Asghar Ali Engineer is a rights activist and heads the two organisations, Institute of Islamic Studies and Centre for Study of Society and Secularism. He has authored or edited 44 books on such  issues  as  Islam and communal and ethnic problems in India and South Asia in general.  For links to his other articles, please go to the top page of this site.

  Islam entered into India almost in the lifetime of Muhammad the  Prophet of Islam. Generally it is thought that it came into India  by way of invasion by Muhammad bin Qasim, a young general sent by  Yusuf bin Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq during the Umayyad period in  the later part of the 7th century A.D. But this is not true. Islam  entered India through Kerala on the West Coast through the Arab  traders in a peaceful manner. The region called Malabar in Kerala  is Indianised form of ma`bar which in Arabic means passage. Since  the Arab traders passed through that region often it came to be  known by that name. The Arabs, in fact, had been trading since  pre-Islamic days and then embraced Islam after the Prophet began  preaching. They married the local women in Kerala and their  offspring spread in different parts of that region. Also, later  they were accompanied by Sufi saints who converted many local  people, mainly from lower classes to Islam. Thus this was the real  entry point of Islam into India.

 However, as far as north India was concerned Islam entered into  India through invasion of Muhammad bin Qasim and it has become the  sore point in relations between Hindus and Muslims. The invasion by  Qasim was followed by many other invasions, including those of  Shihabuddin Ghauri and Mahmud Ghaznavi and the later demolished the  temple of Somnath which rankles in the memory of upper caste  Hindus. This is projected with prominence in the textbooks of  history which perpetuates the bitter memory of hostility and  animosity. Such events are not projected in proper context and are  ascribed to Islam s  hatred of Hindus and Hinduism . However, such  hostile projections are product of colonial period from nineteenth  century onwards. It is not true that the Muslim rulers simply hated  the Hindus and humiliated them throughout their rule. It is later  construction. The Hindu and Muslim rulers had mutual alliances as  well as hostilities depending on struggle for power.

 In fact many Hindu rulers invited the Muslim invaders including  Babar in order to settle scores with local rulers. Also, one ruling  Muslim dynasty fought against another ruling Muslim dynasty. When  Babar, the first Mughal ruler invaded India, Ibrahim Lodhi was  ruling over India and he was invited to defeat the Lodhi ruler by  Rajput rulers who were, by themselves, unable to defeat the Lodhi  dynasty. Still Babar is projected in contemporary school textbooks  as invader and strongly condemned for his invasion of India. These  constructions and re-constructions of medieval history are done to  cater to contemporary political needs. The period between 10th and  early 19th century is often described in these textbooks as  Muslim  period  and the period before as the  Hindu period . The historians  maintain that these periods cannot be described by religious  denomination of the ruler, as there were serious differences,  hostilities and conflicts between the rulers following the same  religion. Muslims fought against Muslims and Hindu ruler against  Hindu ruler.

 It is important to note that neither Muslim nor Hindu community was  homogenous one. Both the communities were highly stratified  horizontally as well as vertically. Medieval societies were  hierarchical along caste and class lines and the lower rungs of the  community did not exactly harmonise with the upper rungs. Even the  upper caste upper class Muslims hated their brethren of lower  castes and class. There was greater harmony between Hindus and  Muslims of lower castes than between lower and upper castes of the  same community. Common customs and traditions and mutual influences  among these lower castes and classes amply demonstrate it. However,  it is totally ignored in the contemporary history writing  especially at school levels. These history textbooks have become  breeding ground of communalism and communal hatred between these  two communities.

  The British rulers initiated this kind of history  writing in order to divide their subjects people so that they could  rule without serious challenge to their colonial power. They also  deliberately or innocently homogenised the two communities ignoring  all differences and as if their interests were uniform. The Indian  National Congress, which was an umbrella organisation of freedom  fighters wisely adopted political philosophy of secularism as its  foundational philosophy. It helped bring the elite of two  communities together to fight for freedom.  When Mahatma Gandhi  appeared on the scene he  involved the masses of people in the  freedom movement by championing their causes. He also tried to weld  Hindus and Muslims together by taking up religious issues like the  Khilafat issue after the first world war when the British sought to  dismember the Turkish empire. The Muslims responded  enthusiastically to Gandhiji s call and even traditional  Ulama  fraternised with him on the issue and supported the Indian national  Congress and its concept of secular composite nationalism.

