Muslims for Secular Democracy: Founding Declaration (02/10/2003)

Founding Declaration (October 2, 2003)

1- In defense of secular democracy

Muslims for Secular Democracy (MSD) is taking birth at a critical juncture where India’s Constitution and democracy are in serious danger of being subverted from within and replaced by a fascist regime.  

Because it is committed to the goal of ‘Hindu Rashtra’, the ideals of secular democracy have never been acceptable to the sangh parivar since its ideology is embedded in notions of majoritarianism and a deep-rooted hatred for the country’s minorities.

Sustained hate propaganda, instigation of communal violence to polarise Indian society and painstaking organisation building have been its principal occupation for decades. Today, having made deep inroads into the mass psyche, having infiltrated and captured State institutions, the sangh outfits are cynically misusing and manipulating the instruments and institutions of democracy to subvert them from within.

The suppression of the country’s minorities and the subversion of the Indian Constitution are part of the same mutually reinforcing process. Intense, unchallenged hate propaganda has succeeded to the point that the idea that “Muslims need to be taught a lesson” has gained wide currency. In the coming period, it will be said that since teaching Muslims a ‘proper lesson’ is not easy in a democratic set-up, another political system is needed to enable ‘Us’ to put ‘Them’ in their place.

Unfortunately, some from among the Muslims make the job of their adversaries very easy. In India and internationally, those who claim to speak or act in the name of Muslims or Islam, help reinforce the image of Muslims as a community of  ‘fundamentalists’, ‘fanatics’, ‘extremists’, ‘anti-nationals’, a people ‘unprepared for, or incapable of, peaceful coexistence with others’.

To some extent the media, too, is to be blamed: because of its preference for sensationalism, it plays up the statements of hotheads and muckrakers, while moderate, liberal voices find little mention, if at all. While continuing to consistently challenge the words and deeds of fanatics and extremists, Muslims for Secular Democracy proposes to consistently engage the media on its editorial choice that wittingly or unwittingly contributes towards building a negative image of Muslims.

For minorities targeted by fascist forces the only guarantee of survival with dignity lies, not in gaining the so-called ‘goodwill of the majority’ as the RSS advises, but in the defense of India’s Constitution that guarantees them fundamental rights as equal citizens.

To defend the Constitution is to uphold the basic values enshrined in them against all sectarian, divisive, communal worldviews: not the sanghis alone. It is not possible to fight Hindu communalism without fighting against Muslim communalism, nor is it possible to fight Muslim communalism without fighting against Hindu communalism, because the different communalisms feed on each other.

2. What we mean by our commitment to the Indian Constitution:

At the core of the Constitution which We, the People of India, gave ourselves 53 years ago, are the ideals of secularism, democracy, and pluralism. We are committed to the Indian Constitution because we affirm our commitment to these values that are its bedrock.

3. SECULARISM:

The word continues to be misunderstood by many people even today. It is often wrongly assumed that ‘SECULAR’ is the opposite of ‘RELIGIOUS.’ However, if anything, the opposite of SECULAR is COMMUNAL, while the opposite of the word RELIGIOUS is ATHIEST.

A religious person is not necessarily communal (Mahatma Gandhi and Maulana Azad were religious but not communal), a non-religious person or an atheist can also be extremely communal (Jinnah, Thackeray, Advani are good examples).

By communalism is meant not religiosity but the use of religion as the basis for political mobilization, or for nationhood.

By secularism is meant the insistence on a clear separation between religion and politics, between matters of faith and affairs of the state; by secularism is meant clear rejection of the idea of a theocratic state in the modern world.

To be secular is to affirm the universality of that principle, its applicability to all countries, irrespective of who constitutes a minority or majority.

Secularism rejects not only the theocratic state but also a majoritarian state that discriminates between citizens on the basis of religion, race or ethnicity; or, worse still, that pits one section of society against another. The claim that Hindu Rashtra would not be a theocratic state is no good news, because a non-theocratic fascist state can be worse.

Historically, secularism as a concept emerged in Europe in the 17^th century not in opposition to religion but only to resolve the problem of bloody wars between different sects of the same Christian religion: Protestants, Catholics etc. In countries where the official religion of the state was Protestant, Catholics were discriminated against and persecuted; and vice versa. To resolve this problem, initially the idea arose that while a State may have an official religion, the spirit of tolerance should govern its attitude to people of other sects.

Later, it was felt that this, too, is not enough since tolerance implies a relationship between ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’. It was then that the idea emerged that for people of different sects to coexist peacefully, it is essential that matters of faith are separated from affairs of the State, so that the State had no religion. This separation of State/politics and religion was understood to mean not equal respect for all religions — Sarva dharma samabhav as the RSS argues — but the State’s aloofness from religious matters.

