BinZiad
22-11-2002, 20:43
Indian Muslims — setting the record straight
By Anis Siddiqi, Special to Arab News
India is a secular country where people of all religions have been
living together peacefully for ages. But since the past few years
things have turned for the worse, thanks to the majoritarian communal-
fascist politics. False propaganda is being spread in order to create
hatred among the communities. Muslims have been the prime targets in
this and there is a very well planned out machinery working in trying
to defame Muslims and Islam. Whatever is being said against them has
no basis whatsoever, and any right thinking person can see this.
The favorite topic these days seems to be terrorism, and it is
suggested that all Muslims are terrorists and Islam teaches jihad to
get rid of all non-Muslims. This is a very silly idea, considering
the fact that the largest and the most powerful terrorist
organization in the world these days is the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam, and the LTTE is an entirely Hindu organization. Then, if
you look at who have died due to terrorist attacks, it is very
obvious that it has always been mainly the Muslims. A good example is
Kashmir. Who are the majority of the people dying there? The Muslims.
Even if you take the so-called terrorists of Kashmir into account —
who are the people being killed by these groups? Again, the majority
of those who have died at their hands are Muslims. According to a
report, the number of Muslims killed by these organizations is three
times more than Hindus.
Come to think of it, what was the first terrorist attack in free
India? The answer is very simple and well known — the killing of M.K.
Gandhi. And who killed him? Nathuram Godse, a Hindu who had links to
the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. And the
reason that Godse killed Gandhi was that the Mahasabha and the RSS
disliked Gandhi for working for peace between Hindus and Muslims.
Who is not aware of the recent Gujarat carnage? The horror of it was
so bad that its intensity was felt by the whole world, much to the
chagrin of those responsible for it.
This violence was also blamed on the Muslims, even though those
murdered brutally were all Muslims. It was said that the Hindus only
attacked out of revenge and that it was the Muslims who started it by
burning the train at Godhra. The burning of the train was truly
horrible and condemnable, and it should not have happened at all, but
the fact is that there was violence at Godhra well before the train
burning. In fact, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad members on the train had
killed a Muslim man the previous week, and if revenge can be
justified — as is being done by the likes of Narendra Modi and
Praveen Togadia — then why not the revenge of the Muslims by the
burning? Dawood Ibrahim had set off the bombs in Bombay in revenge
for the riots that followed the demolition of the Babri Mosque. Then
why not justify the bombing too? Or is it that revenge has
justification for only one community and not for another?
The fact is that revenge is just used as an excuse to kill innocent
people in an attempt to build up their own power.
Actually what is working behind their killing of the innocents is the
apprehension that the Muslim population is increasing at a faster
rate than the Hindu population. This again is a silly notion. True,
the latest census shows that Muslims are growing at a rate of 2.71
percent per annum, while Hindus at 2.19 percent. But look at it more
closely. At the rate of 2.71 percent each year, it would take nearly
400 years for the Muslims to become 50 percent of the population.
Even this would only happen if India's population goes on growing at
these rates for 400 years, which means that by that time the total
population would be 50 trillion! While in actuality the population
will stop growing in the next 40 years or so. By that time the Muslim
population would only be 13 to 14 percent of the total, just two
percent more than today. Is there any possibility of the Muslims
taking over at this rate?
There is also the claim that Muslims are prospering because the
previous governments had pampered them. Again the claim is wrong.
According to the latest census, almost half of the Muslims of the
country live below the poverty line. In rural areas, more than 90
percent of the Muslims have less than two acres of land, compared to
77 percent of the Hindus. Then, even though Muslims form 11 percent
of the population, they form less than 3 percent of the IAS officers.
Doesn't this prove that Muslims are one of the country's poorest
communities?
The hard-line Hindu organizations say that the Muslims got their
country when Pakistan was created, so now they should leave the
country. Don't those demanding this know that huge numbers of Muslims
opposed the idea of Pakistan, and the majority of the Muslims in
present-day India chose to stay here? They didn't only stay back but
worked hard for their country and made a mark for themselves and for
the country. Two past presidents of India have been Muslims, Zakir
Husain and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad. The present president is also
Muslim, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. He is not only the president, but also
the father of the Indian defense program. Some of the best cricketers
have been and are Muslims — Farooq Engineer, Zaheer Khan, Mansoor Ali
Khan Pataudi and Muhammad Azharuddin just to name a few. To name only
a few of the great Muslim musicians, there are Bismillah Khan, Amjad
Ali Khan, Zakir Husain, and the present day top musician A.R. Rehman.
Some of the most famous actors and actresses have been Muslims too —
Dilip Kumar, Aamir Khan, Shah Rukh Khan, Salman Khan, Madhubala,
Meena Kumari, Mumtaz, just to name some. The list could go on for
each and every field of work. Each one of them has lived in India,
worked for India, and most importantly, loved India. Then is it fair
to say that Muslims are against India?
As for calling Muslims aliens, can one imagine India without biryani,
tandoori chicken, salwar kameez, kurta pajamas, dupattas, sherwanis,
tablas, ghazals, or even Taj Mahal or Red Fort? All these things were
brought by Muslims, but are now very much Indian. India looks like
India because of centuries of mixing and blending of the different
communities and religions. Just because some people say they are not
Hindu, do they stop being Indian?