 However, soon after the Khilafat movement serious differences  developed between a section of Hindus and Muslims mainly on  power-sharing formula. The Motilal Nehru Committee was appointed to  solve the  communal question  but both Hindu and Muslim leaders of  communal dispensation opposed its recommendations vehemently and  the report consequently drew a blank. Three round table conferences  in early thirties also failed to work out any satisfactory formula  to resolve the question of power sharing between the two  communities. The last attempt to build a political alliance between  the Congress and the Muslim League in 1937 also came to a naught.  The Congress after the elections refused to take two ministers  nominated by the League in its cabinet on the grounds that it had  failed to win majority of Muslim seats. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who  later became founder of Pakistan, was furious and vowed to teach  the Congress a lesson. He propounded the two-nation theory and  sowed the seed of partition of the country. Partition, justified or  not, became the cause of animosity between the two communities in  India. The upper caste Hindus never forgave Muslims for this.

 It would also be wrong to blame all Muslims for the partition of  the country. Indian Muslims were divided on the issue. The lower  caste Muslims saw no benefit for them in creating a  new homeland   as it would benefit only upper class Muslims. In fact a section of  lower caste Muslims represented by three Mu`min Conference. They  demonstrated against the two- nation theory propounded by Jinnah on  23rd March 1940 in Lahore. The Muslim `Ulama too vehemently opposed  it and declared their support for  composite nationalism of the  Congress and also justified it on religious grounds. Thus it shows  clearly that all Muslims were not unanimous on the question of two-  nation theory and that the theory was not based on Islam but on the  political needs of the Muslim elite. Maulana Husain Ahmad  Madani,  a prominent theologian and rector of the Darul `Ulum, Deoband, a  premier Islamic seminary in India was on the forefront of the  opponents of the two nation theory and he even wrote a book  Muttahida Qawmiyat aur Islam (Composite Nationalism and Islam) to  refute it. He also undertook a whirlwind tour of India to appeal to  the Muslims not to be misled by Jinnah and his two-nation theory.  This is clear proof of the fact that a section of Muslims strongly  opposed creation of Pakistan. But it is strange irony of politics  that the Indian Muslims as a whole are being held as guilty of  dividing the country and paying the price for it.

 II

 Partition resulted in human massacre on both the sides of divide.  More than a million people were killed and many more were displaced  and cut off from their roots. The ruling classes in Pakistan mainly  comprised the feudal lords, military and bureaucracy and never  shared power with the masses. Its Islamic foundation also proved  quite fragile and it broke into two in 1971 when the Bengali  Muslims seceded from Pakistan and formed Bangla Desh. The Pakistani  ruling elite led by Z.A.Bhutto refused to share power with the  Bengali Muslims and tried to suppress their legitimate aspirations  by sending army to former East Pakistan. Pakistan founded as it  was, on the aspirations of Muslim power elite had often to resort  to hate India campaign to divert attention of the Muslim masses  from their real problems. Pakistan faces great challenges today in  the form of ethnic and sectarian conflicts.

 Partition as pointed out above, far from solving the  communal problem in India, further aggravated it. The innocent  Muslim masses in India continue to pay heavy price for creation of  Pakistan. It created hatred in the minds of upper caste Hindus  towards Muslims. These Hindus are even unable to distinguish  between the interests of upper class Muslim elite who created  Pakistan and the backward illiterate Muslim masses who were victims  of partition. In many communal riots the fanatics raise the slogan  Muslims jao Pakistan aur qabrastan (i.e. O Muslims go to Pakistan  or to cemetery).

