Why are Muslims opposed to Sangh Parivar?

Constitution of a country or a nation is a sacred document as it not only determines the political, social, economic and cultural direction of a country but also prescribes the limits of governance by defining and highlighting its basic structure. Its provisions enable us to distinguish between what is a pro country activity and what is an anti country activity. Under the constitution one enjoys all freedoms, liberties and rights; details of which are a known fact. The constitution is administered through three Pillars Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.

India became free on 15th August, 1947 after remaining slave for 90 years under the British. For getting this independence entire Indian Nation unitedly fought the war of independence against the British and ultimately they had to quit India. At national level, Indian National congress was the only recognized organization which was guiding the entire nation under the patronage of father of nation Mahatma Gandhi. Clear majority of the country was with this party and its leadership who believed in unity in diversity, equal respect to all religions, political, social, cultural and economic structure based on mutual faith and a society free from narrow mindedness and communalism and these were the clear programmes of congress and it had the support of almost all the classes. However, one class each in majority and minority was in favour of Hindu Rashtra and Pakistan respectively. Both of these classes were also against the congress ideology as well as the leadership of Gandhiji. Those who favoured Pakistan, they got a country for them and settled in it. The said country came into existence comprising of the provinces with Muslim dominated population, barring a few exceptions as discussed above. Preachers and supporters of Hindu Rashtra had to stay in India and they are living here with their unfulfilled agenda, pricking them every now and then. Congress has always been challenging the bonafides of RSS, Hindu Mahasabha and other Hindu organizations vis-à-vis freedom struggle; it is a debatable issue and I do not want to go into more details of it. But no one can deny it that they were also in favour of freedom but they wanted a free and independent Hindu Rashtra and not a secular India. Pakistan movement was inter alia born because of hard stand, statements, movements and activities of such elements. Partitioned India and a weak Pakistan was a part of the British political strategy to which some elements in both the communities provided strength. However, even after independence, such elements did not give up their agenda. They just changed their strategies.

It is the prerogative of every community to have a government of its choice but it should come in an orderly manner. However, all civilized nations have agreed through various international human rights instruments that only a democratically elected govt., having firm conviction in democracy, can protect human rights and no other system of govt. is acceptable to the civilized world. Now the whole world is a global village and all of us are bound to follow international norms and there can not be any justification for a govt. to be established against the spirit of the constitution and by flouting its provisions. However, Jana Sangh, later BJP and now Sangh Pariwar which is comprised of more then thirty organizations, is going forward with Hindu Rashtra agenda but they feel that the so called secularism or pseudo secularism, as they call it, and Muslims are the greatest obstacles in the accomplishment of their objectives. Other obstacles are cultural, linguistic and geographical diversities, division of Hindu Samaj on the basis of castes and classes, the elites and the common men, boundary and river disputes among states, increasing terrorism and militancy. At the moment I would like to confine myself to the Indian Muslims and Sangh Parivar.

Indian Muslims have undisputedly supported congress for four and a half decades and played a pivotal role in providing political, economic and social stability to the country. The result is our national institutions are so established that they are stable even in politically instable conditions and no one can raise a finger in respect of our positive and constructive role though the other side has not been so accommodating and favourable . We have been subject to atrocities in communal riots, wakf properties meant for the welfare of Muslim community were grabbed and we were treated like second rate citizens, confined to our ghettos. Many mosques were converted into picnic spots by handing over them to department of Archeology, we are not even two percent in government jobs, our percentage in non-government commercial institutions is 4 percent, Engineering 2 percent, medical 2.5 percent, IAS 2.86 percent, IPS 2 percent, Income Tax officers 3 percent, class I officers 3.3 percent, Bank employees 2.18 percent, similarly in the field of education, industry and trade we are almost insignificant. Even then it is alleged that congress and other secular parties have been appeasing Muslims and they are Muslim friendly.

We are Indian citizens and have equal rights under the constitution but every thing is given to us as a concession. Our religious scholars and leaders have contributed a lot during war of independence. Impact of Muslim saints on Indian society doesn't require any proof. The role played by Moulana Azad in the division of Punjab and Bengal has changed the geographical map of India. Is there any other example identical to that of the dutifulness and patriotism of Brig Usman in Kashmir? Is the sacrifice of Ashfaqullah less than that of Sukhdev and Bhagat Singh in any manner? Is there any match to Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the tiger of Kashmir, or Dr. Abdul Kalam, father of India's atomic and space programme (Who is also the president of India at present). Thus, the history of patriotism right from Abul Kalam to Abdul Kalam has no match and it is a matter of pride and dignity to all of us. But our protest regarding discrimination still persists.

