CAA protest and its resemblance with the partition arguments.

The current protest against CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) and in making the struggles unequivocally as the struggles for the Muslims in India when the Law does not in any way affect them, have raised the concerns in some sections of the society. The argument used by people is that CAA is discriminatory against a particular religion that is Islam and Muslims. While by now everyone is aware of what CAA means, it is important to reiterate that CAA is applicable to the people of only three specific countries that is Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. The people protesting are doing a hue and cry why the Muslims are excluded especially the Shia’s and Ahemedia’s which face discrimination in Pakistan. The template being used is that of saving the constitution and thus Dr. Ambedkar is being invoked by the protesters frequently.  Then why does it become justifiable for the Indian Secular state to not grant a fast track process for the Muslims of Pakistan or Bangladesh, remember they still can apply for Indian citizenship under the normal course. The genesis of all this “protests” Sharjeel Imam wanting to block the “apna area” (Muslim dominated) areas of Assam and trying to wage a conspiracy against the Indian state, the calls of Jinnah wali Azadi and his invoking of Jinnah as the Muslims leader that today’s Indian Muslims should study, calls also for the “Indians” to study that part of our history which is taught in our text books as just another footnote. That Gandhiji gave us Independence and in the process before Independence there was another non-event that is the Partition of India, the Movement that was led by Jinnah the same Jinnah that Sharjeel Imam considers the leader of Muslim India is worth studying. So let us consider the current debates that are happening in the country via the lenses of this event Partition and what were the views of the Dr.Ambedkar and prominent Muslims of that time about the India (Hindu India) as they called it and any lessons or resemblances that we can draw from them. I have used Dr. Ambedkar’s book Pakistan or the Partition of India hence forth the reference page no being cited as (BA) and Venkat Dhulipal’s – Creating A New Medianwhere the reference page numbers are cited as Dhulipal to understand this catastrophic event in India’s history and how the then Indian Muslims worked towards a creation of separate land for themselves in the Indian subcontinent and some common themes that are repeating today in 2020.

 

Now Ambedkars views on what constitutes a nation and the Muslim View of India. This is important in the context of the calls for Azadi that are been raised by the Muslims. What constitutes a nation BA quotes Renan as follows…. A nation is a living soul, a spiritual principle. Therefore two things are important the past and the present. The nation is the long past of efforts and scarifies and devotion. Ancestor worship, the heroic past, the glory –the glory of the real kind, scarifies we have consented to make and the sufferings we have endured. The future ideal to be realised and inheritance of glory and regrets to be shared. The regard of the national memories and mourning’s are worth more than the triumphs. (BA pg. 17). The day of deliverance celebration held on 22^nd Dec 1939 shows the depth of the Muslim resentment. The Muslims who at the Round table conference joined the demands of Swaraj are today ruthless opponents of swaraj.  The Muslims considered it a blow of replacement of the Sharia law by the Mecaulays penal code and the abolition of Persian as the official court language. Is it not a fact that every Muslim is longing to belong to his own group and not any non-Muslim group. If the answer is to the affirmative, then the controversy must end….(BA pg. 13) It is beyond doubt that the most Hindus and Muslims belong to the same race and share some common practices and language in some parts. The question to ask however is whether on account of this do they constitute one nation or have the feeling that they belong to each other. (BA pg. 15).

Moving on to the debate, the Current Secularists have been constantly trying to paint the Islamic rule in the Medieval India as some sort of exchange of Culture and that brought a lot of good thing for Indian natives (Hindus) and also the tolerant nature of their rule in India. The eminent intellectuals have been constantly harping on the great Mughals rulers in Indian and the likes of Sharjeel and other protesters are drawing inspirations from them. The intellectuals have tried to white wash the barbarism of the like of Taimur, Khilji, and Aurangzeb. Also they point out they were different people at different times likes Turks, Mangols, and Afghans so it is foolish to paint them as Muslims and that is brushed of as a hindutva conspiracy. Let’s see what there “hero” Dr.Ambedkar had to say on the Islamic Invasion of India.

Islamic Invasion as seen by Ambedkar:  Even if the fact remains that the Islamic invasion is lumped together as Muslims without distinction they were different people like the Turks, Mongols and Afghans at different times who invaded India and were no brothers and had fierce enemies with each other. Whatever be their internal conflicts important thing to bear in mind is the fact that they were all united by one common objective and that was to destroy the Hindu faith. Mohamad bin Qasim’s 1^st act of religious zeal was to circumcise all Brahmins and convert them, but when they objected he put all the men above 17 to death taking all the females and children into slavery. He quotes Dr. Titus as follows as Mahumad and Taimur were more concerned with iconoclasm and to have made the slaughter of infidels, destruction of their temples, capturing of slaves, plundering of wealth particularly of the temples and the priests as the main object of their raids. (BAPg.39 &43). Ambedkar quoted at length from the colonial historians such as Stanley Lane pool as also their translations of the medieval Muslim chronicles such as Minhaj-us_siraj and others to enumerate the violent methods adopted by Islam in their conquest of India. Muslim loot of Hindu temples, slaughter of able bodied men and sale of their women and children into slavery, he argued, had created bitterness between the communities that a century of British rule had not succeeded in assuaging it or making people forget it. Hindus and Muslims therefore shared no historical antecedents as ‘matters of common joy and sorrow, rather than constituting a unitary nation in India sharing common history and culture, historically Hindus and Muslims were ‘two armed battalions warring against one another.’(Dhulipalpg 132).

