Cure For Communalism - Tackling The Root Cause

I recently had a talk with a hakim, an expert in the yunani system of medicine, during which we discussed the respective merits of the yunani and allopathic system. The Hakim pointed out that the fundamental difference between the two was that whereas the allopathic system concerns itself with removing only the symptoms of a complaint, the yunani system attacks the root cause. To illustrate his point, he cited the allopathic doctor who gives aspirin, or some other such pain-killer, for a headache. This provides only temporary relief, for it does not remove the source of the pain. The yunani physician, on the other hand, would first look into the cause of headache – perhaps some disorder in the digestive system – then he would set about treating that, and not just the headache. He would never aim at giving just temporary relief. The Hakim was, therefore, severely critical of the allopathic method, while he described the yunani system, as both reasonable and natural, having as its objective a permanent cure.

Later, in the discussion, the subject of Indian Muslims came up. The Hakim argued that there was a need to provide instant solutions to the critical problems besetting Muslims today. ‘But,’ he said, ‘You do not have any quick solutions for these problems. All you offer is a philosophy, or a code of conduct – patience, avoidance of confrontation, unilateral withdrawal of complaints. Under the present conditions, it is not an all-embracing philosophy which they need, but solutions for individual problems.’

I said to the Hakim: ‘As for as individual maladies are concerned, the science you have learned as a healer tells you that the cause must be removed if the treatment is to be beneficial. You could call this a philosophy too. And it is one which you would certainly not give up in favor of a patchwork treatment of symptoms. When it comes to social maladies, however, you pronounce yourself in favor of the piecemeal removal of symptoms, leaving the cause untouched. If you were to apply the same standards to social ills as you do to physical ills, you would see that it is just as essential to remove the cause in the former as it is in the latter. The symptoms of social malaise will disappear only when we have a philosophy which tackles the root cause.

Cure For Communalism - Patience And Piety

Of all the innumerable people who inhabit this world besides us, there are few who are not trying to achieve some kind of success, or who are not at least striving to outdo their fellow-men. To attain these ends, they will proceed as they please, for they have been given complete freedom of action by their Creator. There is, therefore, a never-ending scramble for the good things of life, a constant jockeying for position, and an all-too-frequent lack of scruple in elbowing contenders out of the way. We have to face the sad fact of life, that in this ongoing rough and tumble, the weakest are those who will fall by the wayside. There is no way of averting the hurts and losses of our competitive existence, for that is simply the way that God has made the world. This, it should be noted, is not a feature peculiar to parts of the world where Muslims and non-Muslims live cheek by jowl. It is characteristic of human existence all over the world, and is certainly to be found in all Muslim communities.

The world being as it is, problems cannot be solved by coming into conflict with everyone whose interests clash with our own.  There is only one effective approach, and that is to adopt the policy of avoidance (i‘radh) favored by the Qur’an. Only by sidestepping those who try to obstruct our progress in life can we continue on our journey with any success. But in order to pursue such a course, the virtue of patience must be sedulously cultivated. To adopt a policy of restraint and simply remove oneself from the path of someone who is bent on being obstructive does require a high degree of forbearance.

But then, the alternative – attaining one’s objectives in an aggressive, confrontational way – means being anti-social and creating disharmony on a variety of fronts, all of which is inconsistent with the ideals of social order.

Believers are fortunate in having the assurances of the Qur’an that so long as they are guided by the tenets of their faith, they will not be harmed in any way by the malice or misdeeds of their opponents:

“If you are patient and guard yourselves against evil, their machinations will never harm you. Allah has knowledge of all their actions (3:120)”.

This means that believers should be more concerned with their own inner state than they arewith the external conditions in which they find themselves, and that, above all, they should adhere to the guidance they have received from God, for this will lead them along the paths of patience and piety. The nurturing of these qualities will build up a protective barrier against plotting and conspiracies. It will, indeed, provide them with an impenetrable defense.

But why is it that patience is such a rare quality in human beings? It is because it entails the suppression of one’s feelings when provoked and the suffering of losses and setbacks without protest – neither of which is an easy thing to do. It is only those who can rise above the petty vengefulness engendered by such situations who will be successful in developing this virtue. The first step towards its attainment is the piety so strongly advocated by the Qur’an; it means, in effect, having an eternal fear of God in one’s heart.

