A Journey

A Journey

1988 9 September 23-29 A Journey (2898) On August 23, 1986, a conference on Communalism and National Integration was held in the Dr. Alma Latifi Hall of Bombay. A wide range of religious and social organisations, including the AI-Risala Friends Circle of Bombay, co-operated in the organization of this Conference, and the Chief Editor of AI-Risala, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, was himself among the participants. Impressions of his journey, which lasted from the 22nd to the 24th of August, 1986, first appeared in the Urdu AI-Risala in October 1986. Continuing our series on recent journeys undertaken by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, we publish here an abridged, translated version of that account.

Bombay – Venue of Conference on Communal Harmony:

I arrived in Bombay on the 22nd of August and stayed for two nights at Land’s End Guest House on Malabar Hill. It was appropriate that a Conference on Communal Harmony should be held in Bombay for, besides being the seventh largest city in the world and the commercial capital of India, Bombay is a truly cosmopolitan city. People belonging to every religion live there. Hindus make up approximately fifty per-cent of the population, while Muslims. Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Parsis and Jews constitute the remainder. Here, every language of India is spoken and even some foreign languages are in evidence. The most commonly spoken language, however, is Marathi.

The Conference Opens:

The Conference began on the morning of August 23, at 10 a.m. On reaching the Dr. Alma Latifi Hall, I noticed that the place was swarming with men in uniform. Some armed guards were even stationed on the roof. The reason for this was that the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Mr. S.B. Chavan, was to open the Conference, and a number of other central and state ministers were present along with him on the stage. Before 1947, our leaders told us that it was only foreign rulers who required security arrangements. When India became free and representatives of the people took over the reins of power, there would be no further need for police and para-military forces to provide security, and the nation would be spared the undue burden of paying for such precautions. However, it would appear that the need for security is greater now than ever before. As one police officer put it: “Nowadays, work in the field of crime detection is negligible. All our efforts are channelled into providing security”.

A message from Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was read out, in which he said that communalism posed the greatest threat to our country. The same theme was taken up by various participants in their speeches. One speaker said that it was in this month of August, here in the city of Bombay, that the cry, ”Quit India,” was first raised. Now, in this very same city, it was for us to utter another cry: “Communalism quit India.” Everyone condemned communalism and violence out of hand. Some expressed the fear that, should the present situation continue, the country was likely to disintegrate.

It is interesting to note that the courage of communalism, violence and discrimination have become objects of universal condemnation. It is quite another matter that people may or may not be sincere in their condemnation, and may have no positive remedy to offer but because of the pressure of International situation, no one will stand up and advocate communalism today. In days gone by, this was not the case. This goes to show that if one adopts a tactful approach and a large-hearted attitude, there is no reason why any community, including the Muslims, should not be able to live with honour in this country.

Addresses to the Conference:

I delivered two addresses to the Conference, one half-way through the proceedings, and one at the closure. In addition to the fifteen minutes allotted to every speaker, (including myself) a further period was allotted to me one evening, from 6 p.m. onwards, so that I could elaborate further upon how communal harmony was to be achieved. This meeting, at which I was the sole speaker, lasted one hour. It was well attended by both Hindus and Muslims, most of whom expressed their agreement and approval.

In my fifteen-minute talk during the course of the Conference, I mentioned that, to me, the greatest irony of modern Indian history was that a country which had won its independence through non-violence should adopt the path of violence once independence had been gained.

The history of the freedom struggle, I said, began in 1857. Until Mahatma Gandhi’s entry into Indian politics in 1919, this movement followed – without success – a course of violent struggle. When Gandhiji entered politics, he decided that the freedom movement should be conducted on a non-violent basis. There is an amusing story that highlights the difficulties posed by this policy. A certain District Collector, baffled as to what measures could be taken to counter non-violence, wired the following message to the Secretariat: “Kindly wire instructions how to kill a tiger non-violently”. In fact, by adopting a policy of non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi made it normally indefensible for the British to suppress the freedom movement by force. Governing India, had been easy for them up till then, for it had been a matter of suppressing force with force. There was no such weapon in their arsenal, however, with which to combat non-violence.

What was needed now in India, I continued, was a “reverse course” policy, similar to that adopted in post-war times by Japan. Until the Second World War, Japan was set on a course of violence. After the end of the War, however, it changed course and began advancing by leaps and bounds on the course of non-violence, with the result that Japan’s destiny has undergone a complete change in just forty years.

