Muslims in India - An Overview
The Muslims entered Sind, India, in 711 C.E., the same year they entered Spain. Their entry in India was prompted by an attempt to free the civilian Muslim hostages whose ship was taken by sea pirates in the territory of Raja Dahir, King of Sind. After diplomatic attempts failed, Hajjaj bin Yusuf, the Umayyad governor in Baghdad, dispatched a 17-year-old commander by the name Muhammad bin Qasim with a small army. Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahir at what is now Hyderabad in Pakistan. In pursuing the remnant of Dahir's army and his son supporters (Indian kings), Muhammad bin Qasim fought at Nirun, Rawar, Bahrore, Brahmanabad, Aror, Dipalpur and Multan. By 713 C.E., he established his control in Sind and parts of Punjab up to the borders of Kashmir. A major part of what is now Pakistan came under Muslim control in 713 C.E. and remained so throughout the centuries until some years after the fall of the Mughal Empire in 1857.
Muhammad bin Qasim treatment of the Indian population was so just that when he was called back to Baghdad the civilians were greatly disheartened and gave him farewell in tears. There was a Muslim community in Malabar, southwest India as early as 618 C.E. as a result of King Chakrawati Farmas accepting Islam at the hands of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Muslim presence as rulers in India dates from 711 C.E. Since then, different Muslim rulers (Turks of Central Asia, Afghans, and the descendants of the Mongol - the Mughals) entered India, primarily fought their fellow Muslim rulers, and established their rule under various dynastic names. By the eleventh century, the Muslims had established their capital at Delhi, which remained the principal seat of power until the last ruler of Mughal Dynasty, Bahadur Shah Zafar, was deposed in 1857 by the British. A few British visitors were given permission by Akbar to stay in Eastern India more than two centuries before. The British abused that privilege, and within a few decades the British began to collaborate with Rajas and Nawabs in military expeditions against the Mughals and Muslim rulers of the east, southeast and south India. After two centuries of fighting, the British succeeded in abolishing the Mughal rule in 1857.
Muslims were a minority when they ruled major parts of India for nearly a thousand years. They were well liked generally as rulers for their justice, social and cultural values, respect for freedom to practice religion as prescribed by the religion of various communities, freedom of speech, legal system in accordance with the dictates and established norms of each religious community, public works and for establishing educational institutions. In their days as rulers, the Muslims constituted about twenty percent of India's population. Today, Indian Muslims constitute about fifteen percent of India's population, about 150 million, and they are the second largest Muslim community in the world.
The region now part of Pakistan and many other parts of India were predominantly Muslim. After the British takeover in 1857, many of these areas remained under loose control of Muslims. When the British decided to withdraw from India without a clear direction for the future of Muslims (former rulers), a political solution was reached for some of the Muslim majority areas. This resulted in the division of India and the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
Among the famous Muslims scientists, historians and travelers who visited and lived, though briefly, in India were Al-Biruni, Al-Masu'di, and Ibn Battuta. Their writings illuminate us with the Indian society and culture. Al-Biruni stayed in India for twenty years. Ibn Battuta, an Andalusian who was born in Morocco, served as a Magistrate of Delhi (1334-1341) during the reign of Sultan Muhammad Tughluk. It is conceivable that Ibn Battuta description of Muslim India inspired Ferdinand and Isabella who had taken over the last Muslim kingdom of Granada, Spain in 1492. That same year Columbus received the permission in the Alhambra palace (of Granada) and made his famous voyage bound for India in search of gold and spice but he landed in the Americas.(kind courtesy Dr A Zahoor)
When I set about writing this piece, I called for responses from Indian Muslims of various backgrounds. Sadly, the responses did not flow. They trickled in from a few corners. This in itself was a pointer, indicating that possibly, Indian Muslims are not overly enthusiastic to voice their outlook on issues.
So do Indian Muslims wish to keep their opinion under wraps?
Interestingly, though I asked for responses from Indian Muslims, I received replies from a section of Indian Hindus, cautioning me of the fact that Indian Muslims always have a hidden agenda to promote Islam. However, does not RSS and VHP and other groups promote Hinduism? Many will say that I am being a Muslim Fundamentalist or supporter or sympathizer but here I would like to clarify that though born in a Muslim family I had the proud privilege of commanding and leading one of the elite battalions of Indian Armed Forces in various operation with great success and had taken bullets in my body for defending the in the nations border from external and internal threats.