The Calls for “Jinnah wali Azadi” were raised in the recent protest in ShaheenBagh. Also Sharjeel considers Jinnah as his mentor and then he also asks the Muslims to study the pre partition template to build a solid struggle for the Muslims in India. Also Pakistan Zindabad slogans were raised in the current rallies of Owaisi, which he condemned later. Aligharh Muslim University had the posters of Jinnah and Sayed Ahmad who are revered scholars for them. So what is this idea of Pakistan? Was it secular India because the Hindus were intolerant towards the Muslims? Let’s visit the Idea if Pakistan. People are arguing for the Pakistani Muslims to be also considered for the fast track citizenship. The case is argued for certain sects like the Shia’s.  Let us look at all this arguments and then should India consider Pakistani (Pakistan and Bangladesh) for fast track citizenship.

The idea of Pakistan as argued by Venkat Dhulipala was not a vague idea that serendipitously emerged as a Nation state but was popularly imagined as a Sovereign Islamic State, a new Medina as some called it. In this regard, it was envisaged as the harbinger of Islam’s renewal and the rise in the 20^th century, the new leader and the protector of the global community of Muslims and the worthy successor to the defunct Turkish Capital. (Dhulipal. Pg1 introduction Creating New Medina.) The name of the book derived from how Maulana Shabbir Ahamed Usmani imagined Pakistan. Who shall say that the Muslims of India may not, under the auspicious of the great European power, be destined to restore western and central Asia something of what their forefathers gave Europe in the middle ages. (Dhulipal Pg. 148.) Pakistan as argued by Anis al Din should be created as an Islamic State and only such a state could truly achieve liberation. He justified this goal by arguing that it was central tenet to Islam, a Necessary and distinguishing feature of the faith that set it apart from other religions and indeed made it superior to them. What therefore is clear is that Pakistan was been sold in U.P. localities as an Islamic state (Dhulipal Pg. 196& 197). Anis Al din countered the likes of Maulanamadani and Nehru who were preaching the doctrine of Mutahida Qaumiyat (shared struggle for independence by both communities) as being a part of such a fickle Hindu thinking that he warned could change tomorrow for human thinking changed in numerous ways over time. Would Muslims Break in saying of the Namaz he asked rhetorically to this Hindu overtones and said that Islam unlike Hinduism was not just a faith but a Social system. He argued that the Indian Muslim had made great sacrifices for Pan-Islamism in the last 30years (1910- 1940) and would continue to do so. (Dhulipalpg. 201). He argued Nehru’s irreligious program was thus a surreptitious attempt to smuggle Hinduism into Indian Muslims through the back door and eventually absorb Muslims in Hinduism. (Dhulipal pg202).

Shia response to Pakistan: At 1^st the Raja of Mahamudabad had apprehensions over the joining of Pakistan and argued about the Sunni hostilities towards Shias. Also declared the 5 point programme that the Shias should be assured of before the Shia could join the Pakistan Movement. This agitated the Qaid who was frustrated and asked don’t you know the British hand was fast disappearing? The Shias should wholeheartedly join the league as the ML is now able to enforce justice and fair play between all Musalmans whatever be his sects or Sections. Jinnah’s forceful response swiftly brought the Mahumadabads into line with Qaid’s belief.   A Week later while addressing the Shia political conference in Luknow, the raj declared that differences between the Shias and Sunnis were not as pronounced as those between Muslims and other communities. He added that if eight crore Sunni Muslims could not protect Shia interests, nobody else could be relied on to safeguard their interests. (Dhulipal pg209).

The Course that Pakistan has taken for in the next 70 years only confirms the ideas that were responsible in creating of Pakistan movement have only consolidated and solidified with time. Also the Shia unlike today were integral to the creation of Pakistan. Thus it is only in India’s National interest that majority population of Pakistan cannot be treated with equality and defeats the very purpose why the Muslims demanded Partition from the year 1940 onward.