 Thus partition neither solved the problems of Muslims in Pakistan  nor those in India. It (i.e. partition), on the other hand,  shattered the unity of Muslims in sub-continent who are now divided  in three units   India, Pakistan and Bangla Desh. Partition had  sought to create homeland for Indian Muslims. Far from it; Indian  Muslims are not only divided in three units but today, of all these  three countries, number of Muslims is highest in India for whom the  Muslim homeland was meant. The Muslim masses in all these three  countries are facing problems of acute poverty, unemployment and  illiteracy. If at all anyone benefited from partition it was the  elite Muslims who created so called Muslim  homeland  in the name  of Islam.

 III

 Indian Muslims faced problems of security and identity from the day  one after India became independent. First partition riots made them  terribly insecure. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed  during the partition riots in India as Hindus were killed in  Pakistan. Thus independence brought a great calamity for both  Hindus and Muslims in India. Moreover Indian Muslims were totally  confused and did not know what to do. They lost even the sense of  confidence. It was leaders of stature of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad  who instilled sense of confidence and made them proud of their  Islamic heritage in India. Maulana Azad s speech from the steps of  Jama Masjid, Delhi acted as a balm and had a healing touch.  However, Muslims had hard days to face after partition in India.

 The Constitution was drafted and adopted on 26th January 1950  declaring India a re-public. The Constitution declared all citizens  of India equal in every respect without any distinction of caste,  creed or race. The Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution also gave  special religious and cultural rights to minorities. The Article 25  thus declares: ôSubject to public order, morality and health and to  other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to  freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and  propagate religion.ö This article even allows the Sikhs ô wearing  and carrying of kirpans (a weapon) shall be deemed to be included  in the profession of the Sikh religion.ö

 Under cultural and educational rights of minorities articles 29 and  30 are very important. According to the Article 29 (1) Any section  of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part  thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own  shall have the right to conserve the same. (2) No citizen shall be  denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the  State or receiving State funds on grounds only of religion, race,  caste, language or any of them.ö

 The Article 30 is also of fundamental importance. This Article is  entitled ôRight of minorities to establish and administer  educational institutions.ö It says: (1) ôAll minorities, whether  based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish  and administer educational institutions of their choice. (2) the  State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions  discriminate on the grounds that it is under the management of a  minority, whether based on religion or language.ö

 UnderNeedless to say, these provisions of the Constitution are of  fundamental importance for preserving the religious practices and  identities of minority communities based on religion or language  and culture. The Indian Muslis and other religious minorities like  the Christians, Sikhs and neo-Buddhists highly value these  provisions of the Constitution of India. For the Muslims in  particular who constitute the largest religious minority these  provisions are of special significance. The Muslims have resisted  and preserved   this we will discuss in some more detail in the  subsequent pages   their personal laws or shari`ah laws under the  Article 25 which allows all persons to profess, practice and  propagate their religion. However, there are differences among  legal luminaries whether State can regulate or legislate in respect  of the personal laws or not in view of the Article 25. Muslims of  course maintain the State cannot. ö

 Under The Article 29 and 30 are also of great importance for  preservation of minority languages and cultures and the Hindu  communalists often attack these provisions and want them to be done  away with. But it requires two-third majority in the Parliament to  change the Constitution and hence the Hindutva forces have not  succeeded so far in tempering with these important provisions.  However, there are violations of these provisions in practice and  there are numerous grievances in this respect. But it is another  story altogether. ö

 Under While incorporation of these articles in Indian Constitution  instilled a sense of confidence among Indian Muslims in  post-independence period their loyalty to India remained suspect in  the eyes of most of the people of majority community, particularly  of north India. As pointed out before, it is sociologically and  politically wrong to homogenise any religious community, but   Hindus  and  Muslims  became political categories since the  British days in Indian political discourse as if they were  monolithic bloc without any political, religious, linguistic and  cultural differences. Commonality of religion, as the two-nation  theory also assumed does not lead to commonality of politics, nor  does it lead to commonality of culture. The north and central  Indian Muslims who spoke Urdu were distinctly different from  Muslims from south who speak different south Indian languages. They  have their own political inclinations and compulsions. ö

