Muslim state within India?
November 18th, 2009“What the Muslims of UP are looking for, but have been unable to articulate, is a defined political space within which they can find food-and-faith security. Given the passions that such a demand could arouse, this quest might surface obliquely rather than directly. On the table is Ajit Singh’s dream of a Harit Desh in western UP. Such a state will have a substantive Muslim population, as well as a string of important Muslim educational institutions, from Aligarh to Deoband. It will become a natural socio-economic magnet for Muslims of the north.”
One such map as proposed for division of UP
Those are the words of MJ Akbar in an article published in Times of India on 15 Nov 09 under the title Why some political parties lost the plot. I like those words: socio-economic magnet. Indeed, Mr Akbar’s hold over English is exemplary. Well, he’s discussing the feasibility of carving out a Harit Pradesh from within UP, comprising of 22 districts of western UP with its capital at Meerut. The idea mooted by Ajit Singh is proposed to include Agra, Mathura, Aligarh, Moradabad, Ferozabad, Ghaziabad, NOIDA, Bareilly, Pillibhit (Remember Varun Gandhi got elected from this place?) among others.
To begin with I would like to ask Mr Akbar about the defined political space that he’s talking about- what exactly is the requirement of this defined space? Is it because Hindus have a supposedly defined political party like the BJP? Think again Mr Akbar, BJP is being rejected by the people of this country because they are too fundamentalist for the liking of large number of Hindus. And this is exactly what a political party for Muslims would do in such a state. Like the BJP has its umbilical cord linked to RSS they too would have their strings attached to organizations like Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind which would dictate its policies, like imposing a ban on Vande Mataram in the state, among other things. You can expect them to come out with more stringent measures like no pubs, complete prohibition, burqas for all Muslim women etc etc. Also, if Muslims today do not have a national political party which is acceptable to all Muslims whose fault do you think it is? In my opinion the fault lies in Muslim leaders themselves lacking mass appeal even while representing various political parties, with the exception of leaders from Jammu and Kashmir. Can we name one Muslim mass leader at the national level apart from Farooq Abdullah? Even his mass appeal is limited to J&K only?
Secondly, about the socio-economic magnet that he thinks it will be, well, I agree with him on that score. It will indeed be all that and more. From 35% of total Muslim population in this region we may well see them becoming a majority in not so distant future. But don’t you feel that such a magnet would also attract the most fundamentalist and extremist elements like SIMI to flourish and breed in such a well defined space? Its not a question of if that happens but more of a question of when that happens. It will pave the way for establishment of a Muslim fundamentalist hub right here in the heart of India, bordering Delhi. What do you think happens when a whole lot of poor people from one community come to live together under not only one political but physical space as well? They are the breeding grounds of all kinds illegal and anti national activities. And this is exactly what is going to happen if this state were to come into existence. In fact, MJ Akbar has himself said the same thing though in a different context. Check out these lines from MJ Akbar’s own blog dated 22 Feb 09, quite ironically filed under the title Single-faith is an open invitation to Taliban.
“The region was ruled successively by Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. No ruler, not even Ghazni, drove Hindus and Sikhs out. It was only after 1947 that the region became a single-faith hegemony, and from that point a breeding ground for theocratic militancy.”
I agree that over here he is referring to NFWP and Punjab provinces in Pakistan and the situation there is different but mind you it won’t be any different in the long term over here as well. Again ironically this article also appeared in Times of India only, on 22 Feb 09. I really wonder how can MJ Akbar justify saying one thing for a Pakistani state and quite the opposite for an Indian state. It may not be Taliban in our case but may be SIMI or some such organization who will get all the support that they need from countries like China with the Nepal border being as porous as it is, despite all the efforts by the Indian govt to plug it. And mind you Mr Akbar is not referring to only Taliban when he says ‘theocratic militancy’ because there was no Taliban in 1947 but the area was still a militant hub.
Quite interestingly, this idea of Harit Pradesh was supported by Mayawati before she became Chief Minster of UP and was rejected by Mulayam when he was the Chief Minster. Their current disposition is not really known though in my opinion it is likely to change now, now that their roles have reversed. Congress and BJP are non committal on this though surprisingly BJP did support this idea in the past, possibly without really giving it a long term thought.
It would also be pertinent to note that there are indeed a lot of people who support this idea though with the name Braj Bhumi because they claim that this was what it was many centuries ago. They argue that the scope of this state be increased to include few other such as well, in which case the number of Muslims in this region will be inconsequential and this entire argument of Mr Akbar will fall flat on its face. I mean, can any one imagine a Muslim political party coming to power in a state called Braj Bhoomi?
Though this idea was indeed supported by none other than BR Ambedkar in 1955 in his critique of the proposed States Reorganization Act, Thoughts on Linguistic States but those times were different and the aim too was entirely different. He had supported this on the issue of better administration and nothing else. We are not living in 1955 any more. Threat of Islamic terror emanating from Muslim fundamentalist organizations within and without India was not such a major factor in our decisions as it is today. We have seen one division of our country based on religion with catastrophic consequences. Let there be no other. Muslims should be given a better life but let that be within the existing political and physical space. Its only when we have political organizations which are not affiliated with any particular religion can this such a diverse nation and its citizens learn to live in harmony.