After giving other examples from modern history on how people have changed course from violent confrontation to non-violent construction, and with highly successful results, I pointed out that it was the Prophet of Islam who first showed the world the effectiveness of such a policy. In the context of the conditions prevailing in Arabia at the time, the peace treaty of Hudaybiyyah amounted to just such a “reverse course” policy on the part of the Prophet, he being the first to formulate a policy of this nature. All we have to do is follow in his footsteps, a much easier task than having to chalk out an unknown path of our own.

What is needed in India today is for us to adopt a reverse course. There must be love instead of hate, non-violence in place of violence. Rather than being suspicious of one another, we must cultivate an atmosphere of mutual trust. Confrontation must be set aside, leaving us free to tackle the task of peaceful reconstruction. This reverse course, as soon as it is adopted, will lead us on the path to prosperity. Today we have lost our way and are a long way adrift from our true destination, so that whichever community first takes the initiative in adopting a reverse course will be one to take the lead over other communities in every walk of life in the days to come.

The Secular and Non-Secular Approach:

Our evening meal was taken at the residence of Dr. Naik, where there was a group of newsmen from the newspaper Blitz waiting to interview me. This was one more experience which confirmed my view that journalists who call themselves “Islamic” suddenly become “un-Islamic” when it comes to interviewing somebody, while those who are labelled “secular” adopt a more intelligent approach.

The thing about these Islamic persons is that they have put human beings into two different categories: those in agreement and those in opposition. On the one hand, there is their ‘own’ group, while the others are regarded as outsiders. While addressing the former group, they adopt a moderate tone, but with people whom they consider antagonists they lose all sense of balance in their manner of address.

People who are secular in their outlook, on the other hand, adopt quite a different approach. They have not placed other people in separate compartments in their own minds and for this reason they maintain their equanimity when conducting an interview. Blitz is counted amongst our country’s secular newspapers. My interview by its correspondents took place therefore in a very cordial atmosphere. Questions and answers were exchanged in a balanced and moderate tone.

Their final question was: “Could you give us a summary of your opinion on the Muslims of today?” I answered: “The Muslims have lost all sense of forbearance. Unless one learns to put up with things which are not to one’s liking, one will be unable to retain any position in this world. If one loses this capacity, one losses everything. If the Muslims can only learn to take the rough with the smooth, they will surely regain all that they have lost.”

Observations on Urdu Journalism:

During my brief stay in Bombay, I had the chance to meet a number of people. Generally, conversations centred on the current state of affairs affecting Muslims. In certain gatherings, I noted that Muslims, both in India and elsewhere in the world, are always complaining about their treatment at the hands of others, whereas in fact, in this world one gets no more than one deserves. The difficulties faced by Muslims today are not the result of oppression by others, but stem rather from the Muslims’ own backwardness.

I gave one example of this, namely the present-day state of Urdu journalism. So inferior is Urdu journalism in India, where it is largely in the hands of Muslims, that it cannot really be called journalism by modern standards. Indeed, sad to say, judging by the material it prints, it must be said that Urdu journalism is little better than “yellow journalism”, a term first coined in America towards the end of the nineteenth century. (The term “yellow journalism” is applied to journalism which is sensationalist in character.) Whereas in other countries this form of journalism has faded into obscurity, it must be said that it is still alive in its worst form in the pages of India’s Urdu newspapers.

Why is it that this sick form of journalism has been so quick to take root amongst the Muslims? I ventured the opinion that this could be traced firstly to educational backwardness and, perhaps less obviously, to the minimal participation of Muslims in the national industrial scene. Today Muslims do not possess even a one per cent share in the nation’s industry. This is a serious disadvantage from the point of view of Urdu journalism, for it cannot avail of the financial backing, largely through advertising, which comes automatically to other sections of the media.

In order to compensate for this lack of a steady income from industry, Muslim newspapers try to increase their readership by printing articles of a sensational and emotionally charged nature. Were Muslim newspapers assured of regular income from industrial advertising, they would not have to resort to this “yellow” form of journalism, in the same way as a person with high qualifications in medicine or engineering does not have to resort to criminal means of making a living. It is people who have remained uneducated through neglect or deprivation who stoop to such extremities. If Urdu journalism has become jaundiced in India it is precisely because it has been deprived of the healthy living which only industrial underpinnings can provide.

