http://hvk.org/archive/2002/0602/184.html
What's Muslim about Kalam?
- Author: Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Publication: The Asian Age
Date: June 19, 2002Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who will be our next President, is by all accounts a great scientist; his contribution to India's defence is of the highest order; he is rightly called the Missile Man; every Indian feels proud of him; he is in every respect a Bharat Ratna. But because he was born a Muslim and bears a Muslim name, he should not be put in the same category as the two former Muslim Presidents, Dr Zakir Husain and Mr Fakruddin Ali Ahmed. Both of them were as great a patriot and Indian to the core as Dr Kalam. But they were also Muslims in the real sense of the word; they believed in the tenets of the Quran and faithfully followed the traditions of the Prophet. They worked for the uplift of the Muslims as much as for the progress of India. They were ardent followers of Gandhiji and had sacrificed for the cause of India's freedom. They opposed Jinnah's Two-Nation theory and were close associates of Maulana Azad. They had full faith in India's composite culture and never hesitated to be a part of her ancient heritage.
Withal, they were also deeply involved in the hopes and aspirations of Indian Muslims; they engaged themselves actively in the emancipation of their community. Dr Zakir Husain built up the Jamia Millia Islamia and was for some time the vice-chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University. Similarly Mr Fakruddin Ali Ahmad always took up the cause of the Muslims, both in Assam and in the rest of the country.
I am afraid, Dr Kalam has kept himself completely away from Muslims; he refused to mix with them and even when invited to participate in their nationalistic activities, he politely declined. As chairman of the All-India Khilafat Committee I requested him to be the chief guest at the mammoth Prophet's birthday celebrations in Mumbai, which is attended by more than ten lakh Muslims every year, but he refused. This was, in fact, started by Gandhiji in the wake of the Khilafat and the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1921 to promote Hindu-Muslim unity. It has been attended by most of our national leaders both during the Freedom Struggle and after Independence, even Prime Ministers and other highest dignitaries have graced the occasion by their participation. Likewise, Dr Ishaq Jamkhanwala, president of Anjuman-i-Islam, which was founded by the third Congress president, Mr Justice Badruddin Tyabjee, tells me that his invitation to Dr Kalam to visit the Anjuman to deliver the famous Seerut lecture to pay homage to the Prophet was turned down by him. He has hardly shown any interest in the affairs of the Muslim nor has he had any affiliation with the practices and conventions of Islam. He was one of the founder trustees with me of Maulana Azad Educational Foundation, floated by Government of India for promoting and aiding education among the Muslims; but Dr Kalam showed no interest in its work.
Dr Kalam feels much more at home with the Hindus. His Hindu friends, with whom he has spent a good deal of his life, have testified to the fact that he is far more attracted to Hinduism than Islam; I find nothing wrong with it. But for God's sake, don't describe him as a Muslim President and take credit for having obliged the Muslims for giving them this great honour. K. Rama Rao, former director of Defence Research and Development Laboratories (DRDL) writes: "I have known him for more than three decades, but find him the same, from the simple and unassuming fellow who shared a room with me in 1954 to the one who became my boss in the '80s. He would stay up late at night, eat vegetarian food and never show any signs of being a Muslim. I have not seen him offering prayers during namaz nor fast during Ramzan." Likewise R. Aravamudan, former director ISRO's Satellite Centre, Bangalore: "We lived in Indira Bhavan Lodge in Thiruvananthapuram. People there called him Kalam Iyer because he moved around with Brahmins and had similar eating habit. The only non-vegetarian food he ate occasionally was egg masala along with Kerala parottas. He would not talk much about his parents or siblings."
Dr Kalam never reads the Quran but every morning he goes through the Gita and is enchanted by it. He is sincerely devoted to Krishna. He recites the Hindu mantras on every occasion. Namaz does not appeal him nor has he ever fasted in the month of Ramzan. He is a strict vegetarian and a life-long brahmachari. His roots are really in Hinduism and he enjoys all the sacred Hindu scriptures. Hence the credit for his elevation, in communal terms, should go to the Hindus; to give it to the Muslims would be wrong. In fact Dr Kalam himself would be happy if he is not described as a Muslim President and his name is not linked with Dr Zakir Husain and Mr Fakruddin Ali Ahmad.
