal was forced to repeatedly clarify that his was not a Muslim political outfit. If the necessary precautions had been taken, the need for constant clarification would not have arisen. Of the things that caused damage to the AUDF cause, I would like to highlight three:

1. The entire country knows that Imam Bukhari is known or has been projected as a communal and an extremist leader. But on the ill advice of god knows who all, Bukhari Saheb was invited to Assam to campaign for the AUDF and was taken around the state in helicopters. Those who were swayed by emotions did not realise it at the time but the fact is that Bukhari Saheb played a key role in ruining the AUDF’s image. His campaign tour gave the electoral campaign a communal colour. The result being that the AUDF, which had been launched as a secular front and had given 22 of its 71 tickets to non-Muslims, acquired the image of a purely Muslim front. Because of this, AUDF candidates lost seats even where it was in a strong position and gave the Congress an opportunity to attract Hindu votes.

2. The second example of the AUDF’s failure to take precautions was the open involvement of numerous madrasas in the electoral process. A person from Assam recently told me that madrasas in Assam were closed down for 15 days to enable its staff and students to create a favourable climate for the AUDF. In my view, this too was an unwise step. It too contributed to giving the campaign a communal complexion and the AUDF had to pay for it. We have ourselves had experience of this while campaigning for Maulana Mahmood Madni during the general elections in 2004. The open engagement of Muslim religious bodies in the electoral process results in a natural polarisation of Hindu votes and this does not help our case.

3. The third pointer to the AUDF’s immaturity was its arrogant dismissal of the sincere and conciliatory gesture made by the Congress high command during the last phase of campaigning. Had the AUDF responded positively and arrived at some electoral understanding with the Congress, it would not have found itself isolated as it does today. The AUDF could have increased its electoral tally and been further able to exert pressure on the Congress to resolve the problems that the community faces in Assam. I have no doubt that had Maulana Syed Asad Madni been alive he would never have allowed such an opportunity to escape. If despite these shortcomings the AUDF managed limited electoral success, credit for this must be attributed to the hold and influence of the Jamiat in Assam. If the Jamiat were not in the picture, the AUDF would have found it difficult to win even one or two seats. And no one should forget that the Jamiat supported the AUDF not because it was a Muslim front but on the clear understanding that it was a secular formation.

Seeing the huge turnouts at the election rallies in Assam, Bukhari Saheb has the illusion that the turnouts had to do with his charismatic personality. That is why, soon after results were declared, he announced that the Assam formula would be replicated in the coming polls in UP. But even before he could give some shape to his game plan, another aspirant from UP, Maulana Kalbe Jawwad announced the formation of his own front. Seeing the opportunity slip through his fingers, Bukhari Saheb quickly convened a conference in Delhi on June 10 and has announced the launch of his own Muslim front under the banner of UPUDF.

Not a single non-Muslim leader or organisation has so far shown any interest in either of these two fronts. Despite this, both men talk repeatedly of the Assam formula. The fact is that the front which emerged in Assam was a secular front backed by a grass roots organisation like the Jamiat. Both these aspects are lacking in the newly launched fronts. There is no non-Muslim participation in either, nor does either have the backing of the Jamiat. If, despite this, the Assam experience continues to be invoked by these purely Muslim fronts, it is nothing short of fooling the masses. The Jamiat stand on this has been made very clear. At a press conference jointly addressed by them in Delhi on May 23, the Jamiat president, Maulana Syed Arshad Madni, and the general secretary, Maulana Mahmood Madni, have made it plain that a separate party of Muslims can only damage the community’s interests. Therefore the Jamiat can never support an initiative that harms Muslims and helps communal forces.

With the Jamiat having reiterated its basic principles, it is incumbent on state and district committee members of the organisation to ensure that they do not do anything that tarnishes the Jamiat’s anti-communal perspective. At the same time, it is incumbent on the Jamiat’s central leadership to keep its distance from leaders like Imam Bukhari. We must all ensure that we do not repeat the scenarios of the recent past where the Jamiat and Imam Bukhari were seen as being close. All the units of the Jamiat must also stay steadfastly committed to the principles of national unity and guard against anything that might attract the label of "Muslim communalism".

