Forget Babri, check out monks' wooden slippers

Forget Babri, check out monks' wooden slippers
By Nitish Sengupta

DECCAN CHRONICLE Aug. 21, 2008

Shabana Azmi has all along been admired for her forthrightness. But by her comment in a television interview on Sunday that Indian democracy has not been fair to Indian Muslims, she has unwittingly played into the hands of Muslim fundamentalists and deserted the ranks of those who, irrespective of religious affiliation, are trying to bring the two communities together. The example which she chose as an illustration, that she could not buy a flat in Mumbai on account of being a Muslim, is trivial and misleading, and not weighty enough to justify the conclusion she has drawn. It is hard to believe that she could not buy a flat in Mumbai when so many other Muslims appear to have no difficulty. What one can guess is that she might have been negotiating the purchase with a Gujarati or other vegetarian owner or housing society who generally prefer to have like-minded vegetarians as neighbours, owners or tenants in their houses or apartment complexes. A Muslim,
usually being non-vegetarian by habit, would therefore not be acceptable as the owner or tenant in such places. This is a fact of life in our country, which one cannot ignore, but it does not necessarily have anything to do with the religion that one professes. We can sympathise with Shabana Azmi, but to hold on the basis of this that Indian democracy has not been fair to Muslims is unfortunate.
India's democracy has, in fact, taken extraordinary care to be careful of the sentiments of Muslims, and minorities in general, in sharp contrast to the situation in Pakistan. Whenever there has been a choice between a Muslim and a non-Muslim officer for a position in the secretariat of the Union government, it is generally the Muslim officer who is selected, other things being equal. Similarly, in politics, Muslims joining mainstream political parties have always had a fair deal. One can name at least three Muslims who have become Presidents of India since 1947. There are always several Muslims serving as governors of states. In the Union Cabinet as well as in state governments Muslims have always occupied important ministerial posts. There have been cases of Muslims becoming chief ministers of states where the population is overwhelmingly Hindu. Muslims have occupied very important posts in the bureaucracy at both the Centre and at the state government
level.
If, in the face of this, Shabana Azmi still blames Indian democracy for being unfair to Muslims, she is certainly not being fair in her judgment. It is true that the percentage of Muslims in government services has not been very high. But this is on account of the fact that, at the time of Partition, most Muslims in government service migrated to Pakistan, and a considerable vacuum was created which took an entire generation to fill up. This is not the fault of Indian democracy. And the vacuum is gradually being filled up.
Another aspect which Shabana Azmi has overlooked is the fact that there is a much larger proportion of Muslims than Hindus who are self-employed, or have definite vocations in which they excel and which come to them by heredity, such as in the fields of glassware, carpentry, carpet-making, leather goods, meat production and distribution. It is not widely known that the wooden slippers used by Hindu monks are usually made by Muslims. So also are the fans which are used reverentially before images of Hindu deities in temples across the country. We need not talk about Bollywood, which is overwhelmingly dominated by Muslim actors, actresses and technicians, a fact which even the redoubtable Bal Thackeray has never been critical of. The Sachar Committee report, which Shabana Azmi has cited, ignored all these facts and cited only the percentage of jobs in government services occupied by Muslims. It was, to that extent, a prejudiced report, not an objective
one, and more resembling a lawyer's statement in which the lawyer has referred to only those arguments which are in favour of the brief given to him rather than an objective and impartial statement of the situation.
Shabana Azmi should also remember that it is this same Indian democracy which has nominated her to the Upper House of Parliament. She is also unfair to all those secular-minded people who are trying their best to ensure that our democracy works on the right lines. One should not merely harp on the Gujarat riots or the demolition of the Babri Masjid, both of which were indeed unfortunate events, but should carry on trying to strengthen the truly democratic and secular forces. It is important for Shabana Azmi to remember that her statement will not only strengthen fundamentalists among the Muslims, but will also justify the Hindu fundamentalists' "we told you so" attitude.
Dr Nitish Sengupta, an academic and an author, is a former Member of Parliament and a former secretary to the Government of India