| 16 April 2004 | Friday | 25 Safar 1425 |
Muslim factor in Indian polls
The last straw?
The Holy Quran provides a clear pointer to the notion of a Muslim state with a clear character for those in power in such a state when it says "(They are) those who, when We give them power in the land, establish regular prayers, and give regular charity and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong" (22:41).
The reference to the power in the land does imply the establishment of a state. The existence of power without a state can be meaningless and may rather lead to disorder and chaos. It is true that some of that which is right can be promoted and some of that which is wrong can be forbidden through preaching, counselling and exemplifying i.e., by setting examples.
But doing some of the right things can be more appropriately enjoined and some of the wrong things can be effectively forbidden through the machinery of state only. Any attempt other than through the machinery of state may result in chaos.
Thus, there can be a Muslim state with the majority of its citizens being Muslims and forming part of the Muslim ummah, and at the same time be identified as a nation with a different name along with all other inhabitants of that state.
The Quran does not prescribe any particular type or form of government. It means that Allah in His Wisdom did not deem it appropriate to tie up the believers to a particular form of government.
Allah was, in fact, well aware of the changes taking place in the social and political fields and, therefore, left the choice with the believers to exercise in accordance with the requirements of the time.
The Quran, however, provides some definite guidance in regard to who could be the persons who should discharge the responsibilities of the state and how these responsibilities are to be discharged.
For example, it says: "Lo! Allah enjoins you to give trusts into the care of those who are worthy of trust and to judge with justice when you judge between the people" (4:58). The word "trusts" in the verse is to be understood in the same way as explained by the Prophet (PBUH) when some one asked him as to when the Day of Judgment will come.
The Prophet said "when people start violating trusts, you should wait for the Day of Judgment". What did that imply, the man further asked. The Prophet said, "it means when responsibilities are entrusted to those who are not worthy of it." (Bokhari)
Responsibilities referred to in this tradition imply the responsibilities of state which can be more appropriately equated with trusts. Likewise, when Hazrat Abu Dhar requested the Prophet for appointment to a public office the Prophet said, "Public office is a trust, a source of lamentation and remorse on the Day of Judgment except for him who takes it up with full sense of responsibility and duly discharges its obligations" (Muslim). It means responsibilities of the state are to be entrusted to those who are worthy of it which, according to the Quran, implies persons who are competent, honest and trustworthy (12:55).
From the above verse (4:58), it follows that the people should have a say in choosing the persons to whom the responsibilities of state are to be entrusted. This right was exercised in one way or the other in the elevation of first four Caliphs.
As regards discharge of responsibilities of state, guidance in this regard is provided in the Quranic verse which enjoined the Prophet to consult his companions in the conduct of affairs (3:159) and another verse which treats the persons who do their work through consultation as the persons being rightly guided (42:38).
Further indications in this regard are available in the address of Hazrat Abu Bakr which he delivered on the assumption of the office of first Caliph. He said, "0 people, now I am elevated as ruler over you, not the best among you. If I do good support me, if I err, then set me right.
To tell the truth to the person commissioned to rule is faithful allegiance; to conceal the truth and to lie is treason. In my sight, the powerful and weak are alike. By Allah, he that is weaker among you, shall be stronger, in my sight, until I have redressed his wrong; and he who is stronger, shall be weaker in my sight until he conforms to law and I have taken back from him that which he has usurped". (Ibne Ishaq).
The address, among other things, emphasizes the right of the people to correct the erring ruler through the freedom of expression and honest criticism. It also spells out one of the main responsibilities of the ruler of a Muslim state which should be protection of weak against the strong.
Thus, the Quran not only provides a clear pointer to the notion of a Muslim state but also guidance in terms of the people's right to have a say in choosing its rulers and correcting the erring rulers, the obligation of the rulers to conduct their affairs through consultation, the basic qualifications of the rulers and a broad-based charter of their duties and obligations.
Muslim factor in Indian polls
Who is going to get the Muslim vote? The question appears to be of utmost concern to the political parties contesting India's national elections, the first instalment of which will be held in about a week's time.
With their respective manifestos reflecting hardly any new or exciting political issues, the campaigners in the field seem to be focusing their attention on the constituencies where Muslim voters count for a great deal. At the same time, they are also watchful of the alignment of their stars.
In the early years after independence the Muslims clung to the apron strings of the Congress which had not only played the pivotal role in the independence struggle but also reputedly had a staunchly non-communal character. Its leadership was generally perceived as secular, symbolized in the personality of Jawaharlal Nehru.
