Today there are about 200 million Muslims in India, out of a total Indian population of over 1.4 billion. This is less than the Muslim population of Pakistan, which is about 235 million, but more than the Muslim population of Bangladesh, which is about 150 million.

In recent times, Indian Muslims have been marginalised in the political life of India, often demonised, and subjected to discrimination and humiliation, being branded as terrorists, bigots, anti-nationals, and what not.

Everyone knows what has been happening to Muslims in India ever since the BJP came to power in 2014. Have there not been atrocities and oppression against them? Have some of them not been lynched by so-called “cow vigilantes”? Have many not been beaten up for refusing to say “Jai Shri Ram”? Have the houses of some not been bulldozed? Have many not been arrested and imprisoned for several years on allegedly false and concocted charges? Have they not often been discriminated against? Have hate speeches not frequently been made against them with impunity, demonising them and calling them terrorists, anti-nationals, etc.?

However, even during Congress Party rule, and long before the BJP came to power in 2014, Muslims suffered, as demonstrated by the Sachar Committee Report, submitted in November 2006 by a high-level committee chaired by former Delhi High Court Chief Justice Rajinder Sachar. The report revealed that Muslims in India lagged significantly behind other socio-religious communities in education, income, and formal employment. It showed that the average socio-economic status of Indian Muslims was comparable to, and on certain indices worse than, that of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

I have always condemned the oppression of Muslims in India. I am a humble disciple of the great Mughal Emperor Akbar, who propagated the policy of Sulh-e-Kul, or giving equal respect to all religions and communities. But how did this marginalisation and victimisation happen to a community consisting of about 15% of India’s population?

Partition and Its Political Consequences

Firstly, this was, in my opinion, one of the consequences of the Partition of India in 1947, which I regard as the greatest tragedy in India’s 5,000-year-old known history. Partition took place on the basis of the two-nation theory—that Hindus and Muslims constituted separate nations unable to live peacefully together.

Whatever differing interpretations historians may have regarding the causes of Partition, its consequences profoundly altered the political and communal landscape of the subcontinent. It also left deep mistrust between communities, the effects of which continue to be felt today.

For a long time after Independence, the ruling Congress Party portrayed India as a secular state and relied heavily on Muslim electoral support. In my view, this political arrangement did not sufficiently address the deeper socio-economic problems confronting Indian Muslims. The political situation changed significantly in 2014, when the BJP came to power.

Why did many Indian Muslims agree to Partition, and why did the Congress Party, which claimed to be against Partition, ultimately agree to it?

The poor and mostly uneducated Muslims had little say in the matter, as they were largely focused on earning their daily bread to feed themselves and their families. But what about the “educated” Muslims? A large number of them supported Partition. For instance, Jinnah, the main proponent of the two-nation theory, was often feted and lionised by students of Aligarh Muslim University whenever he visited Aligarh.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, on the other hand, remained strongly opposed to Partition and consistently advocated Hindu-Muslim unity.

As regards the Congress Party, its senior leadership ultimately accepted Partition amid the extraordinarily difficult political circumstances surrounding the transfer of power in 1947.

After Independence, the Congress Party remained in power for several decades. It told Indian Muslims that if they did not vote for Congress, they would be overwhelmed by the pro-Hindu Jan Sangh, which later evolved into the BJP. Consequently, Indian Muslims would often vote collectively for Congress candidates, even where those candidates may not necessarily have deserved their support.

Secondly, the plight of Indian Muslims after 1947 was also, in my opinion, partly connected with the actions and political choices of sections of the Muslim community itself, including their failure to sufficiently object to what I regard as the Muslim appeasement policies pursued by certain Congress governments for electoral purposes.

For instance, when the Indian Supreme Court delivered the progressive and humanitarian Shah Bano judgment in 1985, holding that a Muslim husband had an obligation to provide maintenance to his divorced wife, a large section of Indian Muslim opinion criticised the judgment as being contrary to Sharia.

But if a Muslim woman, who may be financially dependent on her husband, is divorced and left without adequate financial support, what will she and her children eat? Did those condemning the Shah Bano judgment sufficiently consider that question?

South Asians & Diaspora

When atrocities were committed against Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s, and large numbers were forced to leave Kashmir amid militancy and violence, hardly any prominent Indian Muslim voices, in my view, spoke strongly enough against this outrage.

I remember that at that time I went to the house of a Muslim friend in Allahabad. I told him that I always raised my voice whenever atrocities were committed against Muslims, and that he should similarly speak when atrocities were committed against Hindus. I asked him to write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, which I would help get published. But he refused to do anything.

My point is that opposition to injustice must be based on principle. Muslims should condemn atrocities against Hindus just as Hindus should condemn atrocities against Muslims. Justice cannot depend upon the religion of the victim.

Indian Muslims should also have seen through and strongly objected to the Muslim appeasement policies of certain politicians who were principally interested in securing their votes.

For instance, when the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, announced allowances for imams and muezzins in the state, Muslims should, in my opinion, have questioned whether such policies genuinely advanced their socio-economic interests or merely represented electoral politics.

Policies perceived as favouring one religious community can also generate resentment among others and contribute to communal polarisation. This, ultimately, is harmful to all communities.

I have several times appealed to Indian Muslims to modernise and to critically examine practices and institutions which, in my view, may no longer serve the interests of the community. These include aspects of the application of Sharia, the burqa, and excessive dependence upon conservative religious leadership. Unfortunately, these views have often resulted in criticism and abuse being directed at me.

As regards Sharia, I have explained that law is a reflection of human society at a particular stage of its historical development. When society changes, law too must respond to changing social realities.

Sharia developed in a particular historical and social environment many centuries ago. The question therefore arises whether every historical rule can automatically be applied unchanged to modern society. The same question can be asked regarding ancient Hindu legal texts such as the Manusmriti. Laws and social practices must ultimately respond to contemporary realities, constitutional values, human dignity and justice.

As regards the burqa, I have strongly criticised it as a practice which, in my opinion, can unnecessarily restrict women. I have no objection to modest forms of dress such as the abaya where the face remains uncovered.

Regarding maulanas and religious leadership, my view has consistently been that Muslims should think independently and should not permit any religious authority to prevent them from pursuing modern education, scientific thinking, economic advancement and social reform.

I regard myself as a well-wisher of Muslims and genuinely want the community to prosper. Yet when I have expressed these opinions, I have sometimes been ridiculed, castigated, insulted and even branded communal or accused of secretly supporting political forces whose actions I have myself criticised.

The time has now come for Indian Muslims to seriously ponder these issues.

Their future cannot depend solely upon political parties claiming to protect them. Nor can it depend upon religious leaders preserving outdated social attitudes.

The way forward lies in modern education, scientific thinking, economic development, social reform, constitutionalism, communal harmony and an unwavering commitment to justice for every Indian—Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian or otherwise.

Only through such an approach can Indian Muslims secure the dignity, equality and prosperity to which they are entitled.