Founding Declaration (October
2, 2003)
1. In
defense of secular democracy
Muslims for Secular Democracy
(MSD) is taking birth at a critical juncture where India’s
Constitution and democracy are in serious danger of being
subverted from within and replaced by a fascist regime.
Because
it is committed to the goal of ‘Hindu Rashtra’, the
ideals of secular democracy have never been acceptable to the
sangh parivar since its ideology is embedded in notions of
majoritarianism and a deep-rooted hatred for the country’s
minorities.
Sustained hate propaganda, instigation of communal violence to
polarise Indian society and painstaking organisation building
have been its principal occupation for decades. Today, having
made deep inroads into the mass psyche, having infiltrated and
captured State institutions, the sangh outfits are
cynically misusing and manipulating the instruments and
institutions of democracy to subvert them from within.
The
suppression of the country’s minorities and the subversion of
the Indian Constitution are part of the same mutually
reinforcing process. Intense, unchallenged hate propaganda has
succeeded to the point that the idea that “Muslims need to be
taught a lesson” has gained wide currency. In the coming period
it will be said that since teaching Muslims a ‘proper lesson’ is
not easy in a democratic set-up, another political system is
needed to enable ‘Us’ to put ‘Them’ in their place.
Unfortunately, some from among the Muslims make the job of their
adversaries very easy. In India and internationally, those who
claim to speak or act in the name of Muslims or Islam, help
reinforce the image of Muslims as a community of
‘fundamentalists’, ‘fanatics’, ‘extremists’, ‘anti-nationals’, a
people ‘unprepared for, or incapable of, peaceful coexistence
with others’.
To some
extent the media, too, is to be blamed: because of its
preference for sensationalism, it plays up the statements of
hotheads and muckrakers, while moderate, liberal voices find
little mention, if at all. While continuing to consistently
challenge the words and deeds of fanatics and extremists,
Muslims for Secular Democracy proposes to consistently
engage the media on its editorial choice that wittingly or
unwittingly contributes towards building a negative image of
Muslims.
For
minorities targeted by fascist forces the only guarantee
of survival with dignity lies, not in gaining the so-called
‘goodwill of the majority’ as the RSS
advises,
but in the defense of India’s Constitution that guarantees them
fundamental rights as equal citizens.
To
defend the Constitution is to uphold the basic values enshrined
in them against all sectarian, divisive, communal
worldviews: not the sanghis alone. It is not possible to
fight Hindu communalism without fighting against Muslim
communalism, nor is it possible to fight Muslim communalism
without fighting against Hindu communalism, because the
different communalisms feed on each other.
2.
What we mean by our commitment to the Indian Constitution:
At the
core of the Constitution which We, the People of India,
gave ourselves 53 years ago, are the ideals of secularism,
democracy, pluralism. We are committed to the Indian
Constitution because we affirm our commitment to these values
that are its bedrock.
3.
SECULARISM:
The word
continues to be misunderstood by many people even today. It is
often wrongly assumed that ‘SECULAR’ is the opposite of
‘RELIGIOUS.’ However, if anything, the opposite of SECULAR is
COMMUNAL, while the opposite of the word RELIGIOUS is ATHIEST.
A
religious person is not necessarily communal (Mahatma Gandhi and
Maulana Azad were religious but not communal), a non-religious
person or an atheist can also be extremely communal (Jinnah,
Thackeray, Advani are good examples).
By
communalism is meant not religiosity but the use of religion as
the basis for political mobilization, or for nationhood.
By
secularism is meant the insistence on a clear separation between
religion and politics, between matters of faith and affairs of
the state; by secularism is meant clear rejection of the idea of
a theocratic state in the modern world.
To be
secular is to affirm the universality of that principle, its
applicability to all countries, irrespective of who constitutes
a minority or majority.
Secularism rejects not only the theocratic state but also a
majoritarian state that discriminates between citizens on the
basis of religion, race or ethnicity; or, worse still, that pits
one section of society against another. The claim that Hindu
Rashtra would not be a theocratic state is no good news,
because a non-theocratic fascist state can be worse.
(Historically, secularism as a concept emerged in Europe in the
17th century not in opposition to religion but only
to resolve the problem of bloody wars between different sects of
the same Christian religion: Protestants, Catholics etc. In
countries where the official religion of the state was
Protestant, Catholics were discriminated against and persecuted;
and vice versa. To resolve this problem, initially the idea
arose that while a State may have an official religion, the
spirit of tolerance should govern its attitude to people of
other sects.
Later,
it was felt that this, too, is not enough since tolerance
implies a relationship between ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’. It was
then that the idea emerged that for people of different sects to
coexist peacefully, it is essential that matters of faith are
separated from affairs of the State, so that the State had
no religion. This separation of State/politics and religion was
understood to mean not equal respect for all religions --
Sarva dharma samabhav as the RSS argues -- but the State’s
aloofness from religious matters.