However, they secured representation in the elections to the first Lok Sabha (the lower house of Indian parliament) which was dismally below their proportion in the population: only 22 (as against expected about 60) in a house of 500.
As a leading Indian Muslim lawyer and politician, Dr Rafiq Zakaria, points out, with every subsequent election the position of the Muslims has deteriorated and even the "secular" parties have succumbed to the communal considerations in their constituencies.
In the state legislatures and the local panchayats, municipalities and zila parishads "the communal and casteist factor has played havoc with the fortunes of the Muslim candidates."
Initially, the one redeeming feature was that Pandit Nehru continued to believe that it was "not only a matter of honour but something of great importance that we (the Congress) put up candidates representing the minority communities in adequate numbers."
He even took the risk of once putting up a Muslim candidate to contest against the president of the Hindu Mahasabha "in an exclusively Hindu constituency... and managed to have been elected." All the same, as Rafiq Zakaria contends, exceptions do not prove the rule and by and large the electoral results reflected the communal bias of the voters.
The Indian Muslims may have stuck to their allegiance to the Congress even though their representation in the Lok Sabha continued to decline but for the wanton destruction of the historic Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The mosque was allowed to be demolished by a frenzied mob of Hindu zealots while a Congress government was in power in New Delhi.
Since then the Muslim voters have been in a state of wilderness. They broke away from the Congress as a community and voted variously for other parties (such as Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samajwadi Party) at various times and could not claim to be making much impact on the direction of Muslim politics.
However, with the rise of Atal Behari Vajpayee as the head of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the 1940s and with the fear of the Congress being dethroned, Nehru's daughter who became India's prime minister following Lal Bahadur Shastri's death in 1966, the party began to steer away from communal politics.
However, the destruction of the Babri Masjid, the brutal army action against the freedom fighters in occupied Kashmir and the endemic violence against Muslims in various parts of the country had taken its toll and the Congress never regained its lost popularity with the Muslims.
Despite his Hindutva moorings, Vajpayee appears to be the stronger of the various bidders for power in the forthcoming elections. Media polls in India have given him the best chance of retaining the office of prime minister. It cannot, however, be said that the Congress, headed by Ms Sonia Gandhi, is not giving him a tough fight.
What haunts the BJP most is the dark memory of the Gujarat riots of 2002 when about 2,000 people, mostly Muslim, lost their lives in communal violence. Accounts of untold brutalities inflicted even on women and children are inevitably recalled when political workers come to seek votes.
As in the midst of it all the BJP carries out its campaign, the Supreme Court of India has ordered the retrial of 20 Hindus who had been acquitted of charges of committing gruesome killings during the riots. Most of the accused were affiliated with the BJP.
It is also very well known that the BJP, which was in government at the time, also aided and abetted in the riots and the state security forces were held guilty of dereliction of duty.
The Best Bakery case (named after the shop where most killings occurred) will now be retried in the neighbouring Maharashtra state. The chief witness in the case, Zahira Shaikh, has deposed that she was intimidated into changing her testimony.
However, what should make the Congress also feel disturbed about its position in Gujarat is the fact that its two candidates have links with the underworld. One of them, Satyajit Gaekwad, is known as the don of the underworld and on at least two occasions in the past was booked on criminal charges.
The other, Shankersinh Vaghela, has reportedly admitted that there are FIRs filed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act.Atal Behari Vajpayee was also in Bihar recently campaigning for his party's candidates as he apparently wants BJP to break into a territory in which the maverick Laloo Prasad Yadhav has the monopoly.
However, in his speeches, Mr Vajpayee was careful not to bring up any reference to the contentious Ram Mandir issue on which Yadhav and his comrades have made some very critical anti-BJP remarks.
In his speeches he talked of the need for communal harmony and referred to his efforts for a breakthrough in relations with Pakistan. Of the 16 Lok Sabha seats in Bihar, the BJP has fielded two Muslims - for the Kishanganj and Sheohar seats. It has also fielded a Muslim woman candidate for a seat in Assam.
The BJP candidate, Jebin Barbhuyan, addressing her constituency in western Dhubri, vowed to have mosques constructed in areas where there are none at the moment, and Muslims have now to travel to mosques in the neighbouring areas for their prayers. She also claimed that every BJP meeting in Assam begins with a recitation from the Holy Quran.
Tail-piece: An AFP report carried by Khaleej Times says that politicians in India watch the stars as closely as they watch the opinion polls, with many believing that the world's largest election has already been decided by the planets' alignment.
