Indian Muslims have been marginalized in the political life of India, and often atrocities are committed on them, and they have to suffer discrimination and humiliation, being branded as terrorists, bigots, anti-nationals, and what not. I have always comdemned this. I am a humble disciple of the great Mughal Emperor Akbar, who propagated the policy of suleh-e-kul, or giving equal respect to all religions and communities.
https://indicanews.com/justice-markandey-katju-emperor-akbar-is-the-father-of-the-indian-nation
https://indicanews.com/suleh-e-kul-is-the-only-correct-policy-for-india
But how did this marginilization and victimization happen to a community consisting of 15-16 % of India’s population?
Firstly, this was the direct consequence of Partition of India in 1947 on the basis of the bogus 2 nation theory, which was a British swindle to keep Hindus and Muslims fighting each other, and prevent united India from emerging as a mighty industrial giant, like another China ( for which it has all the potential ).
https://indicanews.com/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-partition-and-indo-pak-relations
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/satyam-bruyat/the-truth-about-partition
When India was divided and Pakistan was declared as an Islamic state, it logically followed that India would be a Hindu state, with non Hindus as second rate citizens ( just as in Pakistan non Muslims are second rate citizens ).
For a long time after Independence the ruling Congress party portrayed India as a secular state, but this was only a figleaf in order to get Muslim votes. This figleaf, however, came off in 2014, when the pro-Hindu BJP came to power.
Why did Indian Muslims agree to Partition, and why did the Congress party, which claimed to be secular, agree to Partition ?
The poor and mostly uneducated Muslims had no say in the matter, as they were entirely focused on earning their daily bread to feed themselves and their families. But what about the ‘educated’ Muslims ? The vast majority of them agreed to Partition. For instance, Jinnah, the main proponent of the 2 nation theory, was often feted and lionised by the students of the Aligarh Muslim University whenever he visited Aligarh.In fact these students tried to kill Maulana Azad, who was strongly opposed to Partition, at the Aligarh railway station, when he was travelling on train from Delhi to Calcutta.
As regards the Congress party, its leaders such as Nehru, Sardar Patel etc agreed to Partition, with the desire of getting cushy jobs after Independence.
After Independence, the Congress party was in power for several decades. It told the Indian Muslims that if they did not vote for the Congress, they would be eaten up by the pro-Hindu party, the Jan Sangh ( which later became the BJP ). So the Indian Muslims would unitedly vote for the Congress candidate, even if he was corrupt, a big criminal and a rogue and rascal.
Secondly, the plight of Indian Muslims after 1947 was the consequence of the acts of many Muslims themselves who never objected to the Muslim appeasement policy of the Congress ( to get Muslim votes ). For instance, when the Indian Supreme Court gave the progressive and humanitarian Shahbano judgment ( that a Muslim husband must give maintenance to his divorced wife ) almost all Indian Muslims ( except a few like Arif Mohammed Khan ) stupidly criticised the judgment, saying it was against the sharia.
When atrocities were committed against Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s and they were hounded out of Kashmir by bigoted Muslims, hardly any Indian Muslim raised his voice against this outrage. I remember that at that time I went to the house of a Muslim friend in Allahabad, to whom I said that I always raise my voce whenever an atrocity is committed aginst Muslims, so he should do the same when atrocities are being committed against Hindus. But he refused to do anything. So it seems that Indian Muslims only protest against atrocities on Muslims, not against Hindus in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Indian Muslims should have seen through and strongly objected to the Muslim appeasement policy of certain crafty Indian politicians, who only wanted their votes. For instance, when the then Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee announced that every imaam of a Muslim mosque in West Bengal would get Rs 2500 per month and every muezzin Rs 1500 per month, the West Bengal Muslims should have seen through this ploy to get their votes, and have strongly condemned Mamata, but they never did. No wonder that this alienated the Hindus of West Bengal, a large number of whom became BJP supporters.
I several times appealed to the Indian Muslims to get modernised, by denouncing sharia, burqa and maulanas, as was done by the great Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal, but only got abuses and vilification in return.
As regards sharia, I explained to Muslims that law is a reflection of human society at a particular stage of its historical development. So when society changes the law too must change. Sharia was a law which arose in Arabia in the 7th century AD. So how can it be applied after 1400 years when society has totally changed ? Can we have Manusmriti, which was written about 2000 years ago, today ?
As regards burqa, I strongly condemned it as a feudal custom which puts a woman in a cage, and should be condemned by Muslims.
Ar regards maulanas, I said there were no maulanas at the time of the Prophet. These excrescences and aberrations arose subsequently to befool Muslims and exploit them. So Muslims should get rid of these parasites.
I am a well wisher of Muslims, and want them to prosper. But when I said all this, most Muslims ridiculed, castigated, insulted and excoriated me, and branded me a communal person, and a secret BJP agent.
The time has now come for Indian Muslims to ponder over what I have said above if they seriously want their situation to improve