The truly pious person ceases to live on purely human level; he ascends to a divine level where, above all else, he cherishes the will of God, and where all of his actions are aimed at consolidating the blessings promised to him by his Maker. Externally, he may appear to be living in this world, but, in fact, he is living on an exalted plane where his inner senses are in tune with the everlasting world of God.

On one occasion in Damascus, the first Umayyad caliph, Amir Muawiyah, distributed some sheets, one of which was given to an elderly Damascan who numbered among the Ansar. Dissatisfied with the particular sheet he had been given, he became angry and shouted, ‘By God, I will hit Muawiyah on the head with this sheet!’

Mauwiyah at that time was Caliph of a colossal Muslim empire, but he did not become angry at what the old man had said. Instead, he sent for him and, uncovering his own head, he said: ‘Go ahead and carry out your oath but remember, one old man should take pity on another.’ The Ansari, ashamed of himself, asked the Caliph’s forgiveness and quietly went away.’ (Al-Dawah, 12 Jamadi al Awwal, 1407 AH).

If, in response to the old man’s outburst, Muawiyah had become infuriated and reacted vengefully, the seeds of dissension would have been sown throughout society. But Muawiyah deliberately avoided displaying any negative reaction and, answering anger with coolness, bowed to this would-be opponent, thus forestalling the development of negative tendencies in society as a whole.

Muawiyah might well have action quite differently. His line of thinking could have been, ‘If I adopt a forgiving stance, my authority over the people will be compromised and it will become difficult to keep order in governing them.’ But this would have been a highly superficial assessment of the situation, for never in the entire course of history has anarchy resulted from the adoption of a forgiving attitude on the part of a ruler. It might easily be assumed that disorder would ensue, but, in fact, events take quite the contrary course.

There is no one in the world who displays greater power than one who answers stridency with calmness, ruffian behavior with sobriety, who, faced with contumacy, make a gift of gentleness and love in return.

Cure for Communalism - 2

Any conflict has two perpetrators, and there are invariably faults on each side which cause and exacerbate it. It takes two to make a fight. If one party withdraws itself from the region of conflict then the other will remain alone there: it will have none to fight against and the conflict will disappear.

If, on the other hand, each party waits for peace initiatives to come from the other side before undertaking conciliatory move of its own, then the mistrust between the two sides will continue to grow. Then inevitable result will be escalation of the conflict between them.

Hindu-Muslim communal riots, which have become a regular feature of Indian life, are an example of such conflict, which can only be ended by unilateral action from one side. There are examples in the life of the Prophet Muhammad which show that it is the Muslims who should take this initiative. Worldly rivalry and conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims means that the latter see Islam, not in its true light, but through the trained vision of their own prejudice: Muslims are their enemies so they adopt an antagonistic posture towards Islam as well. This is a situation which should be intolerable to Muslims, whose overriding concern should be for the true message of Islam to reach other peoples in all its purity, and in an atmosphere conducive to objective and dispassionate consideration. Seeing that such an atmosphere cannot be generated where there is conflict and mistrust, they should ensure an end to conflicts with other peoples; they should take unilateral steps for peace, without waiting for the initiative to come from the other side.

This is exactly what the Prophet Muhammad did at Hudaybiyyah (6 AH/ 628 AD). By refusing to be provoked in the face of harassment from the Quraysh, and accepting all their demands, he put an end to a conflict which had been raging for twenty years. In doing so he defused the tension which had marked relations between Muslims and their non-Muslims compatriots. The result of his seemingly capitulationary action, as the Qur’an tells us and history verifies, was a ‘clear victory’ for the Muslims.

If the Muslims are to detonate the sitting bomb of communal riots, as it is their duty to do, they can only do so by following the example of the Prophet, and refusing to be provoked, even in the face of provocation form the other side. Failure to do this can only result in further escalation in a conflict which serves only to distort in the eyes of others, especially their adversaries.

