वो दिन गए जब खलिल मियाँ फाकता उड़ाया करते थे। It’s an old aphorism in Hindustani which translates to “Gone are the days when young Khalil used to fly pigeons”. For the uninitiated, keeping pigeons as pets and flying them was a favorite pastime in Lucknow till not very long back. It was called Kabutarbaji. Today, at an elevated level, the aphorism remembers the days gone by. But, in actual, it acknowledges the changing realities of life. Khalil-miyan is an imaginary, quintessential Lucknowite with nawabi ways.
Lately, Khalil and I have been watching television as also YouTube videos for discussions on the issues that concern Indian-Muslims or are claimed to be occupying them avoidably. These discussions, almost always, insinuate that the current environment in the country interferes in their socio-religious affairs and that they are being wronged like never before. Since when? No prizes for guessing the answer right. It all started in the year 2014 ! Who all participate in these discussions? The noisy variety from the ruling dispensation. Representatives of political parties in the opposition who helplessly watch their electoral relevance slipping through their fingers like sand, election-on-election. Then there are some somebodies who are too embarrassed of their political leanings and, therefore, moonlight as political analysts. Some nondescript, rabble-rousing religionists are also thrown in, in small measures, to give some religion-linked legitimacy to these discussions. Khalil and I decided to explore some of these issues. and the underlying grouses. We agreed that we will only mention of the issues, build the background, raise questions, make suggestions without being pedagogical and leave the rest to all to firm up their opinions.
India is for Indians and those who are legally in the country. Mocking at this basic premise, there are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh (two crore), Myanmar (ten lakh) and Pakistan (twenty-three thousand). Not only are these illegals a drain on India’s resources but quite a few of them pose serious law & order problems. Smuggling, theft, robbery, drug-peddling and prostitution are the crimes they are often found indulging in. Rising above the mundane in the world of crime, they have now started influencing / interfering in the electoral processes of our country. Worst, these immigrants pose serious threats to India’s national security given the volatility in India’s relations with the neighbors like Pakistan and now, Bangladesh. It would be of interest to know that a failed nation like Pakistan deported over 17 lakh Afghan nationals over two years during 2023-25. An apology of a President, Donald Trump of the USA deported around 16,000 Indians in just about one year. Regrettably, the Government of India could deport only around 5,000 illegal immigrants in ten years during 2014-25. Ironically, it’s the government led by a political party which cried itself hoarse against illegal migrants when it was in the opposition earlier. Whilst the government drags its feet on the issue; it is not surprising to see a section of Indian-Muslims and some self-proclaimed liberals raising one issue or another every time deportations are talked about. Why? Because majority of these illegal immigrants are Muslims? Why is that any attempt to deport the illegals is projected as at cross-purposes with the interests of Indian-Muslims? If religion is the main reason for empathy for these illegal immigrants, should Bangladeshis not return to Bangladesh now that the radical Islamists are managing affairs of the country? Alternatively, shouldn’t illegal Bangladeshis in India take shelter in Pakistan, a self-appointed custodian of the ummah (the community)? Wouldn’t Rohingyas be more comfortable living in Pakistan or Bangladesh, leveraging the commonality of religion? As regards the Pakistani illegals, they should be the first to be deported, in a mercenary manner, given their country’s track record of terrorism in India. Is there any equivocality that these illegal immigrants are not refugees? If the answer is a no, why should there be issues in their deportation? Drawing a personal parallel, would we welcome squatters in our own homes?
India got seduced to the idea of avoiding ripples in the silent waters of its cultural & religious diversity when it came to applying civil laws uniformly to all its citizens. The British chose to create Personal Laws ostensibly to preserve diverse, religion-specific civil practices but, in actual, only to buy peace. That’s what is turning out to be a problem today as efforts are made to implement Uniform Civil Code (UCC). On one hand we have the constitution which guarantees religious freedom to all and allows religious groups to continue with their practices. On the other, we have the country which rightfully seeks equality in treatment of its citizenry, especially women. In an evolving society, social practices are expected to adapt themselves to the changing times. Including those which have linkages with religion. Why? The society earns its legitimacy through acknowledgement and correction of social wrongs. Hindus witnessed multiple corrections in its socio-religious practices. Abolition of Sati-pratha (self-immolation by a widow at her husband’s pyre), illegalization of baal-vivah (child marriages), affirmative actions to right the wrongs perpetuated by the varna-vyavastha (caste system) and gender inclusivity are some examples. These corrections were considered integral to evolution of the community and accepted without much fuss about being transgressions into the religion. Aren’t Triple-talaq (divorcing one’s wife by pronouncing “talaq” three times on one sitting), Nikah-halala (pre-conditions before a woman remarries her former husband) and polygamy some examples of Islamic practices which are out of synch with today’s world and need a serious relook at? Should Indian-Muslims view interventions by the society (or by the courts) in such practices as denial of the wisdom of “divine decree” or transgressions into the realm of religion?