To say that the State has no religion does not mean that the State is anti-religion. Nor does it mean that State heads or other State functionaries have to be non-religious or anti-religious, or that they could not go to pray in a church, mosque or temple. Or, to take another example, no religious education was to be permitted in state funded schools. This obviously did not mean that children were prohibited from learning about their religion, but only that it was left to parents and communities to make private, non-State, arrangements for religious education).

4. DEMOCRACY:

The section on Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution (Articles 12-35) spells out the rights guaranteed to EVERY CITIZEN. Without these rights, democracy will be meaningless, in India or elsewhere in the world. Above all else, the defense of the Constitution means reaffirming our faith in, and commitment to, the values and principles enshrined in this section on fundamental rights.

Of particular relevance in our context are the following:

EQUALITY BEFORE LAW:

Article 14. “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”.

Article 15. “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them…”

Right to Freedom

Article 19: “ (1) All citizens shall have the right

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions…”

Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.

(Both terrorists with BOMBS – so-called ‘jihadis’, the jung parivar – and criminals controlling MOBS – Sena or sangh parivar — who target innocents obviously have no respect for human life as is inherent in this article. That is why both MOB TERROR and BOMB TERROR stand equally condemned from a human rights perspective).

Right to Freedom of Religion

Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion: “Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion”.

But, sadly, in most situations of communal conflict in post-Independence India, the police and the governments of the day have behaved as if Articles 14, 15 and 21 do not apply to the minorities. It is virtually like a periodic suspension, denial of fundamental rights to the minorities. This is nothing but a mockery of democracy, an issue that Muslims for Secular Democracy will bring to public focus as often as may be necessary.

It is also evident that the Constitution guarantees these rights to individual ‘citizens’, or ‘persons’; these are not community rights. Put differently, these are rights for the ‘ultimate minority’: the individual human being. Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19) and the right to freedom of religion (Article 25) i.e., it is every citizen’s right to be a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Parsi, agnostic or atheist.

In any society, minorities — religious or cultural – have the greatest stake in the preservation of democracy because in that alone lies the real guarantee of the security of life, liberty and dignity.

While demanding that the State must protect the fundamental rights of ALL CITIZENS at ALL TIMES (not just sometimes), Muslims for Secular Democracy also unhesitatingly affirms the ‘fundamental duties’ of every citizen of India as spelt out in Article 51A:

“It shall be the duty of every citizen of India:

(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;

(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;

(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women”…

The history of all religions demonstrates that any and every religion can be interpreted in many different ways. Muslims for Secular Democracy sees no conflict between Islam, as we understand it, and the Constitution.

5. CRIME AND ‘SIN’

In a society governed by the Rule of Law, no citizen, not even a Prime Minister or President, is allowed to take the law in his or her own hand. Nor can ‘hurt religious sentiments’ be a justification for circumventing law.

The confusion that is common on this issue are best cleared by recalling some elementary principles:

• In a democracy, no citizen can be deprived of his life or liberty, except by the State and only through due process of law.
• Those whose religious sentiments are hurt (be they Hindus, or Muslims, or whoever) have every right to express their feelings in democratic, non-violent ways. But to take the law in your own hands is to invite anarchy in society.
• A secular State can stipulate punishment for CRIME; but it cannot provide punishment for SIN for it cannot entertain any notion of SIN.
• At best, the State can place reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. For example, the misuse of the freedom of expression to create hatred against a certain community is a punishable offence in India.  
• What is a sin and what is the punishment for the same? The answer to both is best left to God. (In its report on the violence against the Ahmediyas in Pakistan in 1952, the Justice Munir Commission appointed by the government had observed: “We cross-examined mullahs from all over Pakistan and no two of them were agreed on their definition of a Muslim. However, they all were agreed that Ahmediyas should be killed.”)

6. GENDER JUSTICE:

While observing that the oppression and exploitation of women is rampant in India – discrimination against the girl child, feticide, infanticide, dowry and dowry deaths, sexual violence, inadequate political representation – we uphold the principles of gender justice and non-discrimination between the sexes.

Muslim Personal Law:

Of particular concern to us are the issues of personal law and the uniform civil code. We believe that all existing personal laws, applicable to people of different religious communities, discriminate against women and therefore urgently need change. In case of Muslims, the theological defence of triple talaaq (instant divorce) and polygamy are unacceptable.

As for polygamy, census figures are quite revealing:

The 1991 census, that gives a state-wise break up of the population of the major religious communities, shows that the male-female ratio among the Christians was on top of the list with 994 women for every 1,000 men. The sex ratio among the Hindus was 925 females per thousand males. Among Muslims the sex ratio was 930 women for every 1,000 men while among the Sikhs the sex ratio was 888 women for every 1,000 men.

