What's new

From 1947 to 2019: The journey of a Muslim who is an Indian first

Soumitra

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
8,415
Reaction score
-17
Country
India
Location
India
In 1947, when they heard the news that India was to be free, my father’s entire class erupted in joy. In their euphoria, my father and his friends climbed onto the school roof, brought down the Union Jack, rigged a Tiranga on a pole and took out an impromptu procession around the school grounds.

They had gone only a little way when a teacher came and snatched the tiranga from my father’s hands — “This doesn’t belong to you”, he said.

“You go to Pakistan”.

The irony was that this same teacher had been staunchly pro-establishment till then, and had punished students when they had participated in any activity against the British.

At that moment, that 14-year-old schoolboy had two choices — he could either believe that his teacher represented an entire community and indeed opt for Pakistan. Or he could continue to believe in the dream which had made him defy his policeman father.

muslims-in-india-ins_010319062650.jpg
They were building a brave new India, where Muslims would champion Hindi and Hindus would spread Urdu. (Photo: Reuters)

Luckily, he knew several Hindus who not only encouraged him to stay on and participate in building a new nation, but also stood up against people like his teacher.

Pandit Sundarlal, his mentor, was one of them.

On Panditji’s advice, he took up Hindi as a subject, even though he had never studied it. He learnt the alphabet, working his way to a graduate degree, and went on to teach Hindi literature for the rest of his life.

Because in the brave new India that they were building, Muslims would champion Hindi and Hindus would spread Urdu, along with the culture they brought to the table.

partition_010319063904.jpg
Partition divided Hindus and Muslims — and then Muslim families, especially in North India. (Photo: AP)

Along with Independence came Partition.

It is usually framed as the division of Hindus and Muslims — but the Partition also divided Muslim families, especially in North India. Husbands went to Pakistan and wives stayed behind, children went to Pakistan and parents stayed here. Cousins, siblings, aunts and uncles — all got divided up on both sides of the border. Every North Indian Muslim family had relatives in Pakistan. They would come here for their holidays. Each time they came, there would be celebrations. When they left, there would be tears, laments and promises of forgiveness — an annual death scene, as it were.

This was the generation that had gone to Pakistan. Their kids — us — fought each other constantly.

We hated them for having imported gadgets and cosmetics, they hated us for having Amitabh Bachchan and Indira Gandhi.

The first they were obsessed with, the second they hated with a passion.

collage_amitabh_010319064013.jpg
India vs Pakistan during vacations: They hated us for having Amitabh Bachchan and Indira Gandhi. (Photo: India Today)

And so, we had mock wars, matching each other argument for argument, slur for slur and sometimes, blow for blow. But when it was time to leave, we hugged each other and promised to keep in touch. In some families, the confusion was more amplified — leading to Pakistani cricketers becoming heroes and celebrations on their victories.

Pakistan was the boyfriend we had not married but still brought up to taunt our husband.

This was always the Muslim dilemma — captured beautifully in the movie, Garam Hawa. In the film, in the end, Balraj Sahani’s character decides to stay back and join mainstream protests for his rights. This was the solution prescribed by ‘progressive’ Muslims — join the mainstream, fight for your rights not as Muslims but as workers and farmers, as women and students, lay claim to political spaces but as Indians, not Muslims. Some agreed, but most Muslims rejected the advice of people whose ‘Muslimness’ was suspect. They preferred more conservative leaders.

ram_010319064213.jpg
The Babri Masjid became a symbol of Muslim self-esteem and honour. (Photo: India Today)

And then, the Babri Masjid happened. In the run-up to the demolition, passions were bought to a fever pitch on both sides. LK Advani took out a rath yatra to demonstrate that it was now time for Hindu rule. On our side, leaders, particularly Imam Bukhari and Syed Shahabuddin, framed the discourse in a way in which the Babri Masjid became a symbol of Muslim self-esteem and honour. It was no longer about a piece of land or a title deed — they made Muslims believe that this was a symbol for our very existence in this country.

And then, it happened.