Communal violence is one of the most talked of subjects these days, and discussion thereon are dominated by the fact that the brunt of police violence has to be borne by the Muslims. ‘The policemen are killers,’ say Muslims. Their theme song is that the brutalities of Adolf Hitler and Chengiz Khan pale into insignificance when compared with what the police inflict on innocent Indian citizens.

 

At face value, this would appear to be correct. But we must pause and give greater thought to the reasons for police ‘misconduct.’ Why should it take place at all? If we marshal facts, we see that in every case, the situation has been aggravated more by the Muslims being easily provoked than by a desire on the part of the police to be aggressive. And it is noteworthy that wherever there is a concentration of Muslims, this over sensitiveness is very much in evidence; sooner or later, it is the Muslims themselves who have to pay dearly for it at every level.

Instances of present-day Muslims fighting amongst themselves are not uncommon, and the reason is no different; by nature they are easily insulted and then they become over-emotional. However, when it is a case of Muslim fighting Muslim, the quarrel is at least confined to civilized limits. But when the fight is between a Muslim and a Hindu, no matter how minor the provocation, it soon takes on a communal hue, and the price has to be paid by the whole community.

The worst of such a situation culminates in a confrontation with the police – or, in case of Uttar Pradesh, with the Provincial Armed Constabulary . No one seems to take into account the fact that if you pelt armed policemen with stones, they will retaliate with bullets. Why should they not make use of their superior weapons? While fighting with stray individuals is like playing with matches, fighting with the police is like playing with bombs. Why should we expect that the result will be anything other than general carnage?

One glaring example of this is the incident which took place in the Idgah at Moradabad on August 13, 1980. It was a case of pigs having been found within the precincts of the Idgaah, at which the Muslims became highly enraged. The police officer on duty pleaded with the Muslims to remain calm and assured them that the police would deal with the situation and that the culprits would be punished. But the Muslims were too incensed to listen to what the police had to say, and began pelting policemen with stones. The police officer himself was hit, and fell down seriously injured. Now it was the turn of the policemen to be provoked, and, of course, they did not discard their rifles in favor of stones. Ultimately it was the Muslims who suffered the most disastrous of consequences. And all because of their own ungovernable tempers.

It is clearly the Muslims who are the losers, whether at the individual or at the community level, yet they do not stop to think of the ferocity with which reprisals will be carried out when they themselves have given in to provocation, lashing out at all and sundry.  They think it is like aiming a blow at a domestic animal which, if it reacts at all, will do so mildly and without rancor. They do not stop to consider that when they lash out in a frenzy of emotionalism, it is a savage wild beast with which they have to deal with an untamed monster, which will fight back with tooth and claw. The culminating point of their endeavor will be the inevitable backlash of police brutality. 

Events having shown that Muslims clash not only with Hindus, but also with the police we should now ascertain where to lay the blame. Clearly, the greatest offenders are the journalists and leaders of the Muslim community itself. After each and every riot they cannot find words enough to describe the ‘brutality and savagery’ of the police; in consequence, Muslims sentiments are kept perpetually on the boil. Their anger against and hatred for the police are never allowed to simmer down. As a result, whenever policemen appear on the scene, they become enraged and hit out at them, trying by all possible means to humiliate them. This belligerent attitude on the part of Muslims newspapers and leaders is the root cause of the intense mutual hatred between Muslims and the police.

The sole solution to the problem is to be found in the Qur’an, which bids us to return good for evil: ‘Good and evil deeds are not alike. Requite evil with good, and he, between whom and you there is enmity, will become your dearest friend’ (41:34).

The result of acting out of goodness is that it has a softening effect on the enemy – to the point where he becomes a friend. Even members of the PAC would not be immune to such social palliatives. They are, after all, just humans being like everyone else, and would surely be open to an amicable and reasonable approach.

Cure for Communalism : Why Do Muslims Feel Insecure ?

Whether a community feels secure or insecure is a wholly relative matter, depending as it does upon the actions of the concerned community, rather than on external circumstances. Its position in society, secure or insecure, is determined by its own behavior.

