Source: Indian Muslim Observer
By Ram Puniyani
Communal violence is the sad reality of South Asian states. India in particular has been witnessing this violence more so after the coming of British. British in pursuance of their policy of ‘Divide and Rule’, introduced communal historiography and sections of population who wanted to preserve their feudal privileges, picked up this version of History and used religion as a cover for their politics. Both Hindu and Muslim communalism, in a way played a supplementary role to the British policy of divide and rule. The communal violence, which has been stalking the streets of India is due to numerous factors and is causing immense suffering to the society. Many a social group and many an individuals are doing their bit to ensure that the flames of communal violence are doused and amity prevails in the society.
In this light, it was heartening to note the observance of ‘Peace and Harmony’ day, on the anniversary of Vasant–Rajab on 1st July in Ahmadabad. Vasant Rao Hegiste and Rajab Ali Lakhani were two friends who were working for the amity in the society. In the communal conflagration which broke out in Ahmadabad in the wake of post partition tragedy, both of them went in the city to restore peace and amity. The crowd, maddened by the feeling of hate, killed them. The day of their martyrdom is being celebrated in Gujarat by various groups. One recalls there have been many outstanding individuals, thinkers, social activists who have sacrificed their lives on the altar of communal peace. The name of Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi comes to one’s mind for his selfless work in the Kanpur violence of 1931. For Gandhi, father of the nation, the Hindu Muslim amity was on the top of agenda and when whole nation was celebrating the release from the clutches of colonial powers he was doing his best in the riot ravaged Noakhali and other places. His efforts were superhuman, as he did not care for his safety, what was paramount for him was as to how to restore the sanity amongst the violent mobs. It is because of this that Lord Mountbatten the last Viceroy of British Empire and First Governor General of Independent India called him as the ‘one man army’.
Dear Ram Puniyani
As a human rights activist and a strong advocate of inter-religious and inter-cultural harmony, I agree with the sentiments, you expressed in your article. We need peace in the world, especially between India and Pakistan. We also need to work against religious fanaticism and the exploitation of religions by political actors.
Having said that I am saddened by one particular faulty observation, which in my humble opinion killed your message of peace. Although, you are subtle in your description of Hindu Muslim difference before 1947, you seem to suggest and inadvertently pin the blame of partition of Hindustan and the ensuing violence on Muslims of India and Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s demands for Pakistan.
On top of this, when you say that; “For Gandhi, father of the nation, the Hindu Muslim amity was on the top of agenda”, you are not only factually wrong but also partial. As the history has recorded, Jinnah was the president of Congress Party and was called the “Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Bhaichara” long before Gandhi.
Jinnah always talked of a united India where Muslims and Hindus could live side by side in peace unti he realised that that gaol was not atatinable. It was actually Gandhi who upon his arrival from South Africa in 1915 introduced Hindu Nationalism in the politics and forced Jinnah to leave the Indian National Congress and later joined the All India Muslim League.
I would request you to read Professor Stanley Wolpert’s book: Jinnah of Pakistan, for a neutral assessment of Gandhi and Jinnah.
Kind regards
Bashy quraishy
Thanks Mr. Qureshi for that rejoinder. I completely agree with you and historical analysis bears that out. Both Cripps and Cabinet mission plans for structuring India into a confederation of three dominions was accepted by Jinnah and Muslim League and was turned down by Congress. Congress consistenly turned down Jinnah’s last resort proposals to allow proportional representation to Muslims which left him no choice but to appeal to Muslims as a separate entity. Such was the zeal in Gandhi about Hindu Nationalism that in fact he went to a fast unto death on the demand of separate electorate for the untouchables by Ambedkar and was finally able to reverse it on the serious implications of a blood shed which could have resulted due to his death. In the final analysis it was the Brahman led congress which forced Muslims out of a common homeland rather than the usual run of the mill theory that paints the Islamophobic picture of Muslims as being querrelsome and unable to live in peace with Hindus. I wish our Indian friends understand this version of history to clean thier hearts. Friendship can be built on a unbiased understanding.
Abdul Alim:
Was the prominent Mecca born Congress leader Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad one of these Brahmans leading Congress that you speak about?
How about Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan? He was one with big standing in Congress at the time but felt betrayed both by Congress and Muslim League. Are these the Brahmans leading Congress that you refer to?