A history of distrust

Gap between BJP & Muslims mirrors earlier rupture between Congress and community

ONE FREQUENTLY ASKED question in the Indian public discourse pertains to the absence of Muslim representation in the highest levels of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Out of the Lok Sabha candidates announced by the party so far, only one is a Muslim. The outgoing Modi cabinet has no minister from the community. The implied allegation is that the party is anti-muslim, a by-product of its ideological paradigm. But let’s raise a question from history. Is the anti-bjp sentiment in the community a throwback to its historical alienation even during the British times? Didn’t the ties between the pre-partition Congress and Muslims suffer from a trust deficit?

Today’s distance between the BJP and Muslims mirrors that between the preindependence Congress and the community. In March 1938, the Muslim League appointed what is known as the Pirpur committee to inquire into Muslim grievances in the Congressruled provinces. The Committee accused these provincial governments of anti-muslim and pro-hindu bias. The report was used to strengthen the demand for Pakistan on the plea that Muslims couldn’t get a fair deal in an independent India, likely to be ruled by a Hindu-dominated Congress. It implied that Hindus, Hindu communalism and Congress were all synonymous. The allegations of “atrocities” against Muslims by the Congress listed in the report, and the ones used to paint the Modi government as anti-muslim are uncannily identical.

All efforts by the then Congress leadership, including Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, to dispel Muslim apprehensions fell flat. In April 1947, a desperate Gandhi proposed to the new Viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten, that MA Jinnah be offered to head the interim government. This suggestion is akin to the Biblical allegory of two women fighting over a baby as they approach King Solomon for justice. The King orders them to cut the infant in two so that each can have half. the real mother cries ,“please, lord, give her the live child. Do not kill him!” and the lying one says: “It shall be neither mine nor yours — divide it.”

On December 6, 1945, Jinnah explained, “...a united India means slavery for Mussulmans and complete domination of the imperialistic caste Hinduraj throughout this sub-continent...” He wasn’t speaking only for himself. He spoke for the community he claimed to represent. In the 1946 elections, the Muslim League captured all Muslim constituencies in the central assembly and 87 per cent of the provincial Muslim constituencies. At that time, Jinnah didn’t contest from any area of present-day Pakistan but from Bombay’s Byculla seat and won.

The League got massive support from a section of Muslims in the areas that are now a part of India. A vote for the League was a vote for Pakistan. It’s why Sardar Patel, speaking in Calcutta on January 3, 1948, said, “The Muslims who are still in India, many of them helped in the creation of Pakistan... They (now) say why their loyalty is being questioned.”

During the First War of Independence (1857), the hindu sand muslims joined against the British. Subsequently, most of the prominentmuslims—such as sir syedahmedk han, Muhammad Iqbal, and Jinnah — spoke in terms of Hindu-muslim brotherhood and the need for a common front against the alien British. However, the British soon started working on the divide-and-rule policy. A section of the community’s leaders shapeshifted into Islamists and developed close working relationships with the British. Abdul Wali Khan, in his seminal work, Facts are Facts: Untold Story of India’s Partition, quotes a communication from Viceroy Lord Linlithgow to the Secretary of State, in which the viceroy says that “Jinnah is our man and we accept him as a representative of all Muslims.”

While a section of the community hailed these hate-spewing leaders, it ostracised those opposing Partition. The community spurned nationalist Muslim leaders like Maulana Azad and Humayun Kabir. The Maulana, in his convocation address to the Aligarh Muslim University in 1949, didn’t mince his words when he referred to the phase when Indian Muslims “not only stood aloof from all political movements of the day but were inclined to oppose the country’s struggle for emancipation.” And he squarely held Sir Syed responsible for keeping Muslims away from Congress.

Today, new characters have replaced the old ones. In pre-independence India, the wily British and communists managed to create a wedge between the bulk of Muslims and the national aspirations represented by

Congress. They demonised the Congress and successfully labelled it as anti-muslim. Now, instead of the British, Congress is playing the same divisive game.

Both in the pre-and post-independence era, India has seen the emergence of several Muslim leaders of distinction committed to a nationalistic plank. Today, it’s the hardliners and the extremists who are heard the loudest. For the BJP, Muslims are part of the 140 crore Indians — all having equal rights and identical obligations to the nation. Right from Jana Sangh’s days, it had a slew of Muslim leaders such as Arif Beg, Sheikh Abdul Rehman, and Sikander Bakht. APJ Abdul Kalam was elected President (2002-07) with BJP’S support. Several of the present-day spokespersons of the party are Muslim men and women. They are there on merit.

Democracy is a game of numbers and winning elections. There is a disconnect betweenthebjp’ s performance and the response of a section of the Muslim community to it. For no fault of their own or of the party, BJP Muslim candidates usually find it difficult to garner support from their community. against this backdrop, the party is reluctant to field them. A section of the Muslims didn’t trust the Congress’s leadership during the decades preceding Independence. It isn’t surprising that they don’t trust the BJP now. Building this trust is a challenge for both sides.

The writer is the author of the recently published, Tryst with Ayodhya: Decolonisation of India