In this background, let us analyze honestly as to why RSS and other constituents of Sangh parivar does not find favour with Indian Muslims. May be that this petty effort changes the heart and mindset to some extent. The foremost thing is that we are not against persons; we are against such ideology, policy, programme or activity that hurts or strikes at us, our faith and sentiments, our religious, linguistic and cultural identity and related values. We have developed a sense of deprivation and inequality. We feel insecure. Muslim psychology has also a role to play in our relations with Sangh Pariwar. This must be kept in mind.

Sangh Parivar is the champion rather a symbol of purely Hindu Rashtrawadi Power, known by Muslim society, be it pre partition or post partition, for its anti Islamic and anti Muslim writings, speeches, statements, political and social movements. About it we have the impression that they want to purify India by carrying on a movement on the pattern of genocide of Muslims in Spain. They consider that entire Muslim population in India is the result of forcible conversion from Hinduism to Islam. According to them every person living in India is a Hindu irrespective of the religion he or she professes and practices. They consider eight hundred years old Muslim rule as the period of slavery. They consider and present Muslim rulers as cruel, invaders, and aggressors. By way of distortion They present concocted history, which is neither authentic nor is corroborated by valid sources of information, as original history and present such a picture and image of Islam and Muslims that the reader forms a biased view that Muslims are aggressors and criminals. They object to Muslims offering prayers facing towards Kaaba, which is in Saudi Arabia. They also object to our Arabic or Persian names on the ground that we live in India but have love for these foreign languages. They also ask us to why we associate ourselves with Islamic or Muslim history instead of owning five thousand year old culture based on Bhagvad Geeta, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Vedas, Puranas and Manu Smiriti etc. It is said that Muslim rulers who are termed as our ancestors forcibly converted Hindus to Islam, got their temples demolished, built mosques in place of temples and destroyed Hindu culture Even now they[ the Indian Muslims] are maintaining proximity with the Muslim world.

Why do they not sing Vande Matram?

Why do they refuse to worship Saraswati?

Why do they not apply tilak on forehead?

Their opposition to uniform civil code is unconstitutional.

They are the murderers of mother cow (Gau Mata).

They also use other derogatory words like Mulla, Mian Ji and Katua, the one who believes in innocent killings.

They claim to be Indians but are Pakistanis by heart. They are not reliable and so should not be considered as patriots.

They should be treated like historical buildings which will which are most likely to crumble and subsequently vanish with the passage of time.

Their contribution is not required in national development.

They should have no representation in Legislatures, Government departments, Executive and Judiciary, Army, Police and other paramilitary forces, secret agencies and Defence and Research institutes of sensitive nature.

Why should they also be provided with special constitutional safeguards?

If they could not be thrown away out of the country then at least they may be made ineffective and insignificant in the political, social and economic setup of the country.

Muslims like Mir Jaffer and Mir Sadiq must be adopted and uplifted. `Sarv Dharma Sambhav' is proved false.

They should be crippled to such an extent that they are at our mercy and dance to our tune.

And now it is the responsibility of Sangh Parivar whether they want to carry on with this history, false propositions, stereotyped notions, closed mindset and firm belief in never tested opinions or they want to make a genuine effort towards conciliation and re-conciliation.

Sangh to which we the Muslims of India know is a hard core militant pro Hindu and anti Muslim socio-political outfit. An organization and its cadre describes our grand mosques as temples, claims Taj Mahal was to have been built on a Hindu Structure by Shahjahan, taking pride in razing to the ground 400 year old historic Babri Masjid, illegitimate demand to surrender historic mosques in Kashi and Mathura where regular prayers are being held, openly flouting the provisions of Places of worship [special provisions] Act1991, construction of Masjids, Khanqahs and religious schools, described as the execution of ISI mission, communal approach towards Christianity, their Holy places and Holy Bible continues to persist. Can they continue with this agenda in a civilized world of which India is an integral part?

A dialogue or conciliation is possible only if the situation is assessed objectively and the parties concerned are willing to undertake an exercise to change their hearts. Why this rift? Prior to its analysis, certain facts require urgent cosideration.

"First of all, Aqeeda (Faith) and Aqibat (Life after death) are two such matters on which no compromise is possible in Islam. As a faith It is a complete way of life which regulates every walk of our life, be it the system of government, Muslim-Non-Muslim relationship or their conduct in a non-Islamic system of governance etc".

