India Muslims - Election Fodder?

A Fatwa for Secularism

On Wednesday, we discussed the welcome fatwa in favour of the vote and democracy that was recently issued by the Darul Uloom Deoband. For as long as we can remember, the Indian Muslims have been used as election fodder by several political parties that claim to be secular without understanding the meaning of the word and its implications in the political context. If anything, the brand of secularism that these ‘secular’ political parties practise is no more than a form of pseudo-secularism that is effective in securing votes. It is an irresponsible brand of secularism because it does not make the minority religious groups of India responsible even for what passes for secularism among politicians.

The impression created is that only the majority religious group of India, namely the Hindus, has a responsibility for creating and sustaining a ‘secular’ milieu, and that the minority religious groups may simply be the beneficiaries of that secularism practised exclusively by the majority group. This is certainly no way to ensure secularism anywhere because it is not an article of faith with all communities with each one working actively to sustain such a secular state. And so, while the Darul Uloom Deoband has done well to issue a fatwa that it is “the responsibility of every Muslim to cast their vote irrespective of political likes and dislikes” it will do well to take the next logical step to proclaim that while the Sharia may have a place in an Islamic theocratic state, it really has no place at all in a secular state.
The only logical option open to a secular, democratic republic is to have a single set of laws (both civil and criminal) that are applicable to all citizens regardless of their religion.

The US Constitution does not make a song and dance about the republic being secular. But it remains so in every sense of the term. One recalls how President Ronald Reagan, aspiring for a second term in office, hit upon the idea of garnering the Roman Catholic votes. He mooted the proposal that there should be the singing of hymns in every American school before classes were held for the day. He even had large groups of school children surrounding the Capitol and singing hymns while the proposal was being debated in the House of Representatives. However, as the debate progressed, the House came to the conclusion that such a proposal was improper in a secular state even when it had a Christian population in excess of 90 per cent. In fact, his own party men turned down the proposal.

The first double standard about having the Sharia personal law for Muslims in India alongside the laws for everyone else is that such a demand should have been raised in a secular republic. It is only in India that they can make this demand and have it conceded. They cannot do it in any other secular country of the world. The second double standard stems from the fact that Indian Muslims want only a part of the Sharia personal law relating mainly to marriage, divorce and inheritance. If the Sharia is the law of their choice even in a secular republic, why do they not demand the entire gamut of Sharia laws including the criminal laws? Here indeed is a classic case of wanting the best of both worlds.

Australia is the first democratic country that has made it clear to Muslims citizens that it will not tolerate parents telling their children that the laws of Australia are for others and not for them and that they have another law. The Australian Prime Minister has stated categorically that such parents who had the freedom to settle in Australia and to earn their living in that country, had another freedom if they did not want to follow the salient principles of a democratic system: a parliament, rule of law, total faith in the democratic system and the same law for everyone — they also had the freedom to leave.

It is unlikely that the present generation of Indians will say this, but if ‘secularism’ begins to be seen as the responsibility only of the majority, the day is not very far off when the tolerance and the liberalism that the majority in India has always evinced will yield place to the kind of intolerance that is alien to our ethos. However, this is inevitable in a milieu where a different personal law also encourages polygamy only among the Muslims and threatens a kind of unfair demographic change that is already manifesting itself.

Another good Editorial from "The Sentinel" of Assam.
No further comments from me.
It expresses my views.