I came across was a book titled ‘Gandhi vs. Jinnah: The debate over the partition of India’. The book has been written by a western author namely Allen Hayes Merriam. The author has viewed partition as an inevitable event culminating from irreconcilable differences between Hindus and Muslims. The author’s basic theoretical underpinning for the partition is that Hinduism and Islam represented essentially two diametrically opposite belief systems and religions whose basic tenets and modus operandi are antagonistic to each other and hence form the basis of two separate nations.
The author has harped on the Hindu-Muslim relations in Indian history in discussing the social context of the partition in the introductory chapter. It is the framework upon which he builds and buttresses his theory in the book. In the essay I will endeavor to state as accurately as possible the author’s viewpoint regarding the nature of Hindu-Muslim relations in history and its implications for the bloody vivisection of the country. I will also examine the veracity of the author’s claims as well as reflect my viewpoint on the partition.
The author has underscored the fundamental cultural differences in the two religions namely Hinduism and Islam. He has emphasized the different roots and conflicting attitudes of the two religions. He underlines their importance in fostering and perpetuating tension between the two communities. The author notes several differences in the two social systems. He points out to the opposite theological and social ideologies of Hinduism and Islam. He speaks of the concept of “one God (Allah)” in Islam contrary to belief of many Gods in Hinduism. He speaks of the concept of surrendering oneself to God to acquire deliverance, and standardization of religious worship in Islam as opposed to the focus on private “meditation” and exclusive prayer in Hinduism He goes on to describe further differences.
The author also speaks of the vital concept of Islamic law being the core of a nation’s existence and functioning. Hinduism, on the other hand, divorces statecraft from religion. He remarks the absence of idolatry in Islam whereas image worship is inalienable to Hinduism. He reminds the reader that Islamic holy literature is written in Arabic whereas Hindu scriptures are written in Sanskrit. He talks of the belief of final Day of Judgment in Islam contrasted to the unceasing Hindu cycle of rebirth and reincarnation . He also speaks about the spiritual life of Muslims being Arabia-centered whereas the Hindus gain spiritual inspiration from the Himalayas and Ganges .
Northrup has asserted Muslims believe they are “God’s chosen people” and display a belligerent ardor to proselytize the infidel whereas Hindus bear acceptance. Merriam views Hinduism as a feminine ideology in essence contrasted to the brazenly masculine and Procrustean personality of Islam. He has also noted the different patterns of social organization emanating from different ideologies in the socio-religious setup.
Merriam has observed that Hindu social organization arrangements and interaction was determined and played out through the hierarchical and iniquitous concept of caste. On the other hand the lofty concepts of equality and social democracy were ingrained in Islam. Subsequently Islam provided a strong sense of solidarity and unity among its followers in sharp contrast to the disunity, extremity and bitterness which characterized inter-caste relations in Hinduism. The caste structure of Hindu society proscribed inter-caste communication, marriage and relations especially between the elite and the dregs of society.
Merriam has buttressed his arguments by citing examples to show Hindu-Muslim hostility. He speaks of the military successes of Imad-ud-din and Mahmud of Ghazni against Hindu chieftains in the northwestern part of the country in the 8th and 11th centuries respectively. He stresses upon the ruthlessness of the Muslim conquerors. He speaks of Qutub-ud-din Aibak’s impertinently erected mosques on the remains of razed Hindu temples . He cites the Arab traveler Ibn Batuta’s accounts of Muslims being unwelcome in Hindu homes in the Malabar Coast. He believes the caste system forbade Indians from hobnobbing with Muslims. He records the invasions of Tamerlane, Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Durrani in India. He speaks of Aurangzeb’s discriminatory policies towards the Hindus culminating in their antipathy and odium towards Muslims. He also documents Aurangzeb’s revulsion towards Sikhs and believes his policies fomented hostile relations between them.
Interestingly he has also taken account of interaction, mutual give and take, communication and forbearance between the two communities but believes such friendly intercourse was restricted to the educated, upper classes of both communities.
The author has underplayed the British role in inciting loathing between the two communities. He has also ignored the avarice of politicians and the propaganda machinery of the extremists, the combination of which proved lethal. Instead he is convinced that ethnic differences and differing ideologies contributed to tension, which simmered beneath the surface and often manifested itself in violent reaction. He believes a cleavage always existed between the two communities, and over a period of time it widened and ultimately crossed the threshold of tolerance. He believes the wedge had become wide enough for the fracturing of the country.
The author’s first contention is that Islam is monotheistic while Hinduism is polytheistic. This statement simply betrays the author’s sheer ignorance about the essence of Hindu beliefs. Like Islam, beneath the veneer and superficiality of worshipping different gods and goddesses, the essence of Hindu philosophy is that it believes all divinities are essentially different manifestations of one Supreme Being or one God. This basic philosophical underpinning may have come about due to the Muslim presence in India. This strongly hints at Hindu-Muslim interaction across medieval Indian society. The author’s ignorance is even more explicit as surrender to God is an element of both Hinduism and Islam. The homogeneity of worship as well as privately praying and meditating are also common to both faiths. There is a strong possibility that these common features may have come about due to interaction between Hinduism and Islam. The robust probability of such hypothetical interactions undermines the author’s views of the lack of social exchange between the two communities, thereby considerably reducing the author’s purported fricion and discord to an outrageously grotesque figment of imagination .
