Was Aurangzeb the Mogul King, a tyrant?

Bhagvad Gita’s wisdom “Finding the truth is one’s own responsibility” turned my life around, when the awakening came, it was strengthened by what my Mother had said,” You alone are responsible for your actions (peace of mind), and for that, she said you’ve to question everything that is dished out to you. She dared, I am your mother and want the best for you, but when it is about the society you should find the truth on your own, including rejecting what I would say. She then concluded, truth sets you free from anger and ill-will. So her litmus test for truth is removal of hate, anger and prejudices in you.

So, I am set out to find more about Aurangzeb, I read three different articles and the links are provided below. What I had read in the past was derogatory about Aurangzeb and I had concluded that he was a bigot, which I regret, as I am seeing a different picture of him now.  I want to understand the whole truth about Aurangzeb and remove my ill-will towards him if it were unjust.  I do not want to allow falsity make home in my heart. 

The first time, I have heard positive things about Aurangzeb were from Professor Shakil Samdani of Aligarh Muslim University.  He and I spoke at Asim Siddqui Memorial college in Badaun, and during our drive from Aligarh to Badaun, we had good conversation and was taken back to hear positive things about Aurangzeb, that he did not harass Hindus as was given to understand. 

Unless we question everything, we will be blinded by our hate and politics. Aurangzeb is perceived as a tyrant, even though to be fair to him, many Hindu's cite his land grants to the Temples, Gurdwaras, the multi-faith Members in his governance, earning a living by writing and selling copies of Quran, and not using the public funds for his own.  However, he was surrounded by his Chamchas who did not dare tell him when he was wrong. 

In June this year, I wrote a piece on pulling down the confederate flag as it represented a sad part of our (American) history, and a few days later it was pulled down. Now, the name of the street in New Delhi meets a similar fate, Aurangzeb Road is changed to Abdul Kalam Road. Wrongfully or rightfully Aurangzeb represented a symbol of cruelty to fellow Indians who are Hindus.

We the Indians have collectively bonded with hate for the tyrants from the past, we had many rulers who were tyrants, but somehow, a few kings are remembered with intense dislike, two of them were Aurangzeb and Ghazni. They have been symbols of friction between Hindus and Muslims and have been invoked in communal riots. Of course, you will find at least two Kings in every religion who were tyrants towards their subjects whether they were Hindus or Buddhists.

A few Muslims and Hindus may disagree with me, and that I welcome it as a part of learning to respect the otherness of others in a democratic set up. I believe Muslims are sick and tired of being blamed for the acts of Aurangzeb; they are blamed as if they committed the crimes!  Even if I were a grandson of Aurangzeb, should I be harassed for his acts? Should your parents be persecuted for your acts? Aurangzeb was for himself, like all other Kings be it Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist or other kings and he does not represent a Muslim in a democracy.

I hope this is a catalytic event to rename the road from Aurangzeb to Abdul Kalam does well for the Hindu and Muslim psyche. I pray that those few Hindus who carried the burden find Mukti from it, and Muslims have nothing to lose from it.  

However, not the moderate majority of Hindus, but the extreme right wing among them needs to question if what has been told to them makes sense. Is there a joy in destroying things that bear Muslim names for them? Does Hinduism teach this? What is next? Is the RSS hell bent on messing up with our history, do they represent the values of Hinduism? Is Hinduism Hijacked? I know the feeling, the moderate Muslims are still fighting the tiny puny group of extremists among us, now the Hindus have that fight on their hands. Do they believe in live and let live or live with hatred for Muslims. Hinduism does not teach anything they are practicing. 


It would be bad for India, if the extremists among Hindus want a pound of flesh, and want to turn our history upside down.   My friend Dr. Zafar Iqbal pointed out in a conversation that Aurangzeb would not give in to the British, so the British resorted to divide and rule and figured out a way to place a wedge between Hindus and Muslims by writing falsities about Aurangzeb. 

I know the pattern well. In my Radio show on the issue of Ayodhya way back in 2003, I quoted a letter of India’s Governor General from the India Gazette in 1853 – he wrote to the bloody King in England that the Muslims and Hindus have built a Ram Chabootra and have started getting along again, if these groups joined, that spells the end of British Raj! (http://mikeghouse.net/Aboutus/Dallas-Observer-on-MikeGhouse.htm )

  
However, together as Indian Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhist and others, we need to preserve our heritage and faithfully guard our history. We must remove the hate for each other and live like equals - that is the right dharma. 

