From a historical perspective, all major elements of the present political dispensation of India were present even before Independence. Moreover, throughout the vicissitudes of the national struggle, the question of the future of Indian minorities, especially Muslims, often derailed the pace of the movement, providing the British with a nasty plank to play the dangerous game of “divide and rule”. This ultimately resulted in the creation of Pakistan and thereby forever bedeviling the Hindu-Muslim relation in India.

After the revolt of 1857, the British began to victimize the Muslims holding them as the arch conspirators of the revolt. Thereafter came a pro-Hindu tilt in the British policies. Educationally and economically, Muslims were already lagging behind the Hindus. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan started the Aligarh Movement in response to this backwardness of the Muslims. His ambition was to enable the Muslims to walk abreast of the Hindus. But for this, and it is very important to note since it later developed into the dichotomy of Hindu-Muslim politics, Syed Ahmed emphasized that at this stage Muslims must stay away from politics and rather concentrate on their educational and economic progress. At that time, the Indian National Congress was in its budding stage and soon a myth built up questioning the validity of the Congress itself. The myth was that Congress was the brainchild of Viceroy Dufferin who conceived the association to provide a “safety-valve” to the rising discontent of the Indians especially the elite Indians. Interestingly, the sub-altern school of history emphasizes this elitist nature of the Congress. On the other hand, the nationalist historians totally reject both the safety-valve theory as well as the elitist theory of the Congress. In any case, Congress did not seem to be able to do any good to the Muslim community in the eyes of Syed Ahmed. Therefore, he advised the Muslims to keep away from it. Though Muslims like Badruddin Tyabji became active leaders of the Congress, a large chunk of the Muslim community observed ‘separatism’ from the Congress. This ‘separatism’ was later reinforced by the Muslim League propaganda of Hindu domination over Muslims after Independence. Even after the sanguinary creation of Pakistan, the Muslim fear psychosis did not go. This psychosis has been played on in India by the Sangh Parivar, which after the 80s has reached its crescendo.

Post-Independence scenario: The static equilibrium

After Independence, there has been a continuous development of Hindu chauvinism as an ideology. It seeks to build up a Hindu Rashtra. Combined with this Hindu chauvinism, the state has been continuously failing its secular polity. The result has been disastrous for the nation. On the one hand, leaders created a system of votebanks i.e. a conception of a separate Hindu and Muslim electorate. At the time of election, the politicians try to woo each votebank, conceding certain concessions to each party. Rajiv Gandhi provided a classic example of this votebank politics. In 1985, when Muslims rose all over the country in opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Shahbano case, Rajiv Gandhi used the opportunity to “appease” the Muslims. By legislation, the court verdict was nullified. Similarly, to “appease” those Hindus who were criticizing Rajiv Gandhi’s move to repeal the court decision, Rajiv Gandhi got the door of the disputed Babri Masjid unlocked. This move proved to be nothing short of opening the Pandora’s box for the country.

Simultaneously, there has been a rise of majority as well as minority communalism. The most unfortunate thing about these two communalisms is that both feed each other. Consequently, they have created a great gulf between the two communities. The greatest plank of the majority communalism is the bogey of appeasement. Hindu communal organizations such as the VHP, the RSS and their political platform the BJP have since long tried to systematically disseminate disinformation about the Muslims. They have tried to project Muslims as being pampered by earlier governments. Convinced by this propaganda, many Hindus have come to believe that the cause of their suffering is none but the Muslim community of India. The logical result was that Muslims always became the targets of Hindu communists whenever a riot broke out. The post-Godhra riots in Gujarat is the most recent example in a series of communal skirmishes. Hindu communalists deliberately engineered many riots to pauperize the Muslims in areas they had flourishing trade and commerce, such as Bhagalpur, Malyana, Bhiondi in the past and now Gujarat in 2002. Another sad dimension of the riotings has been the atrocities committed against Muslims by Police and the administration.

In recent years, the BJP has been spearheading the Hindu communalist movement. The demolition of the Babri Mosque and the Guajarat riots have brutally torn apart the screen of disillusionment of the110 million Indian Muslims. For most of them, this is the end of secularism in India. Today the entire Indian Muslim community is cocooned in a deep insecurity.

The Sangh Parivar has been toying with the idea of creating a new India on the graveyard of our constitutional values. They consider the mosques as “symbols of Hindu humiliation perpetrated by tyrannical Muslim rulers”. Emboldened after the Guajarat win, Praveen Tagdia has even set the time frame for the establishment of the Hindu Rashtra. Another two years, he says, and all pseudo secularists will be gone.

Are Muslims not part of the mainstream?

Another bugbear that the Sangh Parivar sincerely and frequently resorts to is that Muslims should become a part of the national mainstream, as if they were not part of the same. This is though a euphemism for Muslims having their Personal Laws, et al. They have always made a hue and cry of polygamy among Muslims (according to them, Muslims marry more and produce more children in order to outnumber the Hindus in India) and the question of talaq and alimony. However, it is a myth that the Muslims are not part of the national mainstream. All those who accept the Constitution and the law of the land are part of the national mainstream, whatever their religion, culture, and language. The Constitutions itself allows this pluralism. In fact, pluralism is the very soul of our Constitution. It is the Sangh Parivar, which is defiant of the real Constitutional spirit and intolerant of other cultures and religions. Muslims are part of the national mainstream not only because they accept, both in letter and spirit, the Constitution of India but also because they have been part of Indian society for centuries. Indian traditions are as much in their blood as that of anyone else. They have also contributed to the enrichment of Indian society and culture in no small measure. It is sheer arrogance to suggest that only the Hindus have contributed to the Indian culture and civilization.

With change in time, changes also occur in the perception of communities in a society. The Indian society has been much more dynamic than many others in this regard if we see the history of caste and class equations. Similarly, to fight the Hinduvta upsurge, Indian Muslims have reacted in two ways: one part of the community indulged in minority communalism and demagogy to counter the Hinduvta forces. The other section of the community, though small in numbers, chose the secular way of fighting Hindu chauvinism and started debunking the myths propagated by the communal media. The country’s secular minded people and the secular media supported this section of the community. Thankfully, after the Ayodhya tragedy, the leadership of Muslim communalist bandwagon was discredited and rejected by the general Muslims.

Changing paradigms: The Future

Today, it is imperative that the Muslim community fights the ogre of communalism by adopting the prescription of the Muslim intellectual leadership. The secret of this game of survival was beautifully summed by Mr. Javed Akhtar, Urdu poet and lyricist: “The life-breath of the ogre of Hindu communalism lies in the heart of the parrot of Muslim communalism. Kill the parrot and the ogre will die.” In plain English, it means that the fundamentalist and opportunistic Muslim leadership has to be completely disowned by the Muslims. I think the Muslims of India have done that.

As far as the political approach is concerned, Indian Muslims should follow the “Consociational Model of Democracy”. It has four major elements. First is government by grand coalition of political leaders of all significant elements of the plural society. Second is the mutual veto, which serves as an additional protection of vital minority interests. Third is proportionality as the principal standards of political representation, civil services, appointments, and allocation of public funds. Fourth is a high degree of autonomy for each segment to run its own affairs. Austria, Switzerland, and Columbia have successfully followed this model. Until this approach is adopted in India, Muslims in the interim should distribute their votes among secular and democratic parties.

Greater self-reliance through the community’s own private initiative in education, charity, co-operatives and social reform offer an alternative to the route of community improvement through politics. Many scholars believe that secularism as officially promoted in India alienates both Hindus and Muslims. Hence, a positive acceptance of diverse identities rooted in religion as enunciated by Gandhi has better prospects for national integration than secular principles.