This is election time in India and communal talks are selling like hot cakes. Omar Abdullah of National Conference has negated Islamic intolerance in Kashmir valley by telling that Kashmir has given Kashmiriyat to the world. Shazia Ilmi, the Aam Admi Party leader, has told that Indian Muslims are not sufficiently communal. Azam Khan, the fire brand Samajwadi Party leader from Uttar Pradesh has threatened Modi for his Hindu agenda. Lalu, Mulayam, Sonia, Nitish and Mamata have branded Modi as mass murderer of Indian Muslims.
Omar's Kashmiriyat is Muslimiyat and does not include Kashmiri Pandits. His father has closed the door by accusing that Kashmiri Pandits were forced to leave the valley during the President's rule and Islamists were not responsible for the plight of Kashmiri Pandits. By extension, he also justified the displacement of Pandits from Kashmir. Neither son nor the father tells that they will bring back the Pandits to the valley and ensure their safety.
Shazia's lamentation of Indian Muslims being less communal may not be a pointer of her future political activities. But active pockets of Islamic terrorism have been created in different parts of India. Barring Punjab, Haryana and Orissa Islamic terrorists already have visible presence in all other States of the country. The pseudo-secular and pseudo-Socialist Indians point towards the two main causes of Islamic terrorism in India, viz: (i) underdevelopment in Muslims and (ii) Hindu militancy. They fail to explain as to how the most prosperous State in India (Punjab) went though bloody militancy in past decades. Hindu militancy is highly deplorable; but since when, why and with what dimension and intensity is this present in India? Hindu militancy, in whatever manner it is, has no out side support. But Islamic militancy in India has financial, logistic and political supports from Pakistan. Trained militants are sent to India via Kashmir, Nepal, Bangladesh and lately Sri Lanka.Anybody remembers Md Kasab or Afzal Guru?
The bitterest enemy of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan will agree that a much publicized Hindu majority country like India does not make any difference to him to propagate Islamic hegemony. Historically Lalu and Mulayam grew and thrived on MY (Muslims & Yadavs). No one asks, if Muslims were benefited in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh during these two "Chhekularists'" rule.
Sonia, the boss of Congress party, also joins the secular bandwagon balancing between her Roman Catholic orthodoxy and false secularism of Congress party. Nitish, the poor chap feared to be over-shadowed by Modi, left NDA and suddenly became a pole bearer of secularism of Bihari style. The least one tells about "Bohurupi" Mamata is better. Her mercurial temper and neurosis go fine with her Muslim loving which is made visible in Muslim majority places of West Bengal by her praying for "Dua" with both cupped palms and covering her head like rural Bengali Muslim woman.
The above mentioned Indian political leaders (both Hindu and Muslim) give an impression that in human history of the world the communal disturbance started with demolition of Babri mosque and ended with Gujarat riot and only Muslims were victimized in the process. They show a very high degree of anxiety about the (?)uncertain future of Muslims of India. They find Hindu agenda everywhere except their parties. They cry hoarse on Sachar Committee Report that Muslims are less developed in India. They tell distorted truth and belittle Indian Muslims only as vote bank even after more than six decades of independence.
For the sake of religion-based 'two nation theory' of Muslim League, Islam became obligatory for Pakistan. So Pakistanis have all along enjoyed the liberty of torturing and persecuting non-Muslim minorities. In the initial years after independence Bangladesh showed some tolerance to non-Muslims but later took the path of original big brother Pakistan. Whatever counter-argument one can put forward, the fact is established by the steady and rapid decline of non-Muslim population proportion in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
On the top of this, millions of Bangladeshi have entered India illegally during past decades and got settled in all major cities and Eastern States of India. In major cities they give cheap labour. Because of vote bank politics, all political parties except BJP (I am no supporter of BJP and wish it remains away from power) will deny this fact. Instead of calling them Bangladeshi infiltrators, these parties call them 'Bengali speaking Muslims'- a dangerous terminology for West Bengal's future. Out of seven Northern-Eastern Sates of India, non-indigenous people can purchase land in three, viz: Assam, Tripura and Manipur. These three States have seen unprecedented growth of Muslim population in past decades. The current communal problem in Bodo area of Assam has its root in such demographic change.
The other day while commenting on Modi's statement on Bangladeshi infiltrators, Biman Bose (CPM leader of West Bengal), told that Modi was talking of "Bongal Kheda". But Biman was totally ignorant about meaning of this term, its genesis and application. "Bongal Kheda" is an Assamese term meaning 'drive away Bengali'. The term was used between early sixties and eighties of last century in Assam when innumerable atrocities were committed on Bengali speaking Hindus of the State to drive them away. Assamese were fearful of losing their cultural identity and job prospect before the Bengali Hindus of Assam. This ethnocentric paranoia of Assamese was an old disease since British period and was aptly reflected in agreeing for plebiscite in Sylhet district of the then Assam during partition, as well as, celebrating (in the then Assam State Assembly) the going of Sylhet to Pakistan as 'amputation of cancerous growth'. During all "Bongal Kheda" events, Bengali speaking Muslims were spared by calling them as "No Ohomia" meaning neo-Assamese. Most of this Bengali speaking Muslims used to tell "Amaago bhasha oshomya" or "Aamrar bhasha Aasami", i.e. 'our language is Assamese' to identify them with Assamese. Now no more Bongal Kheda occurs in Assam. It has become most Muslim populated States in India. Where from so many Muslims came? "Amaago bhasha oshomya" and "Aamrar bhasha Aasami" tell that they were not from West Bengal. When 11 Bengali youths gave their life before police firing in Silchar (Assam) on 19 May 1961 for the sake of Bengali language in Assam, Jyoti Bose (leader of Biman Bose) termed that incident as insignificant local issue and his Communist Party remained silent. Biman Bose should know what is talking about before fooling around.
The demographic shift in favour of Muslims of India is found in the fact that during 1991 census proportion of Muslim population of India was 12.5% which increased to 13.4% in 2001 census. The religion-based data of 2011 census of India have been suppressed by the Congress government till date. A 0.9% increase in proportion of Muslim population in India between 1991 and 2001 amounted to millions in absolute number. And nobody knows about the quantum of further increase during 2011 census. Such is the level of hypocrisy of so called secularists of India. For the record, proportion of Muslim population during first census (1881) of undivided India was 20%.
In independent India secularism was made one of the pillars of its Constitution and there has not been any change (unlike Bangladesh) in it ever. Therefore, though Hindus and Muslims of this sub-continent had a common history at least for five hundred years, their destiny suddenly became totally different on 14-15 August 1947. Indian "Chhekularists" never felt or feel morally bound to take-up the issue of minorities' plight in Pakistan and Bangladesh. They conveniently forget about the minorities of these two countries and shamelessly wash their hands from taking any responsibility.
All said and done, I keep on asking one question: "Is a common Pakistani or Bangladeshi better than a common Indian"? You know that the answer is a big NO. Indian pseudo-secularists may shed crocodile tears about the underdevelopment of common Indian Muslims. But what about the poor state of common Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslims where so called Hindu hegemony is non-existent? The fact of the matter is: Religion is bull shit and religion base politics is the worst form of bull shit. Socio-economic development of the common people of any country depends on the honesty, sincerity and good governance by its political leaders and participation of all sections of people with out prejudice. Any deviation would prove to be catastrophic for the country.
In these terms, if you allow me to grade the three countries of Indian sub-continent in descending order, my choice will be India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. But India's Muslims must be on the guard against its pseudo-secularist political leaders and narrow minded Ulema. The latter are equaly responsible for the backwardness of the common Indian Muslims.