Maulana Ghulam Vastanvi (in picture) who was chosen to be vice chancellor, Darul Uloom, Deoband, said in a press interview that Narendra Modi does not distinguish between Hindus and Muslims in matters and development and that Muslims should forget what happened and should look ahead and work for the progress of the community. All may not agree with what Maulana Vastanvi said but his statement did have an element of wisdom. While justice is very important and basic, progress is equally important. There has to be a judicious balance between the two. He should have added that like in South Africa, there should be Truth and Reconciliation Commission and then Muslims should, in the spirit of reconciliation, forgive Modi for what his government did in 2002. But one does not see any sign of regret at all and those under his influence still justify the carnage of 2002.
Here we are dealing with a somewhat different issue. Some people have started feeling that Gujarati Muslims are different from other Muslims in India. While Gujarati Muslims are reconciliatory other Muslims are still very angry at what happened in Gujarat in 2002. Strictly speaking this conclusion is not justified. Firstly, Maulana Vastanvi is not a representative of all Gujarati Muslims nor do all Gujarati Muslims support his statement. All one can say is that a section of Gujarati Muslims agree with him. Maulana Vastanvi’s support also has a message. He is a moderate and secondly his priority is religious and modern education. The fact that he threw caution to the wind clearly shows what his convictions are. If you want to prioritise education you need peace and one cannot progress without education. This seems to be the basic logic behind the Maulana’s statement.
Even then all Gujarati Muslims do not support the Maulana. There are large numbers of Muslims in Gujarat who prioritise justice over progress as what they faced was too barbaric to ignore. However, it is Gujarat which is home to trading communities among Indian Muslims. In India a huge number of Muslims are artisans, self-employed and those who are in petty lower class services. Even during their heydays Muslims never took to trade. Throughout history Muslims were polarised between feudal, land owning and artisan classes. The middle class had hardly any presence or had a very small presence and this middle class also depended on the patronage of the landowning classes. Only Gujarat had the distinction of producing three trading communities — Bohras, Khojas and Memons — all of them were converts from Hindu communities, most of whom were traders.
These traders want peace so that their trade may prosper. The Bohras and Khojas are highly centralised communities and their political stand also is determined by their religious leadership. Aga Khan, religious leader of Khojas, is more concerned with safety and security of his community and that greatly depends on the good wishes of the state government or at least what the religious leader thinks. In the case of Bohras, in addition to safety and security, its high priest had its own powerful vested interests. He collects millions of rupees from charity boxes kept in hundreds of mausoleums and there is no accounting of those charitable funds. Naturally he needs goodwill of the government and that is why he thrice felicitated Narendra Modi in Surat and no Bohra dare go against the wishes of the priestly establishment which is almost dictatorial and in complete control of individual Bohras.
The third business community comprises Sunni Bohras and Memons. This is the only business community which is not controlled by any central authority and individuals from this community take separate political stands, their business interest notwithstanding. But a vast majority of Muslims in Gujarat and especially those who suffered maximum loss of lives and lost everything they had, are poor or very poor. I do not think they ever would go soft on Modi. We should not conclude from Maulana Vastanvi’s statement that he is representing their point of view. Maulana Vastanvi’s statement had political implications. It was also being used for power struggle at Darul Uloom and so it became important for the press and has remained in the news ever since it was made. It should not lead us to believe that Gujarati Muslims are different in nature and more conciliatory than other Muslims in India. When a section of Hindus in Gujarat could be so brutal in killing and massacring a section of Muslims, who have no vested interests and nothing more to lose, could also be persisting in demanding justice. Neither all Gujarati Hindus nor all Gujarati Muslims could be peace loving.
(The writer is chairman, Centre for Study of Society and Secularism)