 UnderThe Muslims from south were indifferent to the question of  Pakistan right from the beginning. They did not support the  partition with same enthusiasm as the Urdu speaking Muslims of  north India. Communalism and communal violence remained centred  right from the British days in the north. Even in the  post-partition period south was relatively free from communal  violence until late eighties. It spread in south only during late  eighties. Until then there were hardly any communal riots in the  south except in Hyderabad which has been centre of Urdu speaking  Muslims and was under the Nizam rule. However, after late eighties  the communal situation deteriorated very fast in some parts of  South, particularly in the state of Tamilnadu. ö

 IV

 In north India too there was relative communal peace during the  fifties as the entire focus during this period was on linguistic  re-organisation of states. In parts of India there were linguistic  riots, particularly between Gujrat and Maharashtra on the question  of inclusion of Bombay. However, an unending cycle of communal  violence began from early sixties. The first major riot took place  in Jabalpur in 1962 which shook the whole country. Jawaherlal  Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, was also thoroughly  shaken. He did not expect communal violence on such massive scale  as he thought the communal question was  resolved  by partitioning  the country on communal lines. His illusion was thus shattered.  Communalism and communal violence was here to persist as partition  had not changed the communal mind-set of some people. It had, on  the other hand, aggravated it.

 In north India too there was relative communal peace during the  fifties as the entire focus during this period was on linguistic  re-organisation of states. In parts of India there were linguistic  riots, particularly between Gujrat and Maharashtra on the question  of inclusion of Bombay. However, an unending cycle of communal  violence began from early sixties. The first major riot took place  in Jabalpur in 1962 which shook the whole country. Jawaherlal  Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, was also thoroughly  shaken. He did not expect communal violence on such massive scale  as he thought the communal question was  resolved  by partitioning  the country on communal lines. His illusion was thus shattered.  Communalism and communal violence was here to persist as partition  had not changed the communal mind-set of some people. It had, on  the other hand, aggravated it.

 However, Nehru was committed to secular politics. Shaken by the  events in Jabalpur, he formed national Integration Council after  Jabalpur riots and Chinese invasion of 1962. However, unfortunately  the Council remained only a paper organisation and could not become  an active agent of promoting secular values and communal harmony.  Most of the Congressmen were communal at heart and never had  commitment to secularism as Nehru had. Many congress leaders were  known sympathisers of Hindu communal outfits. They were opposed to  Nehru s policies both internal as well as external i.e. his policy  of non-alignment. The Jabalpur riots shook Indian Muslims   confidence in Congress as well as in secularism.

 It was commitment to secularism that had inspired minorities to  stand by the Indian National Congress and thousands of Indian  Muslims had supported Indian freedom struggle because of Indian  national Congress adopting secular philosophy. Indian secularism of  course was far from being atheistic or antagonistic to religion  like secularism in the Soviet Union. Indian secularism guaranteed  religious freedom to all and it was this concept of religious  freedom which made Indian Muslims feel Islam was safe in India.  However, their confidence was shaken with every major communal  riot. During Nehru period too several large communal riots took  place. The situation was greatly aggravated after his death.

 Nehru s death in 1964 left a great void but Indian democracy proved  to be vibrant enough to overcome this crisis. Lal Bahadur Shashtri  took over as Prime Minister but did not live long and died of heart  attack after signing peace treaty in Tashkant after 1965 war  between India and Pakistan. On his death Nehru s daughter Indira  Gandhi became Prime Minister and to strengthen her position she  tried to win over minorities by strengthening secular forces in the  country.  Thus she succeeded in winning over minorities who were  feeling quite unsafe after series of communal riots in the country  since Jabalpur riot.

 However, Indira Gandhi had to face enormous challenges from her  opponents both from within the Congress and outside it. The  Congress bosses opposed to her split the Congress and Indira s  faction became the ruling Congress. To make her position shaky all  those ranged against her engineered a communal holocaust in 1969 in  Ahmedabad in Gujrat (western India) where the Congress faction  opposed to her was ruling. The Ahmedabad communal riots spread to  other parts of Gujrat state and were much worse in intensity than  the Jabalpur riots. The Jan Sangh which was the Hindu rightist and  communal outfit was actively propagating against Muslims and  doubting their loyalty to India in those days. It passed a  resolution for  Indianising  the Indian Muslims as if they were not  Indian enough. Its president in those days was Balraj Madhok who  was known to be extremist in his views. The print media played up  the resolution and some papers like The Times of India even  editorially supported the resolution.