This does not mean that he is not a good man or inferior to the two Muslim Presidents; I am only objecting to the appellation. He is in fact most worthy to be President. He is great in the true sense, and his simplicity, humility and honesty will add lustre to the highest office of our country. I wish him all the best; may God, of whatever denomination Dr Kalam believes in, be with him.
========================
http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-zkaria120904.htm
Look Beyond The Camel
By Dr Rafiq Zakaria
12 September,2004
Asian Age
Asian Age
In a thought-provoking article in the Indian Express, Sagarika Ghose has shown how the emerging market-led democratisation has started demolishing the walls of prejudice against Indian Muslims; in her characteristically literary style she writes, "Demagogues whip up ancient hatreds and spur on their ignorant armies to kill and rape. Petty manifestos screech 'enemies', 'anti-nationals', 'traitors'. But the whirlwind can no longer be stopped, it comes ever on, it bounds over the spindly wickets of prejudice and soars upwards to the sky. To the sky where a certain tricolour flutters. A tricolour that, 50 years ago, committed itself to the poorest voter and to the most destitute child and promised them the arrival of this whirlwind. Behold the icons of a new India: Irfan Pathan, Zaheer Khan, Mohammad Kaif, Aamir Khan, Tabu, Azeem Premji, A.R. Rehman."
Nevertheless, despite the whirlwind of which Sagarika Ghose has so feelingly spoken, the prejudice against Indian Muslims in large sections of Hindus still persists: the common Muslims are its worst sufferers. And what is most disheartening is that more and more Hindus seem to be averse to the promotion of any reconciliation with Muslims much less in the furtherance of Hindu-Muslim unity. The hardliners among them have succeeded in painting a picture of an Indian Muslim which alienates him from a common Hindu; it evokes wrong reaction in him. He looks at a bearded Muslim wearing a cap on his head and a Muslim woman, with a veil on her face and a long robe from top to bottom and feels that he or she is so different from him. Appearances are no less vital for affiliation. Then there is the religious connection that is wrongly attributed between the so-called jihadis and Indian Muslims. This has created the most unfortunate psychological barrier. These terrorists not only bring shame and disgrace to Islam but cause the greatest harm to Indian Muslims, who are suspected by a number of Hindus being aligned with these terrorists or being sympathetic to their acts of terror...
Indian Muslims must readjust themselves to changing circumstances; they had done it successfully at the initiative of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan on the eve of the British Raj; they accepted the replacement of the Quranic punishments with those provided by the new rulers in their civil and criminal codes that were imposed on them; they paid interest on loans taken from the banks though it was prohibited by the Quran; they acquiesced in the banning of stoning to death for adulterers, though it violated the Quranic injunction; they strongly protested against the enactment of the Shariah Act, which invalidated child marriages - its biggest defender was Jinnah. In many other respects also they accepted the new legislations though many of these were not strictly in accordance with the provisions in the Quran. So much so that the British Raj was, by and large, hailed by most of their leaders.
There is no reason why Indian Muslims should not follow the direction as shown to them by Sir Syed; he was, of course, condemned by the ulema and even denounced as a heretic but the community on the whole accepted his leadership and took to the new pattern of life, turning in a new leaf especially by taking enthusiastically to English and other modern subjects of education and by agreeing to move forward by shedding the old shibboleths. Some serious thought in the same way has to be given by the community to come out of the rot into which it has fallen; even Allama Iqbal had suggested in his memorable Madras lecture that "the claim of the present generation of Muslim liberals to reinterpret the foundational legal principles, in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life is, in my opinion, perfectly justified. The teaching of the Quran that life is a process of progressive creation necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems." I fail, therefore, to understand why Indian Muslims are now making such a hue and cry about carrying out certain necessary reforms in their Personal Law, when several Muslim countries have already enacted them. The shameful manner in which the Muslim leadership handled the Shah Bano case brought nothing but disgrace to the community, the new law of maintenance that it got enacted has thrown many Muslim women divorcee to the streets. Triple talaq has been condemned by the ulema, but such is their aversion to reforms that they have refused to disown and discard it...