To say
that the State has no religion does not mean that the
State is anti-religion. Nor does it mean that State heads or
other State functionaries have to be non-religious or
anti-religious, or that they could not go to pray in a church,
mosque or temple. Or, to take another example, no religious
education was to be permitted in state funded schools. This
obviously did not
mean
that children were prohibited from learning about their
religion, but only that it was left to parents and communities
to make private, non-State, arrangements for religious
education).
4.
DEMOCRACY:
The
section on Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution
(Articles 12-35) spells out the rights guaranteed to EVERY
CITIZEN. Without these rights, democracy will be meaningless, in
India or elsewhere in the world. Above all else, the defense of
the Constitution means reaffirming our faith in, and commitment
to, the values and principles enshrined in this section on
fundamental rights.
Of
particular relevance in our context are the following:
Equality before law:
Article 14. “The State
shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”.
Article 15. “The
State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only
of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them…”
Right to Freedom
Article 19:
“
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions…”
Article
21: Protection of life and personal liberty:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law”.
(Both
terrorists with BOMBS – so-called ‘jihadis’, the jung parivar
– and criminals controlling MOBS – Sena or sangh parivar --
who target innocents obviously have no respect for human
life as is inherent in this article. That is why both MOB TERROR
and BOMB TERROR stand equally condemned from a human rights
perspective).
Right to Freedom of Religion
Article
25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and
propagation of religion: “Subject
to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions
of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of
conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and
propagate religion”.
But, sadly, in most situations of communal
conflict in post-Independence India, the police and the
governments of the day have behaved as if Articles 14, 15 and 21
do not apply to the minorities. It is virtually like a periodic
suspension, denial of fundamental rights to the minorities. This
is nothing but a mockery of democracy, an issue that Muslims
for Secular Democracy will bring to public focus as often as
may be necessary.
It is also evident that the Constitution
guarantees these rights to individual ‘citizens’, or ‘persons’;
these are not community rights. Put differently, these
are rights for the ‘ultimate minority’: the individual human
being. Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and
expression (Article 19) and the right to freedom of religion
(Article 25) i.e., it is every citizen’s right to be a Hindu,
Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Parsi, agnostic or atheist.
In any
society, minorities -- religious or cultural – have the greatest
stake in the preservation of democracy because in that alone
lies the real guarantee of the security of life, liberty and
dignity.
While
demanding that the State must protect the fundamental rights of
ALL CITIZENS at ALL TIMES (not just sometimes), Muslims for
Secular Democracy also unhesitatingly affirms the
‘fundamental duties’ of every citizen of India as spelt out in
Article 51A:
“It shall be the duty of every citizen of India:
(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its
ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National
Anthem;
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity
and integrity of India;
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common
brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending
religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to
renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women”...
The
history of all religions demonstrates that any and every
religion can be interpreted in many different ways. Muslims
for Secular Democracy sees no conflict between Islam, as we
understand it, and the Constitution.
5.
CRIME AND ‘SIN’
In a
society governed by the Rule of Law, no citizen, not even a
Prime Minister or President, is allowed to take the law in his
or her own hand. Nor can ‘hurt religious sentiments’ be a
justification for circumventing law.
The
confusion that is common on this issue are best cleared by
recalling some elementary principles:
-
In a democracy, no
citizen can be deprived of his life or liberty, except by the
State and only through due process of law.
-
Those whose
religious sentiments are hurt (be they Hindus, or Muslims, or
whoever) have every right to express their feelings in
democratic, non-violent ways. But to take the law in your own
hands is to invite anarchy in society.
-
A secular State can
stipulate punishment for CRIME; but it cannot provide
punishment for SIN for it cannot entertain any notion of SIN.
-
At best, the State
can place reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and
expression. For example, the misuse of the freedom of
expression to create hatred against a certain community is a
punishable offence in India.
-
What is a sin and
what is the punishment for the same? The answer to both is
best left to God. (In its report on the violence against the
Ahmediyas in Pakistan in 1952, the Justice Munir Commission
appointed by the government had observed: “We cross-examined
mullahs from all over Pakistan and no two of them were
agreed on their definition of a Muslim. However, they all were
agreed that Ahmediyas should be killed.”)
6.
GENDER JUSTICE:
While
observing that the oppression and exploitation of women is
rampant in India – discrimination against the girl child,
feticide, infanticide, dowry and dowry deaths, sexual violence,
inadequate political representation – we uphold the principles
of gender justice and non-discrimination between the sexes.
Muslim Personal Law:
Of
particular concern to us are the issues of personal law and the
uniform civil code. We believe that all existing personal laws,
applicable to people of different religious communities,
discriminate against women and therefore urgently need change.
In case of Muslims, the theological defence of triple talaaq
(instant divorce) and polygamy are unacceptable.
As for
polygamy, census figures are quite revealing:
The 1991 census, that gives a
state-wise break up of the population of the major religious
communities, shows that the male-female ratio among the
Christians was on top of the list with 994 women for every 1,000
men. The sex ratio among the Hindus was 925 females per thousand
males. Among Muslims the sex ratio was 930 women for every 1,000
men while among the Sikhs the sex ratio was 888 women for every
1,000 men.