By Anis Siddiqi, Special to Arab News
India is a secular country where people of all religions have been
living together peacefully for ages. But since the past few years
things have turned for the worse, thanks to the majoritarian communal-
fascist politics. False propaganda is being spread in order to create
hatred among the communities. Muslims have been the prime targets in
this and there is a very well planned out machinery working in trying
to defame Muslims and Islam. Whatever is being said against them has
no basis whatsoever, and any right thinking person can see this.
The favorite topic these days seems to be terrorism, and it is
suggested that all Muslims are terrorists and Islam teaches jihad to
get rid of all non-Muslims. This is a very silly idea, considering
the fact that the largest and the most powerful terrorist
organization in the world these days is the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam, and the LTTE is an entirely Hindu organization. Then, if
you look at who have died due to terrorist attacks, it is very
obvious that it has always been mainly the Muslims. A good example is
Kashmir. Who are the majority of the people dying there? The Muslims.
Even if you take the so-called terrorists of Kashmir into account —
who are the people being killed by these groups? Again, the majority
of those who have died at their hands are Muslims. According to a
report, the number of Muslims killed by these organizations is three
times more than Hindus.
Come to think of it, what was the first terrorist attack in free
India? The answer is very simple and well known — the killing of M.K.
Gandhi. And who killed him? Nathuram Godse, a Hindu who had links to
the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. And the
reason that Godse killed Gandhi was that the Mahasabha and the RSS
disliked Gandhi for working for peace between Hindus and Muslims.
Who is not aware of the recent Gujarat carnage? The horror of it was
so bad that its intensity was felt by the whole world, much to the
chagrin of those responsible for it.
This violence was also blamed on the Muslims, even though those
murdered brutally were all Muslims. It was said that the Hindus only
attacked out of revenge and that it was the Muslims who started it by
burning the train at Godhra. The burning of the train was truly
horrible and condemnable, and it should not have happened at all, but
the fact is that there was violence at Godhra well before the train
burning. In fact, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad members on the train had
killed a Muslim man the previous week, and if revenge can be
justified — as is being done by the likes of Narendra Modi and
Praveen Togadia — then why not the revenge of the Muslims by the
burning? Dawood Ibrahim had set off the bombs in Bombay in revenge
for the riots that followed the demolition of the Babri Mosque. Then
why not justify the bombing too? Or is it that revenge has
justification for only one community and not for another?
The fact is that revenge is just used as an excuse to kill innocent
people in an attempt to build up their own power.
Actually what is working behind their killing of the innocents is the
apprehension that the Muslim population is increasing at a faster
rate than the Hindu population. This again is a silly notion. True,
the latest census shows that Muslims are growing at a rate of 2.71
percent per annum, while Hindus at 2.19 percent. But look at it more
closely. At the rate of 2.71 percent each year, it would take nearly
400 years for the Muslims to become 50 percent of the population.
Even this would only happen if India's population goes on growing at
these rates for 400 years, which means that by that time the total
population would be 50 trillion! While in actuality the population
will stop growing in the next 40 years or so. By that time the Muslim
population would only be 13 to 14 percent of the total, just two
percent more than today. Is there any possibility of the Muslims
taking over at this rate?
There is also the claim that Muslims are prospering because the
previous governments had pampered them. Again the claim is wrong.
According to the latest census, almost half of the Muslims of the
country live below the poverty line. In rural areas, more than 90
percent of the Muslims have less than two acres of land, compared to
77 percent of the Hindus. Then, even though Muslims form 11 percent
of the population, they form less than 3 percent of the IAS officers.
Doesn't this prove that Muslims are one of the country's poorest
communities?
The hard-line Hindu organizations say that the Muslims got their
country when Pakistan was created, so now they should leave the
country. Don't those demanding this know that huge numbers of Muslims
opposed the idea of Pakistan, and the majority of the Muslims in
present-day India chose to stay here? They didn't only stay back but
worked hard for their country and made a mark for themselves and for
the country. Two past presidents of India have been Muslims, Zakir
Husain and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad. The present president is also
Muslim, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. He is not only the president, but also
the father of the Indian defense program. Some of the best cricketers
have been and are Muslims — Farooq Engineer, Zaheer Khan, Mansoor Ali
Khan Pataudi and Muhammad Azharuddin just to name a few. To name only
a few of the great Muslim musicians, there are Bismillah Khan, Amjad
Ali Khan, Zakir Husain, and the present day top musician A.R. Rehman.
Some of the most famous actors and actresses have been Muslims too —
Dilip Kumar, Aamir Khan, Shah Rukh Khan, Salman Khan, Madhubala,
Meena Kumari, Mumtaz, just to name some. The list could go on for
each and every field of work. Each one of them has lived in India,
worked for India, and most importantly, loved India. Then is it fair
to say that Muslims are against India?
As for calling Muslims aliens, can one imagine India without biryani,
tandoori chicken, salwar kameez, kurta pajamas, dupattas, sherwanis,
tablas, ghazals, or even Taj Mahal or Red Fort? All these things were
brought by Muslims, but are now very much Indian. India looks like
India because of centuries of mixing and blending of the different
communities and religions. Just because some people say they are not
Hindu, do they stop being Indian?