The controversy over the UPA governments order on recitation of India’s national song Vande Mataram (only first two stanzas) in educational institutes to mark its centenary celebrations last month, once again brought the issue of nationalism, secularism/communalism, minority appeasement, etc to the forefront. Similar controversy was created when in 1998 the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh had made it compulsory to sing “Vande Mataram” to honour the motherland and “Sarasvati Vandana” as a mark of devotion to learning in State run schools. Eight years later, not much has changed. Muslim organizations, including “progressive” and hardliners, strongly protested against this move. The “hardliner” Muslims opposed on religious grounds saying that it is against Islam, whereas the “progressive” Muslims shrewdly opposed it citing secular ethos of the country.
It Is Not Really About "Vande Mataram" or "Sarasvati Vandana"
The controversy over the UPA governments order on recitation of India's national song Vande Mataram (only first two stanzas) in educational institutes to mark its centenary celebrations last month, once again brought the issue of nationalism, secularism/communalism, minority appeasement, etc to the forefront. Similar controversy was created when in 1998 the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh had made it compulsory to sing "Vande Mataram" to honour the motherland and "Sarasvati Vandana" as a mark of devotion to learning in State run schools. Eight years later, not much has changed. Muslim organizations, including "progressive" and hardliners, strongly protested against this move. The "hardliner" Muslims opposed on religious grounds saying that it is against Islam, whereas the "progressive" Muslims shrewdly opposed it citing secular ethos of the country.
The supreme body of Sunnis, the hardliner Darul Uloom of Deoband issued a fatwa asking parents to abstain from sending their pupils to schools on that day, whereas Shia cleric and All India Muslim Personal Law Board Vice-President Maulana Kalbe Sadiq (who commands a large following among Shia Muslims across the globe; deported once from USA under prevention of terrorism act) said that there is no wrong in Vande Mataram if it doesn't amount to worship. The All-India Muslim Women Personal Law Board opposed to making it mandatory in schools, colleges and madrasas. AIMWPLB chairperson Shaista Amber supported the advice by Darul-Uloom of Deoband to Muslims not to send their children to schools on Sept 7.
Common man in India is confused about why Muslims oppose singing of Vande Mataram what this controversy is all about?
Islam only allows worshipping Allah and forbids worshipping any other God, Goddess, or image. The very purpose of Islam is to destroy polytheism and image worship. The Arabs once worshipped images just like the Hindus. They had many Gods and Goddesses similar to Hinduism. Allah is originally the God of the Quresh tribe. Just as the Hindus honour Laxmi, Parvati and Sarasvati, the Arabs once honoured Al Manat, Lat and Ujja. Worshipping of such Gods and Goddesses and their images is termed as "shirk" in Islam. Islam considers shirk as a terrible offense. Islam considers eliminating shirk as its primary and natural objective. The Prophet after his victory over Mecca asked the people of nearby Taiff to embrace Islam around 630 CE. They agreed to get rid of the huge statue of Al Lat in principle but requested the Prophet to allow them a period of two years to do it. Their request was denied. The people of Taiff then requested the Prophet to let them keep the image at least for a few months for the benefit of women. The Prophet replied, "Islam and images cannot coexist. The statue must be destroyed within twenty four hours." The Prophet then proceeded to eliminate all the statues in the areas he controlled. The Muslim invaders have attempted to accomplish the same in India, but unfortunately have been powerless to do this completely. They could not eliminate statues of Gods and Goddesses from the whole of India. They were forced to agonizingly watch hundred of statues for centuries. The dictate of the Koran that "Allah never gives you more pain you can bear" has given them the strength to go through this experience.
Muslims have been barely able to put up with this misfortune so far, but how it can be asking for too much for them to approve of image worship in the name of nationalism and education. How can the Muslim faithful tolerate this? Not been capable of launching a jihad they have instead adopted the root of Hijarat or migration.