With Muslim men outnumbering
Muslim women in the population, the sangh parivar’s
insidious ‘hum panch’ (one man, four wives) propaganda is
patently false and nonsensical. Is it being suggested that 25%
Muslim males have four Muslim women as wives while the remaining
75% are condemned to remain unmarried? Or is it being suggested
that a vast majority of Muslim men marry non-Muslim women?
It is
also evident from census figures that bigamy is much more
prevalent among non-Muslims than Muslims in India. According to
1961 census figures, the incidence of polygamy is highest
among the Adivasis (15.25%), followed by Buddhists (7.9%), Jains
(6.72%), Hindus (5.80%) and, finally, Muslims (5.70%).
Studies have also shown that the practice of bigamy has been on
the decline in all communities in recent decades.
It is
also a fact that in many Muslim countries family laws have been
revised in respect of minimum age of marriage, polygamy,
divorce, maintenance. For example, in most Muslim majority
countries, including those that claim to be run on Islamic
principles, instant divorce is prohibited. Similarly, polygamy
is either prohibited or is permissible under specific
circumstances and only after permission has been obtained from
the courts and the existing wife. Thus, there can be no
‘Islamic’ justification for these practices to be permitted in
India: they must be prohibited. (Our objection is not to
the concept of talaaq divorce, per se, but to the
practice among some Muslim sects in India of instant divorce).
In
short, it is simply not true that what goes in the name of
‘Muslim Personal Law’ in India are God-given laws that are
immutable and all Muslims are obliged to follow them:
-
In
India itself, the Muslim Personal Law does not apply in Jammu
and Kashmir (the only Muslim majority state in the country) or
in Goa.
-
As
elaborated above, many Muslim countries have prohibited the
practice of instant talaaq, and polygamy is either
totally prohibited or permitted only under special
circumstances.
-
Millions of Muslims living in secular societies throughout the
world enter into marital relations according to the laws of
the country they live in. Yet, they don’t cease to be Muslims.
Uniform Civil Code:
In recent
years, the sangh parivar has repeatedly invoked Article
44 in the section on Directive Principles in the Constitution
that says: “The State shall endeavour to secure for the
citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of
India.”
Why is it that
the Hindutvavaadis who never tire of reference to Article
44 are entirely silent on other Articles (38-50) in the
Directive Principles and which among other things stipulate
that:
-
“The State shall
strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and
protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which
justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the
institutions of the national life.” (Article 38.(1)
-
“The State shall,
in particular, direct its policy towards securing:
that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an
adequate means of livelihood.” (Article 39(a)).
that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
(Article 39(d)).
that children are given opportunities and facilities to
develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and
dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against
exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.
(Article 39(f)).
-
“The State shall secure that the operation of
the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal
opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid,
by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to
ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied
to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.”
(Article 39A).
-
Right to work, to
education and to public assistance in certain cases. (Article
41) Provision for just and humane conditions of work and
maternity relief. (Article 42).
-
Living wage, etc.,
for workers. (Article 43).
-
Provision for free
and compulsory education for children. (Article 45).
-
Promotion of
educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections. (Article 46).
-
Duty of the State
to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and
to improve public health. (Article 47).
-
Protection of
monuments and places and objects of national importance.
(Article 49). (It is worth mentioning here that in 2002,
sangh parivar goons destroyed well over 200 Muslim
cultural and religious places during the BJP
government-sponsored genocide in Gujarat. According to the
Concerned Citizens Tribunal headed by three retired judges
chief minister, Narendra Modi, was the ‘chief author and
architect’ of that carnage).
-
Separation of
judiciary from executive. (Article 50).
Are
these Directive Principles of no interest to the sangh
parivar? The answer is simple: For the sanghi
parivar, the question of a uniform civil code is not one of
gender justice; rather, it is one more stick to beat the Muslims
with.
On our
part, however, we have no problem with Article 44 in which the
word ‘endeavour’ was used by the Constitution makers for good
reason.
India is
a country of many religions, castes and tribes, who for
centuries have had their own practices and customs in matters of
family relations: marriage, divorce, maintenance, custody of
children, guardianship, adoption, inheritance.
We
support any endeavour by the State to bring about a uniform
civil code. Endeavour, in our view, can only mean encouragement
of nationwide discussion and deliberation on the issue based on
tentative draft(s) that could give citizens some idea of what a
uniform civil code is going to look like.
Women and the Veil:
Among
Indian Muslims, the purdah system that was on the decline
in many parts of urban India, appears to have revived in a big
way since the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the communal
holocaust that followed in 1992. While respecting the right of
individual Muslim women to dress as they deem fit, we condemn
any attempt by any individual or organisation to force women
behind the veil with threats of acid on the face and other
terror tactics. Najma Heptullah, Benazir Bhutto, Shaikh Hasina
or Khalida Zia do not cease to be Muslims because they do not
observe purdah.
7.
FAMILY WELFARE/POPULATION CONTROL:
For many years now, the sangh parivar and other Hindu
communal outfits have carried out a sustained propaganda that
Muslims oppose family planning because they want to increase
their population so that Hindus can be turned into a minority
“in their own country”.