In Indian perspective since the constitution of India treats us equal and at par with other Indians, grants fundamental rights and all kinds of liberties and freedoms including religious freedom, we should be loyal to the country and participate in its educational, cultural, political, social and economic development as Islam teaches us to be faithful to our country. We can love India and Islam simultaneously. There is no conflict between the two. Likewise, if our country is compelled to be at war against a Muslim country, the Indian Muslims will remain faithful to India. In spite of being the followers of the same prophet it is mandatory for them to be faithful to their country.We are constitutionally bound to be loyal to the country as we have also adopted this constitution as the people of India. The position of constitution is like that of a covenant, which binds all of us equally. People and policy makers must always keep in mind that Islam is the religion of peace and does not sanction aggression, violence and killing of innocent persons. It promotes peace, reconciliation and pacific resolution of all disputes. Treaty of Hudabia is its quotable example. Politicians must take all these things in the right stride. In case of any religious problem they may approach Dar-ul-Ifta and seek their opinion in the light of Quran and Sunnah. Both the elite and common Muslims have the right to accept or oppose or accept partly the opinion, decision, authority or strategy of the politicians. However, if Darul Ifta issues a decree in the form of fatwa, it is the duty of each Muslim to respect it and abide by it. Any deliberate attempt towards disrespect and disobedience shall amount to the violation of the spirit and sanctity of Sharia and more so it is being considered as commission of sin. The religious intellectuals and great muftis of Afghanistan had announced Jihad against Russia and they emerged victorious in it and this great power of the world received defeat at the hands of a remote and an undeveloped nation and later its result in worldly affairs and politics is a sad story.

Concept of Ummah

The Muslims of the entire world are like a body. If a needle is pierced into a part of the body one feels as if entire body is hurt. It is a Hadith of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) and there is no contradiction in it. According to his Hadith, a Muslim irrespective of the place he belongs to has a religious relationship with all Muslims wherever they may be. Therefore, the suffering of a Muslim pinches every other Muslim. If the violation of a human right can pinch, rather should pinch, every other human being in the world there is nothing unnatural if a Muslim also develops such a feeling.

It should be remembered that Islam is a universal faith and we, the followers of this faith, should never be misunderstood. History is a witness to our sacrifices and patriotic ventures all over the world.

K a f i r

(Who disapproves, disbelieves and discards Islam, as a religion of nature)

Kafir, as a term is the most misquoted, misunderstood and misused term of Islamic vocabulary. In fact to those who do not believe in the historical perspective of Islam as a faith, deny its connectivity with the mankind right from Adam to Muhammad, disapproves its present status, rejects its future dispensation (which retains till the Dooms day), discard it as an ultimate means of salvation, believe in the notion that there can be more than one religions of one Master (the Lord of the universe), denies the status of a Prophet to Muhammad, rejects his position as a seal on all the previous Prophets who came in all the regions and all the races and a belief that Islam is the consummation of all religions is considered as disbeliever or non believer. In Quranic terminology such a person is called a Kafir.

Other religions do not offer such a terminology. For example if a person is not a Baha'I, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jew, Sikh or Zoroastrian he is described as non Hindu, non Christian or a non Buddhist whereas Islam categorizes the humanity in the following manner:

a) Those who believe in Islam and accept Muhammad as the last Prophet of God are MOMINS. Some people describe Muslims as Mohammedans which is technically incorrect. It gives the impression as if each prophet creates a new identity whereas Islam believes in maintaining the same identity of the mankind right from its inception since its origin, route and source is the same.

b) Those who believe in revealed version of faith, Holy Books, Prophets, Day of Judgment, Accountability to God and Life hereafter but do not believe in all the Books and all the Prophets are termed as AHL-E-KITAB. For example Jews believe in all the prophets and all the Books up to the Moses but deny Jesus Christ the status of a Prophet and to the New Testament as the word of God. Likewise Christians accept Moses as the prophet but denies Muhammad the same status. Both of them in Quranic terminology are termed as AHl-e-Kitab. Muslims of all schools of thought around the world accept Moses and Jesus both as prophets and if they deny to this formulation of faith they cease to be Muslims.

c) Those who believe in the aforesaid details of faith but do not believe in the oneness of God, depicts God's eternal attributes in physical formulation like (Idols) are termed as MUSHRIKS.

d) Those who do not believe in the aforesaid details and deny the total structure of religion, Institution of God, structured mechanism of the revelation of the word and will of God shall be termed as KAFIRS.

e) Those who claim to believe in Islam but do not practice it in totality are termed as MUNAFIQS (The Dubious).