Also one of the important themes used in the India is how the singing of Vande Mataram is imposed on Muslims by the Hindutva forces even as Hum Dekhenge and ‘all idols will be raised and only Allah’s name will remain” have become a song of struggle in today’s India. Is this debate recent and really a modern day response to hindutva? What was the Muslim view before the partition on this topics when supposed Hindu Muslim unity was there to achieve freedom? Let’s us look at the Muslim response to the intolerant VandeMataram and Bharat Mata ki Jai. That a said response should continue should raise eyebrows in United India including Muslims that rejected these ideas.

The intolerance and hate towards Vande Mataram and Hindu symbols. The Muslim league finally opposed the flying of the tricolour flag by government institutions and in public spaces and singing Bande Mataram during official functions, especially in government schools claiming that these were Hindu symbols which were alien to the Muslim Culture (Dhulipal pg. 80). In other speeches in his home town Lucknow Chaudhary khaliquzzaman he explored the relationship of territorial nationalism and Islam. The Hindus he noted saw nationalism as Hindu goddess (devi) that needed to be worshipped. This practice was abhorrent in Islam for even though he loved his Watan, he was 1^st and last a Muslim and if a choice had to be made between watan and Mazab, a Muslim would always choose the latter. He also pointed out the dangerous implications of being a salve to composite nationalism. (Dhulipal pg.218)

The current Muslims are refusing to have any dialogue with the government and the calls of “Islam khataremaihai” under the current Hindutva dispensation have been running rounds. Also the statement made by WarisPathan that 15cr are heavy on 100cr. Also the calls of “Hinduonse AZADi”, Pakistan Zindabad, Jinnah wali AZADI have made it amply clear that not all people are just trying to “protect the Constitution.” To understand the context of all this protest the blocking of public roads and stone pelting on the roads of India under the garb of “democratic protest” which have gone too far even if you side with the so called “secular cause”. Again it is very useful to go back to the man that the protestors are using on banners Dr.Ambedkar. What was his views on Muslims obeying a supposed Hindu government and what were his general views on Islam

How far will the Muslims obey the authority of government manned and controlled by the Hindus? The answer to this question need not call for much enquiry. To the Muslims the Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not worthy of respect, he is low born and without respect. Given this no further evidence is necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu government. (BA pg. 294). The change in the Indian Muslims is to be sought in the peculiar position he occupies in India. He is placed in a social environment which is prominently Hindu. That Hindu environment is always silently encroaching upon him. He feels that it is de-muslimazing him. Muslims in India are placed under the political position that is predominantly Hindu and he feels that it will make Muslims a depressed class. It is this consciousness that he has to save himself from being submerged by the Hindus politically and socially. The political and social stagnation in the Muslim community can be explained by one and only one reason. The Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims should perpetually struggle, the Hindus to establish their dominance over the Muslims and the Muslims to establish their historical position as the ruling community- that in this struggle the strong must win (BA pg227).  According to the Muslim common Law the world is divided into two camps Dar-Ul-islam (adobe of Islam) and Dar-Ul-Harb were Muslims reside but are not the rulers. This being the law that it cannot be the common mother land for the Muslims and Hindus. It can be the land of Muslims but not the land of Hindus and Muslims living as equals. The Bristish occupation raised no qualms in the Hindu minds but so far as the Muslims were concerned it led to a debate of about half a century whether India can still be called Dar-Ul-Islam and some more zealous elements under the leadership of Sayyed Ahmad declared the holy war. (BA pg. 287). The topic is well explored by Dr.AnandRanganathan in his news laundry article Ambedkar on Islam https://www.newslaundry.com/2017/04/14/ambedkar-on-islam-the-story-that-must-not-be-toldthat no further analysis is required on the subject.

Another Striking Feature of the protest is that they have rejected that any such thing as the hostage population theory was ever discussed. There is no such mention in the Nehru-Liaquat Pact. Also the peculiar use of the Dalit Muslim Unity is touted.  Were this things discussed in the run up to Partition?Why are the Indian Muslims frightened that the persecuted Hindus and the Sikhs especially and the minorities in general are given fast track citizenship” without denying the Indian Muslims anything. Do they think that the minorities of Pakistan and Bangladesh ones given citizenship of India ends there covenant? What is this covenant?

Hostage population Theory: They argued that apart from creating the separate land for the Muslim majority provinces they repeatedly stressed on the hostage population theory to protect the rights of the Muslims minorities in Hindu India. (Dhulipal pg. 19) It is quite natural if Muslims minorities are oppressed in the Hindu India, it will lead to repercussions in Muslim India. But the fear of provoking reprisals will exercise a detrimental effect on the majorities. The liability before world’s moral opinion as well as the responsibility of the oppressing state before the neighbouring state will be sufficient to hold check the danger of communal tension. (Dhulipalpg 167). Jinnah was willing to sacrifice the then 2 crore Muslims that would not be able to migrate to Pakistan for the 7 cr. Muslims in the majority province and also called for their martyrdom if necessary. In this regard Jinnah himself affirmed one of the two supporting strands of the hostage population theory when he declared that if Minorities in Hindu India were ill-treated, Pakistan would not remain a passive spectator. (Dhulipal pg.  172)

Ashraf aliThanwai on the conversion of Dalits: Had Muslim league understood the importance of the tabligh (proselytization) of the untouchables not for the religious purposes but for the political ones? If so what practical steps had it taken in that direction and what future plans did it have?  (Dhulipalpg.98).