We must not forget that in a country like India sharing political power is not as important as the security of life and property. We must at all costs refrain from such attempts at sharing power that are likely to aggravate the communal atmosphere and precipitate violence. Such efforts can neither stand the test of reason nor be rationalised as a search for justice. May Allah save Muslims from extremism and rescue them from trials and tribulations. Aameen!

(Translated by Javed Anand.)

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2006. Year 12. No.116, Cover Story 2

I am keeping a close watch on these developments as my hunch and conclusion for the moment is that these are moves mainly surrounding elections and the bartering of votes. While I do appreciate that Muslims and other minorities have special problems that need to be voiced and resolved as legitimate issues, the question is: why are none of these issues raised at other times and why do they only surface during elections? The leadership that is at the helm of this Muslim party initiative in Uttar Pradesh comprises the same people who, for a number of reasons, are not being given any share, importance or prominence by mainstream political parties as they were before.

Coming to the elections in Uttar Pradesh, time will tell whether these leaders are mere paper tigers, propped by a shallow and sensational media. Are these leaders coming forward to salvage the community or salvage themselves?

The experience of the Left, nationwide, has been a vote of confidence and trust from the minorities who see us as genuinely fighting against the former NDA and for secular values and issues.

A very interesting development has been taking place in Kerala. Since pre-independence days, right wing reactionary forces, from all religious groups, have been deeply suspicious of the Left and have actively campaigned against their constituents, Hindu, Muslim or others, voting for the Left. However, we see now, especially in Kerala, in Muslim League strongholds like Mallapuram, a left wing candidate, Comrade Jaleel, defeating a former minister, Kunjalikutty. Muslim women played a huge role in this victory for the Left.

In areas where the Left has a strong base, all communities, including the Muslim community, are active participants, even voting for us. This is a triumph of the secular democratic approach. Minorities have recognised that the Left’s struggle against communalism is to represent their genuine cause, not to appease the community. Hindu or Muslim, both Advani and Kunjalikutty are today viewed as self-seeking leaders rather than leaders of their community.

Coming back to the developments in UP following Assam, I see the forums that are emerging as bargaining forums, nothing more.

In Assam, the formation of Ajmal’s outfit ended up by helping the Congress to win and keeping the AGP out. The Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (Assam) broke away from its national unit and served as a network for Ajmal’s party. Badruddin Ajmal is the state unit president of the JUH, Assam. This is unlikely to happen in Uttar Pradesh and without the grass roots organisational network of either the JUH or the Jamaat-e-Islami it is not easy to fight or win an election.

‘What is needed is not a Muslim party but a party that is sensitive to Muslim concerns’

Salman Khursheed
President, UP Congress(I)

Indian Muslims have scrupulously stayed away from Muslim parties. This tradition has come out of both the Indian Muslims' instinctive understanding of what partition has done to their cause and the wider secular democratic cause as also their comfort and ease with the Congress party, traditionally a party that has represented them. It is only in the recent past, when for one reason and another and in varying degrees Indian Muslims experienced a loss of faith in the Congress, that they have exercised alternate choices.

As far as the Muslim party experiment in UP is concerned, it is the demolition of the Babri Masjid and now the 'success' of the Assam experiment that has some people convinced that such an alternative is feasible. In my opinion, it is not. What is needed is not a Muslim party but a party that is sensitive to Muslim concerns, one that provides a wider forum.

Muslims form 18 per cent of the vote in UP. Some people extend the erroneous argument that 'if a Yadav can become a CM, and a Dalit or a Lodi can, why can't a Muslim?' What they fail to see is that the Yadav or the Dalit or the Lodi/Kurmi did not become CMs on the strength of their caste alone. They did so with the goodwill of other castes. Now with a Muslims-only party, which caste will support or join a Muslim conglomerate?

This apart, the leaders who are talking of all this are used to speaking an exclusionist language that speaks only the language of their community and does not include others. While overtly they are trying to hurt Mulayam's government, they will end up sending a blow to all secular forces.

In Assam the establishment with its stand on the IMDT Act was a clear target. Here in UP, except for the general overall disenchantment of the Muslim with the SP and BSP, there is no clear-cut target so far.

As for the Congress and its 'failure to draw in adequate Muslim participation and representation', this is a genuine problem that the party needs to address. Today there are few leaders and participants from the community who are joining fresh, there is almost no new supply, where are the new faces? The party must find a way to discover new faces and it is certainly up to the party to actively do something in this regard. The Congress constantly faces criticism about our genuine secular and minority rights concerns. But can anyone say that we are no different from previous regimes?

