BY MOHAMMED SALMAN MANSURPURI
The newly launched Muslim fronts in UP claim to take their
inspiration from the experiment in Assam. But the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, the
main inspiration behind the emergence of the AUDF, insists that though
mistakes have been made, the AUDF is meant to be a "genuinely secular
party" and never a purely Muslim outfit. Maintaining that a separate
Islamic or Muslim party can only harm the community’s interests and help
communal forces, it charges both Imam Bukhari and Maulana Kalbe Jawwad
with misleading the Muslim masses and leading them towards potential
disaster.
In this context, Communalism Combat found the
two-part article published by the Urdu daily, Qaumi Awaaz, highly
educative. Though long, we think it is an important political document.
Therefore we are publishing below a translation of the two pieces. The
author of the articles, Mohammed Salman Mansurpuri is a special invitee to
the Jamiat’s national working committee. That he is clearly articulating
the Jamiat’s position on the entire issue is also indicated by the fact
that he is the son-in-law and nephew of the current Jamiat president,
Maulana Syed Arshad Madni.
In a country such as India, the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind
considers Muslim communalism to be as dangerous as Hindu communalism for
the country and the minority community. This has been the Jamiat’s
consistent and clear stand since the partition of the country and until
today. The Jamiat strongly believes that in India we must never seek a
solution to any of our problems on a communal basis. Instead, we must
speak the language of what is fair and what is not, oppression and
justice, backwardness and progress. That is why even on the issue of
reservations the Jamiat has been demanding quotas for Muslims not on a
religious basis but on the grounds of their backwardness.
T hose
who want to establish a Muslim political party on communal lines are
agents of anti-minority Hindu communalists
— Maulana Asad Madni, former president of the
Jamiat, in the official mouthpiece of the Jamiat, Al-Jamiat, 25
December 2003-1st January, 2004 |
'Avoid that suicidal course'
Islamic Voice, Bangalore, Editorial, May 2003
The formation of a political party for or by
Muslims, as conceived by a section of Delhi-based Muslims, would be
unwise to the extent of being suicidal for the community. Even if
the sincerity of its proponents could be given the benefit of the
doubt, the wisdom behind the move is questionable. Muslims should
think of building a sound base in all secular parties, lay equal
stress on nurturing diverse talents within their ranks, nurture
budding leaders, feed them intellectually as well as financially,
couch their concerns and wants in a secular idiom and appear to be a
forward-looking community which wishes the nation well without the
exclusion of any segment of its malnourished, unwashed and
illiterate multitudes.
(http://www.islamicvoice.com/may.2003/editorial.htm)
|
The experience of 59 years since independence tells us
that every time any issue is given a communal complexion, Muslims are the
losers and anti-Muslim forces have gained strength. But these days it
looks as if it is the season of ever new political fronts among some
Muslims. And citing the example of the Assam United Democratic Front, the
Jamiat is also being seen as party to it… It therefore seems necessary to
place before the public an account of the efforts made by the Jamiat in
recent years to initiate a political party, of the Jamiat’s perspective on
the issue and the context in which the AUDF took birth, and the character
of the AUDF. This is important so that people understand how they are
being misled by certain political leaders who are misrepresenting the
Assam example.
In March 2003 preparations were in full swing for holding,
at the Ramlila grounds in Delhi, the 27th conference of the Jamiat on a
grand scale. There was great excitement as preparations were in full swing
across the country. In this context, I felt that our objective should not
be limited to gathering a crowd. Instead, why not think of some concrete
plan for the betterment of the country and the community, especially
something that could increase the political weight of the minorities and
the backward castes. I thought the Jamiat should take the lead in this
direction. Accordingly, emphasising the need for the emergence of a
genuinely secular party in the country, I prepared a proposal. The
highlights of this plan were:
a. The name of the party must be such that it does not
suggest that it was a party for people of only a particular religious
community.
b. The constitution of the party must be such that it
remains open to people of different faiths.
c. The party’s office bearers must include non-Muslims.
d. The party’s doors must be open to people from different
sects and communities.
e. The Jamiat as an organisation must not become a part of
the party but maintain the role of watchdog.
f. During elections such a party must seek alliances with
different regional parties; it must not fight alone.
g. A large number of seats must be offered to like-minded,
sincere non-Muslim candidates.