Withdrawing children from schools is the equivalent of Hijarat in the field of education. Millions of Muslims migrated out of India in 1947 because they felt that they could not live according to the strict tenets of Islam. The geographical Hijarat is called as partition in political parlance. Islam teaches Muslims not to take orders from a non-Muslim government. A nationalist Muslim has asked the clerics why they would not migrate to another country to escape government requirements.
Hindus do not understand why their Muslim brothers are reluctant to sing Vande Mataram because they lack a true understanding of what Islam is all about. Vande Mataram sings praises of Mother India. How can they not adulate Mother India? This is not about religion. Muslims too acknowledge some form of image worship. They salute the national flag. They visit Dargahs and tombs of saints. They refer to judges as "My Lord." Shiite pilgrims bring back sacred sand from Karbala in Iraq. Has Mohmad Iqbal not considered all objects divine? Iqbal has said referred to Hindustan as a temple. About six million American Muslims consider their country more important than religion. Why do the Indian Muslims then have a double standard when it comes to Vande Mataram? This kind of reasoning is a like delicately suggesting the Muslims that they should not follow their religion to confirm their nationalistic ideals. It is akin to the argument, "you do many things in opposition to your own religion anyway, they why not this?" It is like convincing someone to make another mistake because they have already made one before.
To this Muslims could counter argue, "We might be doing many things against our religion because it is in our own interests, but that does not mean we should do everything to suit others? Should all Muslims make the same mistake as Iqbal did? Iqbal has later tried to correct his grave mistake. He changed his position from "Hindustan is our country" to "Islam is our country." Iqbal supported the "two-nation theory" when after understanding Islam. He provided a philosophical foundation to the creation of Pakistan. So why should we now repeat what Iqbal did or said initially because he was ignorant of Islam? America has about six million Muslims. We may not have opposed singing of Vande Mataram if we were that kind of a minority in India. But there are 159 million Muslims in India. According to Allah's arithmetic in Koran (8: 65) Muslims can over power ten times the number of Kaffirs if united. We have already exceeded this limit. Stop comparing us to American Muslims? Anyway, why should we betray our religion just because American Muslims have done so?"
Some people opine that "opposing Vande Mataram in schools is a tool for self serving cessations, castiests politicians and fundamentalist Muslim clerics. Its main purpose is to blackmail millions of ordinary Muslims who do not oppose the singing of Vande Mataram in schools.
One of my progressive but realistic friend said to me, "it is natural for Muslims to oppose Vande Mataram. Why should we hurt their feelings over such insignificant issues? Why couldn't Hindus working for Hindu-Muslim unity and national integration for hundred and thirteen years ignore these things? Should they jeopardize communal harmony over such and other issues like Ayodhya, ban on killing of cows, and common civil law? The liberal attitude of the Congress party ever since its inception on these issues has earned it and Hindus trust from the Muslims. More Muslims while supporting the creation of Pakistan still stayed back in India because of these feelings of trust. BJP by raising issues like Vande Mataram is making integration and national unity difficulty or impossible. Hindus must understand Muslims. Agree with some of their opinions. Hindus should act like responsible elder brothers. So let us achieve the dream of integration through generosity."
I found this proposal very attractive. I then began listing all the issues on which Hindus must give in to the wishes of the Muslims. Vande Mataram, Ayodhya temple, ban on cow slaughter, loudspeakers on mosques, holidays on every Friday, no common civil code; well the list just keeps getting longer and longer. Will the dream of Hindu-Muslim unity be achieved if Hindus agree to all this? The Muslims would then want proportionate number of seats reserved for them in jobs, judiciary, parliament, and public administration. The number of seats demanded would creep up from 20% to 25% to 33%. Muslims would also demand separate constituencies so they could elect only Muslims to the parliament. A demand would be made to establish a separate Muslim police force to protect Muslims. Article 44 of the Constitution which grants equal rights to all citizens will then have to be abolished. Finally they will demand Shariat Law in the country. So my list really got out of control. Some of these demands are easy to recall because they have already been met. Hindus may agree to all the demands in the interest of communal harmony and national unity. But will that achieve the desired goal? Will Muslims then pledge their loyalty to the country? Will they stop making further religiously motivated demands? As V. D. Savarkar used to say, "Hindus can forego a poem or a song and are always willing to concede to some demands from the Muslims, if that would achieve the goal of Hindu-Muslim unity. But are their demands ever going to end?"