In the context of UP we also need to remember that Mulayam is a wily leader. The first sign of an emergent leader from the community where he has his own base and who is a genuine challenge will be jointly defeated by the SP and BSP.

‘The future lies in strengthening secular parties’

Mushirul Hasan
Vice chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi

The very principal of political action based on religion and religious solidarity is, I think, highly objectionable because in secular democratic India within the existing democratic and secular structures it is still possible for grievances to be addressed.

Be it through the Congress, the Left or any other centrist party. Lessons that we have learnt in the past from various initiatives must not be forgotten, for example in Bihar, as also in UP, where the Majlis-e-Mushawarat was formed. This attempt arose out of constitutional and secular motivations under the leadership of Dr Faridi and Dr Syed Mahmood. The experiment did not work and in fact was counterproductive, leading to the polarisation of not just votes but also sentiments. In that limited sense, the developments in UP do not augur well for secular democratic politics as a whole.

It becomes possible for alternate political parties to exploit the formation of such a Muslim front to mobilise followers around Hindutva and sectarian symbols.

In the long run if the motive is to focus on Muslim grievances – i.e. the genuine issues of exclusion, under-representation, discrimination – this is best and most effectively done from a secular platform rather than one driven by religious identity.

This discussion must also take into consideration the demographic distribution of Muslim votes that militate against corporators, MLAs or MPs getting voted in.

By and large – and I believe this is a good and healthy trend – the Muslim electorate has a wider choice than 10 years ago and it is possible, strategically and tactically, to exercise these choices. The future lies in strengthening secular parties rather than the formation of sectarian forums or options. They, ordinary Indian Muslims, have time and time again exposed the myth of the Muslim vote but our so-called specialists and commentators simply cannot come to terms with the fact that the Muslim community is a differentiated community, not a monolith. Given the image of the Muslim, the expert commentator is desperately in search of this monolith because they just cannot accept the fact that the Muslim vote is as complex and as differentiated as any caste. 

 ‘Muslims are being taken for granted by secular parties’

Qasim Rasool
Member, Executive Council, Jamaat-e-Islami, India and Convenor, Babri Masjid Action Committee

The executive body of the Jamaat-e-Islami is to meet next month where it will take a decision on where it stands vis-à-vis the newly formed PDF and UPUDF. All aspects of the issue will be taken into consideration before we take a decision. We will, for example, have to consider the fact of a widespread feeling among Muslims that they have been taken completely for granted by most secular parties and leaders, including Mulayam Singh Yadav in UP and Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar. Two thirds of the total votes polled by Mulayam Singh Yadav, for example, are Muslim votes while the Yadavs contribute only 25 per cent. But of the 1,300 police constables recently appointed by his government, 1,000 are Yadavs while only 30 Muslims were selected. The case with Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar is no different. As for Mayawati, she had no qualms about campaigning for Narendra Modi even after the Gujarat genocide. So many Muslims are asking: if Yadavs and Dalits can form their own party what is wrong if Muslims do the same. At the same time, there is the real problem of communal polarisation if Muslims form their own front. Besides, there is the problem of sectarian fragmentation of Muslims in UP and then there is the image of Imam Bukhari. In principle, the Jamaat-e-Islami believes in supporting only such political formations that keep the interests of all communities and castes in mind.

Bukhari appealed to Muslims to vote for BJP in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections'

Kamal Farooqui
Chartered accountant, member, Milli Council, member, All India Muslim Personal Law Board

I cannot accept any party formed on a religious or communal basis in my secular country. History shows that Muslims on the subcontinent have not favoured a communal party either during the freedom movement or since independence. The Muslim masses and the ulema strongly opposed the partition of the country. It was only the feudal landlords and their kind who supported the movement for Pakistan. Post-independence Muslims have always treated non-Muslims - Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, VP Singh, Bahuguna - as their political leaders. They had more faith in them than in Muslim leaders. Even a person like Dr Jalil Faridi who otherwise was widely respected and had huge credibility could make no dent in UP with his Muslim Majlis.