With Muslim men outnumbering Muslim women in the population, the sangh parivar’s insidious ‘hum panch’ (one man, four wives) propaganda is patently false and nonsensical. Is it being suggested that 25% Muslim males have four Muslim women as wives while the remaining 75% are condemned to remain unmarried? Or is it being suggested that a vast majority of Muslim men marry non-Muslim women?  

It is also evident from census figures that bigamy is much more prevalent among non-Muslims than Muslims in India. According to 1961 census figures, the incidence of polygamy is highest among the Adivasis (15.25%), followed by Buddhists (7.9%), Jains (6.72%), Hindus (5.80%) and, finally, Muslims (5.70%). Studies have also shown that the practice of bigamy has been on the decline in all communities in recent decades.

It is also a fact that in many Muslim countries family laws have been revised in respect of minimum age of marriage, polygamy, divorce, maintenance. For example, in most Muslim majority countries, including those that claim to be run on Islamic principles, instant divorce is prohibited. Similarly, polygamy is either prohibited or is permissible under specific circumstances and only after permission has been obtained from the courts and the existing wife. Thus, there can be no ‘Islamic’ justification for these practices to be permitted in India: they must be prohibited. (Our objection is not to the concept of talaaq divorce, per se, but to the practice among some Muslim sects in India of instant divorce).

In short, it is simply not true that what goes in the name of ‘Muslim Personal Law’ in India are God-given laws that are immutable and all Muslims are obliged to follow them:

• In India itself, the Muslim Personal Law does not apply in Jammu and Kashmir (the only Muslim majority state in the country) or in Goa.  
• As elaborated above, many Muslim countries have prohibited the practice of instant talaaq, and polygamy is either totally prohibited or permitted only under special circumstances.
• Millions of Muslims living in secular societies throughout the world enter into marital relations according to the laws of the country they live in. Yet, they don’t cease to be Muslims.

Uniform Civil Code:

In recent years, the sangh parivar has repeatedly invoked Article 44 in the section on Directive Principles in the Constitution that says: “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”

Why is it that the Hindutvavaadis who never tire of reference to Article 44 are entirely silent on other Articles (38-50) in the Directive Principles and which among other things stipulate that:

• “The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.” (Article 38.(1)
   
• “The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:
  that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood.” (Article 39(a)).
  that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women. (Article 39(d)).
  that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. (Article 39(f)). 
• “The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.”  (Article 39A). 
• Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases. (Article 41) Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. (Article 42). 
• Living wage, etc., for workers. (Article 43).
• Provision for free and compulsory education for children. (Article 45).
• Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections. (Article 46).
• Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. (Article 47).
• Protection of monuments and places and objects of national importance. (Article 49). (It is worth mentioning here that in 2002, sangh parivar goons destroyed well over 200 Muslim cultural and religious places during the BJP government-sponsored genocide in Gujarat. According to the Concerned Citizens Tribunal headed by three retired judges chief minister, Narendra Modi, was the ‘chief author and architect’ of that carnage).
• Separation of judiciary from executive. (Article 50).

Are these Directive Principles of no interest to the sangh parivar? The answer is simple: For the sanghi parivar, the question of a uniform civil code is not one of gender justice; rather, it is one more stick to beat the Muslims with.

On our part, however, we have no problem with Article 44 in which the word ‘endeavour’ was used by the Constitution makers for good reason.

India is a country of many religions, castes and tribes, who for centuries have had their own practices and customs in matters of family relations: marriage, divorce, maintenance, custody of children, guardianship, adoption, inheritance. 

We support any endeavour by the State to bring about a uniform civil code. Endeavour, in our view, can only mean encouragement of nationwide discussion and deliberation on the issue based on tentative draft(s) that could give citizens some idea of what a uniform civil code is going to look like.

Women and the Veil:

Among Indian Muslims, the purdah system that was on the decline in many parts of urban India, appears to have revived in a big way since the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the communal holocaust that followed in 1992. While respecting the right of individual Muslim women to dress as they deem fit, we condemn any attempt by any individual or organisation to force women behind the veil with threats of acid on the face and other terror tactics. Najma Heptullah, Benazir Bhutto, Shaikh Hasina or Khalida Zia do not cease to be Muslims because they do not observe purdah.  

7. FAMILY WELFARE/POPULATION CONTROL:

For many years now, the sangh parivar and other Hindu communal outfits have carried out a sustained propaganda that Muslims oppose family planning because they want to increase their population so that Hindus can be turned into a minority “in their own country”.

In the course of his ‘Gaurav Yatra’ to express pride at the genocide of Gujarat’s Muslims in 2002, Narendra Modi reverted to the “Hum do, hamare do vs. hum paanch hamare pachees!’’ canard. Hindus are being told that while a Hindu male marries only one woman and stops at two children, a Muslim marries four wives and produces 25 children.