 The Indian Muslims were feeling terribly insecure and felt their  very existence was in danger. And it was in this suffocating  atmosphere that Ahmedabad holocaust occurred in which more than  thousand Muslims were killed in Ahmedabad city alone. And the  Ahmedabad riots were followed with equally ferocious communal riot  in Bhivandi in 1970. Another communal outfit called Shiv Sena came  into existence in Maharashtra in late sixties and some senior  Congressmen of Bombay were supposedly behind it. These Congressmen  who were nursing grievances against Nehruvian leftward policies  lent their discrete support to a Marathi demagogue Bal Thackaray.  Mr. Thackaray aroused both strong regional as well as communal  feelings among the Maharashtrian youth. Bal Thackaray was also  staunch enemy of communists and it was at his instance that a  communist activist Krishna Desai was murdered by Shiv Sainiks.

 It was Shiv Sena which was behind the Bhivandi riots of 1970.  Bhivandi is around 40 miles from Bombay city and is centre of power  looms mostly owned by Muslims. It has Muslim majority. It is  reported that more than 400 persons, mostly Muslims, were killed in  these riots. What was worse which made Muslims more insecure was  the biased role of the police in these riots. In all these riots  there were instances of unabashed partiality of the police towards  the Hindu communal elements. However, it must be said that only a  section of Hindus took communal positions and showed anti-Muslim  bias, not all Hindus. Many Hindus, perhaps a great majority, either  remained neutral or stood on the side of Muslims or fought communal  forces in their own community.  Shiv Sena in Maharashtra was backed  either by communal elements or by those Congressmen who were  nursing grievances against Indira Gandhi.

 The period between 1970 and 1977 was comparatively peaceful and  there were no major communal riots during this period for various  reasons. It was during this period that the liberation movement in  erstwhile East Pakistan started and Bangla Desh seceded from  Pakistan through active intervention of Indian army. The attention  of whole nation was in that direction. Mrs. Gandhi s stature was  boosted tremendously and she emerged as a great heroin of Indian  politics. However, this proved to be quite short-lived and soon  opposition gathered momentum. Jayprakash Narayan, a socialist  leader of great stature in Indian politics, launched an  anti-corruption movement against her and her prestige went down  considerably. She also lost an election petition in Allahabad High  Court and was unseated. She declared emergency in 1975 and large  number of opposition leaders were arrested including Jayprakash  Narayan. Most of the Jansangh and RSS leaders were also rounded up  and there was complete political vacuum. Thus there was no one left  to provoke communal violence.

 However, emergency was lifted in 1977 and in the ensuing elections  Mrs.Gandhi and her party lost heavily and the newly formed Janata  Party formed the government of which the Jansangh  was a  constituent. The Jansangh ostensibly renounced its communal  philosophy and pledged at Gandhiji s Samadhi (where his funeral  ashes lay buried) to be secular and votary of Gandhian socialism.  The north Indian Muslims who had greatly suffered during cleansing  programmes in emergency overwhelmingly voted for  the Janata Party  knowing fully well that the Jansangh was part of it. It was the  first and last time that the Muslims voted for the Jansangh in  sheer desperation. They expected the Jansangh to reciprocate this  gesture towards Muslims but were soon disillusioned. A series of  communal riots followed from 1978 onwards. Major riots took place  in Jamshedpur, Aligarh and Varanasi in north India. Many innocent  lives were lost..

 The RSS which provides ideological direction to Hindu communal  forces was quite unhappy at the Jansangh renouncing communalism and  adopting secularism which is perceived to be anti-Hindu. The  Jansangh members were forced, by their RSS mentors, not to renounce  their RSS membership. All the top leaders of the then Jan Sangh  were also members of RSS and the socialist leaders like Raj Narain  in the Janata Party raised this issue   known as the duel  membership issue   and asked the Jansangh members in the Janata  Party to resign their RSS membership. The RSS made it plain to  their members not to resign and planned several communal riots in  Aligarh, Varanasi, Jamshedpur etc. to display its strength. The  Janata party Government fell apart on this question in 1979 and  replaced by the government led by Charan Singh which is also lasted  for few months. In the ensuing elections in 1980 Mrs. Gandhi came  back to power though with less popular vote.