Furthermore these dignitaries live in a different world which has lost its relevance now. Akbar Allahabadi has rightly mocked at them:
The Shaikh has advised his followers
Why should they travel by train when camel is available?
Indian Muslims must realise that these old-fashioned venerable men cannot see beyond the camel; the technical revolution has escaped them. Therefore Indian Muslims must shut them out of their lives if they are to have meaningful existence.
I am particularly distressed by the miserable condition of the Muslim youth; they have become rudderless; they have lost hope about any prospect in this country. They need to be galvanised; they must get themselves educated at every level and be provided with every facility to acquire professional and technical knowledge so that they are fully equipped to compete and shine in whatever field they specialise in. Their parents must give up their traditional outlook of sticking to the worn-out methods and norms and not keep their children away from all forms of modern education. There is no jihad better than this; it must be fought by them resolutely so that they can overcome the hurdles and difficulties that they may face. To succeed they have to exert themselves to their utmost capacity and bring out the best in them by utilising their talents to the fill. They should not waste their time and energy in indulging in accusations against others; these only provoke more ill-will and give no relief nor justice. Their leaders have tried this game ever since Partition and, as I have pointed out, brought nothing but disaster for the community. The bitter past is over, it is the emerging present with its wonderful opportunities that will take them forward. In the words of the indomitable Winston Churchill: "The stern compression of circumstances, the twinges of adversity, the spur of slights and taunts in early years, are needed to evoke that ruthless fixity of purpose and tenacious mother wit without which great actions are seldom accomplished."
I have always believed that standing on one's feet is the only solution for the ills of Indian Muslims. Doles and reservations will only keep them backward. They must harness their own energy and try and prove to be better than others in every sector. Also, they should work for cooperation and not confrontation. I have, therefore, continued to insist that they must pursue the path of reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims; after the genocide in Gujarat it has become most difficult. But whatever the odds, placed as Muslims are in India, it is the only way to ensure their security and even prosperity. Hindu-Muslim unity can alone bring them a safe haven in this country. Hindus must realise that it is in the interest of all that 150 million of their co-citizens are brought out of the slough of despondency and given equal opportunity to grow and develop. They must take Indian Muslims as their partners and encourage them to come up in life. Prejudices and suspicions are counterproductive; nor does hatred advance a nation; it has already done much damage to the polity. The two communities are so linked that each has to help the other; camaraderie among them is essential for both development and integration. Each has to help the other to make the country strong and prosperous.
http://hvk.org/archive/2002/0702/32.html
Who is a Muslim?
- Author: Goolam E. Vahanvati
Publication: The Asian Age
Date: June 29, 2002Dr Rafiq Zakaria wrote an article in The Asian Age recently in which he came up with an issue which has raised many eyebrows (What's Muslim about Kalam? The Op-Ed Page, June 19). He questioned whether the presidential nominee Dr Abdul Kalam could truly be called a "Muslim". He gave various reasons.
Dr Zakaria is a learned man. His knowledge of Islam is unquestionable and his reading is vast and extensive. I readily confess that a person like me lacks the credentials or expertise to venture into areas of religious learning.
However, the article certainly succeeded in stimulating a debate as it perhaps was meant to. So one must proceed to confront the issue head-on, but let me put in a caveat. What follows is not meant to be facetious or critical. It is a purely personal point of view.
Who then is a Muslim? Who is an Indian Muslim? Dr Zakaria referred to Dr Kalam's possible lack of knowledge of Urdu. Is the spoken language determinative? If it is, would fluency in Arabic not be more essential? Proficiency in Arabic, not just for reciting prayers but also understanding and comprehending the written and spoken word. If this is the criterion, would it not eliminate almost the entire non-Arabic world from consideration?
And do you fail to establish your claim to be a Muslim in India if you do not know Urdu? This would be equivalent to denying the whole of the South India the right to be called Indian if they did not establish proficiency in Hindi. Not just Bombay Hindi. But sarkari Hindi which perhaps even the typewriters do not follow.
