The Rediff Interview/S Gurumurthy
'Treating Muslims as a votebank, not as equal citizens and
human beings with equal rights, by right. That attitude has to
end'
Not many people seem to know, but it has been happening. A low-profile series of discussions between theoreticians and theologians from among the Hindus and Muslims has been doing quiet rounds across
the country. Organised by the Centre for Peace and Progress, Calcutta,
headed by O P Shah, the dialogue has been notable for keeping
politicians out of the forum.
The first of them was organised
at Calcutta in June, followed by one at Hyderabad, and later at
Madras. The Centre, which has organised similar discussions between
ideological adversaries
on the Kashmir and Indo-Pak issues, plans to take the dialogue
to other towns and cities.
Here, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sevak ideologue S Gurumurthy, a
participant at the Calcutta and Madras sessions, shares his views
on what transpired at these meetings. Excerpts:
What is your opinion on such an independent initiative on a religious
issue like the Hindu-Muslim question?
I have always felt that a materialistic, political interpretation
of secularism has not helped matters in the last so many decades,
and that we would have to find a religious way out. To that extent,
the discussions have helped.
Why?
Gandhiji's solution to religious differences was in himself. He
did not have any programme, or plan, per se, but wanted everyone
to trust him. After him, there has been no other leader of that
standing to inspire all-round confidence. Politicians of our time
have no answers, and religious intervention alone would help.
Can you substantiate it?
A few years back, a leading national-level political leader
told me, for instance, that though Muslims constituted only around
30 per cent of the voting population in the country, their voting
percentage by itself was high, against that of the Hindus. His
idea was that the Muslim votebank should hence be pampered. This
is the kind of attitude that our politicians have in general.
Treating the Muslims as a votebank, not as equal citizens and
human beings with equal rights, by right. That attitude has to
end.
Was that why politicians were kept out of the discussions?
Yes. More importantly, the idea was to reach out to the people
over the heads of the politicians, who treated them as one only
as one more slip of ballot paper.
Did it help?
It has definitely made a beginning. The discussions covered all controversial
topics, and the discussions were also free, fair and frank, as
it constituted a select, invited gathering willing to hear each
other, and did not suffer the compulsion of taking politically correct
positions.
Like?
It surprised the Muslim participants at these meetings that
the RSS, for instance, did not share the BJP's position on the
Uniform Civil Code. Whatever has to be done, has to be done
after large-scale discussions involving religious sentiments
and opinions.
How was it received?
It was possibly news to the Muslim participants. The press
has put the RSS, BJP and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad together as
the Sangh Parivar, and many people believe that to be the ultimate
truth. This opinion is being corrected
What about Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura? They should have dominated the discussions, at least from the Muslim standpoint...
Of course, the issues did come up. But here again, the Muslim
participants were in for a shock, particularly those at Madras
and Hyderabad. They did not really seem to know that a mosque
had been constructed alongside the famed Kashi temple, after breaking
apart the latter... When I told them the truth, they seemed to
appreciate (it)...
But how can it change the attitude of people?
I told them that millions of Hindu pilgrims who visit Kashi see
it for themselves, and feel strongly about it. The VHP, the RSS,
or the BJP making a political issue out of it would not have been
possible, but for the people's own sentiments. There should have
been some basic material on which such issues could be built upon,
and this, the Muslims understood, possibly for the first time.
But the mosque too has been there for long...
I will recall only what Arnold Toynbee once said, which again
I cited at one of these dialogues. The famous historian referred
to the demolition of the Russian Orthodox church at Poland, and
the creation of a Polish church in its place. Islam is a religion
as much as Hinduism is, and what we are opposed to is only such
symbols of foreign invasions, cruelty and domination. Religion
does not come into the picture at all.
But the mosques are already there.
Again, I quote Toynbee. He said, citing the Polish example,
that the Britishers should pull down all symbols of the Raj before
leaving India. That alone would create a positive image of the
Britishers in future Indian minds, he said. That's what we are
also asking for in relation to other foreign rulers in India.
But given the political issues that are involved,
don't you think politicians should also be involved in such an
exercise?
No. The idea should be to reach out to the people from both
the communities and make them understood each other's position,
apart from the facts, circumstances and sentiments involved in
each case. There was also a lot that we from the RSS and other
Hindu groups learnt about the Muslim feelings that had not been
expressed by political leaders earlier. Such small and compact
group discussions help the understanding process better.
Can you explain this?
For instance, at the Madras meet, the question revolved around
'kafirs' under Islam at one stage of the discussions. There were
some differences among the Muslim participants, as to who is a
'kafir'. Finally, it was resolved by a Kazi that there were four
different types of 'kafirs' under the Islamic tenet. But even he
did not have any answer as to which of those groups the Hindus
belonged, when other Muslim participants had earlier dubbed the
Hindus as 'kafirs'. That stimulated some thinking within, and
they seemed to appreciated the dichotomy of the situation.
Where from here, then?
Such discussions should continue, and should be held more often
and in more places. The idea should be to initiate people-to-people
contact. That alone, I think, will help solve some of the major
issues and problems facing the country. For instance, straightway,
we can help each other, and try tackle basic social problems like
illiteracy and poverty on a community-basis. Other issues can
be taken up as we go along...
Tell us what you think of this interview
|
