The extremists might be unaware that their malicious actions could jeopardise the safety of their community. It falls upon the responsible segment of the community to rein in the extremists
The bomb hoax received by up to 285 schools in and around Delhi, reflects the burning anger among extremists. Although the threatening message from a Quranic text was dispatched from a Russian electronic source, evidentially, the email identities were sent from Delhi, most probably from Indians. The email was most offensive to quote; “Did you real think that there would be no answer for all the evil you have done? Since childhood, the fire of jihad has been lit in our hearts, we have become this fire, Inshallah who preside over just retribution”.
The extremists may not realise that their nefarious activity can endanger the safety of their community. It is for the responsible section or the community to control the extremists. If they think that it is for the law-and-order authorities only to deal with such mischief, they are mistaken. The police and others can do so only much and no more. In short, it is not their function to protect the goodwill of the responsible section of the minority. If they do not do so, the Indian people almost would gain the impression the responsible section is also somewhat sympathetic towards the extremists’ activity.
Remember Partition is not a forgotten chapter of India’s recent history. Pakistan and Bangladesh are standing minarets of Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s Two Nation Theory whereby Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist in the same country. Hardly any Hindus have been allowed to remain in Pakistan, wherein Bangladesh non-Muslims are reducing in numbers by the week. Mohandas Gandhi told Dr Syama Prasad Mookherjee and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur the day before he was assassinated that India was a secular country because the division was a territorial and not religious one. This may have been a kind human gesture to protect the minority, but it was not the truth. Most Hindus, do not believe that it was not a division based on religion. The Hindu heart believes that it was the final settlement between Hindus and Muslims. Yes, Jawaharlal Nehru, Gandhi and their followers are free to hold their views but that era has passed and a new age has dawned in India.
Following in step with the moving train of time is wise and not getting stuck in the mud of the past. Here, it is also wise to remember that Europe no longer welcomes emigrants and the USA is reportedly slow and shows of much reluctance. The only open space appears to be Africa. One of the loud messages of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza is that emigrants are no longer welcome even in a West Asian country, whether Egypt, Jordan or any other. No neighbour has lifted their fingers toward the trigger for saving the Gaza Heights. One reminded of the ghazal by Talat Mahmood “Jayein to Jayein Kahan”.
Mughal emperor Akbar understood clearly even as a boy it could be easy to rule India if he made Hindus who were 95 per cent of his empire safe, happy and well-treated. As a sign of his impartiality between religions, he went, for Muslims to the extreme extent of not performing sunnat or circumcision on his son Salim who rose to become Jahangir, the future emperor. This Islamic king, if he were not emperor, would have been accused of being a murtad; or apoState, fit for the death penalty. His eventual innovation was called Din-e-Ilahi. By implication, he was replacing Islam with a synthetic religion that would include people of all faiths. In practice, not a great deal happened but it was a gesture especially to the Hindus, how much he was prepared to go forward to placate their sentiments. This was not the end of his vision but in a way only the beginning. He abolished the vexatious; jaziya tax which Hindus had to pay to receive protection from the State. Whenever he conquered a Rajput territory Akbar offered the Hindu prince his territory back under the Mughal suzerainty, provided the prince was prepared to align with and even fight for the empire. That indeed was a generous gesture by not dispossessing the Rajput of the kingdom completely and ensuring him of a place in the empire. He often offered to marry a princess of the principality. If his hand was accepted, he did not ask the lady to convert to Islam. There was no better way of touching the hearts of the Rajputs. In recorded history, no Muslim conqueror was this generous.
In contrast, Aurangzeb was the opposite. He went down to desecrating and demolishing Hindu temples like Vrindavan, Mathura and Banaras. Humiliating Hindus and breaking their hearts was the preferred point in his agenda. To many, it would seem that being emperor and ruling Hindu India was merely his pastime.
Alamgir Aurangzeb’s vicarious cruelties extended much beyond the demolition of temples. When he brought down the Kashi Vishwanath temple at Banaras, he left the western gate of the Hindu edifice as it was, so that every worshipper would be reminded of what the Mughals had done. When he desecrated the Govind Dev temple at Vrindavan, he demolished the top two floors only, leaving the bottom two for the Hindus to see and feel the humiliation. What benefit could such conduct bring to a ruler? Only Aurangzeb could have known.
(The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha; views are personal)