Related Post
Talibanisation of Maharashtra
I do not care why India was partitioned
Music vs Islam
Next terrorist attack may be round the corner
Burn the Burqa
If you like this post subscribe to my RSS feed. See how?
Loading ...
November 18th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I'm sorry Sush but I'll agree with MJ Akbar and its not because I'm a Muslim. A defined poltical space would mean also mean an entity which can represent majority of Muslims of the country and this can be very useful in unifying all of us for the betterment of not just Muslims but this country as well.
Comment on this Comment
November 18th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
I agree, any party(when I say any i mean ANY) on religious lines is not just communally dangerous its also going to be development hastles. What I cant understand is why the hell cant we all start thinking like Indians and then as hindus, muslims, sikhs etc. I also donot like the term Islamic terror being used for terrorists, firstly terror is terror be it from the tliban, LeT or Sriram sena and its sister organizations. The need for a seperate muslim party comes because most of our political leaders have either used muslims as a vote bank or have targetted them. Yet I donot agree that having a party dedicated to muslims or carving a seperate state called Hrit Pradesh is the answer, thats only going to cause more problems/
Comment on this Comment
November 19th, 2009 at 2:18 am
The solution to this problem was found way back in 1947 and implemented. That is Pakistan.
Wikipedia says - On 29 December 1930, Allama Iqbal's presidential address called for an autonomous "state in northwestern India for Indian Muslims, within the body politic of India".
The demand for an independent Pakistan soon followed. If we concede to what people like M.J.Akbar says, it will result in the iterative creation of new Pakistans.
Why don't Muslims learn from achievers from their own community like A.R.Rahman and A.P.J.Abdul Kalam. Instead of looking up to people like them, they look up to Mullahs for inspiration. That is where the problem lies.
Comment on this Comment
November 19th, 2009 at 9:31 am
@Shaan, the clerics are the main problems we face today. Be it Muslim, Hindu or even Christians. Most of them are out to prove that other faiths are inferior to theirs. In Islam the problem is further compounded wherein we have clerics who espouse their own brand of Islam.
Comment on this Comment
November 20th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
i think Democracy is not a fit model for India.. Its being misused by our politicians as vote banks.. We need to think in the larger context.. A new model which is suitable for Indian conditions where the Majority community view must be respected as this is the law of nature and applicable in all elected bodies in the world.
Comment on this Comment
November 22nd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Hi Vaneet & Shaan! Thank u Veenat for ur very strong statement against Democracy.
Hi Shaan! U brought the reference of Allama Iqbal's address in Allahabad and his idea of confederation. When it was challenged by Nehru and Gandi. He responded that we would India from The West... but he also said this confederation would be under the supervision of British Governments. Why did Muslim leaders struggled for a separate country? They were having two reasons:
1) Muslims and Hindues riots started seriously and both leaders tried their best to stop but they codnt.
2) The Muslims learnt lesson from the cancellation of Bengal in 1905.
3) British were leaving country so they could not trust on the congress leaders.
Our Muslim leaders were right at that time of making decision of a separate homeland. Ayudia and Gujrat massacre proved that later on.
The question, either there should be a separate state for Muslims in India or not?
This is a very important issue in India that the Muslim community is deprived from the basic rights. If they get their separate state under provincial governmental form or confedration, u can lock their tongues for ever. In future, u can save India and there will be no chances of another Muslim separate state.
Comment on this Comment
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 am
Hi Sohail,
You are very quick to praise Vaneet for his statement against democracy but failed to notice this statement made by him - "A new model which is suitable for Indian conditions where the Majority community view must be respected as this is the law of nature".
On the other hand you are quick to contest my objection to a seperate state for Muslims even though I say that Muslims must look up to successful people for inspiration and succeed. Let me move to the points raised by you.
I don't say that Pakistan was a mistake. Whatever happened is history and nobody can reverse history. I just quoted it to say that initially the demand was only for a Muslim state within India. Gandhi and Nehru may have opposed it and so the Muslim leaders became more radical and started demanding for independent Pakistan. But Pakistan as a country was created for Indian Muslims and Indian Muslims were free to go there or stay back in India. Many chose to stay within the secular nation of India.
Your statement that Indian Muslims are deprived of their 'basic rights' requires proof. It is an empty rhetoric of Muslim intellectuals. 27.5% Indians live under the poverty line and the percentage of Muslims who live under the poverty line is 31% (according to Sachar commission reports). In absolute number terms, 725 million Indians live under poverty out of which 42 million are Muslims and the rest are Hindus and others. The number of Hindus who are under poverty line in India are more than 2 times the entire population of Pakistan and the number of Muslims who are under poverty line in India are equal to 1/4th of Pakistan's population. Incidentally 1/4th of Pakistan's population is itself under the poverty line (according to World Bank). Now you get the clear picture. Muslims in India are at the same level as Muslims in Pakistan. That apart, we have reservations for the lower castes and we have reservations for minorities including Muslims. While other minorities like Christians make use of the reservations, it is questionable whether Indian Muslims make use of them. It is important that Muslims give importance to education and make use of the reservations.
