Hindus and Muslims have been living together in India for
over a thousand years. Yet they are still plagued by misunderstandings
about each other and mutual hatred. A principal reason for this is that
they have not sought to understand each other sincerely. Undoubtedly,
there have been individuals among them who were deeply conscious of, and
strongly opposed to, the enormous gulf that divides them and they tried in
their own ways to transform this hatred into dialogue and reconciliation.
However, in the face of stiff opposition, their efforts did not yield much
fruit.
The most salient factor for hatred and conflict between
Hindus and Muslims is historical memory – of the former being dominated by
the latter for centuries. The earliest Muslims came to India as traders
and enjoyed peaceful relations with the local Hindus and, as in Kerala,
spread Islam using peaceful means. However, their place was rapidly taken
over by invading armies so that the relationship between Muslims and
Hindus was rapidly transformed into that of conquerors and the conquered.
Obviously, the Hindus did not take kindly to this. This is why they
considered Muslims to be foreigners and their inveterate foes.
This gulf between Hindus and Muslims was further promoted
by the biased and hardly impartial rule of Muslim sultans, for which they
sought religious legitimacy. A striking instance of this was the
imposition by many Muslim rulers of jizyah on their Hindu subjects.
No matter what justification they sought for this, it was obvious that for
the Hindus this caused much opposition and ill feeling.
It must be noted that despite the claims of the Delhi
sultans, and after them, the Mughal emperors, their rule was not, strictly
speaking, Islamic or in accordance with Islamic commandments and
principles. The political and social rules of Islam were applied, if at
all, only in name. Yet in order to fill the royal coffers, the sultans
imposed jizyah on the Hindus in the name of Islam. They could have,
had they wanted to, followed the practice of the third caliph, Umar, who
levied a general tax instead of jizyah on the Banu Taghlib, a
Christian tribe who felt that the jizyah was a sign of subjugation
and degradation. However, a complete lack of proper insight, a rigid
adherence to the prescriptions of the books of classical fiqh and a
distressing dependence on the court ulema and their fatwas prevented the
sultans from following a more enlightened policy in this regard.
The Mughal period, particularly the reign of Akbar
(1556-1605), was perhaps a more enlightened one in terms of state policies
vis-à-vis the Hindus. This period saw increasing interaction between
Hindus and Muslims at various levels. Following in the footsteps of the
Abbasid Caliph Al-Mamoon (786-833), Akbar arranged for the translation of
numerous books on the religion, culture and history of the Hindus. This
proved to be a major milestone in promoting a more objective understanding
of the Hindus among Muslims and a significant step in facilitating
dialogue between the two.
The revolt of 1857 that marked the formal end of the
Mughal empire witnessed impressive efforts to unite Hindus and Muslims to
combat the encroaching British. Were it not for the tragic partition of
India, it is possible that major progress could have been made to improve
Hindu-Muslim relations through dialogue. It should have been among the
topmost priorities of our leaders after independence to bring Hindus and
Muslims closer together but this did not happen. On the contrary, the gulf
between them only further widened and the conflicts between them are
becoming ever more deadly.
Recent and ongoing political developments at the regional
and global level, particularly conflicts between Muslims and others and
the heinous actions of some radical groups in the name of Islam, have had
a major and enormously debilitating impact on Hindu-Muslim relations in
India. These developments have further emboldened anti-Muslim Hindutva
forces in India, which have enabled them to make even further inroads
among those Hindus who otherwise have nothing against Muslims. On the
other hand, the existence of extremist elements among the Indian Muslims
cannot be denied. They cannot be excused, legitimised or sought to be
explained away as a reaction to virulently anti-Muslim forces. One wrong
action cannot legitimise another as a reaction to it. But at the same
time, it must be admitted that such extremist elements are only a very
small, fringe minority among the Indian Muslims, an isolated exception.
A major problem afflicting Muslims, particularly in North
India where the bulk of the community is concentrated, is the minuscule
Muslim middle class which could have, if it were numerically stronger and
more confident, played a key role in promoting Hindu-Muslim dialogue. The
existing Muslim middle class is simply too cut off from the masses and
immersed in the mindless pursuit of consumerist luxury to take the issue
of Hindu-Muslim dialogue and reconciliation seriously. On the other hand,
the ulema who enjoy strong organic links with the Muslim masses, lack
sufficient foresight and an understanding of the complexity of many
contemporary issues, which are essential for serious and meaningful
inter-religious and intercommunity dialogue.
