‘A travesty of history’
I read Awrup Sanyal’s letter on history penned with literary flavour (June 18) with interest. I am afraid in spicing history with literary spices, Awrup has opened more questions than he has answered.
Before going to that, I must welcome New Age for the articles it has generated on the issue of partition for a lot of our problems in South Asia lie in the unanswered question of our tryst with the British, or more precisely our period of British colonisation. Let me start with our past British masters and refer to what Awrup wrote. He said that partition was man-made (so it was), marinated by us and served by the British. The ‘us’ is too vague and if Awrup means by us both the Hindus and the Muslims, then I would surely beg to differ with him.
My interpretation of ‘us’ is there was no us under the British. One does not even have to read the history of the pre-partition days to see my perspective. Just glance at the pictures of the tumultuous days of the 20s, 30s and the 40s of that century and there are pictures galore. You can see how close the leaders of the Congress were to the British and how removed the Muslim leaders were from their colonial masters. Does the famous love affair between Nehru and Lady Mountbatten ring any bell? The Hindu elite, in politics and in bureaucracy (the ICS for instance) was more British than the British themselves and our past colonial masters were more comfortable in company of Hindus than the Muslims. If one wants proof of British partiality and connivance, then what better proof can there be than the failed Cabinet Mission Plan that after the Congress had rejected should have given the Muslims the upper hand in the visualised independent India. However, after the Congress rejected that Plan, the British backtracked and the Muslim League under Jinnah’s leadership called in frustration for Direct Action Day whose impact upon the future course of events must be well known to Awrup. Jinnah came hairbreadth close to being the Prime Minister of independent India but as the Muslims under the British were no part of Awrup’s ‘us’, the British betrayed in favour of the Hindus or Congress and sealed the fate of India.
History can be interpreted in hundreds of ways. It is like arguing the existence of God; no one can conclude to full satisfaction of all in analysing any controversial historical fact. Partition of 1947 is such a historical fact. However, on events leading to partition, especially the issue of Hindu-Muslim relationship in pre-1947 India, most writings have been by Hindu writers. Unfortunately, despite professing objectivity and honesty, very few of them have been able to rise over the religious divide. Consequently, facts have been distorted and Muslims have been wrongly depicted as communal to us and, unfortunately, the larger world audience. The classic examples of this distortion are bountiful in Bengali literature of the time where many famous litterateurs have failed to rise above communalism and even in choice of the evil characters in their novels, could not but name them from the Muslim community!
The irony of the period we are discussing is because of history and literature written mostly by Hindus, people outside see the pre-independence Congress in the backdrop of people like Gandhi and Nehru, who were secular of perhaps world standing. Unfortunately what these historians and writers have succeeded in hiding is the fact that Congress then as India now, is predominantly a Hindu India where the average people are Advanis and very few, yes very few, are Gandhis and Nehrus. The average Muslim of pre-independent India was a Jinnah, secularin politics, but by irony of history and yes our Hindu historians and writers, have come to be known as religious fundamentalists. I hope in the new generation of Indians, the Advanis would be exposed. However, seeing the reaction of the BJP to Advani’s comment about Jinnah, I feel India is moving in the opposite direction.
Shahjahan Ahmed
Dhanmandi, Dhaka
On Quran desecration
Reading various discourses in Feedback, I want to point out that desecration of any symbol or source of belief, even of a sworn enemy, is to be condemned. Muslims trampling on a Cross to show disrespect to Christianity, or the attacks of Sultan Mahmood and Muhammad Ghori on Hindu temples in the not so distant past were just as bad. Similarly, the destruction of the Babri Mosque by Hindu fundamentalists does not conform to a civilised conduct.
And there perhaps in the single word ‘civilisation’, we have the key as to why such sacrilegious conduct is perpetrated by ‘savages’. The fact that an American Newsweekly instead of hushing up, has reported the desecration of the Quran by American soldiers gives hope for mankind’s future.
Akbar Hussain (May 27), in my opinion is correct that religious fanaticism by Muslims on this issue is counterproductive like (in football metaphor) creating commotion near one’s own goal mouth.
Muhammad Masum (June 5) has taken issue with Akbar because the latter said, ‘Islam has become a symbol of stagnant faith, not ready to change with the passage of time’. Masum then quotes various instances of rapid conversion of many westerners to Islam asking, ‘If Islam has stagnated, then why these people are embracing Islam?’
As a matter of fact, there is no contradiction between Akbar’s and Masum’s statements. Akbar writing from Canada obviously expressed his opinion about traditional Islam found in the sub-continent or other established Muslim countries where there is no contemporary understanding or interpretation of Islamic principles in the Quran, but only regurgitation of Hadith, Tafsir and miraculous myths by previous Muslim saints and scholars. Before the Second World War, there was hardly any Islam in the West. Afterwards, clever Muslim students came to the West for higher education in waves followed by professionals like doctors, engineers, technologists, accountants, lawyers, university teachers, etc. They formed the Islamic core of pioneers where the professional clergy was as yet absent and so by personal study and confrontation in new situations they discovered Islam anew. Islam was realised as a flexible universal religion, a rational religion and a mature way of life, a code without miracles or myths (for instance compare say ‘virgin birth’ and ‘resurrection’ of Christianity). And as intellectual and highly educated Muslims from every traditional Islamic country met in the West, no particular fossilised tradition from any old country could prevail here. So Islam in the West actually carried a seed of liberal renaissance.
It was not taught by missionaries to en masse conversion of illiterate savages like it was done in the subcontinent and other parts of the world. In the West it became a religion of choice by intellectuals after much individual and perhaps comparative interfaith study. And that is why many Westerners of different background are embracing Islam in the West as Masum has read in various newspapers. Although, currently there are fledgling communities, mosques and Islamic centres in the West, the Alims and Imams here have a much higher and broader level of general education (including, mathematics, science, languages, law culture, etc.) than their counterparts in traditional Islamic countries.
Also for Muslims here there are as yet no saints, shrines or holy men to create inflexibility by promulgating doctrinal fatwa.
However, if fundamentalism, shallow fanaticism, and ignorant short-sighted militancy infect the Western Muslim society it will be a sad and sorry blow to this truly great religion and the seed of an Islamic renaissance will be forever crushed.
Shafi Ahmed
London, UK
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