Jihad is a revolutionary concept which directly means consistent efforts for the salvation of mankind from the social evils like disbelief in truth, wickedness, injustice, coercion, atrocities, hatred, general hostilities, inequality, social disparities and disorder, psychological dirt, obscenity, ignorance, illiteracy, narrow-mindedness, extremism, violence, social divide, breach of faith, breach of peace, dishonesty, neglect of human dignity and human rights. It calls for intensive individual and collective effort to establish or facilitate the establishment of a just political, social, economic, moral and humane world order. It demands from the sane and sensitive mind to raise its voice against all forms of injustice. It awakens the deceased mind and transforms it into a vibrant soul. It prompts the civilized society to prepare itself for positive contribution, construction of innovative thoughts, acts of creativity and fresh approach to decision making process and mode of governance. The spirit of jihad is reformation and not annihilation or murder. It is a pious concept associated with a good cause and nothing else".

Islam accords highest importance and priority to the safety, security and dignity of human life. It disapproves killing of innocent people for any reasons and on any pretext. It is opposed to taking refuge in places of worship, causing damage and destruction to them and commits heinous crimes like murder. Suicidal attacks causing loss of human life is the negation of the concept of Jihad.

"In the Indian context no call for Jihad has been given by any religious institution or Dar-ul-Ifta. Committing such crimes in the garb of Jihad could be the worst that can happen to this holy concept".

Jihad is permissible in exceptional situations only after a mandate from religious scholars competent to issue such a mandate and representing various schools of thought and their institutions having jurisdiction in such matters.

If a person is found involved in activities prejudicial to the security of the country or its interests, stern action must be taken against him in accordance with the law.

"I take this opportunity to condemn all acts of terrorism committed by individuals, organizations, political movements, states and governments in and around the world. Here I also want to call upon the prominent Muslim Theologians in India and around the world to find and evolve an international mechanism to declare what is Jihad and what is a terrorist or militant attack. The organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) can take lead in this".

Let us now take up honestly all the issues which are confronting the mind of Sangh Parivar and the Indian Muslims.


We can never accept this ideology and the reason is that we call our country India, Hindustan or Bharat and accordingly we can be denominated, termed or described as Indians, Hindustani or Bharati respectively. As far as the word' Hindu' is concerned, the believer of Hinduism is known as a Hindu like a believer of Islam a Muslim, believer of Christianity a Christian. The word `Hindu' can not be imposed on us and we can not be forced to change our convictions just to please only a few. Our psyche can't be put to ransom. The solution lies in the word "Bharat" and not `Hindu'. Even the short title of the constitution uses the word `India, that is,' Bharat'

(A charge by Muslims)

The aspirations of Vishwa Hindu Parishad are very high since the opening of locks of Babri Masjid in 1986, starting of Ram Janam Bhoomi movement and thereafter, the demolition of Babri Masjid the VHP feel themselves to be too powerful and therefore, have been making all baseless and senseless allegations against Muslims. It is briefly stated that the agenda really close to their hearts is that India should be the land of Hindus only with no Christian or Muslim inhabitants, may be they desire to achieve this goal through Spain like genocide, which they are reluctant to pronounce in the open.

They should not forget that Arabs went to Spain like The British came to India. There was no regular Muslim population in Spain. And for their information in the same Spain all the history treasures of the Muslim period have been turned into tourist sites and the mosques are being re-opened. It is a practical impossibility in this civilized world. In the world war Hitler got killed six million jews which was almost half of their total population, the community survives and it is considered as one of the most prosperous, progressive and dominating communities in the world. Even the state of Israel is one of the strongest nations of the world too. We are one fourth of the world population and Islam, even today remains the fastest growing religion in the world. It is better if they take up genuine missions like population control, eradication of illiteracy, caste menace, untouchability, equal distribution of wealth, environmental protection etc. which they will have to take up sooner or later. Thus, Shudhi movement led by VHP in its present formulation must be done away with.


Forced conversions by Muslim rulers are the creation of biased historians and self-styled historians. It was the message of humanity given by our saints and preachers that resulted in such conversions. Kings did not play any role. I would like to conclude by just narrating two examples— about seven hundred fifty years ago more than 70,000 seventy thousand non Muslims embraced Islam at their own volition through Hazrat Khwaja Moinuddin Chisthi and about eight hundred years ago by Hazrat Data Ganj Baksh Lahori was able to convert about one lakh and twenty four thousand non Muslims joined the Islamic fraternity. Can any one quote or lay one's hands on any instrument indicating that they did it by brandishing the sword? There may be some stray cases but exceptions can never be treated as a rule. Islam flourished in developed countries like America and Europe at a better pace. Former president of America Bill Clinton had also stated so. Has an elderly lady of Kerala, namely, Kamla Dass has been converted forcibly to Islam recently? In America, Mohammad Ali, the then world-boxing champion, became Muslim by renouncing Christianity at the time when he was on the top of his career.