This baseless propaganda has done immense damage to the image of the Indian Muslim in recent years. And this despite the fact that official statistics show that the practice of family planning among Muslims is only slightly lower than among others. According to the 1971 census survey, Hindus constituted 82.7% and Muslims 11.2% of the total population. The corresponding figures in the 1991 census: Hindus 82.6% and Muslims 11.4%. (Malayalam Manorama, 1992). In other words, only a minor change.

The slightly lower acceptance of family planning among Muslims is rightly attributed to the relatively greater educational and economic backwardness of Muslims.

As Dr. Ram Punyani has pointed out in an article in September 2002:

“Those in the better-off socio-economic and educational layer have lesser population increase, while those on the lower rungs of socio-economic educational ladder have higher rate of population growth. This conforms to regional, urban and rural distribution as well. Birth rates in Malabar region of Kerala, whose Muslim population is 40%, is significantly lower than those in Uttar Pradesh with a Muslim population of 15%. The contrasting case is that of Kashmir, a Muslim majority state. Here the fertility rate of Hindus is almost twice that of Muslims. Here again the birth rate was lower (31.4 per thousand) than in U.P (36.5), MP 36.4, Bihar 34.8 and Rajasthan 33.4.

“ We have to realize that the overall rate of population increase in educationally and socially advanced states like Kerala, Tamilnadu and Karnataka, is overall lower, both for Muslims and Hindus, compared to the rest of the country. Also let us have a look at urban rural divide. More than one-third of the Muslim community is concentrated in the peripheral and decaying areas of urban economic life. Incidence of urban poverty is higher among them by 17% (vis-a-vis Hindus). The number of Muslims living below poverty line is close to 65%. They are generally living in older areas of modern cities, which are well known for poor sanitation, lack of health facilities and basic amenities. On top of this, the repeated outburst of communal violence against them is ‘ghettoising‘ them with the result that improvement in their lot is becoming more and more difficult.

“Overall, one observes that there are multiple factors determining the rate of population growth, religion being very low on weightage scale, if at all it counts. Socio-economic betterment and education are the foremost factors helping in the control of population growth. Feeling of insecurity and poor socio-economic status counter the efforts to promote family planning (nee, welfare, which is the term conveying the goals of this exercise more precisely), and these two factors transcend the religious factor by a number of times.”

The problem is not that Muslims do not accept family planning in practice. But the mass perception, among Muslims and non-Muslims alike, is that Islam is opposed to birth control. That this is not so should be obvious from the following:

In two international conferences of Islamic scholars and theologians held in the early ‘80s, in which highly respected ulema from different Muslim countries participated, the consensus was that there is a difference of opinion between the different schools of Islamic jurisprudence over whether permanent methods of birth control (sterilisation) are prohibited in Islam. There was also a consensus that Islam not only does not prohibit, but in fact encourages common reversible (temporary) methods of birth control – coitus interruptus, condoms, copper-T, pills etc. (For the views of leading Islamic theologians and jurists from the 7^th to 8^th century A.D. on Islam’s attitude to birth control, see ‘Family planning in the legacy of Islam’, Abdel Rahim Omran, 1992).

·         The governments of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Iran have carried out mass propaganda in favour of limiting family size. In fact, in international circles, Iran and Indonesia are often cited as being the best examples of birth control campaigns in the developing world.

8. CULTURE AND RELIGION:

For the orthodox and conservative clergy from any community, religion is always in danger. So it is with Muslims. But educated, liberal-minded Muslims must know that the syncretic or composite culture that India is so proud of would have been impossible if people from different religions had not known how to distinguish between popular culture and essentials of their religion.

The lighting of diyas before a function, bindis on a women’s forehead or tika on a male’s, modes of dress, or marital customs prevalent in different regions are cultural practices. They have as little to do with religion as the different caps that Muslims may wear in different parts of India. Hinduism is not in danger when a Hindu wears a ‘Muslim cap’; nor is Islam endangered if a Muslim lights a diya.

9. CIVIC SENSE/GOOD NEIGHBOURLINESS:

In today’s urban environment, where people with different religio-cultural backgrounds and traditions are closely packed together, peaceful co-existence demands civic sense, a spirit of good neighbourliness, mutual accommodation and consideration for each other’s sensibilities. This is a demand that all citizens are expected to meet, irrespective of the religion or the region they come from. Muslims, too, need to examine some of their own practices in this context.

In recent years, Hindus have gone to police stations and even to courts complaining that the noise generated during some Hindu religious festivals add to noise pollution and therefore restrictions must be put on such activities. In a few cases, in Mumbai (Navratri festival) and Kolkota (Durga pooja), the courts have even issued rulings in favour of the petitioners, imposing restrictions. A complaint often voiced is that when you raise similar issues vis-à-vis the question of azaan through loudspeakers, Muslims see it as interference in their religion.