In the course of his ‘Gaurav Yatra’ to express pride at
the genocide of Gujarat’s Muslims in 2002, Narendra Modi
reverted to the “Hum do, hamare do vs. hum paanch
hamare pachees!’’ canard. Hindus are being told that while a
Hindu male marries only one woman and stops at two children, a
Muslim marries four wives and produces 25 children.
This baseless propaganda has done immense damage to the image of
the Indian Muslim in recent years. And this despite the fact
that official statistics show that the practice of family
planning among Muslims is only slightly lower than among others.
According to the 1971 census survey, Hindus constituted 82.7%
and Muslims 11.2% of the total population. The corresponding
figures in the 1991 census: Hindus 82.6% and Muslims 11.4%. (Malayalam
Manorama, 1992). In other words, only a minor change.
The slightly lower acceptance of family planning among Muslims
is rightly attributed to the relatively greater educational and
economic backwardness of Muslims.
As Dr. Ram Punyani has pointed out in an article in September
2002:
“Those in the better-off socio-economic and educational layer
have lesser population increase, while those on the lower rungs
of socio-economic educational ladder have higher rate of
population growth. This conforms to regional, urban and rural
distribution as well. Birth rates in Malabar region of Kerala,
whose Muslim population is 40%, is significantly lower than
those in Uttar Pradesh with a Muslim population of 15%. The
contrasting case is that of Kashmir, a Muslim majority state.
Here the fertility rate of Hindus is almost twice that of
Muslims. Here again the birth rate was lower (31.4 per thousand)
than in U.P (36.5), MP 36.4, Bihar 34.8 and Rajasthan 33.4.
“ We have to realize that the overall rate of population
increase in educationally and socially advanced states like
Kerala, Tamilnadu and Karnataka, is overall lower, both for
Muslims and Hindus, compared to the rest of the country. Also
let us have a look at urban rural divide. More than one-third of
the Muslim community is concentrated in the peripheral and
decaying areas of urban economic life. Incidence of urban
poverty is higher among them by 17% (vis-a-vis Hindus). The
number of Muslims living below poverty line is close to 65%.
They are generally living in older areas of modern cities, which
are well known for poor sanitation, lack of health facilities
and basic amenities. On top of this, the repeated outburst of
communal violence against them is 'ghettoising' them with
the result that improvement in their lot is becoming more and
more difficult.
“Overall, one observes that there are multiple factors
determining the rate of population growth, religion being very
low on weightage scale, if at all it counts. Socio-economic
betterment and education are the foremost factors helping in the
control of population growth. Feeling of insecurity and poor
socio-economic status counter the efforts to promote family
planning (nee, welfare, which is the term conveying the goals of
this exercise more precisely), and these two factors transcend
the religious factor by a number of times.”
(http://www.indianest.com/voices/v035.htm).
The problem is
not that Muslims do not accept family planning in practice. But
the mass perception, among Muslims and non-Muslims alike, is
that Islam is opposed to birth control. That this is not so
should be obvious from the following:
·
In two
international conferences of Islamic scholars and theologians
held in the early ‘80s, in which highly respected ulema
from different Muslim countries participated, the consensus was
that there is a difference of opinion between the different
schools of Islamic jurisprudence over whether permanent
methods of birth control (sterilisation) are prohibited in
Islam. There was also a consensus that Islam not only does not
prohibit, but in fact encourages common reversible
(temporary) methods of birth control – coitus interruptus,
condoms, copper-T, pills etc. (For the views of leading Islamic
theologians and jurists from the 7th to 8th
century A.D. on Islam’s attitude to birth control, see ‘Family
planning in the legacy of Islam’, Abdel Rahim Omran, 1992).
·
The governments of
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Iran have carried out mass
propaganda in favour of limiting family size. In fact, in
international circles, Iran and Indonesia are often cited as
being the best examples of birth control campaigns in the
developing world.
8.
CULTURE AND RELIGION:
For the
orthodox and conservative clergy from any community, religion is
always in danger. So it is with Muslims. But educated,
liberal-minded Muslims must know that the syncretic or composite
culture that India is so proud of would have been impossible if
people from different religions had not known how to distinguish
between popular culture and essentials of their religion.
The
lighting of diyas before a function, bindis on a
women’s forehead or tika on a male’s, modes of dress, or
marital customs prevalent in different regions are cultural
practices. They have as little to do with religion as the
different caps that Muslims may wear in different parts of
India. Hinduism is not in danger when a Hindu wears a ‘Muslim
cap’; nor is Islam endangered if a Muslim lights a diya.
9.
CIVIC SENSE/GOOD NEIGHBOURLINESS:
In
today’s urban environment, where people with different religio-cultural
backgrounds and traditions are closely packed together, peaceful
co-existence demands civic sense, a spirit of good
neighbourliness, mutual accommodation and consideration for each
other’s sensibilities. This is a demand that all citizens are
expected to meet, irrespective of the religion or the region
they come from. Muslims, too, need to examine some of their own
practices in this context.