Once the widow of Maharaja of Jodhpur Jaswant Singh by writing a letter to Aurangzeb, which is termed as the most orthodox Muslim king, had offered that his minor son be converted to Islam, Jazia be recovered from the Hindus of her state and temples in her state be demolished but Aurangzeb turned down her request. Aurangzeb gave money from the royal treasury for the construction, repairs and maintenance of the temples. What may be more convincing examples than this that he had given Mount Abu, Pali Tana Girnar mountains to the followers of Jainism free of cost on behalf of his government to promote and develop their religious shrines. In a reply to a letter from Maharaja Chittor he ensured him that the tradition of his ancestors with regard to religious freedom and policy of mutual harmony will be maintained and be implemented strictly. During his regime the number of Hindu Mansabdars was three times more than that of Akbar's regime. The period of eight hundred years was long enough to get rid of all symbols of Indian heritage but probably the then rulers had no such intent. Just see Masjid Quwwatul Islam at Mehrauli, New Delhi in respect of which the Islamic scholars have issued a fatwa that Masjid can not be built over the place of worship of another religion. A number of other such examples may be

Similarly, history has a number of such other examples. Muslims had never been victorious in Indonesia, Malaysia and china but this stretch has Muslim population of over 35 crores. Had Islam spread forcibly there? George Bernard Shaw had anticipated dominance of Islam in Europe. When Stalin was offered to accept Islam; he said that it was too late. Islam has a natural and spiritual attraction .There is no scope for forcible conversion in Islam or even in Christianity. God has given power of discretion to a man and now it is he who has to adopt the religion of his choice. Islam gives credence to good qualities and attributes; number is immaterial. Muslims may be a few in crores but they should possess good moral character and play exemplary role failing which they will bring bad name to their religion. Moreover culture and civilization run like blood in the veins of every community and it cannot be brought to an end. Just take the examples of the Turk Muslim States in central Asia, which had been under great world power of Russia for more than eight decades but on getting freedom, their true colour of being Muslims came to light. Today the volumes in which the construction of Masjids and religious institutions is taking place in central Asian republics bears testimony to this fact.


Indian Muslims do not accept this proposition for the basic reason that though the Muslim rulers came from outside but they treated India as their country. They ruled, lived, died and were buried here. Even today their heirs are living in this subcontinent. Had it been a period of slavery, the first war of independence would not have been fought under the leadership of the last Mughal king Shaheed Bahadur Shah Zafar? Why did congress associate itself with Khilafat movement? Why Khilafat movement was merged into congress? We consider that the period of British rule was the only period of slavery. Muslims, during their entire regime had never considered the Hindus as their rivals rather treated them as their allies. Muslim rulers always gave a reasonable representation to Hindu majority in their cabinet, executive, army and related fields, far more what we the Muslims as a minority are getting in democratic India. They remained dominant in industry, business, trade, education, marketing, banking and other financial spheres. Had Muslims not considered India as their country, Nawab Sirajuddaula and Tipu Sultan would not have fought against the British in Bengal and Mysore respectively, Ashfaqullah Khan would not have been hanged and Moulana Abul Kalam Azad not opposed the partition of India.


Whatever has been and is being written by certain Hindu fanatic elements about Islam and Muslims is not hidden from any body. Muslims are being presented as an aggressive, sentimental, extremist and misguided lot. They are described as dirty, politically immature, illiterate, foolish and mischievous. Muslims are given lessons to join "national main stream" but they are given inhuman and degrading treatment by these elements. Muslims are subject to discrimination in offices, markets, government and non-government agencies, residential localities, business, trade and commerce, appointments, promotions and other spheres. Let these elements think of the allegations they make and the language they use against them in their private conversations and decide themselves about the validity and authenticity of their accusations against Muslims, Islam, verses of Holy Quran, the Prophet [through publications like Rangeela Rasool] , the concept of Jihad, polygamy and showing disrespect to Islamic scholars calling them Mullahs and making provocative statements, distributing handbills against Muslims and simultaneously asking them to cooperate. Let these elements extend the hand of true friendship to Muslims and show little of respect to them, they will definitely reciprocate and accept them with open arms and open heart but Rome is yet to be built.