Similarly, there are issues like namaaz on the streets and qurbani inside a mixed housing colony with blood flowing down the drainage system during ‘Bakri-Id.’ Such issues are obviously not about interference in someone’s religion but about co-existence and good neighbourliness in a diverse society.

In any game of ‘competitive religiosity’, any minority can only lose. We, therefore, believe that the attitude on such issues should be not what others do but whether one’s own actions contribute to the creation of a more harmonious or hostile environment. 

10. HAJ SUBSIDY:

The question of state subsidy for Indian Muslims going to Mecca for Haj is frequently raised as a glaring example of ‘Muslim appeasement’. The sangh parivar keeps raising this issue every year to demand that the Government of India stop Haj subsidy. Many secular-minded people also oppose the use of taxpayers’ money, which includes non-believers, for subsidising religious activity.  

Opinion among Muslims is divided. Some are for it on the ground that there is nothing wrong, in principle, if a secular State subsidises religious activity of the poor among believers, so long as there is no discrimination between religions. On the other hand, very many people, including prominent members of the Muslim Personal Law Board, strongly oppose Haj subsidy. They argue that since Haj is a once in a lifetime obligation only for those with means, they will be happy if it is removed.

One thing is certain: There is a lot of confusion on this issue both among Muslims and non-Muslims as is obvious from the following:

Many in the travel and airline industry point out that what is called ‘Haj subsidy’ is in fact a subsidy for Air India. Haj pilgrims traveling to Mecca through the Government of India’s quota are obliged to travel with Air India alone. For the volume of business the hajis provide the fare charged by Air India is far too high.

In 2001, for example, over 1,20,000 Indian Muslims went to haj. Of this, the government appointed Haj Committee arranged for the travel of around 72,000 while nearly 50,000 went opted for the haj package tour offered by hundreds of private travel agencies. Both the government and the private travel agencies offer 3-4 different packages. In 2001, for the cheapest package Muslims traveling through the Haj Committee paid Rs.72,143, while the government paid an additional Rs.20,000 to Air India as air fare subsidy. (For 2001, Air India had fixed the return fare to Saudi Arabia at Rs.32,000 per passenger. Of this amount, the intending hajis paid Rs.12,000 while the Government paid an amount of Rs. 20,000 as subsidy to Air India). Thus, the total cost per haji was Rs. 92,143.

On the other hand, the cheapest package offered by the Mumbai-based Atlas Travel cost was only Rs.67,500, since the government does not pay any subsidy in case of hajis who opt for private travel agencies. That is why those in the airline business argue that what is wrongly called a haj subsidy is in fact an ‘Air India subsidy’.

It is obvious from the above that if the government were to disband the Haj Committee, Indian Muslims will pay less, not more, for haj tours organised by private travel agencies and without the stigma of haj subsidy.

Incidentally, in 1997, while disposing of a petition before him, Justice Tanvir Ahmed of the Lahore High Court had ruled that any expenditure defrayed by the government in subsidising hajis was contrary to the Shariat and therefore, wrong. Since then, the Pakistani government has stopped all subsidies for haj pilgrimage.

The editor of Muslim India and former MP, Syed Shahabuddin, has consistently demanded for the last 15 years that the Government of India phase out the haj subsidy. “I have told successive Prime Ministers of the country that this haj subsidy is there because of their political need; it has never been our demand. No Muslim leader has ever demanded subsidy”, he said in an interview to the magazine Communalism Combat two years ago.

When newspapers reported the 1997 Lahore High Court judgement, castigating the Pakistani State’s subsidy for haj, Shahabuddin was quick to make photocopies and despatch them to our own ministry of external affairs.

A report published in the The Indian Express on February 26, 2001, said during the tour of an Indian delegation led by the then foreign minister Jaswant Singh to Saudi Arabia in January 2001, the then Saudi ambassador to India, A. Rahman N. Alohaly, and the Saudi foreign minister, Saud Al-Faisal, had tried to impress upon the Indian delegation that any state subsidy for haj pilgrimage is “wrong”. “Our ulema will help you in explaining to your people that the subsidy goes against the spirit of the Shariat,” Al–Faisal reportedly told the Indian delegation. 

As soon as this report was published, the VHP’s senior vice–president, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, wrote to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and, quoting the Saudi viewpoint, demanded immediate withdrawal of the subsidy. “Even the ulema of Mecca have said that taking subsidy for haj was un-Islamic and robbed (it of) the very purpose of undertaking the pilgrimage,” he said in his letter.