 The Janasangh after break up of the Janata Party took a new avatar  now calling itself Bhartiya Janata Party and adopted moderate  posture still claiming to be committed to  secularism  and Gandhian  socialism. To symbolise its commitment to these ideals, a moderate  leader like Atal Bihari Vajpayee was made its president. But this  strategy soon came to naught as Mrs. Indira Gandhi, in order to  compensate for her loss of Muslim votes, began to mobilise Hindu  votes adopting Hindu communal postures from behind the scene. This  upset BJP s apple cart and it lost its own ground. They faced  threat from Mrs. Gandhi and lost heavily in the general elections  of 1984 when they got only 2 seats in Parliament. The BJP was thus  forced to rethink its strategy to keep its political base intact  and seen to widen it.

 Thus it began to adopt its earlier aggressive communal postures  once again. Vajpayee was replaced by Shri L.K.Advani as president  of BJP who is known for his strong Hindutva proclivity. In order to  compete with the Congress soft communalism the BJP adopted hard  Hindu communalism from the early eighties and even began to  question the Nehruvian concept of secularism. Now a debate took  place publicly whether Nehruvian secularism was at all relevant to  India, it being a western notion. The BJP, under the leadership of  Mr.Advani even dubbed Nehruvian secularism as nothing more than a  policy of  appeasement of Muslims . The only example the BJP could  give of appeasement of Muslims was that of Muslim personal law  under which a Muslim man could marry four wives whereas the Hindus  cannot. They can marry only one wife. It greatly appealed to the  Hindu middle class.

 The BJP also aggressively propagated that the Muslims do not  practice family planning and that their population is increasing  much faster than that of Hindus and that the Muslim population will  take over the Hindu population by 2050 and India will become part  of Pakistan. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a member of the Sangh  Parivar (The RSS, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal apart  from the BJP constituted what is called the Sangh Parivar or the  Saffron family) took much more militantly communal posture on this  issue. It distributed pamphlets throughout out India showing a  Hindu couple with two children and a Muslim man with four wives and  host of children with the legend that  we five our twenty five .  Also, after conversion of a few Dalit families to Islam in  Meenakshipuram (Tamilnadu) in 1981, the VHP launched an aggressive  movement against conversion to Islam as currently it is attacking  Christians for conversion.

 All this greatly communalised the situation in the country and  communal riots increased both in numbers and intensity. The Muslims  naturally began to feel highly insecure and thought their Islamic  identity is in danger. Secularism, needless to say, has been a  great source of strength for minorities in India, particularly the  Muslims. If secularism comes under attack, the minorities feel  quite insecure. The militant attack by the Saffron family on  Nehruvian secularism and the VHP campaign against conversion and  myth of multiplying population of the Muslims not only weakened  Indian secularism but made the Muslims feel politically suffocated.  It was under these circumstances that the Supreme Court delivered  what has come to be known as The Shah Bano judgement regarding the  maintenance of a Muslim divorcee.

 The judgement upheld Shah Bano s contention under the secular law  that she was entitled to maintenance for life and not for only the  iddah (waiting period before re-marriage after the divorce which is  three months) period. This judgement delivered in 1985 was thought  to be another attack on Islam and Muslim identity in India. The  Muslim leadership across the political parties and sectarian divide  unitedly opposed the Supreme Court judgement and launched an  aggressive movement to reverse it. This added to already aggravated  communal situation and went a long way to further intensify  hostility between two communities.