Islam is a global and universal concept as also a natural system to which welfare of human beings is of paramount importance, covering the whole universe and all creatures, living or non living, apparent or not apparent between the land and skies, right from day one of the creation of this world. It has come into existence as the only source of guidance to human beings over billions of years through a chain of one lakh twenty four thousand prophets, Prophet Mohammad being the last one and this is very essence of it. Namaz is another important pillar of Islam after Tauheed (belief in one God) and it is the duty of each adult man and women to offer namaz five times a day. There are two kaabas in this world. One is Baitul-Muqaddas which is presently under the occupation of Israel while other one is Makkatul Mukarrama, Saudi Arabia. In the early days of Islam, all Muslims used to offer namaz facing towards the earlier Kaaba i.e. Baitul-Muquaddas. When Prophet Mohammad prayed to God seeking permission for all Muslims to offer prayer facing towards Kaaba in Makkha which was built by Hazrat Ibrahim. His prayer was answered and his face, by the grace of God, turned towards Kaaba during prayer itself. Since then all the Muslims have been offering namaz facing towards Kaaba at Makkah. It is an universal practice and one feels immense pleasure in doing what their Prophet was doing. However, in Haram Sharif, where the building of Kaaba is situated, Namaz is offered facing all directions. It does not mean that God is omnipresent in one side and not elsewhere. Besides all this it is a question of discipline and logic too. As and when you have an assembly of people it has to have a direction and all those who constitute it are expected to follow the suit. It is also a question of social order and discipline.


Muslims are generally adopting this practice of having such Persian or Arabic names which are associated with God, the prophet, elderly and other respectable personalities commanding respect in Muslim society. People in other communities also adopt names on the basis of such analogies, such as, Rama, Krishna, Durga or Saraswati. Islamic names generally find mention in Quran and Hadith and are in Arabic. Arabic and Persian are closely linked languages. Arabic is the language of Quran and Persian has been the official language of India for centuries. We should remember and understand the historical perspective. Now these extremist elements object to their use saying that Muslims live in India but have their names in Arabic and Persian. The objection is not sustainable. A Hindu living in any part of the world keeps a Hindu name and so are Christians, Jews and Buddhists. What is there to object?


The basis of this accusation is the philosophy according to which each person living in India is a Hindu and as such he must adopt Hindu culture and traditions. This is a wrong notion. How can we accept 33 crores gods and godesses? We respect Lord Rama and Krishna and all others as heroes of Hindus. We respect Vedas, Bhagwad Geeta, Ramayana, Puranas etc as religious scriptures of Hindus. We accept Quran, Bible, Zabur (the psalma of David) and Taurat ( the old testament) as our religious books, Holy Quran being the last and final message of God and shall continue to consider it as our religious book till the day of judgment. Let our Hindu brothers reconcile to it and avoid widening of gulf between these two communities. There is a practicality element in each situation and one should not try to deliberately avoid that. Even majority of Hindus do not accept their communal agenda.


Our bond of global Islamic fraternity is natural and it is not against any one. It is a spiritual relationship exclusively for this purpose. We share each other's grief and rightly so, as explained above. It should not be misread. We have the same Islamic history of more than fourteen hundred years and it does not create any conflict with national history. While living in a Non-Muslim society we are at liberty to cherish our religious values and religious history in the spirit of our constitution which grants such freedom to us. We support Arabs on Palestinian issue. We support Iraq against USA. We opposed Yugoslavia in Bosnia and Russia in Chechnya but on the national front we support India, be it Kashmir issue or some other issue. Islamic scholars of this country had also played an appreciable role during the war of independence.


Muslims dominated the Indian political scene for more than eight hundred years and enjoyed absolute power when there was nothing like UN charter. Had it been their mission to vanish Hindu culture, thousands of Hindu temples would have been demolished, Most would have been razed to the ground, all Dhams and peeths would have been ruined and holy cities and temples like Kashi, Mathura, Ayodhya, Tirupati, Balaji, Puri, Haridwar would have lost their identify. Few temples had suffered damages and that too partly. Same is the position of Mahabalipurm near Madras. However, Somnath temple and few more here and there may be quoted as an exception and these exceptions were committed during war time. There is not a single instance to quote in peace time. Babri Masjid, in a democratic India was razed to ground by the civilized society in peace time and the present government machinery while witnessing the unholy act of demolition remained just mute spectator. Muslim kings always respected feelings and sentiments of Hindus. There are no communal incidents of violence in the total period of Muslim rule. They contributed funds for construction, repair and maintenance of temples from royal treasury. They never interfered in religious activities and rituals and even celebrated Holi and Diwali in their Darbars. Even today in Pakistan and Bangladesh few temples were damaged as a fall out to destruction of Babri Masjid but they were repaired, renovated and re-instated to their original grandour at the exepense of the


Vande matram means that Bharat may be considered as our creator. We as Muslims can not reconcile to it as our creator is Almighty Allah We can call our country"mather-e- waton" i.e. mother land. It is a political and social term. We can't accept Bharat our Creator and the land as godess. Turn over the pages of history which is full of the sacrifice of thousands of Muslim religious scholars and so many Usmans' and Hameeds' and many others who laid down their lives in the name of their motherland and not in the name of Bharat Mata. Result is the same. Why should there be a war of words? Let the things happen in natural course and artificiality should not be attached to avoid unnecessary rifts. Saraswati Pooja, applying Tilak on forehead, garlanding a picture, offering flowers, bowing down at Samadhi and saying Namaskar also fall in the same category. Muslims have nothing against persons performing such rituals but they have their own religious rituals and practices to follow.


