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.