There can be no limit to this list of demands. Here I am reminded of my honorable guru Narahar Kurundkar. I am going to give up making this list. What really is the Muslim problem? Will it be solved by agreeing to some of their demands? Speaking thirty years ago in front of thousands of Muslims gathered for a meeting organized by Jamat-i-Islam, Kurundkar said, "I am not a religious man. But you have still invited some one like me to present my views here. I want to thank you for your generosity before saying anything else. You all are Muslims. You know in the heart of your hearts what it means to be a Muslim. I am not a Muslim (Shivaratri, p. 131). Do you accept my right not to be a Muslim?" Kurundkar continued after raising this important issue, "what does it really mean to you to accept my right not to be a Muslim? My Muslim brothers may say, "We know that you are not a Muslim. But we will convince you of the superiority of Islam. But what can we do if you still refuse to convert?" I want to answer this question myself. You have no choice but accept the fact that many people are not Muslims. But it is one thing to accept the existence of thieves and quite another to accept their right to be thieves. You folks have to introspect deeply about this question. Have you accepted the fact that I am not a Muslim or have you accepted my right not be one?"
Elaborating further Kurundkar said, "wahidat (There is not god but Allah), nabuvat (Mohammad is Allah's final Prophet), and illhami kitabi (Koran is Allah's revealed Word) are the three fundamental beliefs for Muslims. Accepting my right not to be a Muslim is equivalent to rejecting any or all of these beliefs (p. 132)." According to him, Muslims will never acknowledge someone's right not to have any of the aforementioned beliefs. He reminds us of the fact that Muslims took to rioting when Arnold Toynbee violated one of these fundamental tenets by comparing Gandhi to Prophet Mohammad. He also points out to the fact that Mirza Mohammad was executed by his coreligionist for not acknowledging that Prophet Mohammad is Allah's final prophet. What Kurundkar means is that Muslims will grudgingly acknowledge the existence of Hindus as long as they have to for lack of strengths. They will impose Islam Hindus if and when the tables turn.
According to Kurundkar, Muslims' unwillingness to acknowledge the right of Hindus not to be Muslims is the root cause of the Muslim problem. Therefore Muslims consider Allah and Koran as sovereign and not the Indian Constitution and the Parliament; they do not acknowledge equal rights for all (consider themselves superior); do not accept the right of the Parliament to pass laws that apply to all; Muslims are always inviting others to join Islam, Kurundkar argues. Arguing further that "the concept of equal rights for all is anathema to Muslims," Kurundkar says, "fundamentalist wanted all (undivided) India for Islam; for (educated) Muslims, Hindus and Muslims as separate nations with a 50-50 power sharing as the ideal arrangement. Even liberal progressive Muslims are yet to be convinced that equal rights do not mean one group should get equal power as another. What can one say about other Muslims then? So I feel that the main problem is how does one convince the Muslims to give up their feeling of (religious, cultural, and political) superiority; to establish my right not to be a Muslim. If secularism is unable to establish this then the only alternative is to deny Muslims their right to be Muslims. No amount of sweet talking and superficial rhetoric by intellectuals on both sides is going to alter this fundamental truth (p. 129)."
Here Kurundkar has uncovered the crux of the Muslim problem. The Ayodhya issue, uniform civil code, Vande Mataram are symptoms of this underlying disease. If the underlying problem or disease is not taken care of symptoms will keep reappearing. The real issue is how to convince Muslims to get over their feeling of superiority while learning to acknowledge equal rights for all. The fundamental problem is to get Muslims to accept the sovereignty of the Parliament over Allah, the Constitution over the Koran, and the nation over religion in earthly matters. There is a need to get them out of their fundamentalist mindset. In short the real issue is not Vande Mataram or Sarasvati Vandana but establishing the right of the Hindus not be Muslims.
| 
Search 