In
recent years, Hindus have gone to police stations and even to
courts complaining that the noise generated during some Hindu
religious festivals add to noise pollution and therefore
restrictions must be put on such activities. In a few cases, in
Mumbai (Navratri festival) and Kolkota (Durga pooja), the
courts have even issued rulings in favour of the petitioners,
imposing restrictions. A complaint often voiced is that when you
raise similar issues vis-à-vis the question of azaan
through loudspeakers, Muslims see it as interference in their
religion.
Similarly, there are issues like namaaz on the streets
and qurbani inside a mixed housing colony with blood
flowing down the drainage system during ‘Bakri-Id.’ Such issues
are obviously not about interference in someone’s religion but
about co-existence and good neighbourliness in a diverse
society.
In any game of ‘competitive
religiosity’, any minority can only lose. We, therefore, believe
that the attitude on such issues should be not what others do
but whether one’s own actions contribute to the creation of a
more harmonious or hostile environment.
10. HAJ SUBSIDY:
The question of state subsidy for
Indian Muslims going to Mecca for Haj is frequently raised as a
glaring example of ‘Muslim appeasement’. The sangh parivar
keeps raising this issue every year to demand that the
Government of India stop Haj subsidy. Many secular-minded people
also oppose the use of taxpayers’ money, which includes
non-believers, for subsidising religious activity.
Opinion among Muslims is divided.
Some are for it on the ground that there is nothing wrong, in
principle, if a secular State subsidises religious activity of
the poor among believers, so long as there is no discrimination
between religions. On the other hand, very many people,
including prominent members of the Muslim Personal Law Board,
strongly oppose Haj subsidy. They argue that since Haj is a once
in a lifetime obligation only for those with means, they will be
happy if it is removed.
One thing is certain: There is a
lot of confusion on this issue both among Muslims and
non-Muslims as is obvious from the following:
Many in the travel and airline
industry point out that what is called ‘Haj subsidy’ is in fact
a subsidy for Air India. Haj pilgrims traveling to Mecca through
the Government of India’s quota are obliged to travel with Air
India alone. For the volume of business the hajis provide
the fare charged by Air India is far too high.
In 2001, for example, over
1,20,000 Indian Muslims went to haj. Of this, the
government appointed Haj Committee arranged for the travel of
around 72,000 while nearly 50,000 went opted for the haj
package tour offered by hundreds of private travel agencies.
Both the government and the private travel agencies offer 3-4
different packages. In 2001, for the cheapest package Muslims
traveling through the Haj Committee paid Rs.72,143, while the
government paid an additional Rs.20,000 to Air India as air fare
subsidy. (For 2001, Air India had fixed the return fare to Saudi
Arabia at Rs.32,000 per passenger. Of this amount, the intending
hajis paid Rs.12,000 while the Government paid an amount
of Rs. 20,000 as subsidy to Air India). Thus, the total cost per
haji was Rs. 92,143.
On the other hand, the cheapest
package offered by the Mumbai-based Atlas Travel cost was
only Rs.67,500, since the government does not pay any
subsidy in case of hajis who opt for private travel
agencies. That is why those in the airline business argue that
what is wrongly called a haj subsidy is in fact an ‘Air
India subsidy’.
It is obvious from the above that
if the government were to disband the Haj Committee, Indian
Muslims will pay less, not more, for haj tours organised
by private travel agencies and without the stigma of haj
subsidy.
Incidentally, in 1997, while
disposing of a petition before him, Justice Tanvir Ahmed of the
Lahore High Court had ruled that any expenditure defrayed by the
government in subsidising hajis was contrary to the
Shariat and therefore, wrong. Since then, the Pakistani
government has stopped all subsidies for haj pilgrimage.
The editor of Muslim India
and former MP, Syed Shahabuddin, has consistently demanded for
the last 15 years that the Government of India phase out the
haj subsidy. “I have told successive Prime Ministers of the
country that this haj subsidy is there because of their
political need; it has never been our demand. No Muslim leader
has ever demanded subsidy”, he said in an interview to the
magazine Communalism Combat two years ago.
When newspapers reported the 1997
Lahore High Court judgement, castigating the Pakistani State’s
subsidy for haj, Shahabuddin was quick to make
photocopies and despatch them to our own ministry of external
affairs.
A report published in the The
Indian Express on February 26, 2001, said during the tour of
an Indian delegation led by the then foreign minister Jaswant
Singh to Saudi Arabia in January 2001, the then Saudi ambassador
to India, A. Rahman N. Alohaly, and the Saudi foreign minister,
Saud Al-Faisal, had tried to impress upon the Indian delegation
that any state subsidy for haj pilgrimage is “wrong”.
“Our ulema will help you in explaining to your people
that the subsidy goes against the spirit of the Shariat,”
Al–Faisal reportedly told the Indian delegation.
As soon as this report was
published, the VHP’s senior vice–president, Acharya Giriraj
Kishore, wrote to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and,
quoting the Saudi viewpoint, demanded immediate withdrawal of
the subsidy. “Even the ulema of Mecca have said that
taking subsidy for haj was un-Islamic and robbed (it of)
the very purpose of undertaking the pilgrimage,” he said in his
letter.