Despite this, it is crucial that the ulema, especially
those who work in the leading madrassas, play a leading role in promoting
inter-communal dialogue. These ulema have a large network of supporters
throughout the country and if they get involved in serious dialogue with
Hindus, it can have a powerful multiplier effect that can reverberate
across the rest of India. Because the ulema enjoy the support and respect
of a large section of Muslims, if they were to take an active role in
intercommunity dialogue, it can have a very positive impact on the Muslim
masses as well.
Hindu-Muslim dialogue is really the need of the hour. Two
leading Indian Muslim organisations, the All India Muslim Personal Law
Board and the Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind, attempted some years ago to undertake
dialogue initiatives with Hindus but, unfortunately, this was looked upon
with suspicion by many Muslims and so nothing came of it. Perhaps another
reason for the failure of this effort was that these organisations were
seen as becoming too politically involved.
Muslim groups need to reach out to, and dialogue with, not
just secular-minded Hindus who are already convinced of the need for
inter-communal harmony but also with other Hindu groups as well. They need
to address the concerns and misunderstandings of the latter too. It is
erroneous, as some Muslims contend, that for Muslims to seek to dialogue
with extremist Hindu groups is tantamount to surrendering to them. It is
with such groups too that we need to dialogue. After all, the real need
for dialogue is with such groups, not with groups who are already
convinced of the need for peaceful inter-communal relations.
At the global level most Muslim-sponsored dialogue
initiatives have sought to promote links with Christians and Jews, or what
are referred to as ‘People of the Book’, or adherents of what are called
the ‘Semitic religions’. Not much effort has been spent on dialoguing with
people of other faiths, including Buddhists and Hindus, who form a major
proportion of the world’s population. This lacuna urgently needs to be
addressed.
Some of the major hurdles in the path of dialogue between
Hindus and Muslims relate to our traditional thought and practice. Till
these hurdles are addressed and overcome, an environment conducive to
dialogue cannot be created.
The biggest intellectual challenge facing dialogue between
Hindus and Muslims is the belief that the two are wholly different, indeed
contradictory, in terms of religion and culture. Obviously, as long as
this belief persists, serious dialogue between them, based on their
commonalities, is impossible. Islam is based on pure monotheism while most
Muslims think that Hinduism is based on undistilled polytheism. While
Muslims think that Islam is the only true religion, many Hindus believe
that there exist different, equally legitimate, paths to the Truth, all of
which are worthy of respect. Hindus thus believe that the Muslims’
understanding of divine truth is narrow and confined. Muslims consider
Hindus to be wallowing in polytheism and following absurd superstitions
and inhuman caste rules in the name of their religion. On the other hand,
Hindus think of Muslims as violent iconoclasts, as obsessed with sex and
as intolerant fanatics. In short, they regard each other as subhuman.
These generalisations can be very misleading. The fact of
the matter is that not all Hindus are idol-worshippers and nor do all
Muslims consider breaking idols an integral part of their faith. Social
hierarchy, caste and superstitious beliefs and practices in the name of
religion are to be found among both Hindus and Muslims.
It is striking to note that these issues that set Muslims
and Hindus apart from each other and lead to such misunderstanding have
less to do with religion as such and much more to do with social practice
and historical events. As I mentioned earlier, anti-Muslim prejudices
among Hindus have much to do with the history of Muslim rulers in India
and the tragic partition of the country. Likewise, anti-Hindu sentiments
among many Indian Muslims have much to do with the continuing anti-Muslim
violence in India and the virulent anti-Muslim propaganda of Hindutva
forces. In reaction to Hindutva aggression, extremist tendencies took root
among a fringe section of the Indian Muslims and they began dreaming of
establishing what they called the ‘Islamic system’. They began to denounce
secularism and democracy as allegedly against Islam and, using fiery and
emotionally driven slogans, sought to exploit the simple-minded
religiosity of the Muslim masses. Clearly, this is unacceptable and must
be denounced.
It is true that many Hindus and Muslims, including some of
their religious and political leaders, consider inter-religious or
inter-communal dialogue as meaningless and useless. They are bound to
stridently oppose such initiatives. While we must be constantly aware of
this possibility, it must be borne in mind that the number of Hindus and
Muslims who would support such efforts would greatly outnumber their
opponents. We must also remember that despite their claims, rabble-rousing
Hindutva ideologues are not the accepted leaders of all, or even most,
Hindus and nor are rabid Muslim characters the leaders of the majority of
Muslims. Hindu-Muslim dialogue must be promoted, no matter what opposition
such efforts meet from such elements.