The other important aspect of the current protest is the way the so called seculars are trying to craft a Hindu-Muslim unity and calling for the Hindu side to be intolerant of the views. They have demanded that the Muslims side has to be accommodated in the national discourse at any cost and it is incumbent upon the Hindus to do all the walking in order to achieve this so called “Secular unity” at any cost. People like Kamlesh Tiwari have been murdered in the recent history and he is said to represent the intolerant Hindus. The same secular side who preaches “freedom of speech” to the “non-liberals” wants guys like Kamlesh Tiwari to be “sensitive” when it comes to its comments on Islam. Have such incidents taken place in India at times of Ambedkar. What was his response? Also what was the role of the tom – tomed Non-Co-Operation movement in India’s freedom and why was it actually launched? Let us evaluate.

Gandhi bursts on the Indian National scene with the promise to give freedom in six months. Gandhi launched the Non co-operation and sided with the Khilafat movement. The obscure reason of the fact that most people believed that it was the congress which launched the movement of Non-co-operation movement and it was done as a means to winning the Swaraj. But anyone who cares to go beyond the congress session of September 1920 and examine the situation as it stood then will find that the view is not true. The truth is that the non-Co-operation has its origins in Khilafat and not a congress movement for Swaraj and started to help the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. (BA pg. 137)

Gandhis Hindu Muslim Unity:  Ambedkarsaid can any sane man go so far, for the sake of Hindu Muslim Unity? But Mr Gandhi was so attached to this cause of Hindu Muslim unity that he did not stop to enquire what he was really doing in his mad endeavour. He has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus. First to suffer was Swami Shardhanand, then LalaNanackhchand, Rajpal for RangilaRasool, Nathuramal Sharma. Not only has Gandhi not protested against such murders the Musalmans have not condemned these outrageous acts nor has Gandhi called upon them to condemn such acts. The Khilafat leaders were so anxious that they passed a resolution congratulating the brave Mopla Muslims for their acts that they were conducting for the sake of religion, the acts which were blood curdling atrocities committed by the moplas in Malabar against Hindus which were indescribable. Anybody could have said that it was too heavy a price to pay for the Hindu Muslim unity but Mr Gandhi was so obsessed about it that it called upon the Hindus to Should face such looting and murder with equanimity and silently and must have the courage and faith to protect their religion in spite of this. (BA pg. 148).

Lastly Ambedkar had argued about one more feature about the partition and warned the Hindus of the consequences of such a situation.

On the question of Military composition: The composition of the Indian military even if we take it at 50% should ring the alarm bells for the Hindus. Are they Sure when faced with the Invasions from outside specially from the Muslim countries like Afghanistan and other Muslim countries will the Muslims soldiers in the army  be the gate keepers or open the gate and let them in? (BA pg. 81) The Hindus must not forget that only during the 1919 khilafat movement the Indian Muslim who were carrying on the Khilafat movement actually went to the lengths of inviting the Amir of Afghanisthan to invade India. (BA Pg83.)

Ambedkar warned that such a situation should ring alarm bells in the Hindus and the Hindus should be prepared for such an outcome. I would have been happy that such an outcome had never played out in any part of India. Even if such an outcome has never played out in the divided India and we are all proud of such an armed force, the Armed forces of Maharaja Hari Singh in those troubled times were not so lucky were some Muslim soldiers of the army of the Maharaja which boasted of the Hindu, Muslim, Sikh unity fell apart and some Muslims sided with the Muslims from the newly created Pakistan, even as we are told that the struggle for Kashmir was always for the “AZAD Kashmir” and a struggle which was irrespective of the religion.

To conclude there were a few people on the Muslim side that actually argued for the unity of Indian homeland and its shared culture and all the values and its shared past. But the fact remains that in the crucial elections of 1946 almost 87% of the Muslims voted for the creation of Pakistan. The fact also remains that in spite of all this Pakistan has persecuted its minorities even as India has treated its minorities with all the respect they are due and deserve as common and equal citizens of India and which is their right, the right that India intends to protect going forward. It is in this context that I wish to place the current CAA debate before the people of India.  The recent trends though limited to one or two locations are testimony to some worst memory the nation had to suffer in its recent history and the resemblances in the troubled past must not be ignored by the sensible Indians.

P.S. The topics discussed will be best understood when people will read over a 1000 pages of the above to mentioned books and the said synopsis is just to create interest for the popular audience in this topics.