Why and how Muslims are a separate nation in India
Picture started changing following war of Plassey in1757. Muslim rulings elites were being pushed out of power by British merchants of East India Company (EIC) with a determined resolve. The anger among elite Muslims for loss of power and humiliation and exploitation by EIC were the main causes of 1857 revolt against British. The revolt was nominally headed by the last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar. In that revolt, some Hindu rajas had sided with Muslims not due to unity but due to some common interest.
Following the failure of 1857 revolt, British crown took over the charge of India from EIC. The British crown saw the visible threat from Muslim elites of India and initiated its “pro-Hindu anti-Muslim policy”. Out of power and under tremendous subjugation, Muslim elites could realize for the first time to involve Common Muslims of India to get a larger numerical support base. This was required for two main reasons. Firstly, Islam was exclusive in essence and secondly Islam was inherently political. Thus the distinctive nature of Islam, unlike Hinduism, came up in forefront in modern India in a writing of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan during 1887. Sir Syed first coined the concept of “Muslims are separate nation” in an indirect way and many scholars tend to accept Sir Syed as originator of latter Pakistan movement.
Since unlike Islam, Hinduism did not preach any concept of Ummah, politics and brotherhood among Hindus, the Hindus of British India did not seriously care the orthodox and socio-religious developments in Muslim community which started in second part of nineteenth century. The “Muslims are separate nation” exponentially grew through initiation of Deoband Movement in 1867, Aligarh Movement in 1875, creation of India Muslim League in 1906, separate electorate for Muslims in 1909, Khilafat Movement (1919-24), creation of Tablighi Jamaat in 1926, Pakistan Resolution of 1940 and formation of Jamaat-e-Islami in 1941.
With the advent of twentieth century, British started facing armed resistance, particularly in Bengal, from Hindus as their tool for achieving independence. Muslims of British India since the time of Sir Syed overtly sided with British crown and remained consciously away from challenging British. This led to the reversal of earlier British policy to become “pro-Muslim anti-Hindu” during early twentieth century.
M K Gandhi entered into Indian politics during 1917 and changed the then armed revolutionary freedom struggle of India to non-violent mass movement for freedom from British. Gandhi’s non-violence was not derived from Hinduism. It was rather the core principle Jainism and antithesis of Islam. Gandhi dragged Indian National Congress (Hindus) to support the Islam based Khilaphat Movement which backfired very badly. Gandhi was delusional and could never understand Islam and its teachings. He kept on appeasing Muslims at the cost of Hindus and derived extreme pleasure by humiliating Hindus.
The Hindu response to Islamism in British India was very late. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, abbreviated as RSS, an Indian right-wing, Hindu nationalist volunteers’ organization was established in 1925 following the Islamic Khilaphat Movement and mass killing, looting, raping and forced conversion of Hindus of Malabar area by Mopla Muslims in Kerala.
In 1947, Muslims of British India got Pakistan for Muslims. But about one-third of Muslims stayed back in India. However, the Gandhian principle of Muslim appeasement continued in independent India under Congress rule. Nehru was openly hostile to anything Hindu. He even called himself ‘a Hindu by accident of birth’. ‘Vishva Hindu Parishad’, abbreviated VHP, an Indian right-wing Hindu nationalist organisation based on the ideology of Hindutva was founded in 1964.
Indira Gandhi, pre-occupied with Muslim appeasement, incorporated the word ‘Secularism’ in the Preamble of Indian Constitution during Emergency Period and Rajiv Gandhi gave the final seal of Muslim appeasement in India by nullifying Shah Bano verdict of Supreme Court through Parliament.
Hinduism and Islam are different like, “East is East, West is West, and never the twain shall meet”. Shortly speaking, Hinduism is inherently inclusive and apolitical, while the Islam is exclusive and political. Hinduism can evolve but Islam cannot. Stray incidences of cordiality between the two communities cannot suppress this bitter fact. Of course, there has always been very small proportion Muslims who never harbored differential attitude towards Hindus and were opposed to Islamism.
So, anybody propagating ‘Hindu-Muslim unity’, as India's heritage, is either a pathological liar or a political crook. When Indian Muslims bitterly oppose any hint of Uniform Civil Codes even today, they still follow the principle of “Muslims are separate nation” in independent India. Many Indian Muslims refuse to be labeled as an Indian first for religious reason. Indian National Anthem is not sung in Madrasas for same religious reason. And the problem goes on. Most of the Hindus have no knowledge of Quran, Sira & Sahih Hadith and they look at Islam from their benign Hindu perspective.
One may ask ‘why is it so’? The answer was given by V S Naipaul when he said, "Islam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert's worldview alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his sacred language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story.
The convert has to turn away from everything that is his. The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after a thousand years can remain unresolved; the turning away has to be done again and again. People develop fantasies about who and what they are; and in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil."