After my draft was ready, the principal of Moradabad’s
Madrasa Shahi, Maulana Asad Rashidi saw it and expressed his total
agreement with its contents. On March 4, 2003 I faxed a copy of the draft
to the Jamiat head office. In the evening Maulana Mahmood Madni phoned me
to say that the draft had been approved by the Jamiat’s president, Maulana
Syed Asad Madni, and that the same would be presented for deliberations
before the plenary session of the forthcoming conference.
After a lot of discussion and debate the draft was cleared
by the plenary session and a seven-member committee was agreed upon to
take the proposal forward. The members of the committee were:
1. Maulana Syed Asad Madni (the late Jamiat president).
2. Maulana Syed Arshad Madni (the current president).
3. Maulana Habibur Rehman Qasmi.
4. Imam Syed Ahmed Bukhari.
5. Shakeel Ahmed, advocate.
6. Maulana Mahmood Madni.
7. Mohammed Salman Mansoorpuri (This writer).
On the morning of March 8 while I was in the office, I was
asked to see the president in his office immediately. Maulana Syed Arshad
Madni, Maulana Mahmood Madni and Maulana Habibur Rehman Qasmi were also
present. Maulana Mahmood Madni said, "Yesterday you all decided on the
formation of a secular party and you have made me the convenor. I feel so
burdened by this that I could not sleep all of last night. Please hand
over this responsibility to someone else as I do not feel capable of it."
Then he himself suggested that Imam Bukhari be made the convenor. But the
president strongly opposed the suggestion and said that an undependable
person cannot be given such a responsibility. After considerable
deliberation it was decided that Maulana Mahmood Madni must remain the
convenor. It was also decided that instead of announcing the decision to
launch a genuine secular party we should say that we would endeavour
towards the same and for this the seven-member committee would be given
three months’ time to explore the possibilities and then submit its
report. Accordingly, this suggestion was put before the working committee
and the same was accepted.
It is a fact that until then Maulana Mahmood Madni, I and
many others had illusions about Maulana Bukhari. We all felt that compared
to his late father, Abdullah Bukhari, he was more sober and closer to the
national mainstream. Therefore if he were to abide by the principles of
the Jamiat, he could greatly benefit the country and the community. On the
evening of March 8, a special session of the Jamiat conference was held at
the Shahi Jama Masjid. Initiating the proceedings, Maulana Bukhari said,
"Today ushers in a new chapter in the history of Muslim unity."
But our illusions about Maulana Bukhari were shattered
immediately thereafter. The very next day, March 9, when he was invited to
speak in support of the proposed secular party at the plenary session at
the Ramlila grounds he showed his true colours. Addressing a gathering of
lakhs, he exceeded all limits of decency while castigating secular parties
in general and the Congress in particular and, in incendiary language,
tore the Jamiat’s plan for a new secular party to shreds. Two statements
of his were particularly indicative of his mindset.
One, he said that Ahmed Bukhari does not believe in any
kind of tact or diplomacy. This one statement was enough to make it clear
to me that the community can expect to gain nothing from such a leader…
His second statement, which shocked everyone even more, was that in this
country Hindus will be Hindus and Muslims will be Muslims and there was no
way the two could work together. It was evident from this statement that
the Imam Saheb was talking the language of the RSS. Clearly, he had not
the least interest in the betterment of Muslims; all that mattered to him
was cheap popularity.
Such a statement from the Imam Saheb was not only against
the principles of the Jamiat but also against the basic teachings of
Islam. Despite this, Jamiat leaders showed exemplary restraint to avoid
any unpleasantness at the session. But we realised the big mistake we had
made in inviting Imam Bukhari to address the plenary and felt a deep pang
of conscience for having given undue importance to such an incendiary
person. Not just the leadership but the entire assembly was deeply upset
by his statements.
After the conference, for quite some time the issue of
forming a new and genuine secular party became a hot topic for discussion
among Muslims. Meanwhile, the Jamiat was engaged in exploring the
possibility of such a political formation. At the May 22, 2003 meeting of
the seven-member committee, in order to take the plan forward I proposed a
four-point questionnaire and suggested that the same be widely circulated
among the different units of the Jamiat as also among prominent political
and religious leaders for their feedback. The same questionnaire was then
issued under the signature of Maulana Mahmood Madni and publicised through
advertisements in the media.
We started receiving feedback to this questionnaire and on
June 16 the preparatory committee decided to invite sober Muslim and
non-Muslim political leaders and opinion makers from all over the country
for a consultation on the issue. The consultation was held on July 20,
2003. The consensus that emerged was that while there was need for a new
secular political party, such a party should only be launched after a
sizeable section of non-Muslims and different sects among Muslims had been
convinced of its need. It was strongly felt that a premature launch of the
proposed political formation would do more harm than good.