Abdussattar Yusuf Shaikh, secretary, All India Muslim Personal Law Board and office bearer of a host of Muslim educational institutions is opposed to haj subsidy for the following reasons:
 

•      Of the five essentials of Islam, three are obligatory for all Muslims. These are: kalma (the declaration that there is no God but one and that Mohammed is his Prophet), namaaz (prayers five times a day) and roza (fasting during the entire month of Ramzaan). The remaining two are obligatory only for Muslims with adequate financial means to fulfil them. These are zakaat (annual Islamic tax payable according to a prescribed formula depending on the financial status of a Muslim) and haj (pilgrimage to Mecca). 
•      Haj is obligatory, only once in a lifetime and only for those Muslims who are both physically capable of undertaking the journey and have the adequate financial capacity. It is not obligatory for others. The issue of adequate financial ability has also been clearly specified. 
•      The money needed for the performance of haj should come out of one’s own legitimate earning or possession and the amount should be sufficient to meet the entire expenses to be incurred on the performance of haj. Among other things, this includes the entire travel expenses, whatever the mode of travel. 
•      Before embarking on haj, a Muslim pilgrim must ensure that he leaves enough money behind for the expenses of all his dependants during the entire period that he is away. Further, on his return he should be sure of adequate resources to maintain his current standard of living for at least the next six months. 
•      If there are pending family obligations (for example, if daughters are of marriageable age), they must be fulfilled before undertaking a haj pilgrimage.
•      All pending personal loans must be settled before one takes stock of one’s financial ability to perform haj.
•      In view of all these stipulations, haj subsidy is nothing but “bheek ka paisa” (alms) which is “no good” for haj. “The position in Islam is very clear. If I do not meet the required conditions, haj is not obligatory for me. Moreover, the most important consideration before Allah is my niyat (intention). If I sincerely desire to perform haj but do not have the means to do so, Allah will still grant me all the rewards due to a haji. On the other hand, if I perform a haj merely for show, it is useless before Allah. So, there is nothing wrong if the government withdraws this bheek ka paisa for haj”.

Muslims for Secular Democracy supports the withdrawal of all subsidies for any kind of religious activity, including the haj subsidy.

11. PAKISTAN AND THE ‘LOYALTY TEST’:

Muslims for Secular Democracy categorically rejects the two-nation theory propounded by Jinnah, Savarkar and others, and recognizes that Indian Muslims are the worst victims of the tragic partition of the country.

We believe that the formation of Bangladesh in 1971 was the strongest refutation, in practice, of the two-nation theory.

We assert that Indian Muslims are one with all fellow-Indians in their loyalty to the nation and we condemn the sangh parivar’s bid to demand from Muslims daily proof of the same. Official records will easily establish that the vast majority of government servants, defence personnel and others who have been caught for espionage activities, the vast majority are non-Muslims.

While condemning the handful among Muslims who burst crackers when the Pakistani team defeats India in a cricket match, we also denounce the insidious habit of the sangh parivar and its followers to use the words “Muslim”, “Pakistani” and “anti-national” as if they are interchangeable words.   

We endorse the view first articulated by Ram Manohar Lohia in the early ‘50s that though we do not accept the spirit that led to the creation of Pakistan, we cannot deny the reality of Pakistan.

Along with all the peace-loving people who constitute the vast majority both in India and Pakistan, Muslims for Secular Democracy supports friendly relations between neighbours and a nuclear weapons-free South Asia. We cherish the dream that all the SAARC countries will sooner than later come together to form a South Asian Union similar to the European Union that is already a reality.

But we recognize that Pakistan’s military establishment and the numerous ‘Islamic fundamentalist’ outfits overtly and covertly supported by it are a big hurdle in the realization of this dream. We condemn in the strongest possible words the merciless killing of innocent people in the Kashmir Valley and elsewhere in India by terrorists who claim to be ‘Soldiers of Islam’ but who in fact give Islam a bad name and heighten communal tension in India.

However, India’s ‘Hindu Taliban’ are no less an obstacle in the path of friendly relations between the two countries. The mutuality of interests between the two is therefore not surprising.

“The BJP suits us. We pray to God that they come to power again”, Abdullah Muntazar, the information secretary of Pakistan’s Lashkar-eTayyeba had told The Hindustan Times in an interview on the eve of Lok Sabha elections in 1999. Again on August 6, 2001, Abu Osama, the official spokesman of Lashkar-eTayyeba told Harvard University’s Professor Jessica Stern, “We pray for their (Hindu fundamentalist outfits) success because we feel that in the success of Hindu fundamentalism lies the survival of Muslim fundamentalism.”

“Secular India can slow the process of Islamisation of Pakistan and other Muslim states of the region,” he said, adding it was with the “creation of Hindu fundamentalist and militant organisations that Muslim militant organisations find breathing space in India.” (The Hindustan Times, August 11, 2001).

Ironically, the sangh parivar and its followers who claim to have the monopoly on patriotism and who constantly question the Indian Muslims’ allegiance to India are the ‘Islamic fundamentalists’ best friends!