Concerning correlations between religion and matters of state it has to be stated both Muslim and Hindu fundamentalists wanted religion to be the basis of the state whereas moderates and pacifists from both communities severed religious decrees from statecraft. Concerning image worship, it is true that Islam does not condone iconoclasm and the majority of Hindus believe in idol worship, it is also reliable to say that some sects in Hinduism do not acknowledge idol worship, and Hindus who keep idols also pray and meditate before a formless God. Besides India has always been a multicultural and multiethnic land where different communities, religions and sects have pursued their individual forms of worship but only once in a blue moon has it ever contributed to rampant strife. From another angle Muslims live peacefully all over the world with other religions which have different forms of worship, some espousing a formless God while others giving God a human form.
As far as the holy scriptures of the world religions are concerned, different languages have been employed for each. However, this does not poison relations between people of different religions. Each religion has its own views about life and death but that has no bearing upon relations between adherents of different religions. Addressing questions about spiritual inspiration, it must be said that each religion derives spiritual inspiration from God but the direction of prayer may be different for different religions. There are many religions in India where such differences are inevitable. Notwithstanding such divergence, none of the religions and communities is at loggerheads with each other.
Northrup’s proposition that Muslims consider themselves “God’s Chosen People” is true but this does not tantamount to all Muslims or all Christians or all Jews in India or the world resorting to bellicose behavior. It is true that Hinduism believes in the equal status of all religions and is a tolerant religion but it certainly would be unwise to generalize all Hindus as tolerant. The reality is that most people of all religions are tolerant with extremists being on the fringe and present in all religions. The feminine predominance of Hinduism is not accurate as there are many more gods in Hindu religion than goddesses and gods occupy more pre-eminent positions. The truth is that due to patriarchy almost all the major religions have a masculine character.
Although it is true that Islam had more democracy, equality and social mobility than Hinduism, it would be incorrect to conclude that Islam had absolute equality. Islam and Hinduism alike accorded lower status to women, and even Islam had gradations of status according to occupation although these distinctions were not so sharply defined. This again suggests interaction between the two communities. Hindu upper-caste women veiling themselves in public exemplify the borrowing of cultural traits. Besides, the caste system never prohibited Hindus from rubbing shoulders with people who had a penchant for espousing religious customs divergent from their own. It is through the medium of such interaction and exchange of ideas and knowledge that many lower caste Hindus converted to Islam to attain a higher social status and more freedom. In fact most Muslims of the Indian subcontinent are Hindus who converted to Islam to gain a better life. Most Indian Muslims were and are therefore of an indigenous stock who share a common heritage and common language. Even though a minority of Indian Muslims belonged to a foreign stock, they had been assimilated into a pluralistic Indian culture and were and are as much Indian as the descendants of the other foreign invaders of India. Over a period of time they have contributed to the richness and diversity of Indian culture. The Muslims of foreign stock and the progeny of the other buccaneering invaders were and are still as much citizens of an organic India as are the natives.
Despite cultural differences there was always and still is cultural fusion manifest in dress, food, social manners, language, art, literature as well as architecture. This was not merely circumscribed to the upper classes but also permeated to the lower rungs of society.
Finally coming to the issue of Hindu-Muslim conflicts, in the thirteen centuries of living together, there have been very few truculent episodes among the civilian masses. There were very few riots up till the beginning of the 20th century. Civilian Hindus and Muslims have lived in peace and harmony for centuries with continuous, friendly and mutually beneficial exchange. As far as the laconian and callous nature of Muslim conquerors is concerned, it must be kept in mind that all wars are ruthless and all conquerors are belligerent. The motive of such wars was inordinate covetousness, not religious, social or cultural obligations. Ibn Batuta’s account is dubious and portrays his narrow-minded outlook. Besides, the Malabar Coast hardly had any contact with Islam.
As we have already seen interaction amongst Hindus and Muslims was pervasive. It must also be remembered that despite Aurangzeb’s policies there were never civil wars amongst Hindus and Muslims or Muslims and Sikhs. On the contrary, rivalry and wars were confined to politics and was not symptomatic of the populace. It must be remembered that people from all three religions rallied behind the Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar in the Revolt of 1857 and participated in Gandhi’s civil disobedience movements.
These lucidly vindicate the argument that Hindu-Muslim relations in India were always cordial. This in turn demolishes the theory that India had to be divided into two countries. The reasons for the partition of India therefore had nothing to do with Hindu-Muslim animosity, as there existed no innate animosity. The reasons lie in the complex politics of the twentieth century. It must finally be remembered that the roots of nationhood is always borne out in peace and harmony, economic welfare, frequent and beneficial interaction and diffusion of positive cultural traits, social welfare and a shared heritage. The roots of nationhood transcend esoteric thinking and ethnic differences. It is not possible to collapse all identities into one exclusive identity, for if that were the case India would be fragmented into many nations on the basis of ethnicity. From a wider angle the ethnic distribution of world population would have to undergo a dramatic and traumatic upheaval in line with egotistical bigotry. This would lead to a regression in world progress and take us back to the primitive age.
No comments:
Post a Comment