04-10-2004, 08:35 PM
II
The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is
no organized movement of social reform among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their
eradication. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is this relieving feature about themânamely, that some of
them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the
other hand, do not realize that they are evils and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any
change in their existing practices. It is noteworthy that the "Muslims opposed the Child-Marriage Bill brought in the
Central Assembly in 1930, whereby the age for marriage of a girl was raised to 14 and of a boy to 18 on the ground
that it was opposed to the Muslim canon law. Not only did they oppose the bill at every stage but that when it became
law they started a campaign of Civil Disobedience against that Act. Fortunately the Civil Disobedience campaign of
the Muslims against the Act did not swell and was submerged in the Congress Civil Disobedience campaign which
synchronized with it. But the campaign only proves how strongly the Muslims are opposed to social reform.
The question may be asked why are the Muslims opposed to social reform ?
The usual answer given is that the Muslims all over the world are an unprogressive people. This view no doubt accords
with the facts of history. After the first spurts of their activity the scale of which was undoubtedly stupendous leading
to the foundations of vast empiresâthe Muslims suddenly fell into a strange condition of torpor, from which they
never seem to have become awake. The cause assigned for this torpor by those, who have made a study of their
condition, is said to be the fundamental assumption made by all Muslims that Islam is a world religion, suitable for all
people, for all times and for all conditions. It has been contended that :â
"The Musalman, remaining faithful to his religion, has not progressed; he has remained stationary in a world of swiftly
moving modern forces. It is, indeed, one of the salient features of Islam that it immobilizes in their native barbarism,
the races whom it enslaves. It is fixed in a crystallization, inert and impenetrable. It is unchangeable; and political,
social or economic changes have no repercussion upon it.
" Having been taught that outside Islam there can be no safety; outside its law no truth and outside its spiritual message
there is no happiness, the Muslim has become incapable of conceiving any other condition than his own, any other
mode of thought than the Islamic thought. He firmly believes that he has arrived at an unequalled pitch of perfection;
that he is the sole possessor of true faith, of the true doctrine, the true wisdom ; that he alone is in possession of the
truthâno relative truth subject to revision, but absolute truth.
" The religious law of the Muslims has had the effect of imparting to the very diverse individuals of whom the world is
composed, a unity of thought, of feeling, of ideas, of judgement."
It is urged that this uniformity is deadening and is not merely imparted to the Muslims, but is imposed upon them by a
spirit of intolerance which is unknown anywhere outside the Muslim world for its severity and its violence and which
is directed towards the suppression of all rational thinking which is in conflict with the teachings of Islam. As Renan
observes 6[f.6] :â
" Islam is a close union of the spiritual and the temporal; it is the reign of a dogma, it is the heaviest chain that
humanity has ever borne.... Islam has its beauties as a religion;.... But to the human reason Islamism has only been
injurious. The minds that it has shut from the light were, no doubt, already closed in their own internal limits; but it has
persecuted free thought, I shall not say more violently than other religions, but more effectually. It has made of the
countries that it has conquered 9 closed field to the rational culture of the mind. What is, in fact -essentially distinctive
of the Musalman is his hatred of science, his persuasion that research is useless, frivolous, almost impiousâthe natural
sciences, because they are attempts at rivalry with God; the historical sciences, because they apply to times anterior to
Islam, they may revive ancient heresies. Renan concludes by saying:â
"Islam, in treating science as an enemy, is only consistent, but it is a dangerous thing to be consistent. To its own
misfortune Islam has been successful. By slaying science it has slain itself; and is condemned in the world to a
complete inferiority."
This answer though obvious, cannot be the true answer. If it were the true answer, how are we to account for the stir
and ferment that is going on in all Muslim countries outside India, where the spirit of inquiry, the spirit of change and
the desire to reform are noticeable in every walk of life. Indeed, the social reforms which have taken place in Turkey
have been of the most revolutionary character. If Islam has not come in the way of the Muslims of these countries, why
should it come in the way of the Muslims of India ? There must be some special reason for the social and political
stagnation of the Muslim community in India.
What can that special reason be ? It seems to me that the reason for the absence of the spirit of change in the Indian
Musalman is to be sought in the' peculiar position he occupies in India. He is placed in a social environment which is
predominantly Hindu. That Hindu environment is always silently but surely encroaching upon him. He feels that it is
de-musalmanazing him. As a protection against this gradual weaning away he is led to insist on preserving everything
that is Islamic without caring to examine whether it is helpful or harmful to his society. Secondly, the Muslims in India
are placed in a political environment which is also predominantly Hindu. He feels that he will be suppressed and that
political suppression will make the Muslims a depressed class. It is this consciousness that he has to save himself from
being submerged by the Hindus socially and-politically, which to my mind is the primary cause why the Indian
Muslims as compared with their fellows outside are backward in the matter of social reform. Their energies are
directed to maintaining a constant struggle against the Hindus for seats and posts in which there is no time, no thought
and no room for questions relating to social reform. And if there is any, it is all overweighed and suppressed by the
desire, generated by pressure of communal tension, to close the ranks and offer a united front to the menace of the
Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining their socio-religious unity at any cost.