This is not surprising, for ‘religious fundamentalism’ (‘political religion’, politics based on the tenets of a particular religion) and communalism (politics based on a religious community) have a lot in common; they legitimize each other. Being equally hostile to the values of a pluralistic secular democracy, ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ and Hindu communalism (Hindutva) are opposite poles of the same religion-politics axis: if fundamentalism manipulates power in the pursuit of religion, communalism manipulates religion in the pursuit of power. If theocracy is the self-conscious goal of fundamentalism, fascism is the inevitable outcome of communal politics since the communal agenda cannot be taken to its political and logical culmination in a democracy. So, Hindutva’s fascination with Nazism and fascism since its very inception, which is by now well-established by historians, should not surprise anyone.

If intolerance of others is an inherent part of both fundamentalist and communal ideology, the politics that flows from either also has many common traits:

    Indoctrination to promote prejudice and hatred against a section of society, instead of education that celebrates diversity and pluralism and upholds equal rights for all citizens;

    Hate speech and hate writing targeting minorities, instead of creating awareness in the masses on issues of common concern;

     Justification and valorization of violence instead of promoting respect for the Rule of Law;

     Threats, intimidation and terrorizing, instead of promoting a culture that encourages dialogue, debate and the right to democratic forms of dissent;

     Arms training and weapons distribution in preparation for violence, instead of initiatives for peace.

12. AGAINST VIOLENCE, PRO JUSTICE AND PEACE:

Muslims for Secular Democracy stands equally opposed to religious fundamentalism and communalism; it makes no distinction between majority and minority communalism. We acknowledge the need for sustained and uncompromising ideological battle against fundamentalism and communalism of all hues, and irrespective of the religion in whose name they seek to legitimize their anti-democratic, intolerant and often inhuman politics.

As a national forum of secular and democratic-minded Muslims, Muslims for Secular Democracy will be in the forefront in the ideological battle against fundamentalist and communal Muslim politics. Having said that, we fully agree with all secular-democratic groups in the sub-continent that fascist terror in the name of Hindutva poses the greatest threat to democracy and the religious minorities in India, just as fanaticism and terrorism in the garb of Islam are the greatest threat to democracy and the religious minorities in neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh. It will, therefore, join hands with other secular-democratic groups to fight the fascist challenge to Indian democracy and Constitution.

Along with others, Muslims for Secular Democracy is particularly concerned with increasing evidence of communalisation of the very State institutions and personnel that are duty bound to uphold constitutional values and practices and State complicity in the communal conflagrations. This is obvious from the findings of every commission of inquiry appointed by different governments in the states and the Centre to probe into the major communal carnages in the country.

·    The commissions’ reports categorically state that in all the incidents of communal conflict, one or the other segment of the Saffron Brotherhood were involved in the instigation and/or perpetration of violence; and

·    The report of every single commission indicts the police for dereliction of duty (ensuring law and order), encouraging violence against the minorities and at times even participating in them. These are not simply general observations. For example, the Srikrishna Commission (Mumbai pogrom, 1992-93), the DP Madon Commission (Bhiwandi, Jalgaon, Mahad riots 1970) and other commissions have named individual policemen – from constables to senior IPS officers – whose conduct showed clear communal bias and recommended their criminal prosecution.

In this context, the public statement of highly experienced and respected retired police officials like Ved Marwah (presently governor of Jharkhand), Padma Rocha (former director, National Police Academy) and serving police officers like Inspector General Police, Vibhuti Narain Rai, that no riot can last for more than 24 hours unless the government/police wants it to continue (in other words, if the riots still continue it means there is government/police complicity) assumes great importance.

Muslims for Secular Democracy demands that the political executive takes these observations of top police officials seriously and initiates exemplary penal action against all policemen guilty of communal conduct.

Muslims for Secular Democracy also joins other secular-democratic organisations in demanding urgent State intervention to check:

Teaching of prejudice: Close and constant monitoring of the curricula and the text-books used in all educational institutions, be they state-run or privately owned, RSS-run shishu mandirs, Muslim madrassas or missionary schools to check the promotion of prejudice in the name of teaching history or religion.

Hate propaganda: Prompt criminal prosecution of any and every individual, organisation or media group each time they engage in hate speech or hate writing to instigate hatred against any section of citizens. (Sections 153 A and 153 B, 295A, 298 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code).

Scotching of incendiary rumours: Prompt scotching of baseless rumours intended to inflame communal passions and firm action against the culprits must be part of a policeman’s obligation.

Arming/arms training of civilians: A complete ban on arms training (except by government agencies and other authorised bodies like the NCC etc), distribution of weapons like trishuls and swords and the carrying of weapons in religious processions.  