Following the consultation, the Jamiat thought it
appropriate to cold-storage the plan for the moment. But efforts in this
direction continued to be made at the state level in several states. In
many places, programmes were organised to invite Dalits to dine with
Muslims. Contacting and establishing an equation with Dalit leader Udit
Raj was a part of this programme. Similarly, in Andhra Pradesh contacts
were made with Dalit and tribal leaders.
Meanwhile, an important development took place in Assam.
The IMDT Act legislated by the state Congress had at last provided some
security to Bengali-speaking Muslims in the state and widespread
harassment by the police had stopped. But the Supreme Court struck down
the Act and the Bengali-speaking Muslims were once again faced with the
spectre of deportation. The Jamiat believed that the Act would not have
been struck down if the Congress government in Assam had argued its case
properly.
Because of this, at a state level meeting of the Jamiat at
which Assam’s chief minister, Tarun Gogoi was present, the late Maulana
Syed Asad Madni, then Jamiat president, used strong words. He warned that
unless the wrong was set right in six months the Jamiat would topple
Gogoi’s government. When the government did nothing in those six months to
resolve the problem, state Jamiat president Badruddin Ajmal Ali and his
colleagues started making contacts with different tribal groups and
organisations in Assam. Thus the ground was prepared for the formation of
a united front along with the Assam Labour Party (which represents tea
plantation workers), the Assam Harijan Unian Samaj (a political formation
of Dalits) and others. Some dissident Congress leaders were also invited
to join. The proposed alliance was also welcomed by various Muslim bodies
in Assam, including the Jamaat-e-Islami.
After all the groundwork was complete, the party was
launched at a well attended meeting held in Guwahati on October 13, 2005.
The then Jamiat president, Maulana Syed Asad Madni and other top leaders
of the Jamiat were present on the occasion. What was launched was in every
sense a secular front. While Badruddin Ajmal Ali was made the president,
three of the five vice-presidents of the front were non-Muslims. Their
names are:
1. Shri Bharoj Lal Arvi Das, president, All-Assam Harijan
Unian Samaj.
2. Shri Gautam Prasad Goswami, former Congress leader.
3. Prof. Kamal Lane Bhattacharya, former Congress leader.
The general secretary of the front, Aditya Link Satha (Bimasa)
too was a non-Muslim who, incidentally, won his seat in the recent polls.
Similarly, Shri Shyam Sundar Choudhary, a Dalit leader, was one of the
secretaries of the front. Thus, five of the 11 office bearers of the front
were non-Muslims. It should be evident from this that the newly formed
front was by no means a Muslim organisation (as is being done these days)
but a front that Muslims in Assam formed along with non-Muslims from the
backward and exploited sections. This front gave itself the name Assam
United Democratic Front (AUDF) and started preparing for elections.
The front was formed a few days before Ramzan. On his
return from Medina the Jamiat president, Maulana Syed Asad Madni retired
to Deoband for the month of Ramzan as was his usual practice. A day after
Id, Maulana Madni went into a coma following an injury and remained
bedridden until his death on February 6, 2006. Thus, in its very formative
stage, the front was deprived of the guidance of the very influential and
popular Jamiat president.
Since the AUDF was the first product of the Jamiat’s
efforts at a new political initiative, it was critical that it retained
its secular character and every possible precaution taken to prevent a
communal climate at election time. The success of the front depended, and
still does, on it retaining its secular character. It was essential that
anyone who is perceived as a communal or an incendiary leader be kept away
from the election campaign. Similarly, it was also necessary for religious
institutions and madrasas to refrain from open participation in the
campaign. It was equally necessary to include non-Muslim colleagues in
every statement and in public rallies so that a clear message went out to
the entire country that a united front of Muslims and Hindus had entered
the electoral fray in Assam.
