Imran, a ten year old, tells that his grandfather believes all Hindus are kafirs. But he enjoys watching Ramayan and watches it in his hindu friends’ home, unknown to his grandfather.
Latif was in office the day police shot dead terrorists and caught some more in a flat in Jamia Nagar. He is worried. Not because one from his ‘kaum’ has lost life. He is worried about his khala (aunt) who stays closeby.
Matin is angry. A colleague has just said that he rightfully belongs to Pakistan. Does he? His father, grandfather and many more generations before have stayed in India. Then how come he is from Pakistan or any other muslim country.
The Indian muslim is confused and worried and angry.
As soon as a bombing or a communal riot takes place, he is required to take sides.
As soon as the neighbouring Pakistan prepares for attack on India or attacks India, he is required to take sides.
As soon as someone from the community bombs some city, he is required to take sides.
He is required to take sides for all muslims all over the world.
Why is this standard not applicable to hindus?
Why is a Hindu in India not responsible for a Hindu in Nepal supporting ISI of pakistan?
It has been in open now that hindus too indulge in unlawful activities. But everytime such a thing happens from the majority community, soon a civilised group appears within hindus that condemns the activities.
In recent years, some civilised groups within the Islamic community too have come to condemn the ills, but they are very few or they are considered hoax.
Many say that the Muslims mustn’t have been allowed in India at the time of partition.
Can India be freed of Muslims?
My answer is no. Pakistan, which is a Muslim country, still houses Hindus and people advocating other religions (let’s not talk now about the pains these minority communities have to face there). Is it then possible for India to oust Muslims being a secular country?
Others will just want to point at the irrationality of the issue. It is not the matter of allowing anyone to stay in a country. Isn’t India as much the home of Muslims as Hindus or Sikhs or Buddhists? It is. Had religion been as important to the lives of people, wouldn’t the Muslims have left India at the time of partition. But they didn’t. They loved their land, if not the country (Is there a difference between the two?). They would not gamble all of this for a religion.
And they didn’t accept the bait given by Pakistan. But time and forever, they are said to have a soft heart for Pakistan. They stayed back in India because they genuinely wanted to stay in India.
Islam has come to be associated with terrorism. But have we ever tried to understand why the Mohammedans (only a small part of the community) indulge in such activities. It is because they have been traumatised. Traumatised by the west. Traumatised by people in power (Nanavati commission gave a clean chit to the Modi government. Then who committed the rioting in Gujarat?)
I also do not think that the few people who say they represent the Muslim community and are spreading terror to take revenge are right? Some people with vested interests are using the non-representation of Muslims to their advantage.
What if there was no islam? Would the world have been any peaceful? Many of us will believe that the world would be peaceful without Islam and Muslims. But this is not so? Moin Ansari, a noted scholar, says that the world would have been just as tumultous, muslims or not. Read it here.