The same is the explanation of the political stagnation in the Muslim community of India. Muslim politicians do not
recognize secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the
community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice from the rich.
Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will not join
Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against capital. Why ? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he
joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that if
he joins in the campaign against the landlord, he may have to fight against a Muslim landlord. A Muslim labourer feels
that if he joins in the onslaught of labour against capital, he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that
any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslim
community, for it is thereby weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community.
How Muslim politics has become perverted is shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in
the Indian States. The Muslims and their leaders carried on a great agitation for the introduction of representative
government in the Hindu State of Kashmir. The same Muslims and their leaders are deadly opposed to the introduction
of representative governments in other Muslim States. The reason for this strange attitude is quite simple. In all
matters, the determining question with the Muslims is how it will affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus. If
representative government can help the Muslims, they will demand it, and fight for it. In the State of Kashmir the ruler
is a Hindu, but the majority of the subjects are Muslims. The Muslims fought for representative government in
Kashmir, because representative government in Kashmir meant the transfer of power from a Hindu king to the Muslim
masses. In other Muslim States, the ruler is a Muslim but the majority of his subjects are Hindus. In such States
representative government means the transfer of power from a Muslim ruler to the Hindu masses, and that is why the
Muslims support the introduction of representative government in one case and oppose it in the other. The dominating
consideration with the Muslims is not democracy. The dominating consideration is how democracy with majority rule
will affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus. Will it strengthen them or will it weaken them ? If
democracy weakens them, they will not have democracy. They will prefer the rotten state to continue in the Muslim
States rather than weaken the Muslim ruler in his hold upon his Hindu subjects.
The political and social stagnation in the Muslim community can be explained by one and only one reason. The
Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must perpetually struggle; the Hindus to establish their dominance over
the Muslims and the Muslims to establish their historical position as the ruling communityâthat in this struggle the
strong will win, and to ensure strength they must suppress or put in cold storage everything which causes dissension in
their ranks.
If the Muslims in other countries have undertaken the task of reforming their society and the Muslims of India have
refused to do so, it is because the former are free from communal and political clashes with rival communities, while
the latter are not.
The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is
no organized movement of social reform among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their
eradication. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is this relieving feature about themânamely, that some of
them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the
other hand, do not realize that they are evils and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any
change in their existing practices. It is noteworthy that the "Muslims opposed the Child-Marriage Bill brought in the
Central Assembly in 1930, whereby the age for marriage of a girl was raised to 14 and of a boy to 18 on the ground
that it was opposed to the Muslim canon law. Not only did they oppose the bill at every stage but that when it became
law they started a campaign of Civil Disobedience against that Act. Fortunately the Civil Disobedience campaign of
the Muslims against the Act did not swell and was submerged in the Congress Civil Disobedience campaign which
synchronized with it. But the campaign only proves how strongly the Muslims are opposed to social reform.
The question may be asked why are the Muslims opposed to social reform ?
The usual answer given is that the Muslims all over the world are an unprogressive people. This view no doubt accords
with the facts of history. After the first spurts of their activity the scale of which was undoubtedly stupendous leading
to the foundations of vast empiresâthe Muslims suddenly fell into a strange condition of torpor, from which they
never seem to have become awake. The cause assigned for this torpor by those, who have made a study of their
condition, is said to be the fundamental assumption made by all Muslims that Islam is a world religion, suitable for all
people, for all times and for all conditions. It has been contended that :â
"The Musalman, remaining faithful to his religion, has not progressed; he has remained stationary in a world of swiftly
moving modern forces. It is, indeed, one of the salient features of Islam that it immobilizes in their native barbarism,
the races whom it enslaves. It is fixed in a crystallization, inert and impenetrable. It is unchangeable; and political,
social or economic changes have no repercussion upon it.
" Having been taught that outside Islam there can be no safety; outside its law no truth and outside its spiritual message
there is no happiness, the Muslim has become incapable of conceiving any other condition than his own, any other
mode of thought than the Islamic thought. He firmly believes that he has arrived at an unequalled pitch of perfection;
that he is the sole possessor of true faith, of the true doctrine, the true wisdom ; that he alone is in possession of the
truthâno relative truth subject to revision, but absolute truth.
" The religious law of the Muslims has had the effect of imparting to the very diverse individuals of whom the world is
composed, a unity of thought, of feeling, of ideas, of judgement."