Acts of terrorism: Firm, non-discriminatory and exemplary penal action against any and every organisation and individual that engages in any terrorist act, be it small bands of jehadis armed with bombs or outfits such as the VHP, Bajrang Dal or the Shiv Sena instigating/leading hate-filled mobs.

Police/administration bias:

·    Immediate suspension of the district collector and the police chief (commissioner/SP) if violence is not brought under control within 24 hours;

·    Full state compensation for loss of life and complete rehabilitation of victims of rioting by restoring their homes and sources of livelihood.

·    Special drives to ensure adequate representation of all communities in the police force;

Communal abuse of draconian laws: In the past, the dreaded TADA had to be withdrawn because, among other things, it became notorious for being used as a communal weapon against the minorities. POTA is now being similarly deployed in Gujarat and Maharashtra. The blatantly discriminatory abuse of POTA by the Narendra Modi government is evident from the fact that while all the accused, young and old, in the Godhra tragedy or the murder of former Gujarat minister Haren Pandya have been booked under POTA, none of the accused in the genocide against Muslims post-Godhra have been booked under it.

Muslims for Secular Democracy joins the entire human rights community in demanding the scrapping of this draconian act.

Muslims for Secular Democracy is being launched with a commitment to join all secular-democratic forces in the effort to build a pluralistic, secular-democratic, pro-people Indian polity.

October 2, 2003

Participants in the first national meet of ‘Muslims for Secular Democracy’ in Mumbai/Signatories to the Declaration, October 2, 2003:

MUMBAI/THANE

Javed Akhtar, (President), Poet, Lyricist, Social Activist

Gulam M. Peshimam, (Convenor), Businessman, Social Activist

Hasan Kamaal, (Vice President), Columnist, Poet, Lyricist, Social Activist

Sajid Rashid, (Vice President), Senior Journalist, Social Activist            

Javed Anand, (General Secretary), Senior Journalist, Social Activist

Abdul Kader Mukadam, Columnist, Social Activist

Abdul Hannan, Social Activist

Afsar Hussain, Social Activist

Aftab Khatik, Student,Social Activist

Ahmed Ali Khan, Businessman, Social Activist         

Arif Kapadia, Social Activist    

Asif Khan, Cartoonist, Social Activist  

Aslam Parvaiz, Playwright

Ayub Khan, Computer Professional, Social Activist

Babasaheb Kazi, Researcher, Social Activist

Dawood Dalvi, Ex-Principal

Ebrahim A Khan, Social Activist                  

Farhat Khan, Teacher,Social Activist

Farrukh S. Waris, Educationist,Social Activist         

Fazal Shaad, Bookseller, Social Activist

Imran Jahangir, Draftman,Social Activist         

Inayatullah Bhatkar, Businessman,Social Activist

Irfan Khan, Corporate Executive

Irfan Mulla, Draftman,Social Activist

Javed Siddiqui, Writer           

Mahmood Ayubi, Journalist              

Mohammed Haroon, Social Activist

Mughal Gazala, Ex-Principal, Social Activist

Muqaddar Hameed, Writer, Urdu Fiction

Perwaiz Waris, Documentary Film-maker, Advertising Professional, Social Activist          

Razia Chougule, Social Activist

Rubeena S. Parkar, Advocate, Social Activist

Salam bin Razak, Short Story Writer

Salim Dawawala, Architect, Social Activist

Salim Janjua, Social Activist

Shafeeque S. Parkar, Advocate, Social Activist

Syed Firoz Ashraf, Social Activist      

Syed Nusrat, Social Activist

Taizun Khorakiwala, Businessman

Taufeeq R. Kidwai, Corporate Executive

Yacoob Rahee, Poet, School Principal, Social Activist

Vaqar Kadri, Writer, Social Activist                  

Yasmin Agha, Social activist

ALLAHABAD

S.M.A. Kazmi, Advocate

BHOPAL

Askari Zaidi, Journalist           

CALCUTTA

Nishad Alam, Dy. Secretary, Urdu Academy, (West Bengal), Social Activist        

Zahir Anwar, Director, Playwright, Headmaster                           

 

DELHI

Zafar Agha, Journalist                      

HYDERABAD

Ali Asghar, Social Activist

      JALGAON

Khaleel Deshmukh, Gram Sarpanch, Social Activist

      KOLHAPUR

Humayun Mursal, Social Activist

      MALEGAON

      Abdul Haleem Siddiqui, Journalist, Social Activist

      PUNE

Anvar Rajan, Social Activist             

Anwar Shaikh, Retired Government Servant, Social Activist

Razia Patel, Social Activist

Yasmin Shaikh, Social Activist

(For further details please write to: Muslims for Secular Democracy, P.O. Box 28253, Juhu Post Office, Mumbai- 400 049. Or Nirant, Juhu Tara Road, Juhu, Santacruz West, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400049).

---