It is one thing to critique a political leader, quite another to endorse the denial of democratic rights to him or her. There is no denying that the democratic right of Owaisi has been trampled upon. You only have to look at the manner in which the Uttar Pradesh government of Akhilesh Yadav has been refusing permission to him to address the AIMIM rallies in the state.
Owaisi was thwarted from holding a rally at Allahabad on April 26, as he had been by the city administration earlier, on March 15 to be precise. He was disallowed from addressing a public meeting in Agra on March 29.
This had been the pattern last year as well, both before and after the general elections: Owaisi couldn’t hold public meetings on three occasions – February 1, April 25 and June 12, 2014 – in Azamgarh and, then again, on September 7, 2014 in Allahabad.
This is indeed an inexplicably harsh treatment of the man upon whom was bestowed the Sansad Ratna Award for his performance in the 15th Lok Sabha last year.
It’s instructive to peruse the reasons different district administrations cited to deny Owaisi the permission to address rallies. The Agra administration claimed permission to Owaisi, granted to him all the way back in January, was withdrawn on the basis of police report, “which hinted that it will create law and order problem and disturb communal harmony.” Other reasons, too, were trotted out, such as school examination and March 29 being the date for the state civil service examination for which the city was a centre.
Threat to communal harmony was the reason the Allahabad administration too invoked. It seems the AIMIM had given a choice of two locations for its meeting, both of which the administration claimed was a “mixed locality” of Hindus and Muslims. The district magistrate was quoted in the newspapers saying, “In the past, he (Owaisi) has given inflammatory speeches. Considering the possibility of breach of peace, we can’t give permission for the rally.” He also said a rally at either of the locations would have disrupted the traffic on the main thoroughfare leading to the railway station.
Whether or not a speech is inflammatory can be judged only after the speaker has delivered it to an audience. In most circumstances it would be patently unfair to prejudge the speaker on what he or she is likely to speak. Nor have we evolved benchmarks to determine what constitutes inflammatory speech. Are Uma Bharti and Sadhvi Rithambara banned on the basis of unpalatable speeches they delivered in the past?
That said, Owaisi is undoubtedly a practitioner of the politics of identity, anchoring his political activity to the idea of fighting for the rights of Muslim as members of a religious community and not just as citizens of the country. He has expanded this strategy of his to include the Dalits as well, riding high on the successes he has notched in Maharashtra. The politics of identity, by its very nature, tends or appears to cleave the line dividing the secular from the communal.
From this perspective, Owaisi’s speeches do at times acquire communal overtones. But does this justify the Akhilesh government’s denial of permission to Owaisi to address public gatherings? Has it been even handed in its treatment of those whose speeches are a more virulent echo of Owaisi’s?
To answer these questions, consider the political terrain of Uttar Pradesh. This is the land where BJP MP Mahant Adityanath hops from one place to another, venting venomous Hindutva rhetoric. This is the state where love jihad and ghar wapsi campaigns have been executed with tremendous fury, and where VHP leader Sadhvi Prachi had exhorted Hindu women to have four children.
When Prachi was stridently criticised for her remarks, the VHP organised a public function in Badaun to felicitate those Hindus who have more than four children, including one who has eleven. Prachi told the audience, “They are trapping our daughters through 'love jihad'. These people who give birth to 35-40.... are spreading love jihad..... They are trying to make Hindustan into Darul Islam.” Not repentant one bit, she said, “The media said you have sparked an uproar with your remarks on four children. I said I have only advocated four children for Hindus not 40....” Presumably the district administration of Badaun didn’t think Prachi would deliver a speech communal in nature.
Occasionally though, the UP government has tried to restrain the Hindutva hotheads. For instance, the administration issued orders against Adityanath holding a public rally in Lucknow’s Munshi Pulia area last September. These order the intemperate mahant defied. An FIR was lodged against him. You might ask: shouldn’t the administration have ensured that the rally wasn’t held at all?
Considering the politics of Uttar Pradesh has the identity-communal frame, you’d think the Akhilesh government is more interested in preventing Owaisi from entering the political arena of the state than combating the shrill votaries of Hindutva politics. Is it that Akhilesh and his father Mulayam feel Owaisi poses a more serious threat to the social fabric of the state than the saffron brigade? Have the father and son revised their opinion of the saffron brigade, which they have often labeled as communal?
The assessment of the Yadavs about the nature of politics the Sangh pursues hasn’t perhaps changed. But what has decidedly is their estimate of the relative usefulness of Hindutva politics for the attempt of the Samajwadi Party (SP) to return to power in 2017, which is when the state will have its Assembly elections. This estimate is directly linked to his fear of the damage Owaisi could inflict on the SP’s prospects two years hence.
Owaisi has emerged as one of the most strident critics of the Yadavs post-Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013. It is a criticism from within the community, amplified many times over because of his fiery articulation, among other places, on TV. Till last year, Owaisi had been dismissed as a person punching above his weight.