Our honour, our self-respect, our right to exist as equal citizens — all smashed to smithereens in a matter of hours.

And the guardians of the said honour went into hiding.

Imam Bukhari who had thundered Agar Babri Masjid ko kissi ne haath bhi lagaya to khoon ki nadiyaan beh jayengi (If Babri Masjid is touched, there will be rivers of blood) was nowhere to be found when it was actually brought down, leaving Muslims to deal with their heartbreak, their rage, their helplessness as they saw fit.

In one stroke, Muslims had not only lost faith in the Indian state and their party of choice, the Congress — but also in their own leadership.

advani_010319064247.jpg
When LK Advani took out a rath yatra to demonstrate it was time for 'Hindu rule'. (Photo: India Today)

The many cycles of violence which followed this are well documented. What has not been talked about as much is what was happening on the ground in the wake of the demolition. Almost overnight, English schools and coaching centres mushroomed all over Muslim localities. The writing on the wall was clear — we could no longer depend on state largesse; we had to look out for ourselves.

Economic liberalisation helped.

With private jobs up for grabs, more opportunities for entrepreneurship and alternate professions opening up, we got a fresh lease of life. Muslims took to education, retired to the margins of public life, relinquished political space. We started experimenting with our votes — our saviours and messiahs changing with every election season.

collage-pakistan_010319064410.jpg
The dilemma ended: Indian Muslims are no longer torn between loyalty to parts of their family and their country. (Photo: Reuters)

The post-Babri Masjid generation of Muslims was raised in this atmosphere and believes in the philosophy of each to her own. They cling more fiercely to their religion while letting go of cultural markers — Urdu diction, sher-o-shairi, Awadhi tehzeeb. Pakistani cousins no longer come to visit and Indian Muslims are no longer torn between loyalty to parts of their family and their country. They wear their Indian identity on their sleeve and aspire to the same things that anyone else in their peer group does — money, success and fluent English.

They are Indian and their heroes are Sachin and Dhoni. And, of course, Salman Bhai. Muslims are finally settling in.

Then came 2014 and all the heartburn that that has brought.

Muslim youth, who had been engrossed in their cell phones till now, is once again being forced into action. The 25-year hibernation is over and a new dilemma confronts them. Once again, they have to choose a leader, reclaim the political ground they have lost.

Who will be that leader?

A mainstream politician, even though he/she may not want to speak up for the Muslims in the current climate? Or, someone like an Owaisi who speaks as a Muslim for Muslims?

Once again, young Muslims are caught between two ideas — and what they choose will determine whether their community will progress or regress in the coming years.

https://www.dailyo.in/politics/from...lim-who-is-an-indian-first/story/1/28696.html

@jamahir your thoughts
 
.

Firstly, the article mentions the Hindi film Garam Hawa which I myself was reminded of after reading the initial parts of this article.

Secondly, I agree with this article in its suggestion that Indian Muslims have become more conservative now. I will say that they have become more conservative since the 90s, as per what my older relatives tell me. This can be easily noted if we compare Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims with many Indian Muslims. The burqas of the Indian Muslim women versus the stylish shalwar suits of the Pakistani Muslim women. Economic liberalization of the Indian economy didn't mean liberal thought coming into India.

Thirdly, Owaisi ( the older one ) though has place in the hearts of many Mluslims, he won't be the one they will vote for. What they will vote for, again, will be the Congress-led alliance.
 
Last edited:
.
Firstly, the article mentions the Hindi film Garam Hawa which I myself was reminded of after reading the initial parts of this article.

Secondly, I agree with this article in its suggestion that Indian Muslims have become more conservative now. I will say that they have become more conservative since the 90s, as per what my older relatives tell me. This can be easily noted if we compare Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims with many Indian Muslims. The burqas of the Indian Muslim women versus the stylish shalwar suits of the Pakistani Muslim women. Economic liberalization of the Indian economy didn't mean liberal thought coming into India.

