By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan In his book “The Destiny of Indian Muslims”, Dr Syed Abid Hussain (18961978) attributes the continuance of Indian Muslims” problems to their tendency to fook backwards even in the face of the very basic changes, including the introduction of the democratic system, in post-independence India. Despite the many positive aspects of independence, Dr Hussain maintains, Muslims still think in terms at the old. Dictatorial rule. Prior to 1947, during British rule, Muslims had to contend with a government that was not answerable to the public, and could not be changed or removed by constitutional means. Its status was that of a supreme arbiter. But today India is a democracy; the government, elected by the people, is obliged to function according \o the will of the people. Regardless of any contingency, Muslims have to deal with the rest of the public, not with the government, to solve most of their problems. “But Muslims still labour under the impression that the solution to their problems is in the hands of the government. To the government alone they take their troubles and from it alone they expect a remedy.”

This analysis of the Muslim psyche, to my mind, is perfectly correct. What worse example of it could there be than the movement launched in the name of the Babri Masjid? The Muslim leaders who were behind the post1986 campaigning for its protection and subsequently its reconstruction believed that they could set themselves on a collision course with the Hindu public, and that the government still the “supreme arbiter” to the Muslims would give a verdict totally in their favor.

What actually happened on December 6, 1992, made it quite clear that this was their misconception and still is. This event is a clear proof of the public being superior in strength to the government in present-day. India. It is 4 final demonstration of the public being more powerful than the individuals who are voted to power for a limited period of Lime, even when these persons are given ministerial ranks. One would have to be cither very naive or bereft of all common sense to go on believing that the same central government which fi ‘ailed to prevent the demolition of the Ayodhya structure has the power to demolish the makeshift mandir, or (o remove the idols placed therein for the purpose of rebuilding the Babri Masjid at its former site.

Yet a delegation of about 20 “prominent persons” of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board came to Delhi in April, 1993, when they prepared a memorandum by consensus, asking the government to remove the makeshift mandir and the idols from the site of the mosque and to rebuild it tenacity at the same location, This they submitted to the Prime Minister at a meeting they had with him on April Six Obviously, the demolition of the disputed structure In broad daylight had done nothing to jolt ours called Muslim leaders into a proper set of awareness.

‘The most poignant lesson Must ins should have learnt from the December 6 happening was that now they would concentrate the energy On winning over their Hindu compatriots, All their coffers should have been channeled into influencing the Hindu Janta rather than making representations to the rulers of New Delhi. The fact that Muslim leaders are still circumambulating Now Delhi is. a clear indication of their utter lack of the Capacity 10 understand things in proper perspective, It is in comprehensible why a delegation of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board should even have approached the Prime Minister with such a request. The only possible reason for this is that they are still mentally living in the India of 30 years ago.

It is high time Muslims changed their way of thinking. The solution to their problems lies not in Muslim ruler meetings but in Hindus Muslim meetings, the need of the hour, therefore, is to have & Hindu Muslim dialogue at the all India level with the participation of ‘serious and influential people from both communities. Its aim should be the promotion of peace in a purely nonpolitical way.

Such a dialogue would give an open unity to the members of both communities not only to stale what they want from each other but also to strive to end the confrontationist attitude and to discover common grounds on the basis of which the two principal communities earn live together like good neighbors.

Article extracted from this publication >>  September 9, 1994