Talking of replicating the Assam model in UP is playing a highly dangerous political game. In any case, Assam was a fiasco, not a success story. And don't the Muslims know who Ahmed Bukhari is and where he was in the last general elections? He appealed to Muslims to vote for the BJP. I will be surprised if the amount of votes garnered by any of the candidates put up by the two Muslim fronts in the coming UP elections manages to cross four figures.

‘A negative and unfortunate development’

Nishat Hussain
Founder and president, National Muslim Women’s Welfare Society, Jaipur

This would be both a negative and unfortunate development. In the past also, a Muslim political party was created, the Muslim League. What has been its impact? All that it is associated with is the partition of India. By this kind of talk, fascist and communal forces get more strength.

Then there is the other ground level reality. Muslim candidates have rarely won from Muslim majority areas. This is really healthy – the fact that Muslims do not vote according to the community or religion of the candidate but for secular concerns – and this is a healthy tradition that should be encouraged as a trend in politics.

Even if such a party is formed, what will happen? They will fail electorally anyway but with their failure they will have managed (negatively for the overall interests of the community) to raise the bogey of separatism against all Muslims. This will be very unfortunate.

I am confident that the so-called Muslim leadership that is being talked of will be thwarted by the community itself. Having said this, there is a great need for Muslims to build up their political strength and articulate their demands within mainstream political parties. We should think of increasing our impact on the political process overall. The questions Muslims need to ask are where are Muslims today in national politics, why are there no Muslim women in mainstream political parties? What have the so-called Muslim leaders in mainstream parties done for the community’s socio-economic development? Have they been able to raise the real bread-and-butter issues of the Muslim community?

(The National Muslim Women’s Welfare Society, with 800 members all over Rajasthan, was founded in 1989 after Jaipur’s first post-partition outbreak of communal violence during LK Advani’s rath yatra.)

‘Emulate the example of the Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam'

Prof MH Jawahirullah
President, Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK)

Muslim leadership always projects emotional issues instead of economic and social issues. The impact of globalisation, agrarian crises and poverty eradication are not articulated.

The PDF should emulate the example of the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam. The TMMK is not a political party fighting elections. However, working under a secular democratic framework it has successfully carved out a space for itself in the Tamil Nadu political arena. Its interaction with the non-Muslim community through its various services and actions has earned it high stature in the state's political scenario. Though the TMMK plays a vital political role during elections, it feels that it has not matured enough to become a political party. Our humble suggestion to the PDF is that they should first become a social movement, serve all communities, earn their goodwill and then ultimately become a political party.

‘Very little percolates into any change on the ground’

D. Sharifa Khanam
Director of STEPS Women’s Development Organisation and representative of the Tamil Nadu Muslim Women’s Jamaat, Pudukottai, Tamil Nadu

From the Tamil Nadu experience where there are three or four Muslim formations and organisations – the Tamil Nadu Muslim League (oldest), the Tamil Muslim Munnetra Kazagham (TMMK), the Tamil Nadu Tauheed Jamaat and the Tamil Nadu Muslim Women’s Jamaat – it is clear that they have been able to achieve little for the development and rights of the community. (The Women’s Jamaat articulates Muslim women’s concerns for serious social reform within the community and political rights overall – we have no electoral aims.)

Historically, the Tamil Muslim Munnetra Kazagham allied with the DMK until the latter tied up with the BJP and the TMMK then drifted towards the Congress. The Tauheed Jamaat has allied with the AIADMK. Neither the TMMK nor the Tauheed Jamaat has ever raised issues of reform or discrimination. Unfortunately, these organisations have degenerated into organisations that offer a barter of the Muslim vote at election time. They collect crowds immediately prior to an election and raise issues like reservations for Muslims, education for Muslims, but very little percolates into any change on the ground.

There is discrimination faced by Muslims even for small simple loans. Muslim inclusion in the Below the Poverty Line category (BPL) to avail of PDS and other benefits is minuscule despite the pathetic economic conditions of the community. How is it that these serious community issues are never raised by the MMK and the Tauheed Jamaat? Small subsistence Muslim farmers face despair and exclusion when there is drought. A Muslim woman was tonsured in Perambalur a month ago, another was burnt alive in Pudukottai just recently. Why do such issues not figure in the discourse of these outfits? Because Muslim women are invisible to them and social reform is not a priority for them. They are, in the ordinary Muslim mind, merely forums to transfer votes at election time.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2006. Year 12, No.116, Cover Story 3