Thirdly, Owaisi ( the older one ) though has place in the hearts of many Mluslims, he won't be the one they will vote for. What they will vote for, again, will be the Congress-led alliance.
The main problem with Muslims is that they dont want to be part of the mainstream and then complain that govt ignores us. . Why not study in normal schools instead of madarsaas. why have 8-10 children when you cant take care of them?

And what has congress done for muslims? They are as backward as they were. Hell Ram Janambhumi gates were opened when Rajiv was PM, Babri Masjid was demolished when Narsimha Rao was PM. Not to forget thousands of riots.

BJP came in power only in the 90's. Before that "secular" govts were there.

The only thing Congress and "Secular" parties did was appease the Mullahs. BJP does not do appeasement. If a bridge is constructed or a university is built Hindus and Muslims both will benefit but Muslims dont see it. How is it BJPs fault that they are backward?

@AfrazulMandal how is congress helping in the progress of the Muslims? Is eating beef the only thing Muslims care about? dont they care about education and roads and hospitals?
 
.
The main problem with Muslims is that they dont want to be part of the mainstream and then complain that govt ignores us. . Why not study in normal schools instead of madarsaas. why have 8-10 children when you cant take care of them?

And what has congress done for muslims? They are as backward as they were. Hell Ram Janambhumi gates were opened when Rajiv was PM, Babri Masjid was demolished when Narsimha Rao was PM. Not to forget thousands of riots.

BJP came in power only in the 90's. Before that "secular" govts were there.

The only thing Congress and "Secular" parties did was appease the Mullahs. BJP does not do appeasement. If a bridge is constructed or a university is built Hindus and Muslims both will benefit but Muslims dont see it. How is it BJPs fault that they are backward?

@AfrazulMandal how is congress helping in the progress of the Muslims? Is eating beef the only thing Muslims care about? dont they care about education and roads and hospitals?
Congress is as bad when it comes to giving Muslims what is their right.
Sanghis losing gives me a greater joy though.
We worry about regular things as well.

Firstly, the article mentions the Hindi film Garam Hawa which I myself was reminded of after reading the initial parts of this article.

Secondly, I agree with this article in its suggestion that Indian Muslims have become more conservative now. I will say that they have become more conservative since the 90s, as per what my older relatives tell me. This can be easily noted if we compare Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims with many Indian Muslims. The burqas of the Indian Muslim women versus the stylish shalwar suits of the Pakistani Muslim women. Economic liberalization of the Indian economy didn't mean liberal thought coming into India.

Thirdly, Owaisi ( the older one ) though has place in the hearts of many Mluslims, he won't be the one they will vote for. What they will vote for, again, will be the Congress-led alliance.
Pakistani Muslims are safe. They can afford to do things.
We can't. Owaisi is the ideal PM from my point of view. But given his marginal status, Congress will probably be still the party of choice for most of us.
But there are some demands. Like rebuilding of Babri masjid.
 
.
Congress is as bad when it comes to giving Muslims what is their right.
Sanghis losing gives me a greater joy though.
We worry about regular things as well.
Sanghis are atleast open on what they do. Conress stabs you in the back.

Dont worry we have seen how much political influence in terms of number of MPs and MLAs you have for the last 4-5 years.

As for caring about regular things the evidence is not there. You worry about beef, you worry about studying in madarsaas, you worry about propogating hum paanch hamaare pachees
 
.
Sanghis are atleast open on what they do. Conress stabs you in the back.

Dont worry we have seen how much political influence in terms of number of MPs and MLAs you have for the last 4-5 years.

As for caring about regular things the evidence is not there. You worry about beef, you worry about studying in madarsaas, you worry about propogating hum paanch hamaare pachees
Yes. We know what Congress does. But BJP has the chance of a Hindu rastra where our place will be seriously constrained.
Demography is everything in a democracy. The very fact that Hindu politics is pointless in West Bengal is because of our relative strength. Our pacchis is a vulgar jibe at us, but yeah, if our numbers grow...good for us. Personally I am for a limit to 4 kids. And since we have a stronger community, we are able to provide for them better.
 
