news details |
|
|
| Shabana must read history | | | JS Rajput
Actress-activist Shabana Azmi is very angry because people have failed to appreciate the message she so graciously gave to the nation when she recently appeared on Karan Thapar's television show, Devil's Advocate. During the course of the interview, Ms Azmi said she had been denied ownership of an apartment in Mumbai because she was a Muslim. No one ever thought Ms Azmi, the much-admired and adulated actress, activist and secularist, could be so angry.
Later, after there was a huge protest against her comments, she wrote an article, "Why shoot the messenger", defending her position. The Hindustan Times and the Times of India published it on August 24 for the benefit of their readers. It was a well-drafted article.
She pleaded that her secular credentials must be recalled. The problem arose because the messenger had delivered the mail at a very inappropriate time. Jammu was in turmoil. Kashmir was in flames. Yet Ms Azmi had found this the most opportune moment to give vent to her suppressed anguish.
She certainly is not alone. Media is with her and so are other secular luminaries. Most of them have preferred to maintain silence in public, but Booker-winner Arundhati Roy has also delivered her message: Kashmir Valley wants azadi. No point in delaying the inevitable and no need for India to squander resources on its continued 'military occupation'. Probably textbook writers of the secular variety have begun drafting a new chapter titled "Azadi for Kashmir" for the next academic session.
That apart, the entire nation is seriously worried about what is happening in Jammu & Kashmir. It is time we pondered over how bitterness between the two communities has been fuelled to such an extent. Who are responsible?
The two luminaries mentioned above are representatives of a generation that has pursued its own meaning and purpose of secularism so as to suit its political and ideological interests. The legacy of misinterpretation and political exploitation of Hindu-Muslim relations runs far deeper in history than is generally perceived. What was planted, nurtured and exploited by the British to subjugate Indians continues to flourish even in current times.
Both communities have undergone sufferings for over a century. It is a fact that the population of India remained the same in 1900 and 1800. The reason was the unrestricted massacre of Indians without any distinction during the 1857-59 uprising and several famines of the 19th century. The British made consistent efforts to widen the gap between the two communities and sow enmity and distrust between them. They succeeded and India was partitioned.
The products of the inherited system continued the tradition of their colonial masters. Politicians, not freedom fighters, embraced communalisation as a short-cut to vote-banks. And all this is being done in the name of secularism. This is the major cause of the erosion and decline in the credibility of the Congress over the years.
The great political party that led the glorious movement for freedom stands reduced to begging for support from those who are available provided the price is right. In the name of secularism the party played with fire and burnt its own boat. If it had remained a party committed to Gandhian traditions and legacy, India's polity would not have reached the low witnessed during the confidence motion debate on July 22.
What was the idea of secularism in India when none of the present day political parties was on the scene? Recall the uprising of 1857 when during the British reprisals Indians were butchered irrespective of whether they were Hindus or Muslims. To meet the demand for resources needed to suppress Indians, their properties were taken over by the British and put up for auction.
The famous mosques of Delhi, Jama Masjid and Fatehpuri Masjid were among those taken over by the British. The Jama Masjid was closed to Muslims and they were not even allowed to offer namaz there. It was reopened for Muslims following great efforts spearheaded by Hindus in 1863. By then it was in a bad shape and required extensive repair, which was undertaken by Hindus.
In 1858, the Fatehpuri Masjid was put under the hammer. One of the richest persons of that time, Lala Chunna Mal, made the highest bid and the mosque became his personal property forever. But Lala Chunna Mal returned the mosque to Muslims in 1886 without charging any money for this transfer of what was then his personal property.
Historians and scholars of India's heritage and culture could put forward umpteen instances, traditions and practices shared by Indians of all hues as they had learnt "to live together and work together". Attend any international meeting and you will come across the same statement in the idiom of the 21st century: In the era of globalisation and connectivity, people from different cultures and faiths have to learn to live together.
The British colonial Government had a reason to sow the seeds of discord. They made every attempt to destroy inter-faith amity. But it is difficult to comprehend why Indian leaders should continue to follow in their footsteps. It is difficult to understand why they cannot think of India beyond the next election.
It is the political leadership's responsibility to set an example of communal amity and social harmony before school children who will be conducting the affairs of India after a couple of decades. Yet they are shredding to pieces Gandhi's principle of trusteeship every day. Future generations shall hold the present generation in power responsible for the failure to protect India and project India for which Bhagat Singh, Subhas Chandra Bose, Gandhi, and thousands of others sacrificed everything, including their lives.
Somebody in Mumbai refusing to sell his flat to Ms Azmi is no more than an aberration. But a mosque being protected, preserved and returned as a gift to Muslims is a tradition that is based on principles and values. This tradition has to be revived. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