For example, the Christian communities of India and Sudan. Both are tiny minorities, the former comprising three percent of Indian population and the latter just two percent of the Sudanese population. It might be expected that such small minorities would live with a feeling of unease vis-à-vis the overwhelming majorities of their respective countries, and this is certainly true of the Sudanese Christians, who are dogged by a sense of insecurity. The India Christian, on the contrary, feel themselves fully secure.

What is the reason for this difference? It is because the Indian Christian were fortunate enough to have been guided by their leaders into non-controversial constructive fields, and as a result of their striving over a period of 200 years they have managed to build an educational empire in India. Moreover, built health and welfare institutions on a large scale, while the country is dotted with their religious establishments. All these factors have ensured safeguarding of Christian community interest in the country. The Christian community has thus managed to figure more prominently on the national scene than its small percentage of the total population would seemingly warrant. It is its very usefulness as a community which has ruled out any question of insecurity.

The Christian community in Sudan is quite differently situated. Its leaders, interested more in politics than in constructive activities, launched a movement aimed at separating a part of Sudan from the rest of the country in order to carve out an independent Christian State. This policy gave rise to hostilities between the Christian community on the one hand, and the majority and the government on the other hand. Strict measures were then taken to crush the secessionists. Far from resulting in a separate Christian State, all that this political confrontation achieved was a spate of protests and complaints against the Government by the writers and speakers of the Christian Community. If they are now backward and insecure minority in Sudan, it is for the simple reason that their efforts have always been confrontational rather than constructive.

Indian Muslims are in a similar, if not worse situation, although the problem is of a much greater magnitude in the North India, where their feeling of insecurity is most intense. Recurring communal riots are the greatest indication of this feeling, but it is the Muslim community itself which is the worst hit on these occasions, as was evident in the horrific communal riots which broke out after 1947 in North India, particularly in UP and Bihar.

The South Indian Muslims do not suffer from such feelings of insecurity as would lead to the outbreak of rioting. The only occurrences of rioting in South Indian cities have been when one or more North Indian Muslims, having found their way into the region, have created a tense atmosphere with their provocative speeches. Even then, such disturbances have been on a very small scale. On the whole, it would be true to say that while a feeling of insecurity is commonplace in the North, the South is almost free of it, and therefore free, too, of rioting.

This dichotomy is on an exact parallel with the example of the Sudanese and Indian Christian. The large dose of politics administered respectively by their leaders to the Sudanese Christians and the North Indian Muslims has led first to emotionalism and then to communal disaster.

         

South India presents quite the opposite picture. In this region, Islam was spread through merchants and travelers, in contrast to North India, where Islam was brought by rulers and soldiers. This is why the South Indian Muslims, unlike their brothers in the North, have never been swayed by emotional politics. Instead of flexing their muscles in political arenas, they have always exerted themselves in non-controversial fields like commerce and education. In this way, constructive traditions have been established among the Muslims of this region.

It is this difference in Northern and Southern attitudes which accounts for the Muslims in one part of the country being prey to insecurity while the Muslims of another part continue to live in peace and security.

The only way for the Muslims of North India to banish this atmosphere of insecurity is to tread the same path as their South India co-coreligionists. That is, they must give up confrontation in favor of co-existence and adjustment.

For example, Muslims should neither obstruct Hindu processions nor should they become incensed when processionists raise provocative slogans. If Muslims fail to receive their due share of admissions to educational institutions, or of employment in Government Service, they should refrain from wasting their time in making protests and complaints and, instead, should work harder to improve themselves to the point where it will become impossible to ignore or reject them.

Wherever problems exist, opportunities also exist side by side with them. This is just as true of India as of any other country. But full use cannot be made of these opportunities unless the problems are thrust firmly into the background to grasp an opportunity which is the only way to success.

 

One receives in direct proportion to what one gives. This is a principle which Indian Muslims should never lose sight of. Rather than be as a group which does nothing but protest, they should become renowned for their creativity. In this way, they will become a viable force in the country. But this can only happen when they realize, once and for all, that nothing is ever achieved by political confrontations, demonstrations, etc, except the awakening of national prejudice, and all the negativism and destructiveness which flows there from.

If the Muslims can make such changes in their policy, the whole vitiated atmosphere will undergo a radical change for the better. A whole new world will come into existence. It will be just as if the problem of insecurity had never existed.