You are saying that LET does not use violence against common people. Leaving aside Mumbai, there are hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits who live as refugees in their own country. Who chased them out? Kasab is captured and it is proved that he is Pakistani. Do you say he is an agent of CIA? Pakistani journalists who interviewed his family and broadcast it were harassed by the Pakistani authorities. When the whole world says LET is involved in terrorism against innocent people, you people are saying that they are warriors of Islam and they attack only the security forces. Has the whole world gone mad or has everyone started to conspire against Pakistan? When Pakistan itself is in such a poor shape, why do you bat for Indian Muslims? Why don't you work for the poor Muslims of Pakistan instead giving voice for the poor Muslims of India?
Comment on this Comment
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 am
A correction. In my previous comment the number of Indians under poverty line was listed as 725 million. Actually it is 275 million. The number of Muslims under poverty line is correct. Taking 80% (the percentage of Hindus in India) of 275 million, the number of Hindus under poverty line comes to 220 million. Still that is a substantially higher than the entire population of Pakistan which is around 166 million.
Comment on this Comment
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:58 am
Hi a more thorough analysis is available here - http://reasonantvibes.blogspot.com/2009/11/are-muslims-better-off-in-india-or.html
Comment on this Comment
December 10th, 2009 at 5:40 am
Someone drew my attention to this blog as the map seems similar to one on my blog. Anyway. You are doing a good job. However, a few points I wish to put forth.
Jamiat-e-Ulama has different factions but it's role in freedom movement is well known and documented. Secondly, kindly do a bit of research about Vande Mataram and Anand Math. It is sad that the book that supports British policy of divide and rule, has been placed on this pedestal.
Vande Mataram is not being banned. There is a fine difference. The opposition was from some sections that singing it should not become a patriotism-test.
UP is different from other Indian states. There is much higher concentration of Muslims in parts of Kerala, West Bengal and entire Assam other than Hyderabad region.
Hoewever, riots and discrimination with Muslims was a feature typical of UP administration. It was this state where no Muslim was appointed in police for 20 years after partition and where Urdu is not allowed as a medium of education.
There are certain peculiar problems, which remain typical of UP. I hope you will consider them as well. These problems are unique to UP and aren't found elsewhere at this scale.
Comment on this Comment
December 10th, 2009 at 11:09 am
http://www.makesplash.com/is-vande-mataram-unislamic/
Also, Do you really feel that division on the basis of religion is principally correct? UP may have its distinct culture and problems but division on the basis of religion may cause more problems than solutions.
And thanks a lot for the complements!!!!!!!!!
Comment on this Comment
December 10th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
See. I am not at all for Harit Pradesh. Neither for it nor against. There are always arguments in favour of smaller states.
As far as division on religion or regional or linguistic lines is concerned, I am against it. My humble point is that even if Harit Pradesh is created, it will never be a Muslim majority state.
Yes, it will have a higher percent of Muslims [around 29%] but no question of majority. Only in urban areas of some cities in this region Muslims are in a majority like Rampur and Muradabad et al.
Comment on this Comment
January 7th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
A wonderful article yet again Sush...do keep it up. Most of, if not all of your posts are entirely enlightening, neutral and facts encountering the normal day to day living of a common INDIAN. Kudos to you.
I have to disagree to a lot from the "comments" though. Why not be one nation, one people. Why should there be compromises, benefits and demarcations done on religious grounds? Why should there be muslim dominated regions, muslim poverty, muslim illeteracy etc.etc. it is shameful! Be Indians and accept all that is within India as INDIANS - be it good or bad!
Comment on this Comment
Comments on : A wonderful article yet again ....
Comment By : Sush
Comment on this Comment
January 24th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
You have an interesting point of view ;)
Comment on this Comment
February 15th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Established in 1997, St. Gregorious Edu-Guidance is a leading education consultancy services providing exemplary service to students all over India. We deal in Admissions to all major professional courses in Premier Institutes across India. We are your one step solution for all career related needs, it may be MD, MBBS BE, BTech (ALL BRANCHES), , MDS, BDS, BPharm, BArch, MBA, MTech, MS, , PhD or any other courses. We provide personalized career solutions on an individual basis keeping in mind the aspirations of our client as well as the affordability factor.
FOR ALL CAREER RELATED NEEDS CONTACT US :
St. Gregorious Edu-Guidance,
#2, 2nd Floor,
J J Complex, Above Chemmannur Jewellers,
Marthahalli - P O,
Bangalore - 560037
Karnataka
e-mail :jojishpaily@gmail.com
Contact: +91 9448516637
+91 9886089896, +91 9449009983
080-32416570, 41719562
Comment on this Comment