Abdussattar Yusuf Shaikh, secretary, All India Muslim Personal
Law Board and office bearer of a host of Muslim educational
institutions is opposed to haj subsidy for the following
reasons:
-
Of the five essentials of Islam, three are obligatory for all
Muslims. These are: kalma (the declaration that there
is no God but one and that Mohammed is his Prophet), namaaz
(prayers five times a day) and roza (fasting during
the entire month of Ramzaan). The remaining two are
obligatory only for Muslims with adequate financial means to
fulfil them. These are zakaat (annual Islamic tax
payable according to a prescribed formula depending on the
financial status of a Muslim) and haj (pilgrimage to
Mecca).
-
Haj
is obligatory, only once in a lifetime and only for those
Muslims who are both physically capable of undertaking the
journey and have the adequate financial capacity. It is not
obligatory for others. The issue of adequate financial ability
has also been clearly specified.
-
The money needed for the performance of haj should come
out of one’s own legitimate earning or possession and the
amount should be sufficient to meet the entire expenses to be
incurred on the performance of haj. Among other things,
this includes the entire travel expenses, whatever the mode of
travel.
-
Before embarking on haj, a Muslim pilgrim must ensure
that he leaves enough money behind for the expenses of all his
dependants during the entire period that he is away. Further,
on his return he should be sure of adequate resources to
maintain his current standard of living for at least the next
six months.
-
If there are pending family obligations (for example, if
daughters are of marriageable age), they must be fulfilled
before undertaking a haj pilgrimage.
-
All pending personal loans must be settled before one takes
stock of one’s financial ability to perform haj.
-
In view of all these stipulations, haj subsidy is
nothing but “bheek ka paisa” (alms) which is “no good”
for haj. “The position in Islam is very clear. If I do
not meet the required conditions, haj is not obligatory
for me. Moreover, the most important consideration before
Allah is my niyat (intention). If I sincerely desire to
perform haj but do not have the means to do so, Allah
will still grant me all the rewards due to a haji. On
the other hand, if I perform a haj merely for show, it
is useless before Allah. So, there is nothing wrong if the
government withdraws this bheek ka paisa for haj”.
Muslims for Secular Democracy
supports the withdrawal of all subsidies for any kind of
religious activity, including the haj subsidy.
11. PAKISTAN AND THE ‘LOYALTY TEST’:
Muslims for Secular Democracy
categorically rejects the two-nation theory propounded by Jinnah,
Savarkar and others, and recognizes that Indian Muslims are the
worst victims of the tragic partition of the country.
We believe that the formation of Bangladesh in 1971 was the
strongest refutation, in practice, of the two-nation theory.
We assert that Indian Muslims are one with all fellow-Indians in
their loyalty to the nation and we condemn the sangh
parivar’s bid to demand from Muslims daily proof of the
same. Official records will easily establish that the vast
majority of government servants, defence personnel and others
who have been caught for espionage activities, the vast majority
are non-Muslims.
While condemning the handful among Muslims who burst crackers
when the Pakistani team defeats India in a cricket match, we
also denounce the insidious habit of the sangh parivar
and its followers to use the words “Muslim”, “Pakistani” and
“anti-national” as if they are interchangeable words.
We endorse the view first articulated by Ram Manohar Lohia in
the early ‘50s that though we do not accept the spirit
that led to the creation of Pakistan, we cannot deny the
reality of Pakistan.
Along with all the peace-loving people who constitute the vast
majority both in India and Pakistan, Muslims for Secular
Democracy supports friendly relations between neighbours and
a nuclear weapons-free South Asia. We cherish the dream that all
the SAARC countries will sooner than later come together to form
a South Asian Union similar to the European Union that is
already a reality.
But we recognize that Pakistan’s military establishment and the
numerous ‘Islamic fundamentalist’ outfits overtly and covertly
supported by it are a big hurdle in the realization of this
dream. We condemn in the strongest possible words the merciless
killing of innocent people in the Kashmir Valley and elsewhere
in India by terrorists who claim to be ‘Soldiers of Islam’ but
who in fact give Islam a bad name and heighten communal tension
in India.
However, India’s ‘Hindu Taliban’ are no less an obstacle in the
path of friendly relations between the two countries. The
mutuality of interests between the two is therefore not
surprising.
“The BJP suits us. We pray to God that they come to power
again”, Abdullah Muntazar, the information secretary of
Pakistan’s Lashkar-eTayyeba had told The Hindustan Times
in an interview on the eve of Lok Sabha elections in 1999. Again
on August 6, 2001, Abu Osama, the official spokesman of
Lashkar-eTayyeba told Harvard University’s Professor Jessica
Stern, "We pray for their (Hindu fundamentalist outfits) success
because we feel that in the success of Hindu fundamentalism lies
the survival of Muslim fundamentalism." "Secular India can slow
the process of Islamisation of Pakistan and other Muslim states
of the region," he said, adding it was with the "creation of
Hindu fundamentalist and militant organisations that Muslim
militant organisations find breathing space in India." (The
Hindustan Times, August 11, 2001).