As far as we are concerned it is halal (legitimate) for us. However, it is not the only halal animal that we need to eat or without which we can not survive. It is not to be eaten compulsorily. It is banned in Muslim dominated Sate of Jammu and Kashmir. Leaving those states of India where Christians, Hindus and tribes prefer beef all other states banned its slaughter. In the past it was banned in Muslim state of Hyderabad. Mughal rulers specifically focused on respecting Hindu sentiment with regard to the sanctity of cow. It is not an issue for our society. The Government can put a nationwide ban on it if consensus is possible among non Muslims. Islam teaches us to avoid controversies, violence and conflicts among people. It is the religion of peace and tranquility. Muslims may favour ban on cow slaughter respecting the sentiments of Hindu brothers in the true spirit of Islam.


In this matter, the Indian Muslims are completely bound by the provisions of the constitution of India which provides that the state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India but the words `shall endeavour' should not be interpreted as `shall impose'. The Apex Court has also given various rulings to the effect that this provision can be implemented by consensus amongst all the parties. However, we oppose it because of our faith. If there is a clear mandate on any matter in Holy Quran or Hadith, which are the very basis of Islamic jurisprudence, we are bound to abide by it. Matters relating to marriage and inheritance are exclusively related to our personal laws. There is no scope for interference in such matters. Every religion has its own rituals and rules and marriages are solemnized and other ceremonies are performed in a specified manner. The jumbling of these matters may create social and physiological confusion in the society.

Uniform civil code does not have the support of the majority of this country including all the secular political parties and more than two third majority of Lok Sabha. It is the BJP and Sangh Parivar who want it to be imposed. Their stand is that Muslim women are subjected to great injustice and they should be treated at par with men but at the same time they oppose reservation for Muslim women in the parliament and assemblies. Recently Muslims were given five percent reservation in Andhra Pradesh and they opposed it. During elections only a few tickets are given to Muslims and that too to only those candidates whose defeat is almost certain. Thus, sympathy with Muslim women is mere lip service. The reality is that they want to destroy our family system. They want our women to revolt against Islam. Islam had put them at higher pedestal fourteen hundred years ago and granted them rights in property when the term succession to women was unknown to other societies. Let our religious scholars remain vigilant and see that what is ordained in holy Quran and contained in Hadith is fully acted upon and Muslim women are not burnt for dowry and forced to commit suicide like our Non-Muslim sisters for whom we also pray for happy married life. Our Hindu religious scholars must also raise their cudgals.


As dealt with in discussion on patriotism, Sangh Parivar thinks that Muslims live in India, earn here and eat here but they praise and have love for Pakistan or Islam and as such they are not worthy of trust and be considered as traitors. Such is the mentality of a very small group even in BJP. As far as Islam is concerned it teaches Muslims to be united but it prohibits to have malice for other than Muslims. The position with regard to Pakistan is that it is our neighbour. We share thousands of kilometers of border with it. There are common historical, cultural, social, religious and political bonds between our two people and the countries. As a true Indian, a practicing Gandhian, a faithful Muslim and a good neighbour I and we all need to be the well wisher of Pakistan and its citizens. The famous quote of Atal Bihari Vajpayee that friends and foes can be changed but not the neighbours. My religious bond with Pakistan as a Muslim country and a Muslim Society do not require any denial at my end. As a nation it has been our national policy to maintain good neighbourly relations with Pakistan. All governments in the past and present including the one led by BJP have been conducting accordingly.

In peace time, we the Indian Muslims, both as Muslims and as Indians are friends and well wishers of Pakistan and in times of war and general hostilities we are on the forefront of sacrifice and act in the supreme national interest. This is what Islam teaches us and this is what makes Islam a truly dynamic religious faith with an inbuilt and inherent universal appeal. And this is how exactly we conduct our selves.