Let’s pull in some data. Since independence till 2025, India has witnessed 96 major riots involving 13,623 deaths. The unofficial figure is 30,446 deaths. This does not include the lives lost in the madness during the partition of India in 1947. Nearly 79 (82%) of these riots have Muslims as one of the parties, leading to 9,977 (73%) deaths. Sidestepping the reasons underlying the riots, will it be inappropriate to suggest that such Muslims need to stop viewing violence as an essential tool to seek answers to most their questions?
Only an idiot can deny that there are two major prompts to most riots in India i.e., politics and religion. Whilst keeping a profounder discussion on the subject for another occasion, Khalil and I decided to play ball with the popular dichotomy i.e., pre-Modi (1947-2014) and Modi (2014-25) periods to examine the issue. The pre-Modi period saw 72 (75%) riots as compared to 24 (25%) during the Modi period. Howsoever morbid the comparison may be, the pre-Modi period saw 13,437 (99%) killings against 186 (1%) after Modi started helming India. Continuing with the dichotomy for involvement of Muslims, pre-Modi period saw 67 riots (9,958 killings) as against 12 (19 killings) during the Modi period. Shouldn’t the pre-Modi
leadership own up the responsibility majorly ? Will it be correct, therefore, to conclude that Modi may be their bête noire but he is not the reason behind the issues facing Indian-Muslims, contrary to the narrative that is sought to be created?
Pakistan was created 78 years back. A vast population of the Indian-Muslims (3.5 crore out of 4.2 crore) rejected the promise of a la-la land by Jinnah and chose to stay back in India. Of the 70 lakhs who left for Pakistan, nearly 50 lakhs were from East Punjab. This speaks volumes of the interest that Muslims in the other parts of India had in Pakistan. Those who stayed back knew very well that India would not patronize any religion like Pakistan. They still made their choice to stay back. Regrettably some Indian-Muslims of today harbor, inexplicably though, great love for Pakistan. The love which is often demonstrated in sloganeering after Friday prayers, Pakistani flags hoisted at roof-tops of some homes, war-cries in cricket fields during India-Pakistan matches, rants in public gatherings by some political / religious leaders of the community, speeches in support of pro-Pakistanis in some academic institutions, pro-Pakistan posts / shorts in the social media and Kashmir-banega-Pakistan type songs played in roadside tea-stalls / salons. One may agree to ignore all these as mere irritants. But in remorseless betrayal of the motherland, some of these pro-Pakistanis actively connive with Pakistan (predictably, on the sly) to hurt India, Indian cause and Indians. Isn’t it the same Pakistan which carries out acts of terrorism in India in pursuit of its nefarious agenda of bleeding India with thousand cuts? To recap, India has witnessed about 37 major incidents of terrorism, leading to over 1,400 deaths, which have inescapable Pakistan connections. One wonders why this love for Pakistan? Because it’s a country inhabited almost 100% by Muslims? Here is a reminder to such people that India has nearly as many Muslims as Pakistan. Shouldn’t all Indians speak unequivocally and act more decisively against these pro-Pakistanis? Though the nightmare of 1947 has been assigned to the dustbin of history, isn’t it about time such pro-Pakistanis are given another opportunity (and one-way tickets too) to relocate to Pakistan for good?
National Register of Citizens (NRC) aims to inventory all Indian citizens and identify (and deport) all non-citizens who are in the country illegally. Creating fear and panic across the nation, NRC was opposed tooth & nail by its detractors, branding it as a tool to deprive Indian-Muslims of their citizenship. Post the violence and arson in 2020, NRC continues to remain a proposal. Is NRC a religion-based exercise? If there are issues relating to eligibility to citizenship or evidence to be provided therefor, can’t a consensus be built amicably and validated by the Supreme Court for its constitutionality? Shouldn’t Indian-Muslims acknowledge that it’s not fine to allow over two crore illegal immigrants to continue to create law & order problems and pose a threat to India’s security. Can India’s demographics be allowed to be vitiated only because a section of the community and a few political opportunists carry unfounded apprehensions about the intent of the NRC?