Ironically, the sangh parivar and its followers who claim
to have the monopoly on patriotism and who constantly question
the Indian Muslims’ allegiance to India are the ‘Islamic
fundamentalists’ best friends!
This is not surprising, for ‘religious fundamentalism’
(‘political religion’, politics based on the tenets of a
particular religion) and communalism (politics based on a
religious community) have a lot in common; they legitimize each
other. Being equally hostile to the values of a pluralistic
secular democracy, ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ and Hindu
communalism (Hindutva) are opposite poles of the same
religion-politics axis: if fundamentalism manipulates power
in the pursuit of religion, communalism manipulates religion in
the pursuit of power. If theocracy is the self-conscious
goal of fundamentalism, fascism is the inevitable outcome of
communal politics since the communal agenda cannot be taken to
its political and logical culmination in a democracy. So,
Hindutva’s fascination with Nazism and fascism since its very
inception, which is by now well-established by historians,
should not surprise anyone.
If intolerance of others is an inherent part of both
fundamentalist and communal ideology, the politics that flows
from either also has many common traits:
Indoctrination to promote prejudice and hatred against a section
of society, instead of education that celebrates diversity and
pluralism and upholds equal rights for all citizens;
Hate speech and hate writing targeting minorities, instead of
creating awareness in the masses on issues of common concern;
Justification and valorization of violence instead of promoting
respect for the Rule of Law;
Threats, intimidation and terrorizing, instead of promoting a
culture that encourages dialogue, debate and the right to
democratic forms of dissent;
Arms training and weapons distribution in preparation for
violence, instead of initiatives for peace.
12. AGAINST VIOLENCE, PRO JUSTICE AND PEACE:
Muslims for Secular Democracy
stands equally opposed to religious fundamentalism and
communalism; it makes no distinction between majority and
minority communalism. We acknowledge the need for sustained and
uncompromising ideological battle against fundamentalism and
communalism of all hues, and irrespective of the religion in
whose name they seek to legitimize their anti-democratic,
intolerant and often inhuman politics.
As a national forum of secular and democratic-minded Muslims,
Muslims for Secular Democracy will be in the forefront in
the ideological battle against fundamentalist and communal
Muslim politics. Having said that, we fully agree with all
secular-democratic groups in the sub-continent that fascist
terror in the name of Hindutva poses the greatest threat to
democracy and the religious minorities in India, just as
fanaticism and terrorism in the garb of Islam are the greatest
threat to democracy and the religious minorities in neighbouring
Pakistan and Bangladesh. It will, therefore, join hands with
other secular-democratic groups to fight the fascist challenge
to Indian democracy and Constitution.
Along with others, Muslims for Secular
Democracy is particularly concerned with increasing evidence
of communalisation of the very State institutions and personnel
that are duty bound to uphold constitutional values and
practices and State complicity in the communal conflagrations.
This is obvious from the findings of every commission of inquiry
appointed by different governments in the states and the Centre
to probe into the major communal carnages in the country.
· The
commissions’ reports categorically state that in all the
incidents of communal conflict, one or the other segment of the
Saffron Brotherhood were involved in the instigation and/or
perpetration of violence; and
· The
report of every single commission indicts the police for
dereliction of duty (ensuring law and order), encouraging
violence against the minorities and at times even participating
in them. These are not simply general observations. For example,
the Srikrishna Commission (Mumbai pogrom, 1992-93), the DP Madon
Commission (Bhiwandi, Jalgaon, Mahad riots 1970) and other
commissions have named individual policemen – from constables to
senior IPS officers – whose conduct showed clear communal bias
and recommended their criminal prosecution.
In this context, the public statement of highly experienced and
respected retired police officials like Ved Marwah (presently
governor of Jharkhand), Padma Rocha (former director, National
Police Academy) and serving police officers like Inspector
General Police, Vibhuti Narain Rai, that no riot can last for
more than 24 hours unless the government/police wants it to
continue (in other words, if the riots still continue it means
there is government/police complicity) assumes great importance.
Muslims for Secular Democracy
demands that the political executive takes these observations of
top police officials seriously and initiates exemplary penal
action against all policemen guilty of communal conduct.
Muslims for Secular Democracy
also joins other secular-democratic organisations in demanding
urgent State intervention to check:
Teaching of prejudice:
Close and constant monitoring of the curricula and the
text-books used in all educational institutions, be they
state-run or privately owned, RSS-run shishu mandirs,
Muslim madrassas or missionary schools to check the
promotion of prejudice in the name of teaching history or
religion.
Hate propaganda:
Prompt criminal prosecution of any and every individual,
organisation or media group each time they engage in hate speech
or hate writing to instigate hatred against any section of
citizens. (Sections 153 A and 153 B, 295A, 298 and 505 of the
Indian Penal Code).
Scotching of incendiary rumours:
Prompt scotching of baseless rumours intended to inflame
communal passions and firm action against the culprits must be
part of a policeman’s obligation.
Arming/arms training of civilians:
A complete ban on arms training (except by government agencies
and other authorised bodies like the NCC etc), distribution of
weapons like trishuls and swords and the carrying of
weapons in religious processions.