 It was under these circumstances that the BJP launched a new  agitation: to demolish the Babri Masjid and construct a  Ramjanambhoomi temple in its place. The BJP maintained   though  without much justification -  that Babar, the Moghul ruler, after  whom the mosque in Ayodhya was named,  had demolished the  Ramjanambhoomi temple and constructed the mosque. So now that the  Hindus were in political command, had right to demolish the mosque  and reconstruct the temple dedicated to Ram and take historical  revenge. This too greatly appealed to the Hindu middle classes and  the BJP, which had a narrow political base among the upper caste  Hindus earlier began to expand it among the middle and even  backward caste Hindus in the name of Ram.

 The Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi agitation was not only historically  unjustified, it launched a frontal attack on Indian secularism. The  Muslims began to fear that it is beginning of the end of secularism  in India and that the Sangh Parivar would demolish all historical  mosques one after the other and that Constitutional guarantees are  quite hollow. The Sangh Parivar had prepared a list of 300 such  mosques and this was enough to frighten Muslims. Muslims were  furthermore perturbed by the fact that the ruling Congress  Government headed by Rajiv Gandhi could do nothing to stop the tide  of Hindu communalism. Not only this Rajiv opened the lock over the  Babri Masjid and allowed the Hindus to worship Lord Ram s idol  planted there in 1948 by some RSS enthusiasts. This aggressive  Ramjanambhoomi movement resulted in a series of communal riots in  various parts of India in which hundreds of innocent lives were  lost most of whom were Muslims. The 1987 riots in Meerut and 1989  riots in Bhagalpur sent shock waves throughout India making Muslims  feel terribly insecure.

 The Babri Masjid was also demolished by karsevaks (voluntary  workers) of the Sangh Parivar on 6th December 1992 when Narsimha  Rao was the Congress Prime Minister of India. Many secular Hindus  also felt that it was a terrible tragedy and it was not only  destruction of a mosque through political hooliganism but also a  terrible blow to Indian secularism. The demolition of Babri Masjid  was followed by riots in Bombay, Surat, Ahmedabad, Kanpur, Delhi  and several other places. Communal holocaust, as if, swept  throughout the country. The Bombay riots of 1992 and 1993 were  mainly organised by Shiv Sena, a regional fascistic and communal  outfit led by Bal Thackaray who cried for the blood of Muslims. The  Bombay riots in particular had international repercussions. They  tarnished the secular image of India

 V

 POST-BABRI SITUATION

 Though as a result of Ramjanambhoomi movement the BJP gained  tremendous political ground and ultimately succeeded in capturing  political power as a major coalition partner, the communal  situation eased in the post-Babri demolition period. The decade of  eighties was the most dangerous communal decade in  post-independence period. It witnessed the most aggressive form of  communalism after the partition of the country. The Sangh Parivar  went all out during this period to expand its political base by  misusing religious and communal issues one after the other.

 However, once it came to power at the Centre at the head of  coalition it began to downplay communal issues. It wanted to  maintain law and order situation under control and also wanted to  give a message to Muslims that they will be safe only if the BJP is  in power. It even promised to Muslims a  riot-free  India in its  election manifesto of 1999 if it comes to power. Some politicians  who made an alliance with the BJP even argued that to ensure  riot-free India one should keep BJP in power and hence these  otherwise secular parties legitimsed their alliance with it.

 However, it would be knave to think that BJP can become  secular   if it is voted to power. BJP had been provoking communal hatred in  order to get Hindu votes but as a ruling party obviously it cannot  risk provoking communal violence. It will tarnish its political  image. As a ruling party it has to ensure communal peace. But  communal peace or absence of communal violence should not be  mistaken for communal harmony. To spread communal feelings is the  very ideological basis of Sangh Parivar. If communalism and  communal ideology remains alive communal violence can be incited  whenever needed. The BJP itself is not indulging in communal  propaganda. The other members of the Saffron family   RSS, the  Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal   fill this void. Of late the  Christian community has come under attack for conversions.

 The BJP for the time being is going soft on Muslims. It is even  following Mrs.Gandhi s policies of early eighties in reverse.  Mrs.Indira Gandhi who traditionally depended on minority votes  tried to switch over to the Hindu votes to compensate for its loss  of popularity among the Muslims. The BJP who is witnessing loss of  popularity among the Hindus is now appealing to Muslims to come  closer to it and repose confidence in it. The wooing of Muslims by  the BJP thus can be compared with the wooing of Hindus by  Mrs.Gandhi. These are political games which the politicians play to  come to power. People of this or that community are used as  vote-banks and object of rather than subject of politics.

