I was attending a meeting of an organisation working for civil rights. The first speaker pointed out to the organisers that most of the people sitting in the meeting were Muslims. He said that the organisation should try to include Hindus in it. Otherwise, he said, it seems that the struggle is only of Muslims and by Muslims. This makes it look narrow, he said. According to him, the meeting also did not seem complete or representative of the entire society, but only of one section – the Muslims. Then he said that it is not only the Muslim community whose rights are being violated. The rights of Dalits and Hindus are also being violated in many places. Attention needs to be paid to that too.
I kept thinking about this speech.
First, why does a meeting look incomplete or abnormal if the majority of the participants happen to be Muslims? Can we say the same about any meeting or gathering in which 99% are Hindus? At such a meeting, we do not ask why there are no Muslims or Sikhs or Christians in it. But if a meeting is 99% Muslim, then the absence of Hindus definitely stands out. And, if Muslims take any decision in such a meeting, then will that too be considered incomplete because Hindus are not included in it?
I should also make an admission. A few years ago, I was invited to Patna for a lecture. When I reached the hall, I came to know that 99% of the audience were Muslims. This fact struck me. Later, I kept thinking that in the dozens of meetings that we had held earlier at the same place, I had never thought that because almost 99% of the audience was Hindu, the attendance was strange.
I recount this because this way of thinking is not necessarily of those who are labeled as communal. Or to quote Asghar Ali Engineer, we can say that communalism is present in a very subtle way even in those who call themselves logical and secular. Our first reaction of accepting the presence of once community as ‘normal’ and another as not can tell us whether the communal bug is inside us or not.
The meeting in which the discussion was going on was on the question of civil or human rights. Is there a need to ask, today in India, as to which community is it whose rights in nearly all spheres of its life are being taken away? Whose houses and shops are being bulldozed? Whose places of worship are being attacked? Who is being arrested? Against whom are laws being made one after the other? Against whom is the major media of this country continuously spreading hateful propaganda? For whose genocide are slogans being raised openly? Which is the community that faces almost daily the threat of annihilation? Which community is subjected to hate campaigns relentlessly? The only honest answer is that it is the community of Muslims that is being attacked in an organised manner from all corners.
Is there any doubt that today the Union government of India and the governments of many states are in the hands of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which believes in and professes an anti-Muslim and anti-Christian ideology? Have we not seen for the last 10 years that in addition to the other political leaders of this party, even the prime minister incites anti-Muslim hatred in his rallies?
When houses are demolished, murders are committed, and hatred is bombarded, the victim will surely react. They will go to court, will have to hire lawyers and raise money for the bail of their arrested people. Others should stand with them. But should the victim wait until others realise their duty towards them?
This question was also raised when Muslims got together to protest against the new citizenship law. The amendment in the citizenship law and the announcement of the National Citizenship Register along with it created apprehension and fear among Muslims. In principle, this law was against the secular principle of India. Because of this, non-Muslims should also have opposed it. But it is also true that this law did not create apprehension and fear in Muslims. It was not without reason. Those who passed the law and implemented it were the people who never hide their anti-Muslim sentiments. It is true that after the publication of the NRC, it was found that more Hindus than Muslims were excluded from the register in Assam. But the government and the leaders said that they would get their place in the NRC and those who had been included would be thrown out. The message was clear. What is the ideological meaning and signalling of the NRC-CAA?
Those who were scared, those who felt afraid, came out on the streets. Many were Muslims. At some places, non-Muslims also joined them, but as we all know, Hindus did not feel any threat to their existence and their place in India from this law, so they were not exactly eager to join the protest. The Shaheen Bagh protests comprised mostly Muslim women. I was returning from one such protest in Pune. I asked the driver of the car if he had ever thought of joining it. The driver replied that it was ‘their’ problem. He was unable to understand the apprehension of the people sitting in the protest. It was a natural reaction, even if not appropriate. But what conclusion do we draw from this one incident? Is it that Muslims should have protested until others like the driver joined them?
Also watch: Central Hall | What Does It Mean to Be a Muslim in India Today?
When the Dalits felt that the The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was being diluted, they came out on the streets in protest. Non-Dalits were not there. But no one said that their protest was wrong or sectarian. It was not asked as to why only Dalits were protesting. They felt the sting of injustice and so they came out on the streets. Just like the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement. It mainly had black people and was led by them. It was not asked why only black people were there, why were they leading it. Yes, people from other races also joined, but the blackness of the movement was prominent and not a problem.
When Hindus were attacked in Bangladesh, they came out on the streets to protest. Was that wrong? It is a different matter that a large number of Muslims were also with them. This cannot be said about the CAA movement. Hindus failed to appreciate the fear of Muslims. Should this fact be held against Muslims?
It is true that in India there are non-Muslims in courts and elsewhere fighting against the injustice against Muslims. Lawyers, human rights activists, journalists, intellectuals, students: we do see non-Muslims in these groups. But it should not be concluded from this that Muslims should not speak for their rights or against injustice against them if they are alone.
When Muslims protest, they use rights given to them in the constitution. They are not taking away anyone’s rights.
It would be good if others also join them and follow their civic duty. It is our duty as citizens to rise in solidarity with those who fight for their rights. But when even those political parties that win by the votes of Muslims are reluctant to be seen with them, then what should we expect from ordinary Hindus? Secular political parties cannot even pronounce the word “Muslim”. What are Muslims expected to do?
It is also not right to say that when Muslims speak with the same intensity against the injustice done to Dalits or women, only then will their own protest prove to be legitimate. Do farmers protest for the rights of workers every time? Do workers protest for farmers? Should they then lose their right to protest for themselves?
In a democracy, it is expected that we understand and feel the pain of others. That is civic sense. But if injustice is being done to you and you remain silent, waiting for others to stand with you, then you are abdicating your civic duty. If Muslims are speaking for themselves, then they are activating this civic sense in the society. By joining them, we prove our citizenship.
Apoorvanand is a professor of Hindi at Delhi University.