Acts of terrorism:
Firm, non-discriminatory and exemplary penal action against any
and every organisation and individual that engages in any
terrorist act, be it small bands of jehadis armed with
bombs or outfits such as the VHP, Bajrang Dal or the Shiv
Sena instigating/leading hate-filled mobs.
Police/administration bias:
· Immediate
suspension of the district collector and the police chief
(commissioner/SP) if violence is not brought under control
within 24 hours;
· Full
state compensation for loss of life and complete rehabilitation
of victims of rioting by restoring their homes and sources of
livelihood.
· Special
drives to ensure adequate representation of all communities in
the police force;
Communal abuse of draconian laws:
In the past, the dreaded TADA had to be withdrawn because, among
other things, it became notorious for being used as a communal
weapon against the minorities. POTA is now being similarly
deployed in Gujarat and Maharashtra. The blatantly
discriminatory abuse of POTA by the Narendra Modi government is
evident from the fact that while all the accused, young and old,
in the Godhra tragedy or the murder of former Gujarat minister
Haren Pandya have been booked under POTA, none of the accused in
the genocide against Muslims post-Godhra have been booked under
it.
Muslims for Secular Democracy
joins the entire human rights community in demanding the
scrapping of this draconian act.
Muslims for Secular Democracy
is being launched with a commitment to join all
secular-democratic forces in the effort to build a pluralistic,
secular-democratic, pro-people Indian polity.
October 2, 2003
Participants in
the first national meet of ‘Muslims for Secular Democracy’ in
Mumbai/Signatories to the Declaration, October 2, 2003:
MUMBAI/THANE
Javed Akhtar,
(President), Poet, Lyricist, Social Activist
Gulam M. Peshimam,
(Convenor), Businessman, Social Activist
Hasan Kamaal,
(Vice President), Columnist, Poet, Lyricist, Social Activist
Sajid Rashid,
(Vice President),
Senior Journalist, Social
Activist
Javed Anand,
(General Secretary),
Senior
Journalist, Social Activist
Abdul Kader Mukadam,
Columnist, Social Activist
Abdul Hannan,
Social Activist
Afsar Hussain,
Social Activist
Aftab Khatik,
Student, Social Activist
Ahmed Ali Khan,
Businessman, Social Activist
Arif Kapadia,
Social Activist
Asif Khan,
Cartoonist, Social Activist
Aslam Parvaiz,
Playwright
Ayub Khan,
Computer Professional, Social Activist
Babasaheb Kazi,
Researcher, Social Activist
Dawood Dalvi,
Ex-Principal
Ebrahim A Khan,
Social Activist
Farhat Khan,
Teacher, Social Activist
Farrukh S. Waris,
Educationist, Social Activist
Fazal Shaad,
Bookseller, Social Activist
Imran Jahangir,
Draftman, Social Activist
Inayatullah Bhatkar,
Businessman, Social Activist
Irfan Khan,
Corporate Executive
Irfan Mulla,
Draftman, Social Activist
Javed Siddiqui,
Writer
Mahmood Ayubi,
Journalist
Mohammed Haroon,
Social Activist
Mughal Gazala,
Ex-Principal, Social Activist
Muqaddar Hameed,
Writer, Urdu Fiction
Perwaiz Waris,
Documentary Film-maker, Advertising Professional, Social
Activist
Razia Chougule,
Social Activist
Rubeena S. Parkar,
Advocate, Social Activist
Salam bin Razak,
Short Story Writer
Salim Dawawala,
Architect, Social Activist
Salim Janjua,
Social Activist
Shafeeque S. Parkar,
Advocate, Social Activist
Syed Firoz Ashraf,
Social Activist
Syed Nusrat,
Social Activist
Taizun Khorakiwala,
Businessman
Taufeeq R. Kidwai,
Corporate Executive
Yacoob Rahee,
Poet, School Principal, Social Activist
Vaqar Kadri,
Writer, Social Activist
Yasmin Agha,
Social activist
ALLAHABAD
S.M.A. Kazmi,
Advocate
BHOPAL
Askari Zaidi,
Journalist
CALCUTTA
Nishad Alam,
Dy. Secretary, Urdu Academy, (West Bengal), Social
Activist
Zahir Anwar,
Director, Playwright, Headmaster
DELHI
Zafar Agha,
Journalist
HYDERABAD
Ali Asghar,
Social Activist
JALGAON
Khaleel Deshmukh,
Gram Sarpanch, Social Activist
KOLHAPUR
Humayun Mursal,
Social Activist
MALEGAON
Abdul
Haleem Siddiqui,
Journalist, Social Activist
PUNE
Anvar Rajan,
Social Activist
Anwar Shaikh,
Retired Government Servant, Social Activist
Razia Patel,
Social Activist
Yasmin Shaikh,
Social Activist
(For further details please write to: Muslims for Secular
Democracy, P.O. Box 28253, Juhu Post Office, Mumbai- 400 049. Or
call Javed Anand: (O) 2660 22 88; 2660 39 27; 2660 8252; (M)
9870402556).