But what appears to have prompted the political class to revise its opinion about Owaisi is the eye-grabbing performance of his party in the Maharashtra Assembly polls. The AIMIM won two seats, came second on three, and, more importantly, bagged 0.9 percent of the votes polled even though it contested in only 24 assembly constituencies. That this might not be the proverbial flash in the pan was demonstrated in the recent Aurangabad municipal elections, in which the AIMIM emerged ahead of the Congress and the NCP.
It is possible Owaisi has persuaded a section of Muslims around the country that non-BJP formations, particularly Mulayam’s, have been exploited their insecurities to gather votes, but not undertaken measures to alleviate their plight. This doesn’t mean the AIMIM is close to becoming a force to reckon with in Uttar Pradesh. But he could in a quadrangle contest in the state wean away a percentage of Muslim votes and determine which party wins or loses in the constituencies in which the minority community has a substantial presence.
Owaisi is also trying to stitch a Muslim-Dalit combination, which he managed to an extent in some pockets of Maharashtra. It seems unlikely that the Dalits of Uttar Pradesh would abandon Mayawati for Owaisi, at least not in the 2017 Assembly elections. Depending on the steam Owaisi gathers in the state, he could try to work out an electoral arrangement, informal or otherwise, with the BSP to weaken Mulayam.
In the end, the Yadav dynasty isn’t so much combating communalism as it is trying to protect its fiefdom. It is a two-pronged strategy – allow the Hindutva leaders to run amok, render the Muslims insecure, and ensure they vote the SP for the protective shield it provides; at the same time, keep Owaisi at bay so that he doesn’t become yet another magnate for the votes of the community in the state.
The refusal to grant permission to Owaisi to address public gatherings is not only a testament to the cynical politics of the Yadav dynasty, but also inherently undemocratic. As we have often seen in the past, denial of rights turns the political system pathological.
Hidden history of the Owaisis: It is incredible watching the media celebrate the ostensible rise of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Asaduddin Owaisi.
Every third day he peers out from newspapers and TV channels, lambasting the secular parties for their failings and declaring his ambition of forging a social alliance between Muslims and Dalits.
This is an amazing turnaround for the man who, only months ago, was dismissed as a hothead prone to making provocative speeches. No doubt, the Maharashtra assembly election results have underscored Owaisi’s significance. His party won two seats, came second on three, and bagged 0.9 percent of the votes polled even though it contested in only 24 assembly constituencies.
The AIMIM’s isn’t the most astonishing debut performance in India’s electoral history, and pales in comparison to, say, the Aam Aadmi Party’s success of last year. Yet the media is making a beeline to Owaisi because of its perception about his capacity to destruct in the electoral arena.
The media knows the AIMIM can’t possibly ride the Muslim support to power. But it can split the Muslim support of some parties to the advantage of the BJP, which doesn’t depend on religious minorities for its electoral performance.
This is why the AIMIM’s decision to field candidates in Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal has produced a frisson, and though Owaisi hasn’t yet spoken about his plans in Delhi, do not be surprised if you discover that he has put Delhi in his crosshairs at the last minute.
A savvy politician such as Owaisi knows the Muslims tend to vote strategically, rallying behind a party perceived to be best placed to vanquish the BJP in a constituency. But their voting calculation also takes into account whether the party of their choice can be in the race to form a government.
The second factor more or less negates the argument for Muslims voting the AIMIM, unless they are implacably angry or alienated from the mainstream parties, as it seemed to have happened in Maharashtra.
It is to neutralise the second factor that Owaisi has taken to speaking about forging a social alliance between the Muslims, Dalits and sections of OBCs. In other words, he is raising the possibility of the AIMIM creating an electoral majority, however theoretical, to woo the Muslims.
The Dalit-Muslim alliances built by others, particularly Kanshi Ram and Mayawati, had varying successes. What distinguishes Owaisi’s experiment from that of the others is the issue of leadership. Though he hasn’t said it explicitly, it is assumed the contemplated social alliance will have a Muslim leading it.
In India’s existing political reality, you can’t but think Owaisi’s ambition springs from delusion.
For one, the quest of Dalits is to bestow power to one from their own community. A Dalit is not expected to lead the party which has always had as its head one of the Owaisis. Two, should Mayawati become weaker following the 2017 UP assembly elections, Dalit votes will get fragmented among an array of parties. A chunk of those will go to the BJP, which will seek to bring them under the overarching Hindu identity.
But then, delusion is written into the DNA of AIMIM, evident from its history. The party was founded in 1927 for providing a cultural and religious platform to the Muslims living in the principality of the Nizam of Hyderabad. Then known just as MIM, it expanded overnight under Bahadur Yar Jung, a charismatic personality whose speeches drew the masses.
Jung died prematurely in 1944 – some claim he was poisoned – and the MIM leadership passed to Qasim Razvi, who headed the Razakars, the dreaded Muslim militia which was constituted to oppose Hyderabad’s merger with India. The Razakars, as is well documented, triggered a wave of murderous attacks on Hindus, progressive Muslims and Communists, and engaged the Indian security forces in what is called the Police Action of 1948.
Undoubtedly, Razvi was delusional. In his book, October Coup – A Memoir of the Struggle for Hyderabad, Mohammad Hyder narrates his conversation with Razvi.
To Hyder’s question whether it was justified for the Muslims, who were just 20 per cent of the population, to rule over the Hindus, Razvi said, “The Nizams have ruled Hyderabad for over two hundred years in unbroken line... The system must have some good in it if it has lasted two hundred years. Do you agree?... We Muslims rule because we are more fit to rule... We rule and they [Hindus] own! It is a good arrangement and they know it!”
Hyder also quotes Razvi saying, “India is a geographic notion. Hyderabad is a political reality. Are we prepared to sacrifice the reality of Hyderabad for the idea of India?”
Hyder emerged from his conversations with Razvi with the impression that the Razakar leader believed the Muslims would once again become the rulers of India and the Nizam, the ruler in Delhi.
Following the success of the Police Action, Razvi was arrested – and was released in 1957 subject to the condition that he would migrate to Pakistan. Days before leaving India, Razvi and other MIM leaders met at the residence of a lawyer. In an article in the Deccan Chronicle, historian Mohammed Noorduddin Khan writes, “Abdul Wahed Owaisi (Asaduddin’s grandfather) wasn’t even associated with the Majlis at that time and was just there out of curiosity. He was the youngest among those present at that meeting.”
Khan says Razvi disclosed at the meeting that he was leaving for Pakistan and wondered whether “anyone was interested in taking over the reins of the Majlis. Everyone present there said that they were getting on in age and wanted someone younger to take over. It was then Abdul Wahed Owaisi stepped forward and said he was willing to head the organisation.” Nawab Mir Khader Ali Khan Abul-Ulai proposed Owaisi’s name and Razvi seconded it.
Abdul Wahed added AI, or All-India, to ‘MIM’, which from thereon has remained the family’s fiefdom. There is no denying that the Owaisis feel embarrassed about the party’s provenance and have tried to recast its history through selective omissions.
Yes, the AIMIM’s website traces its “roots” to the late 1920s. Yes, it speaks of Yar Jung and his role in shaping the party. But it completely glosses over the fact that the MIM spawned Razakars, the dubious role of Qasim Razvi in the tumultuous 1940s, and that he handed over the MIM to the Owaisis.
In contrast, the AIMIM says, “After almost a decade of inactivity, the Majlis was revived in 1958 by Maulwi Abdul Wahed Owaisi, a notable lawyer… who was earlier jailed for ten months for his courageous political activities in defending the rights of the people. (italics mine)”
This seems a political spin – Abdul Wahed was arrested under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and his “courageous political activities” included “rousing or attempting to rouse communal passions and creating or attempting to create panic, resentment or hatred in the minds of the Muslims against the State and the non-Muslims as disclosed by his speeches made by him in public meetings.”
Obviously, the state can misconstrue a courageous action as subversive and communal in nature. Nevertheless, the AIMIM’s reimagining of its past, in many ways, mirrors that of the RSS.
Like the AIMIM, the RSS has tried to underplay the chilling ideological formulation of its second sarsanghchalak, Guru Golwalkar, who had declared that the Muslims either had the option of being assimilated into the Hindu fold or accepting the status of second class citizen. Then again, it disowns the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, Nathuram Godse, yet its own government felicitates his mentor, Vir Savarkar.
No wonder the rise of the BJP, or the Hindu Right, has also brought into prominence the AIMIM, which represents the Muslim Right. Like Siamese twins, they stalked the country before Independence, and they still continue to do now.
The Hindu Right and the Muslim Right gain from each other, electorally as well as ideologically. Their tactics too are similar. In 2007, the AIMIM cadres sought to assault Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasrin. In the same vein, the RSS mutants never tire of imposing their idea of morality on the society, often violently.
Obviously, nobody can deny Owaisi the right to propagate his ideas and contest elections. But for the Muslim community its sternest test comes now: Should it rally behind the man who’s known for his erudition and the savoury biryani and kababs he serves to journalists but who, in his public speeches, often begins to resemble the Mahant Avaidyanath of the Muslims?
His rise will only provide a fillip to the politics of identity, from which the Hindu Right and the Muslim orthodoxy will only stand to gain. For the Muslims there is perhaps a lesson to learn from the film Garam Hawa, which shows Balraj Sahni’s family members, one after another, leave for Pakistan, out of their sense of being discriminated against.
In the end, Sahni and his son, Farook Sheikh, too decide to leave India. On their way to the railway station they come across a protest march demanding jobs. Sheikh and, eventually, even Sahni join the march, rescinding their decision to migrate to Pakistan.
Might not the Muslims consider this last scene of Garam Hawa as an option? Indeed, their future depends on combining with those engaged with the politics of interest than following leaders stoking their insecurities.
No comments:
Post a Comment