.
Indian Muslims are Indians . I seriously dont understand the obsession some Pakistanis(mostly karachites) have with them and they have with Pakistan
 
.
A question to Indian Muslims, if it helps, why don't you allow the hindus to built temple on Babri Masjid? or they will claim more masjid as temples?
 
.
A question to Indian Muslims, if it helps, why don't you allow the hindus to built temple on Babri Masjid? or they will claim more masjid as temples?
This is Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi -one of the holiest cities for Hindus

gyanvapi-mosque.jpg


You can still see the remains of the old temple. Like this, there are hundreds if not thousands of mosques that were built by demolishing temples.

hindus want to reclaim just 3 of these. Ram Janambhumi is one, Gyanwapi is the second and the third is in Mathura.
 
.
This is Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi -one of the holiest cities for Hindus

OK

You can still see the remains of the old temple. Like this, there are hundreds if not thousands of mosques that were built by demolishing temples.

hindus want to reclaim just 3 of these. Ram Janambhumi is one, Gyanwapi is the second and the third is in Mathura.
Okay. Its actually not my business but if giving up three helps than why not . I am sure Muslims in India must have their reasons
 
. .
Okay. Its actually not my business but if giving up three helps than why not . I am sure Muslims in India must have their reasons
Rhetorical qiestion...
If pagans ask for return of Kaaba, will that be acceptable to you or any Muslim?

These places were won in battle. Muslims shed their blood for these. Our ancestors have offered namaz there for centuries. How can someone else come and evict them?

A question to Indian Muslims, if it helps, why don't you allow the hindus to built temple on Babri Masjid? or they will claim more masjid as temples?
There are hundreds of temples that were peacefully converted to masjids by the faithful. A temple at Babri may actually pave the way for a complete de islamization of most of the ancient masjids in India.
 
.
Rhetorical qiestion...
If pagans ask for return of Kaaba, will that be acceptable to you or any Muslim?
Of course not, since all the Pagans converted to Islam.

These places were won in battle. Muslims shed their blood for these. Our ancestors have offered namaz there for centuries. How can someone else come and evict them?
So by that logic since the Hindu are the dominate factor in India now, therefore, shouldn't they peacefully convert them to temples????

There are hundreds of temples that were peacefully converted to masjids by the faithful. A temple at Babri may actually pave the way for a complete de islamization of most of the ancient masjids in India.
As I said its Indian Muslim business, my question was purely for understanding. I agree that converting three will lead the way to more. But can you people try for Babri Masjid. As I understand it was closed for many years. In this world with alot of media and everything, asking for more will go against the Hindus.
 
.
How ‘seculars’ disempowered two generations of Indian Muslims
Real secularism empowers. Fraudulent secularism disempowers. Guess which version we've been seeing for decades?

Sachar Committee and Misra Commission place them below Dalits in poverty, education and social backwardness?

The simple answer is that the liberal, secular, elite has treated Indian Muslims as a protected species — to be coddled and appeased, but not educated and empowered.

Protect Muslim sharia law. So what if Muslim women suffer grievously from triple talaq and female genital mutilation at birth?

Protect azaans blaring on loudspeakers at 4:30 am. So what if it wakes up children and the elderly in the neighbourhood?

Protect grants to Islamic institutions, including madrassas. So what if they teach impressionable Muslim children that Aurangzeb was a secular reformer and not a brutal despot?

Protect mosques. So what if they encroach on public land?

Who is responsible for this perverse execution of secularism?

women-inside_010619032735.jpg
In the name of 'secularism', let's protect Sharia law — even when it's hurting Muslim women. (Photo: PTI/file)

The political consensus since 1947 has been to treat Muslims with kid gloves, keep them backward, ignore their poverty, pocket their votes and claim you are doing all this in the name of secularism.

Secularism is a noble calling. But political charlatans have practised the precise opposite since 1947.

Former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, AP Shah, in an oped in The Hindu on December 28, 2018, wrote: “Even those governments that proudly flaunt the label of secularism have subjected us to their non-secular realpolitik. Take the politics of Rajiv Gandhi, for instance, often touted as a ‘secular’ Prime Minister: his government not only overturned the Shah Bano judgment, but also banned Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and had the locks of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya opened to Hindus.”