 Democracy should be an effective tool for empowerment of people but  it is rather used for empowering politicians at the cost of the  people. The Congress always used Muslims as vote-bank. The Congress  in its long rule hardly did anything to solve acute problems of  Muslims. Muslims in India are very poor and backward. Their main  problems are economic and educational. But the ruling parties did  nothing substantial in these fields. Only promises were made. The  literacy rate among Muslims tends to be around 35% and among Muslim  women it is even more depressing   not more than 18 per cent. Their  share in political power and in government jobs is also very  dismal. Though the Muslim population is more than 12 per cent  (according to 1991 census) and may touch 15% level in 2001 census,  number of M.P.s (members of parliament) is usually around 5 per  cent. In state assemblies also it is no different

 Even at the lowest level of government jobs   class three and class  four jobs their share does not go beyond 6 to 7% and at the level  of higher administrative positions like the IAS it is no more than  3-4 per cent. It is true it is difficult to find qualified Muslims  for various jobs and the Muslim leaders also have done near to  nothing to disseminate education among the Muslim masses. But Union  and State Governments have also done nothing to redeem the  situation. They make all promises at the time of elections but  except repeating these promises during next elections hardly  anything happens. The Muslim grievances are quite justified. They  hardly have any share in power as the largest minority in India.  The share, if any, is woefully inadequate.

 CONCLUSION

 Thousands of Muslims not only participated in freedom struggle in  India and made great sacrifices but also vigorously opposed  creation of Pakistan. They dreamt of secular India hoping for  creation of just society where they will be not only able to follow  their religion but also share power on equitable basis. However,  things did not go that way. Though Jawaherlal Nehru was committed  to justice to minorities in independent India other Congress  leaders were not. The majority in the Congress did not share  Nehru s commitment. Also, creation of Pakistan marred to an extent,  the future of Muslims in India. It created powerful prejudices in  the minds of Hindus and Indian Muslims were seen as more loyal to  Pakistan than to India and they generalised few such instances to  reinforce the conclusion which they already had drawn.

 The Muslims also did not draw up proper strategy for their own  advancement in secular India. Their leaders, as pointed out before,  cared more for religion and identity-related problems than the  education and economic progress-related ones. These leaders always  looked to the past then to future. They negotiated deals with  political parties   mainly the Congress   to preserve their past  heritage than to build future for the Muslim masses. Now it is  dawning on Muslims that apart from preserving their Islamic  identity they also have to carve out their niche in democratic  secular India. Though still the emphasis is on building madrasas  but more and more secular educational institutions are also coming  up. More and more Muslims are realising that girl education is also  very important for their progress. A new middle class is also  slowly coming into existence which is increasingly championing the  cause of modern education. Pressures are also building up from  below for certain necessary changes in the status of women,  particularly certain necessary changes in the shari`ah law as it  operates in India.

 Though still there is mass poverty among the Muslims, particularly  among the lower caste Muslims, they have turned the corner and many  of them are striving for upward mobility. However, they have far to  go and many powerful obstacles to overcome. It is certainly  convoluted way to forge ahead. Even the BJP has discovered that  anti-Muslim tirade cannot yield more results and is negotiating a  new political space which is likely to have some place for Muslims  though it is not easy for it to do this. Its ideological mentor  RSS may not allow it to do this. Much will depend on the response  of its Hindu voters to this new orientation of the moderate section  of the BJP leadership. It will be tested in coming elections  particularly in U.P.

 Whether the BJP forges ahead with its new Muslim policy or not the  Muslims have to sink or swim in the Indian political ocean and from  all available signs it appears Muslim masses have decided to swim  even if the ocean is choppy. If right now the future of Muslims is  not bright it is not dismal either. Given little more wisdom and  pragmatic approach Muslims can succeed in shaping their future in  democratic India even if its secularism is undulating.