Indian Muslims Priorities - 2

In the second installment of his article, ‘Muslims After Partition,’ (The Times of India, January 7, 1988), Girilal Jain wrote: ‘The Indian Muslims perception of having ruled over India for a thousand years played a major role in the rise of Muslim ‘nationalism’ in the sub-continent.’ He makes the point that this tenable, considering that the ‘glory’ of the past had been based on an only partially consolidated sovereignty, and his verdict is that ‘the gap between self-definition and reality has dogged the Indian Muslims are through them the rest of us since at least the middle of the nineteenth century.’ While I would agree that a change of outlook on the part of Indian Muslims would solve many of the problems, I feel that the ‘glory’ of the Muslims’ past having been shown in a controversial light, tends to obscure the real issue, which is that no community which is content to bask in the glories of the past (whether real or imaginary) can ever be a success in the world of today.

Larger History

To put this issue into its proper perspective, however, we must not overlook the fact that this ‘one thousand-year-rule’ mentality of Indian Muslims is not a purely local phenomenon, but is a part of the larger history of Islam.  The extraordinary conquests of Muslims in the past, which brought about the spread of Islam, are incontrovertible facts of history. Michael H. Hart, in his book, The Hundred: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, (New York, 1978) places the Prophet of Muhammad at the ‘top of the hundred best.’ ‘He was the only man in history,’ he writes, ‘who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.’ Professor Wilfrid Blunt writes, ‘There is, perhaps, nothing more amazing in the whole long history of mankind than the extent and the rapidity of the dissemination of Islam.’

Let us not deny, then, that Islam did have a glorious past. But the more glorious the past, the more wrongheaded it is for present-day Indian Muslims to live in that past. The mistake they make is not so much to exaggerate the glitter of a bygone era, as to believe implicitly that that era extends right up to the present. That is the belief which continually adds fuel to the fire of their paranoia.

While Jain has laid stress on the Muslims predicament having arisen from the ‘gap between self-definition and reality,’ I would put it more plainly, and say that it is overweening pride which renders them incapable of adapting to present-day conditions. They think of themselves, quite simply, as a superior group. But the truth is, that in comparison to all other nations, there is no sphere in which they have not actually regressed. It is little wonder that the external world does not accord them the same lofty position as they do themselves. World journalism, which is almost wholly in the hands of non-Muslims, paints a sad picture of their inferiority. Their sense of superiority, of course, rejects this outright; but their only other responses are mental agitation, neurosis and a great deal of unnecessary skirmishing with imagined foes.  Where Girilal Jain has based his analysis on Muslims’ self-definition vis-à-vis the past, I would say that the root of the Muslim problem lies in their erroneous self-definition vis-à-vis the present.

A popular misconception which has arisen in latter years is that Muslim problem is the product of Islam itself. There is consequently the widely held view that if the Muslim problem has to be solved, the Muslim religion is in need of reconsideration, if not actually of overhaul. But this theory has no argument to support it. The truth is that whatever malaise afflicts the Muslims, it is entirely the creation of their own leaders. In modern times, when Muslim domination came to an end, Muslim leaders began to project this new situation as the result of oppression, whereas it was simply a question of the changes which came with the passage of time. The problem ought to have been solved by a better adaption to changed sets of circumstances, but the only course which these leaders saw fit to take was that of protest. Such efforts were doomed to end in failure. And we see evidence of that failure on all sides. 

The modern, dominant nations were, if fact, representatives of a new era. Theirs was a new age which brought a great revolution in human thought. Traditional knowledge yielded pride of place to scientific disciplines, and the rise of technology caused profound changes in every sphere of life: industrial produce replaced handicrafts, the steamship replaced the sail boat, long-range automatic weapons replaced the musket, and so on. It was the slowness of Muslims to bring themselves abreast of these developments which left them far behind others in the race of life and not, as is generally supposed, the plotting, conspiracies and oppression of other nations.

When it became clear that there was a challenge to Muslim superiority, and it was known exactly what the nature of that challenge was, Muslim leaders should immediately have set about taking concrete steps to end the disparities between Muslim nations and the more technologically advanced nations of the world. What they did, on the contrary, was to open a wholly useless front to oppose and protest against these dominant powers; how regrettable that they should have remained blind to the futility of such combativeness right up to the present day.

Had they made a timely assessment of what created the hiatus between Muslims and other nations, they would have set the feet of Muslims on the path of education, and would, in the process, have enabled them to acquire the strengths of the modern world. Their energies would then have contributed to a positive struggle, instead of being frittered away in negative reaction.

Uptill now Muslims have tended to attribute their problems to prejudice and discrimination and to waste the better part of their time and energy in railing against offenders who often exist only in their own imaginations. What I have to say is simply that it is high time they changed their way of thinking and devoted themselves wholeheartedly to the processes of self-reconstruction.

Our world – let us face it – is one of stiff competition and the race of life between individuals and communities is unending.  The real problem of Muslims is that, at this point in their history, they have been left behind by other communities, particularly in the fields education and economic development.  The major part of the ‘discrimination and atrocities’ that Muslims are facing in this country are, in actual fact, the consequences of their own backwardness, which they misguidedly wish to blame on others.

The solution to their problem does not lie in protest. It lies quite simply, in greater application, diligence and tenacity of purpose. It does not follow that a failure to appreciate this in the past means that Muslims cannot shake themselves out of their present inertia, or cannot work more strenuously towards judiciously chosen goals.

It is my earnest desire that Muslims, whatever their condition, should display the utmost tolerance – unilaterally, if need be – for no plans for reconstruction can materialize without their doing so. If Muslims wish to make up for their backwardness in educational and economic fields, the suppression of the protest mentality is sine qua non. Only if they learn to bear all kinds of afflictions with patience and fortitude will they gain the period of respite they need in which to engage in their own reconstruction. Unilateralism of this sort is the price they shall have to pay for their own uplift. No one else is going to pay this price for them.

Strange Philosophy

One notable instance of this very strange psychology was their response to the setting up in Calcutta of the first medical college in India by Lord William Bentinck in 1935. Because of their hatred of the English ‘usurpers and conspirators,’ the Muslims led a procession through the streets to protest against the opening of this college, and demanded that it be closed. There then ensued the strange spectacle of other communities thronging to seek admission, while Muslims clamoured for this closure. By adopting this negative stance, Muslims lagged more than 100 years behind other communities in medical science.

This event is symbolic of the causes of the Muslim dilemma in the world of today. And there is no sign of any abatement of this general negativism. Surely they must one day realize that the prejudice and discrimination which they so loudly decry would rapidly disappear if they were simply to apply themselves with the utmost dedication in the academic and economic fields. In this way they would remove the obstacle of their own backwardness, and, with that, the stigma of intellectual and social inferiority. This accomplished, they would be able, as an updated and self-rehabilitated community, to stand shoulder to shoulder with the most advanced nations of the world.