By appeasing, but not empowering Muslims, Indian politicians have consigned two generations of Indian Muslims to poverty, backwardness, joblessness and radicalism.

* * *

When I was growing up, we had a driver called Chhote Khan. No one knew his real name. He had been with us for as long as I can remember. When he was too old to drive, my father placed him as a guard in our factory. No one still knew his real name or background. Except that for a Pathan, he was very short. Hence, Chhote Khan.

Today, every second Uber cab I ride in is driven by a Muslim. They simply don’t get jobs in the formal sector: no education — and a Muslim name.

Isn’t this the work of right-wing extremists who have demonised Muslims?

Not quite.

The culprits too are secular poseurs who still regard Muslims, much like the black buck, as an endangered species. Nice from a distance, segregated in their own archaic laws, to be admired in movies, but not to be disturbed lest they disrupt India’s plural harmony. Appease, appease, appease. Never empower.

premji-inside_010619032843.jpg
How many times have you heard him speak on the state of Indian Muslims? (Photo: PTI/file)

No one of course asks Muslims what they want. Influential Muslims maintain a diplomatic silence. Wipro’s Azim Premji, one of India’s great philanthropists and secular to the bone, says little on the subject. Those who do, like Javed Akhtar and Shah Rukh Khan, fan the flames rather than douse them.

In the process, two generations of Indian Muslims have been disempowered: few jobs, little education, segregated housing, sullen lives.

* * *

Some years ago, we were conducting townhalls with politicians. In March 2011, I invited LK Advani, then the BJP’s likely future prime ministerial candidate, to a townhall in Mumbai. I also invited N Ram of The Hindu, Uday Shankar of Star TV and Kumar Ketkar, then a journalist, now a Congress Rajya Sabha MP, on a panel to grill Advani. Ajit Ranade of the Association of Democratic Rights (ADR) co-moderated the debate with me.

Advani’s speech was eloquent and gracious. The three panelists were articulate and respectful. No one spoke over the other.

To ensure our townhalls were non-partisan, we decided to invite Rahul Gandhi to the next townhall. I spoke to his then-assistant Kanishka Singh to formally invite Rahul. Kanishka was enthusiastic. He was particularly excited when I told him the audience would be young and comprise many minorities. “That’s exactly the demographic we want!” he said animatedly.

jama-masjid-inside_010619032941.jpg
Secular poseurs regard Muslims as an endangered species — nice from a distance, segregated in their own archaic laws. (Photo: PTI/file)

In the end, Rahul never came. He was still finding his feet in politics in UPA 2.

But the Congress’ reflexive bias in favour of minorities was clearly evident in the conversations I had with Kanishka. That is a good thing — but it is a good thing only if your interest in Muslims is to empower them, not appease them for votes.

An educated, empowered Muslim would ask uncomfortable questions about what Congress politicians have done for the community since 1947.

Real secularism empowers. Fraudulent secularism disempowers. Mainstream Indian politicians have preached real secularism — but practised the fraudulent version.

The worst victim of this fraud? The ordinary Indian Muslim.
 
.
A question to Indian Muslims, if it helps, why don't you allow the hindus to built temple on Babri Masjid? or they will claim more masjid as temples?

This is Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi -one of the holiest cities for Hindus

gyanvapi-mosque.jpg


You can still see the remains of the old temple. Like this, there are hundreds if not thousands of mosques that were built by demolishing temples.

hindus want to reclaim just 3 of these. Ram Janambhumi is one, Gyanwapi is the second and the third is in Mathura.

Okay. Its actually not my business but if giving up three helps than why not . I am sure Muslims in India must have their reasons


I have no objections if right-wing Hindus want those three sites that Soumitra named.

As long as it doesn't grow to include heritage buildings like the Taj Mahal which some right-wing Hindus claim is actually built on top of a temple called Tejo Mahalaya.

Also, I look to the future and not to the past. I wish for other Indians to do the same.

An ordinary mosque doesn't have the same stature as the Kaaba.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom