By R Upadhyay
The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (All India Council of the Muslims), an incarnation of Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) of pre-Independent India claims to be the sole representative body of the Muslim society of Andhra Pradesh. With one Lok Sabha seat, which the party has retained since 1984 till 2004 election, five MLAs in Andhra Prdesh Assembly, forty Corporators in Hyderabad city and about one hundred members elected to various municipal bodies, its claim is perhaps justified.
While taking over the command of the pre-Independence MIM in 1957 by prefixing All India to this name, Abdul Wahed Owaisi declared the party’s commitment to Indian constitution but three MLAs led violent assault on Taslima Nasreen, a Muslim woman writer of Bangladesh on August 9 this year proved its tunneled mindset, which is hardly in time negotiates with the spirit of secular democracy in the country. A trusted ally of the ruling Congress, it is known as “an Islamic, fundamentalist, secessionist, communal and political party in India that was founded by radicals among the Muslim population of Hyderabad and Muslim dominated areas of Andhra Pradesh though it has units in some parts of Karnataka and Maharashtra”(Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia).
To know further about the Islamist character of the party, we may look into the historical background of its parent body as well as its own contribution towards radicalization of the Muslim society. Like August 9 incident this year, the pre-Independence MIM also came in hot news on this eventful day of Indian History sixty five years back in 1942, when it had opposed ‘Quit India’ movement against the colonial British power and mobilized the Muslims of then Hyderabad State for defending the Islamic rule of Nizam. Founded in 1927 by a group of Islamists of Hyderabad initially as a socio-religious organization, its successive presidents particularly Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung, a religio-political activist and Qasim Rizvi, a militant Islamist gradually turned it into an Islamic fundamentalist, secessionist, communal and a pro-Nizam political party.
For MIM “the ruler throne (Nizam) is the symbol of the political and cultural rights of the Muslim community …. (and) this status must continue for ever”. (Party Politics in Andhra Pradesh by Vadakattu Hanumantha Rao, 1983, Page 163). Under the leadership of Bahadur Yar Jung, the party “proclaimed Muslims as the monarchs of Deccan with Nizam as only the symbolic expression of their political sovereignty. It demanded the creation of an independent Hyderabad to synchronise with the lapse of British paramountcy” (State Government and Politics – Andhra Pradesh by Reddy & Sharma, 1979, page392).
After the death of Bahadur Yar Jung in early forties of the last century, the command of the MIM was taken over by Kasim Razvi, who enrolled a large number of Muslim youths as Razakars to fight against the freedom fighters of Congress, Arya Samaj and Hindu Mahasabha and emerged as “champion of Muslims and protector of a Muslim State”. The militancy of the party however reached to its peak on the eve of independence, when Nizam was virtually put on hold by the MIM and was not allowed to sign the instrument of accession of Hyderabad State with Indian Union. In fact about 150,000 Razakars led by Razvi created a reign of terror against the non-Muslims and forced the Nizam to buy time under the cover of negotiation. The militant mindset of Razvi could be judged from his threat to Government of India during one of his talks with V.P.Menon, the then Secretary in Ministry of States in Delhi. He said, “if Government of India insisted on a plebiscite, the final arbiter could only be the sword”(Integration of the Indian States by V.P.Menon, page334). Similarly in one of his jehadi speeches as published in press, he asserted: “The day is not far off when the waves of the Bay of Bengal will be washing the feet of our sovereign”. He further declared that “he would plant the Asaf Jahi flag on the Red Fort in Delhi” (Ibid. page 352). Such statements of Razvi suggested that the latter was virtually the ruler of Hyderabad State. However, the sword of Rizvi failed to protect the end of the autocratic rule of Nizam, who surrendered at 1700 hour on September 17, 1948 and integration of Hyderabad State with Indian Union became a reality. MIM was proscribed and Razvi was jailed. He was released only in 1957, when he gave an undertaking to migrate to Pakistan within forty-eight hours of his release.
The story of the over one year delay in the integration of Hyderabad suggests that dependence of Nizam on an Islamist like Razvi was the main reason behind not only for his humiliating surrender before Indian army but also for demoralisation of the Muslim society of Hyderabad. His radio speech on September 23 was in fact a confession of being a prisoner of a group of MIM activists led by Razvi. He said, “In November last, a small group which had organized a quasi-military organization surrounded the homes of my Prime Minister, the Nawab of Chhatari, in whose wisdom I had complete confidence, and of Sir Walter Monkton, my constitutional Adviser, by duress compelled the Nawab and other trusted ministers to resign and forced the Laik Ali Ministry on me. This group headed by Kasim Razvi had no stake in the country or any record of service behind it. By methods reminiscent of Hitelerite Germany it took possession of the State, spread terror … and rendered me completely helpless.” (From Autocracy to Integration by Lucien D Benichou, Orient Longman 2000, Page 237).
Before his migration to Pakistan Rizvi handed over the command of the MIM to Abdul Wahed Owaisi an advocate and one of the richest Muslims of Hyderabad, who was known for his strong relations with Nizam. Owaisi revived the MIM with a new name of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen. He re-wrote its constitution and accepted Hyderabad as a part of Indian Union. Re-naming the party just by prefixing All India in it and re-writing its constitution was however, an eye wash as its subsequent behaviour showed.
Although Owaisi was an eye witness to all the misdeeds of Razvi, the Islamist element in him did not allow him to be reconciled with the loss of an independent Islamic State. “In 1957 the MIM was revived in Hyderabad and a decade later was petitioning the Government of India for the foundation of a purely Muslim State on India’s eastern coast” (Encyclopaedia of Islam – Lieden E.J.Brill, Vol. V, Page 1081). For over a decade the MIM maintained a low profile and remained a marginal player in the politics of Hyderabad but gradually Owaisi cashed on the hidden anger of Muslim society against the loss of Islamic power in the state. “Majlis played passion politics by trading on hate-Hindu sentiments and cashed on the angry Muslim electorates” (Party Politics in Andhra Pradesh – Hanumantha Rao, 1983, Page 164).
In 1976 Salahuddin Owaisi, a widely traveled barrister son of Abdul Wahed Owaisi took over the presidentship of the party after the death of his father and launched an aggressive campaign for the cause of his community members. Increasingly aligning the party with the fundamentalist ideology of its parent body the Owaisis carried forward the legacy of parent organization, which was “regarded as remarkably aggressive and a violent face of Muslim militancy as it organized the Razakars to defend the independence of this Muslim State with Indian Union”.
Popularly known as ‘Salar-e-Millat’ (Commander of the community), he criticized the Indian state for allegedly abandoning the Muslims to their fate and replayed the communal and militant politics of Razvi. He reminded his community members of their past glory and “compared the Majlis to the Black Power Movement of America” (www.nowpublic.com). Since 1984 he retained the Communal politics of Nizam days and never made any effort to transform the communalized Muslim masses of Hyderabad into secular and democratic Indians. Instead Owaisi family used this organization only as a platform for serving the communal interest of the Islamists in general and its vested political interest in particular. One fails to understand as to why he retained the name of the party, which had led the Razakars against Indian army? The answer lies with the Nizam-days mindset of Owaisis.
The MIM legislators opposed the motion which AP Assembly had placed for condemning the 9/11 attack on America. This was a reflection of the Islamist mindset of the AIMIM. Just on the eve of 2004 election Salahuddin stepped down in favour of his eldest son Asaduddin, who won this seat with a very big margin. His second son Akbaruddin became the leader of the five-member legislative group of AIMIM in Andhra Assembly. Taking over the presidentship of the party from his father, stepping down from his Lok Sabha seat for his eldest son and making his second son as leader of legislative party in Andhra Pradesh Assembly, the respective three generations of Owaisis have not only converted the AIMIM into a family trust but have also kept the Muslims of Hyderabad under siege. It is a fact that Owaisis have established some educational institutions for the benefit of the Muslim society of Hyderabad but its communal politics on which it is thriving has done more harm to the Muslims.
How does one deal with Owaisi types? What is the remedy? The Remedy lies with the Muslims of Andhra Pradesh themselves. If they want to live a peaceful and dignified life they will have to guard themselves from fundamentalists among them under the patronage of the parties, which are still obsessed to the pre-Independence mindset of All India Muslim League, Nizam of Hyderabad and Razvi, the leader of Razakars, who were opposed to integration of Hyderabad with Indian Union.
No comments:
Post a Comment