Really!
This got me thinking. Not about possible hidden agendas, but on how few of us deeply understand that there is a core set of principles inherent to every religion that remains the same across the board, so to speak. These tenets include respect for life, and as a corollary, the promotion and preservation of peace.
But sadly, political events such as Kargil adversely impact fragile communal relations. In the post-Kargil charged atmosphere, right-wing Hindu associations and some political parties insisted on pressing on with Nationalism is Hinduism campaigns and ended up nullifying any progress in cross-cultural efforts aimed at building bridges between communities.
For the majority Indian populace, the Kargil episode evokes a bias against Pakistan which snowballs to an intense dislike for Islam, thus increasing anti-Muslim prejudices. The fallout is frequent rioting as tensions run high and sensitivities are easily inflamed.
As every secular-thinking Indian laments the situation, it may help to take note of similar circumstances in a supposedly modern and liberal nation, USA.
Post 9/11, both a curiosity about and prejudice against Islam rose considerably in USA. Bearing in mind that 9/11 was possibly the first major terrorist act on American soil, this change in the attitude of the Christian-Jewish majority mirrors in a sense, the Hindu bias against Muslims. Hypothetically, if such citizens in USA were to witness continued terrorist activity in their country perpetrated by Islamic terrorists, one can only imagine that they would sooner or later develop preconceived notions about every Muslim they interact with.
A misunderstood solidarity
Just like Indian Hindus, these people would forget that a few terrorists cannot stand for the majority of the Muslim community. They would forget that as Indian Muslims feel bad both whenever a civilian is killed or abused as a result of terrorist activities as well as, as a result of counter-terrorist Army activities in Jammu & Kashmir, Muslims across the world (even enlightened non-Muslims) feel strongly for the death of every innocent civilian in Iraq, or Afghanistan or even Lebanon, for that matter. Sadly, the approach of politicians whether in India or in USA often breeds disrespect and misunderstanding among the less-informed populace.
Author of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror, Mahmood Mamdani was asked to explain the origins of the title of his book. In response, Mamdani said that when Bush speaks of good Muslims and bad Muslims, what he means by Muslims is really pro-American Muslims and by Muslims he means anti-American Muslims. Once you recognize that, then it is no longer puzzling why good Muslims are becoming bad Muslims at such a rapid rate. You can actually begin to think through that development. If, however, you think of good and bad Muslims in cultural terms, it is mind-boggling that in one week, you can have a whole crop of Muslims - cultural changes do not usually happen with such rapidity! But if you have the aerial bombing of Falluja and the targeting of civilian populations accused of hosting Muslims, then you harvest an entire yield of bad Muslims at the end of the day, and the whole phenomenon becomes slightly less puzzling.
Mamdani speaks of army action outside of America, yet the Indian context is related to events within a country. It boils down to the fact that irrespective of India being a democratic country, every Indian Muslim must support Indian Government action (central and state) in every instance. But the Godhra Gujarat riots are a perfect example of the futility of reposing blind faith in the ruling state government, as called for by the majority community, even in cases where state policies are skewed in favor of the majority populace.
Further, Muslim solidarity with their religious brethren across the world should not be misunderstood as a desire for more terrorist activity. It may simply imply that they hold a different perspective insofar as the resolution of a crisis is concerned.
Further, Mamdani has also pointed out that as opposed to differentiating between good and bad persons, or between criminals and civic citizens, who both happen to be Muslims and Hindus, the debate has turned to good Muslims and bad Muslims. Sounds familiar?
Mamdani concludes by saying that Terrorism is not a necessary effect of religious tendencies, whether fundamentalist or secular. Rather, terrorism is born of a political encounter.? Thinking of the supposedly separatist movement in Jammu & Kashmir which is fueled by cross-border terrorist outfits, ostensibly to redraw political boundaries, one can see the logic in this statement.
For more reading, refer:
http://sipa.columbia.edu/academics/directory/mm1124-fac.html
http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/mamdani.cfm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375422854/102-9492025-1167350?v=glance...
No comments:
Post a Comment