The problem with demonising Jinnah

It has shrunk the political space for Muslims in India

The demonisation of M A Jinnah has allowed India to avoid a discussion on power-sharing in democracy. Partition is explained away in our textbooks and in the common understanding as the doing of one evil man. Indeed, Pakistan itself is still portrayed in 2019 as a source of constant mischief in the public imagination and the embodiment of evil. Bangladesh is the producer of parasites (“termites” in the words of our home minister) and not much good for anything else. We would be happier if neither existed or if we had different neighbours.

The fact that India was divided because the Hindus, represented by the Congress party, were unable to agree on sharing power with Muslims is not the way Indians understand Pakistan. It is seen instead as an act of malice which dismembered our beloved Bharat Mata.

Across the border, there is less demonisation of Gandhi and Nehru than there is of Jinnah on our side. Partition in Pakistan is primarily about the denial of rights to Muslims under a permanently Hindu majority. That is how the Pakistani middle class views it. Yes, there is an aspect to partition that is linked to an Islamic utopia, such as dreamed up by Mohd Iqbal and then Maududi, but it is marginal. The groups pushing for this have never been powerful in the popular realm, meaning democratic politics. Their importance was latterly inflated because of support to their militias from the state. Another aspect is Pakistan's bullying of minorities, a disappointingly common theme in the subcontinent. This has helped Indians adjust to the brutalisation of their own minorities.

Illustration by Binay Sinha

However, it has become clear that Muslims will have to occupy some political space through uniting because India has pretty comprehensively shed its pretence of pluralism. The polity has become nastily majoritarian to popular applause. The justice system is complicit. Our actions in Kashmir, Assam, Ayodhya, and on issues ranging from beef to citizenship leave no room for ambiguity.

Hindutva under a messianic leader has captured the imagination of voters: In two consecutive Lok Sabha elections we have had minimal representation of Muslims. This is not unusual and there has never been a time in India’s entire electoral history going back to 1952 that Muslims have had the 10 per cent or more representation that is their due. This compares abysmally with how any large group is represented whether through language or caste.

The number of Muslims in the Lok Sabha now stands at 27. It was 23 in the previous Lok Sabha and all of them represent Muslim majority constituencies, meaning that they would not have been there if their own community had not dominated. The fallout of poor representation has been an assault on the rights and dignity of Muslims.

Rafiq Zakaria in his work Sardar Patel and India Muslims pointed out that Muslims themselves took away their right to reserved seats and separate electorates in the Constituent Assembly. They felt that after Partition, this was no longer appropriate. But it has long been the case that they regret doing this. Gandhi was able to blackmail Ambedkar into giving up separate electorates for Dalits, and they regret this also. The data shows us that they are right to regret it and wrong to have put their faith in the goodwill of the majority.

It was the responsibility of Hindus to accommodate them in the power structure, and we have shown no enthusiasm or willingness to do so. This has happened through the denial of tickets to Muslim candidates at the level of the party. At the level of the voter, India’s tribal voting instincts have put paid to any expectations of broad accommodation.

The man who speaks nationally for Muslims is Asaduddin Owaisi of the Majlis e Ittehadul Muslimeen. The word ittehad (unity) should tell us what the party seeks to achieve. Owaisi rejected the ruling on the Babri issue, saying, quite correctly, that the Supreme Court is not infallible. He also asked that the court not patronise Muslims by offering them twice the land that was taken away from them. He said: “I speak for my party, we do not want this ‘khairat’ (charity). Our fight was for a legal right, for a Babri Masjid. Our fight was not to get this piece of land. Why did we have this patience so long? If it was a piece of land, we could have accepted it somewhere else.” 

He continued: “Attempts are being made to make Muslims second class citizens in India. Keep watching. Political disempowerment is happening. Nobody can deny this… with the NRC, the Citizenship Amendment Bill, what message are you sending? My regret is that all secular parties, their mouths are shut.”

To me what Owaisi says is absolutely unexceptionable. It is appalling for a great nation to do this to its own people. However, no Hindu politician, whether secular, liberal, urbane or whatever other category exists outside the majoritarian fold, can speak in such direct and honest terms. Because the fact is that the non-Muslim parties will make the calculation and crunch the numbers and be unable to take sides, lest their position be referred to as “appeasement” (a particularly cruel use of the word given the reality). 

Muslims must stand up for themselves and fight for their rights, by uniting, because nobody else is going to do it for them. There is no other way that they will be heard. 

The demonisation of Jinnah has long helped us avoid an honest discussion on the issue of both our major communities being stakeholders in our democracy. India’s Muslims must unite and demand that this change.