In the middle of August, 1986, a Muslim Urdu newspaper brought out a special issue in celebration of Eid al-Adhha, the front page of which carried a picture of human corpses. These were the corpse of Muslims who had been burnt or slaughtered in the communal riots which took place in Ahmedabad on July 9,1986. There can be no doubt of the painful nature of the event which this photograph depicted but what is equally noteworthy is that the inside pages of the newspapers were printed in black-and-white, an ordinary news sheet, while this picture of burnt and mutilated corpses was in colour, and printed on art paper. One was left with the impression that the editorial staff of the newspaper considered this scene to be the most interesting item available to them. It was for this reason that they had accorded it such a high degree of prominence.

The printing of pictures of corpses in this way amount to using them and the sentiments they arouse for commercial ends. Of course it is quite true to say that what keeps most of our newspapers in circulation is communal rioting. Were communal riots not to take place in India, these newspapers would lose their lifeline. Can one imagine anything more stupefyingly vulgar than the commercialization of burnt and mutilated corpses in this way?

Recording Session with Bombay Radio:

While I was in Bombay, the local radio-station recorded a talk of mine, which was broadcast at a later date. The subject of the talk “The Universal Principles of Islam” – was chosen by the radio authorities and as I had been informed of the programme in advance, I had ample time to prepare a fifteen-minute talk on this subject.

A Lesson from a Taxi-Driver:

One of the more memorable of my experience in Bombay concerned a taxi-driver, called Heera Lal, with whom I travelled on one occasion. As we drove along, I put a few questions to him about his profession. When I asked him how he avoided accidents in this busy metropolis, he gave me an answer which exceeded for sheer practical wisdom anything I have heard from great present-day Muslim scholars. “We have to make allowances for the mistakes of others,” he said, explaining that the streets of Bombay are full of reckless drivers who show scant respect for the rules of driving. “If we were to drive like them, sooner or later we would surely be involved in an accident. So what others fail to do, we have to do for them. That is, when they make a mistake, we have to cancel out their mistake by taking evasive action.”

It is not worth a driver’s while to stop and argue with everyone who crosses his path as to who is in the right and who is in the wrong. By doing so, he is only putting himself in a vulnerable position. So, instead of adopting a rigid, rational posture, he is pragmatic in his approach; rather than argue about the rights and wrongs of some untoward incidents he concentrates on saving himself from the dire consequences of other’s mistakes. By unilateral action, he rectifies the mistakes committed by others. He does not even wave an accusing finger at them. Conciliatory action of this nature is called iradh (avoidance) in the Quran, which stresses that Muslims should adopt this policy on the highways of life.

And this was the thought that dominated my mind after my conversation with Heera Lal. “What he said about driving on roads,” I thought, “is true also of life. The tactics adopted by a taxi-driver as he goes on his way along the roads of a busy city should be adopted by all individuals as they proceed on the road of life. In other words, we have to make allowances for the mistakes made by others. That is how a taxi-driver avoids accidents and, in the same way, we can avoid clashes in our dealings with others”. How extraordinary it is that an ordinary taxi-driver realizes this secret of life, which has eluded the great Muslim leaders, who are in control of the steering-wheel of the Muslim Ummah. Perhaps Muslim leaders are not as serious in the performance of the task entrusted to them – the guidance of the Muslim community on its course through life – as a taxi-driver is in the steering of his vehicle. A taxi-driver really feels for his car and for this reason he knows, without being told, exactly how he should look after it, while one who does not share such feelings cannot understand, even after being told, how he should go about looking after that which has been entrusted to his care.

Final Address to the Conference:

In accordance with a previously arranged programme, I delivered an address at the end of the Conference. This talk lasted for one hour and I began it with these words:

“What is success? To live in accordance with realities.

What is failure? To defy them.”

I gave a number of examples from the Quran and Hadith, aimed at illustrating the pattern on which the world has been created. Here, mankind is constantly involved in rivalry and competition with his fellows. Some emerge as winners in the race of life, while others lag behind; some come out victors, while others taste the bitterness of defeat. This is a fact of life, one which is in exact accordance with the laws of creation. It is a situation which will be with us until the end of time. Accordingly, we should seek to resolve problems by diplomatic means and by constructive strengthening of our position. Complaining about our situation and protesting over our lot in life will do us no good whatsoever.

Due to other commitments, I was unable to accede to the many requests I received to prolong my stay in Bombay. I returned to Delhi as scheduled on the morning of the 24th of August.