So language may not be criterion. What, then, about dress? Is a cap compulsory? Some say it is. But this also breaks down at the ground level. Or should I say "head" level. Some wear a plain white crocheted covering, others, ornate zari inlaid katha ni topi. Others sport imposing furry black caps. Some wear a fez. And then is a sherwani a must or not? What is acceptable and what is not? I do not have the answer.
M.J. Akbar wrote sometime ago of how some insist on a compulsory one-foot long beard. Has the length of the beard been standardised? Must it cover almost the whole face eyes down or will a part of the face do? And should the hair be treated with mehndi? Or just dyed? Any particular colour? Some like it flaming red and even dark orange.
And is it necessary to be a compulsory or compulsive non-vegetarian? To put it differently, is being a vegetarian unacceptable? Many, like my daughter, are almost vegetarian by choice and by preference. Should we now insist that she must periodically have some form of meat to retain her Muslim identity?
I said I have no answers but that is perhaps because I was brought up without having to ask the questions or having them asked of me. I always believed, and I still do, that there was nothing antithetical in my Indianness and my religion, that my culture is an eclectic evolution based on my Gujarati roots.
I am the result of the historical development of my Dawoodi Bohra family, made even more complex and kaleidoscopic by the decision of my great grandfather to shift from Bagasra to Bombay over a hundred years ago. He came and made his fortune in shipping and ship chandling. A fortune which my grandfather initially augmented and then lost completely, compelling my father to eschew the life of landlords and take up a profession and pursue it. Against all odds.
I exhibit my Indianness proudly. It comes to me effortlessly. I was and I am always welcome and comfortable at the houses and functions of all my innumerable Hindu, Parsi and Christian friends. I delight in participating in all the weddings, ceremonies, the rituals, the celebrations of the birth of their children and the milestones in their lives.
Their "janois". The thread ceremonies. The Navjotes. The Baptisms. I am there to share their grief whether the dearly loved departed members of their family are cremated, buried or consigned to towers of silence.
Would I be considered a heretic because I am ecstatic over Tulku's rendering of Radha Ramana or Jai Uttal's Guru Brahma? I am only upset that it took a Frenchman, Claude Challe and a French restaurant, Buddha Bar, to reintroduce Indians to the wonders of Hindustani music, to its soul stirring sounds and textures and to the nuances of the wide variety of Indian musical instruments.
The fusion of Indian classical music with Western music elevates it to an incredible level of joyous and sublime bliss. And would you be surprised that they also combine and fuse Indian music seamlessly with Pan Arabic music?
I suppose many "Muslims" would not qualify for being called Muslims if Islam is considered to be a club with restricted entrance whose membership must be left in the hands in the committee of fundamentalists insisting on strict adherence to a rigid set of rules. Not surprisingly, these very rules would vary from club to club, region to region and country to country.
I am willing to concede that some are better Muslims or better practising Muslims. But does this entitle them to deny the claim of so many good human beings to be true Muslims even though these people have imbibed and practise the very essence of the faith? To my mind, the essence of Islam is submission to the will of God.
To accept Allah as the creator and sustainer of the universe, the most beneficent and merciful. You can pray to Him, not formally and in congregations but constantly and fervently that He should keep and guide you on the right path. You can ask Him for guidance and deliverance. Ehdinas Siratul Mustakeem, a prayer which my spiritual leader wrote out for me on a small piece of paper in his hand exactly 30 years ago and which I have worn on my person in a little locket every day and night.
Can we then deny Dr Kalam's faith? Are we required or even entitled to ask any question? Some may not agree with his hairstyle or his sense of dress but can anyone deny his achievements as an Indian?
Should we not concede, accept and protect his right to live his life as an outstanding Indian in his own way with all its simplicity and honesty? It is highly ironical that those who profess submission to the will of God would want others to submit to their own interpretation of it. Dr Kalam has struck a chord and ignited a spark in the ordinary people and may God take care of him and our great country.
============================
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaSeminar/message/971
I have pasted below Dr Zakaria's clarifications with reference to the article he had written about Dr Abdul Kalam. The same makes for some very interesting reading. It appeared in the Asian Age dated 3rd July 2002.
|
कोणत्याही टिप्पण्या नाहीत:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा