Don’t delink Muslims from the rest of India

Despite all the aberrations that have since crept in, this one truth remains, that the average Hindu is more comfortable in a multicultural society than in a society either run on the basis of the Nizam-e-Mustafa or one that is an unabashedly theocratic Hindu state. I take strong exception to Shahbuddin saying assimilation is the leit motif of Hindu history. Cultural or religious convergence is not the same as assimilation.

To the average Hindu a pious Muslim adhering to his own religion is as welcome as a pious Hindu following his own path. As a Hindu I firmly reject the idea that Hinduism demands absorption of Indian Islam.

Incidentally, Shahbuddin has not explained what is Indian Islam because to the best of my knowledge there is only one Islam based on what was revealed to the Prophet Mohammad, Salallah-Walleh-Salallam, through the medium of the Holy Quran. This is the only Islam that I accept.

Shahbuddin talks of a political authority that ‘‘commands the allegiance of all Muslim Indians in states and constituencies of Muslim concentration’’. Muslims constitute five per cent of the population of Madhya Pradesh. Muslims in rural Madhya Pradesh vote alongwith the rest of the people in their respective villages, which means that if the village largely votes Congress, Muslims do so also, but if it opts BJP then the Muslims follow suit.

Muslims are now asked to owe allegiance to a single Muslim authority. Would that not isolate them from the rest of the people and arouse fears of a pan Islamic movement within the country?

The concept of a separate political identity for Muslims will certainly isolate them and I cannot see 12 per cent of the population of this country, the major part of which is scattered, being able to develop political clout through such isolation. They may win a few constituencies in Kerala, Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, but any attempt to isolate themselves from mainstream Indian society would cause Muslims to be clobbered.

I am a Hindu but I have great respect for Islam. This religion is eclectic, catholic, humanitarian and basically peaceful, provided its leaders do not keep talking about ‘‘return to roots, shedding unislamic accretions and, at the same time, addressing concerns of a new age in the light of the Quran and the Traditions of the Holy Prophet through ijtihad, reinterpretation’’.

If by roots Shahbuddin means some obscure Wahhabi Saudi Arabian cultural moorings, I reject the idea.

If by roots is meant the true understanding of the Quran, I am all for it, because the Quran says three very important things. The first is the Bismillah, which glorifies God as the embodiment of mercy and grace. The second is the Fateha, which glorifies Allah as the lord of the universe. The third is the exhortation of Allah to his Prophet which states that those who do not accept Allah will be severely punished, but the right to take account vests only in Allah.

As for ijtihad or reinterpretation, when was the last ijma organised in which the ulema seriously discussed issues of reinterpretation? Not since the late 16th century, I believe.

It is an article of faith with me that the day India ceases to be a society of the many and becomes a restricted coterie of one I shall walk away from this country. At the same time I firmly believe Muslims must emphasise the need to match Hindus in terms of education and women’s emancipation.

The Muslim is entitled to his own identity, but within the broader framework of being Indian. The day leaders such as Shahbuddin move Muslim society in this direction Muslims will develop a political clout, not because they are Muslim but because they are Indians.

The author is a retired IAS officer