A sense of persecution is attempted to be created among Indian-Muslims in most discussions. The issues which seek corrections of historical wrongs through legitimate means are projected as anti-Muslims. The campaigns which examine events for underlying conspiracies are termed conspiracies themselves. The dispute relating to Bhagwan Shri Ram Janmabhoomi was adjudicated by the courts and accepted by all. Similarly, other disputes including Lord Vishweshwar temple (Varanasi) and Bhagwan Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi (Mathura) can be resolved by the courts basis the evidence produced before them. Where is the persecution angle here? The films like Kashmir Files (on killing and mass exodus of Pandits) or Kerala Files (on women trafficked to a jihadi terrorist outfit) or Bengal Files (on genocide of Hindus) chronicle events and related facts. These films were certified by an empowered entity (Central Board of Film Certification) as fit for viewing. Those in doubts about veracity of the events / facts of these and similar films, need to seek remedies from the courts of law rather than resort to rumour mongering. Do these movies become anti-Muslim simply because the perpetrators of crimes chronicled therein were actually Muslims? Aren’t such narratives blatant attempt to instill an unfounded fear in the community, pinpricking them to respond more negatively?
Most recent discussions on the issues facing Indian-Muslims have an overarching concern which is seldom spoken of but ghost-guides the subterranean agendas i.e., growing pan- India Hindu nationalism. Is this new avatar of nationalism discomforting because its majoritarian and Hindu? Let’s try to put this new version of nationalism in perspective. Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism are homegrown religions of India. Islam was an outlier. Arrival of Islam in India in the 7th century saw voluntary conversions initially. But the subsequent history of its expansion carries blood, gore, killings and destruction as dominant themes. Take the invaders (Qasim, Ghazni, Ghori, Chengiz Khan, Timur, Nader Shah, Abdali etc.) or the rulers (Mamluk, Khilji, Tughlaqs, Moguls etc.). Almost all of them had a stab at forced-conversions, massacre of non-believers, razing of Hindu places of worship and undermining of Hindu values. One wonders as to why wasn’t this era of India’s history recorded in greater detail and widely circulated? Consider this, the British Raj of almost two hundred years is near-sufficiently chronicled for its pluses and minuses. But common Indians were opium-ed, through the state-authored history, and kept from horrific details of the history involving Muslim invaders and rulers. The generations that grew up after independence were exposed only to a dumbed-down version of India’s Pre-Raj history. As a result, their sensitivities to the socio-religious issues of import were fed on a make-believe (if not synthetic) version of the reality. The Machiavellian electoral politics of the post-independence period, emboldened by successful British mantra of divide & rule, created a
paradox. The Hindu majority was socio-politically minoritised. They did vote, electorally speaking, to decide their future but in an environment where wheels (read social, religious hierarchies) were cleverly inserted within the political wheels to render Hinduism inconsequential in the larger scheme of things. Concerted efforts were made, successfully at that, to embarrass Hindu religious principles & practices and dilute the community’s control over its own affairs. This made the community confused (if not apologetic) about their Hindu credentials. There were no unifiers of the diversity inherent in Hindu social and religious orders. But deep down, the community had a sense, shapeless though, that its being short-changed. The situation was taken a clever advantage of by a political outfit, Bhartiya Janta Party, which chose not to be apologetic about the majority of Hindus. Rather, it wore Hinduism on its sleeves. It sensitized Hindus as to how they were psychologically conditioned for decades, post-independence, to not to value its own strength and draw therefrom. Today, the idea of Hindu nationalism resonates reasonably successfully among masses, seeking to demolish old political constructs of castes and geographies. Some may call it a push-back which is fine as long as it is civilized and remains straitjacketed by the laws of the land. Socio-politically speaking, this Hindu nationalism is like riding a tiger which will be well-nigh impossible for anyone to hop off in future. The question is if this development, which aims to heal psychological wounds created by post-independence political dispensations, is a reason for Indian-Muslims to worry? Should Indian-Muslims allow the leadership of electoral politics build a narrative of fear and project Hindu nationalism as an existentialist threat to the community? Shouldn’t Indian-Muslims acknowledge the larger objectives underlying the Hindu nationalism and join hands to ensure that this new form of nationalism eventually collapses into a singular nationalism that transcends all its variants?