If we are the citizens of India and have contributed equally in its development and have the same constitutional rights, why this demand is taken as such? If 20 crores of population of India is backward educationally, economically, socially and politically, this country can never become a developed country. If Hindu backward castes, schedule castes and scheduled tribes may be granted reservation on the basis of educational, social and economic backwardness in order to bring them at par with other segments of Indian society, why the same yardstick not applied to Muslims? The stand of sangh parivar on this aspect is absolutely anti Muslim and anti very spirit and essence of the Indian constitution. Reservations given in Karnataka, kerela, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh should not be attributed to be communal or linguistic and such other narrow considerations. BJP must adopt a realistic and judicious approach. Instead of opposing it they should support such moves and champion the cause of this great community failing which they can never emerge as a viable alternative of congress at the national scene. Political, social and economic justice also demands it.

We the Muslims are not less than 17% of total Indian Population and therefore, legitimately demand proportionate representation to this extent only in all walks of life. This includes Centre and State legislature, District bodies, Municipalities, Gram Panchayats, Centre and State government services (all categories), Education sector, public and private and the same share in the national wealth, development, resources, structures and strengths. What is wrong in it?


Hindu Muslim brotherhood can not be promoted by making untenable claims that thousands of mosques are temples, Taj Mahal is a Hindu religious place and that demolition of Babri Masjid deserves glorification or that kashi and Mathura mosques were constructed over temple land. These things will promote fundamentalistm, hatred and aggressive overtones. Constant provocation may lead to chaos, disorder and communal riots. We have paid and are paying a heavy price for the terrorism in Punjab and Kashmir. We should not engulf the entire country with it. Our parliament has enacted a law namely "The place of worship(special provisions)Act,1991" in October 1991 which provides that status quo be maintained in respect of all places of worship as on 15th august, 1947. Sanctity of law should be preserved by one and all. Sangh parivar and its allied organizations must accept it openly and let the Ayodhya dispute be decided by the court. All big Muslim organizations and known personalities have expressed their positive attitude towards prospective court decision.

I have expressed things in their right earnest but the situation warrants change of hearts and the present bent of psyche and stereotyped mindset. The extremist elements must understand that Hindustan (India) is complete only when both Hindus and Muslims get fully integrated. This big population of 20 crores can neither be eliminated nor thrown into the sea, nor suppressed and nor ignored for ever. Let them be a part of national fraternity. They should not be discriminated in any walk of life. Our national history must also contain stories of their patriotism and sacrifices for the country. Let us be hand in glove with each other.


Here I also want to suggest to the leadership of RSS and VHP that their policies and programmes are based on extremism, fanaticism, obscurantism, fundamentalism and parochialism which in this age of economics are not going to find necessary acceptance and popularity among the majority community itself because they are simply disastrous both for us as a nation and also as a country.

You need to understand once for all that we the Muslims of India are the single largest segment of Indian population and are going to be here for all times to come. We are never going to ask for separation from India. We solidly believe that India is our homeland and motherland both. We shall live here and die for its unity as and when situation so warrants. We have full faith in the constitution of India and also repose our total faith in the vast majority of secular Hindus who shall never help you gain the ground in Indian politics.

With the present mindset, working mechanisim, policy, programme, tone and tenor where remains the scope for patchup and conciliations. Just to substantiate this thought a news clipping from a leading English Daily is presented for everybody's perusal

Indian Express

Dr. Sangh's dose for Parivar

RSS recipe for strong nation: A Hindu should produce at least 3 kids, ever 17, to save demography. (False threat of unprecented increase in Muslim population of India)

Pradeep Kaushal, New Delhi, November 17

He and his fellow pracharaks may have taken a vow of celibacy but that did not stop RSS Sarsangchalak KS Sudarshan from calling upon fellow Hindus to go forth and multiply— "Produce" at least three children each.

"Not less than three, you should produce as many as possible (teen se kam nahi, aap jitna jyada kar sakein utna achcha)," Sudarshan said after releasing book — Religious Demography of India — brought out by the Centre for Policy Studies.

He asked Hindus not to getinto the trap of slogans like "Hum do, hamare do" and "hum do hamara ek" so as to keep the "demographic composition" of India intact.

To underline this point Sudarshan leaned on some bizarre mathematics. He said that a couple with 12 sons were likely to be survived by a 1,200 strong progeny after 120 years. The one with 11 sons would have 1,100 successors. Those with three sons, would have 38 descendants, while couples with two sons would show a zero increase.

"The family line of people with one son would be snapped," he added.

"It is high time for both of you to re-examine your total philosophy and working. To my mind the ideal course in the present national and international scenario for you would be to accept Gandhian philosophy as the true Indian philosophy, Nehruvian style of governance as the Indian model of governance and Moulana Azad's belief in Indian secularism as the key to India's unity. And if this happens it will help BJP emerge as a political alternative to Congress. This is what India needs for its political stability, strengthening of its democratic roots and more so for the sustenance of it as a nation which remains as a model of "unity in diversity" for the rest of the world to ameliorate".