It is urged that this uniformity is deadening and is not merely imparted to the Muslims, but is imposed upon them by a
spirit of intolerance which is unknown anywhere outside the Muslim world for its severity and its violence and which
is directed towards the suppression of all rational thinking which is in conflict with the teachings of Islam. As Renan
observes 6[f.6] :â
" Islam is a close union of the spiritual and the temporal; it is the reign of a dogma, it is the heaviest chain that
humanity has ever borne.... Islam has its beauties as a religion;.... But to the human reason Islamism has only been
injurious. The minds that it has shut from the light were, no doubt, already closed in their own internal limits; but it has
persecuted free thought, I shall not say more violently than other religions, but more effectually. It has made of the
countries that it has conquered 9 closed field to the rational culture of the mind. What is, in fact -essentially distinctive
of the Musalman is his hatred of science, his persuasion that research is useless, frivolous, almost impiousâthe natural
sciences, because they are attempts at rivalry with God; the historical sciences, because they apply to times anterior to
Islam, they may revive ancient heresies. Renan concludes by saying:â
"Islam, in treating science as an enemy, is only consistent, but it is a dangerous thing to be consistent. To its own
misfortune Islam has been successful. By slaying science it has slain itself; and is condemned in the world to a
complete inferiority."
This answer though obvious, cannot be the true answer. If it were the true answer, how are we to account for the stir
and ferment that is going on in all Muslim countries outside India, where the spirit of inquiry, the spirit of change and
the desire to reform are noticeable in every walk of life. Indeed, the social reforms which have taken place in Turkey
have been of the most revolutionary character. If Islam has not come in the way of the Muslims of these countries, why
should it come in the way of the Muslims of India ? There must be some special reason for the social and political
stagnation of the Muslim community in India.
What can that special reason be ? It seems to me that the reason for the absence of the spirit of change in the Indian
Musalman is to be sought in the' peculiar position he occupies in India. He is placed in a social environment which is
predominantly Hindu. That Hindu environment is always silently but surely encroaching upon him. He feels that it is
de-musalmanazing him. As a protection against this gradual weaning away he is led to insist on preserving everything
that is Islamic without caring to examine whether it is helpful or harmful to his society. Secondly, the Muslims in India
are placed in a political environment which is also predominantly Hindu. He feels that he will be suppressed and that
political suppression will make the Muslims a depressed class. It is this consciousness that he has to save himself from
being submerged by the Hindus socially and-politically, which to my mind is the primary cause why the Indian
Muslims as compared with their fellows outside are backward in the matter of social reform. Their energies are
directed to maintaining a constant struggle against the Hindus for seats and posts in which there is no time, no thought
and no room for questions relating to social reform. And if there is any, it is all overweighed and suppressed by the
desire, generated by pressure of communal tension, to close the ranks and offer a united front to the menace of the
Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining their socio-religious unity at any cost.
The same is the explanation of the political stagnation in the Muslim community of India. Muslim politicians do not
recognize secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the
community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice from the rich.
Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will not join
Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against capital. Why ? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he
joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that if
he joins in the campaign against the landlord, he may have to fight against a Muslim landlord. A Muslim labourer feels
that if he joins in the onslaught of labour against capital, he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that
any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslim
community, for it is thereby weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community.
How Muslim politics has become perverted is shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in
the Indian States. The Muslims and their leaders carried on a great agitation for the introduction of representative
government in the Hindu State of Kashmir. The same Muslims and their leaders are deadly opposed to the introduction
of representative governments in other Muslim States. The reason for this strange attitude is quite simple. In all
matters, the determining question with the Muslims is how it will affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus. If
representative government can help the Muslims, they will demand it, and fight for it. In the State of Kashmir the ruler
is a Hindu, but the majority of the subjects are Muslims. The Muslims fought for representative government in
Kashmir, because representative government in Kashmir meant the transfer of power from a Hindu king to the Muslim
masses. In other Muslim States, the ruler is a Muslim but the majority of his subjects are Hindus. In such States
representative government means the transfer of power from a Muslim ruler to the Hindu masses, and that is why the
Muslims support the introduction of representative government in one case and oppose it in the other. The dominating
consideration with the Muslims is not democracy. The dominating consideration is how democracy with majority rule
will affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus. Will it strengthen them or will it weaken them ? If
democracy weakens them, they will not have democracy. They will prefer the rotten state to continue in the Muslim
States rather than weaken the Muslim ruler in his hold upon his Hindu subjects.
The political and social stagnation in the Muslim community can be explained by one and only one reason. The
Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must perpetually struggle; the Hindus to establish their dominance over
the Muslims and the Muslims to establish their historical position as the ruling communityâthat in this struggle the
strong will win, and to ensure strength they must suppress or put in cold storage everything which causes dissension in
their ranks.
If the Muslims in other countries have undertaken the task of reforming their society and the Muslims of India have
refused to do so, it is because the former are free from communal and political clashes with rival communities, while
the latter are not.