New Delhi-based astrologer, Ajay Bhambi has said: "These are busy times for me. Most of the top politicians keep consulting me during the elections...I cannot change their fate but I can forewarn them.
Mr Vajpayee is due to file his nomination papers in his constituency in Lucknow on the date that the stars are considered at their best position...They come to me with all sorts of problems. I don't have solutions to all but I give them some gems to wear and some mantras to chant..."
The last straw?
You never know which straw will finally break the camel's back, but it may have been Wednesday's summit between President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The public endorsement that Mr Bush gave to Mr Sharon's abandonment of the 'peace process' in favour of 'unilateral disengagement' was mostly symbolic, since the Israeli leader was committed to doing it anyway. But in the Middle East, patience is finally running out.
The people of the Arab countries have been remarkably patient as they watched their living standards decline under corrupt and oppressive governments backed by the West.
They have been patient as Israel sat on the conquered Palestinian territories for thirty-seven years, pushing Arabs off the land and planting their own settlements on it. They have been patient about a lot of things - but that dry, snapping sound you heard a moment ago may have been the camel's back breaking.
Look at the past month from an Arab perspective. At the end of March Israel assassinated Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder and leader of the Palestinian Islamist organisation Hamas.
Sheikh Yassin was a staunch supporter of the use of terror against the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory - but he was also an elderly paraplegic who was widely seen as a holy man, and for many years Israel avoided attacking him.
Many Palestinians saw Sheikh Yassin's murder as a deliberate attempt by the Israeli government to stimulate massive terrorist attacks which would distract international attention from Mr Sharon's massive land grab in the West Bank. They were probably right, though the attacks have not yet come. What did come was a statement by Dr. Abdelaziz Rantissi, Hamas's new leader in the Gaza Strip, that "America has declared war on Allah. Allah has declared war on America and Bush."
Most people in the West have forgotten that international terrorism was once the specialty of secular Palestinian nationalists. They stopped all that dead in 1988, after they got international recognition that the Palestinians were a people with a claim to their land and not just anonymous 'Arab refugees' who could be put anywhere. All subsequent Palestinian terrorism has been directed exclusively against Israel, whose soldiers occupy that land - until now.
What Dr. Rantissi was saying is that America's complicity in what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is so great that the United States will also become a target of Palestinian terrorism.
Of course, Hamas hasn't even retaliated against Israel for Sheikh Yassin's death yet.Spin forward a week to Iraq, where the ham-fisted mismanagement of the US occupation regime turns the killing of four men in Fallujah and the banning of a 10,000-circulation newspaper published by a radical young cleric into two full-scale sieges of major Iraqi cities.
It will be a miracle if the US military don't kill a thousand Iraqis this month (they're already up to 800), and no matter what the American military spokesman says, people watching Arab television can see that the makeshift hospitals are full of wounded women and children as well as young men. Perhaps the United States is not the Arabs' enemy, but look at it through Arab eyes.
And finally, Wednesday at the White House. It was obvious why Mr Sharon, in trouble at home on several fronts, needed Mr Bush's support for his radical plan to pull out of the Gaza Strip (where there are only 7,500 Jewish settlers among 1.3 million Palestinians), but hang onto almost all of the far bigger settlements on the West Bank and confine the Palestinians there behind his 'security fence', thus unilaterally settling the new borders of an emasculated Palestinian pseudo-state. It is less clear why Mr Bush had to give it to him.
For thirty-seven years, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have insisted, along with everyone else in the world, that Israel's legal border is the pre-1967 one, and that it can only be changed by freely negotiated agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.
Yet there was Mr Bush, with Mr Sharon beaming by his side, announcing a new US policy: "In the light of new realities, including already existing Israeli population centres, it is unrealistic that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the (pre-1967 borders)."
Not a word about how those 'already existing Israeli population centres' were planted there by force after the Israeli military occupation in 1967; not even a nod to the UN resolutions that have been the bedrock on which every previous negotiation was built.
There aren't going to be any more peace negotiations, of course, which suits Sharon fine - but why does it suit the United States? Mr Bush's unnecessary concessions to Israel were so effective in alienating Arab opinion that his speech might have been ghost-written by Osama bin Laden.
This may not prove to be the final straw, but we are getting very close. For forty years the United States has managed to preserve a dominant position in the Arab world despite its permanent disagreement with the Arabs about Israel, but now it is throwing it away.
The Arab regimes that depend on US backing are getting very worried, and five or ten years from now the Middle East may look a lot more like Osama bin Laden's dream than Mr Bush's. - Copyright