But I am sorry to say that knowingly or unknowingly the
AUDF leadership in Assam took some steps as a result of which the AUDF’s
secular character was tarnished and Maulana Badruddin Ajmal was forced to
repeatedly clarify that his was not a Muslim political outfit. If the
necessary precautions had been taken, the need for constant clarification
would not have arisen. Of the things that caused damage to the AUDF cause,
I would like to highlight three:
1. The entire country knows that Imam Bukhari is known or
has been projected as a communal and an extremist leader. But on the ill
advice of god knows who all, Bukhari Saheb was invited to Assam to
campaign for the AUDF and was taken around the state in helicopters. Those
who were swayed by emotions did not realise it at the time but the fact is
that Bukhari Saheb played a key role in ruining the AUDF’s image. His
campaign tour gave the electoral campaign a communal colour. The result
being that the AUDF, which had been launched as a secular front and had
given 22 of its 71 tickets to non-Muslims, acquired the image of a purely
Muslim front. Because of this, AUDF candidates lost seats even where it
was in a strong position and gave the Congress an opportunity to attract
Hindu votes.
2. The second example of the AUDF’s failure to take
precautions was the open involvement of numerous madrasas in the electoral
process. A person from Assam recently told me that madrasas in Assam were
closed down for 15 days to enable its staff and students to create a
favourable climate for the AUDF. In my view, this too was an unwise step.
It too contributed to giving the campaign a communal complexion and the
AUDF had to pay for it. We have ourselves had experience of this while
campaigning for Maulana Mahmood Madni during the general elections in
2004. The open engagement of Muslim religious bodies in the electoral
process results in a natural polarisation of Hindu votes and this does not
help our case.
3. The third pointer to the AUDF’s immaturity was its
arrogant dismissal of the sincere and conciliatory gesture made by the
Congress high command during the last phase of campaigning. Had the AUDF
responded positively and arrived at some electoral understanding with the
Congress, it would not have found itself isolated as it does today. The
AUDF could have increased its electoral tally and been further able to
exert pressure on the Congress to resolve the problems that the community
faces in Assam. I have no doubt that had Maulana Syed Asad Madni been
alive he would never have allowed such an opportunity to escape. If
despite these shortcomings the AUDF managed limited electoral success,
credit for this must be attributed to the hold and influence of the Jamiat
in Assam. If the Jamiat were not in the picture, the AUDF would have found
it difficult to win even one or two seats. And no one should forget that
the Jamiat supported the AUDF not because it was a Muslim front but on the
clear understanding that it was a secular formation.
Seeing the huge turnouts at the election rallies in Assam,
Bukhari Saheb has the illusion that the turnouts had to do with his
charismatic personality. That is why, soon after results were declared, he
announced that the Assam formula would be replicated in the coming polls
in UP. But even before he could give some shape to his game plan, another
aspirant from UP, Maulana Kalbe Jawwad announced the formation of his own
front. Seeing the opportunity slip through his fingers, Bukhari Saheb
quickly convened a conference in Delhi on June 10 and has announced the
launch of his own Muslim front under the banner of UPUDF.
Not a single non-Muslim leader or organisation has so far
shown any interest in either of these two fronts. Despite this, both men
talk repeatedly of the Assam formula. The fact is that the front which
emerged in Assam was a secular front backed by a grass roots organisation
like the Jamiat. Both these aspects are lacking in the newly launched
fronts. There is no non-Muslim participation in either, nor does either
have the backing of the Jamiat. If, despite this, the Assam experience
continues to be invoked by these purely Muslim fronts, it is nothing short
of fooling the masses. The Jamiat stand on this has been made very clear.
At a press conference jointly addressed by them in Delhi on May 23, the
Jamiat president, Maulana Syed Arshad Madni, and the general secretary,
Maulana Mahmood Madni, have made it plain that a separate party of Muslims
can only damage the community’s interests. Therefore the Jamiat can never
support an initiative that harms Muslims and helps communal forces.
With the Jamiat having reiterated its basic principles, it
is incumbent on state and district committee members of the organisation
to ensure that they do not do anything that tarnishes the Jamiat’s
anti-communal perspective. At the same time, it is incumbent on the
Jamiat’s central leadership to keep its distance from leaders like Imam
Bukhari. We must all ensure that we do not repeat the scenarios of the
recent past where the Jamiat and Imam Bukhari were seen as being close.
All the units of the Jamiat must also stay steadfastly committed to the
principles of national unity and guard against anything that might attract
the label of "Muslim communalism".
We must not forget that in a country like India sharing
political power is not as important as the security of life and property.
We must at all costs refrain from such attempts at sharing power that are
likely to aggravate the communal atmosphere and precipitate violence. Such
efforts can neither stand the test of reason nor be rationalised as a
search for justice. May Allah save Muslims from extremism and rescue them
from trials and tribulations. Aameen!
(Translated by Javed Anand.)