Let this change of name bring relief to our Hindu friends and remove apprehension for Muslims, that they can live freely without being blamed for Aurangzeb and no more griping and no more flipping the world upside down. Let’s get it over and move forward. 

Articles worth reading:

1. Aurangzeb vs Kalam, full article at http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2015/09/aurangzeb-vs-kalam-indian-express.html

2. Was Aurangzeb really a bigot and tormentor of Hindus? A fair assessment by Hindu Scholars : http://caravandaily.com/portal/so-was-aurangzeb-really-a-bigot-and-tormentor-of-hindus-2/

3. Why we should oppose Aurangzebing of Aurangzebhttp://thewire.in/2015/08/30/why-we-should-oppose-the-aurangzebing-of-aurangzeb-9549/

4. Delhi was inspired by history and not bigotry

http://www.firstpost.com/india/renaming-aurangzeb-road-after-apj-abdul-kalam-new-delhi-was-inspired-by-history-not-bigotry-2416606.html

4. Erasing History
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/renaming-aurangzeb-road-after-apj-abdul-kalam/article7604307.ece

5.  RSS to push renaming the roads named after Mughals
http://m.thehindu.com/news/national/rss-to-push-for-renaming-roads-named-after-mughals/article7601138.ece

6.  Why Target Aurangzeb alone Mr. Kejriwal?
http://www.rediff.com/news/column/why-target-aurangzeb-alone-mr-kejriwal/20150901.htm

7. Moguls were never against Hinduism
 http://www.siasat.com/news/mughals-were-never-against-hinduism-study-834288/

Mike Ghouse is a motivational speaker committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. His information is in 63 links a www.MikeGhouse.netand his exclusive writings are at TheGhousediary.com 

Aurangzeb, Sikhs and Hindus

Aurangzeb, Sikhs and Hindus | http://MikeGhouseforIndia.blogspot.com

Personally, I have repeatedly condemned Aurangzeb’s forcible conversions of Hindus.  Even though he was famous for his justice, but he fell short on it, when he forced conversions on his subjects.

The author writes about the conflict between Sikhs and Aurangzeb as political, indeed it is so similar to the deeply embedded hatred of Jews– as Christ Killers, which is dumb, Jesus did not preach Christianity when he was persecuted, he taught reformed version of the old testament which was not liked by the establishment and thus punished him as a rebellious heretic Jew, and not as a Christian. 

Dr. Harbans Lal also has talked about  the conflict between Aurangzeb and Guru Gobind Singh as political and not religious, he is planning to write an article about it.

There is a lot of gossip material out there on every one; hence I am seeking the source of this information. I don’t have anything but the name of the author on it.

I know one thing for sure, with a few exception, a majority of the Kings were greedy men focused on taking over the next door kingdom, looting their wealth, collecting lagan etc etc.  Kings from all religions were the same. If there was a Muslim ass, you will find a Hindu, Christian and Buddhist ass.  Men were bad and not their religions.

The acts were their own.

Mike Ghouse
http://MikeGhouseforIndia.blogspot.com

The truth about Sultan Aurangzeb

Aurangzeb
by: Abid Mohammed

The Emperor Aurangzeb, who rose to the throne in the 17th Century as the sixth Mughal ruler over “India”, is often painted as a vicious, religiously intolerant, minority-suppressing fanatic, whose only job was to demolish temples in favour of mosques, antagonise his father and brothers, and single-handedly bring down the once magnificent Mughal Empire. And yet, the reality of the situation is that this could not be further from the truth.  Aurangzeb would often say about himself, “This weak old man, this shrunken helpless creature, is afflicted with a hundred maladies besides anxiety, but he has made patience his habit”. Once, when one of Aurangzeb’s servants stumbled against him and knocked him down accidentally, the servant collapsed in fright for fear of retribution. The Mughal emperor spoke to him kindly, however, saying “Why do you fear a created being, one like myself? […] Rise and do not be afraid.”

Even the Italian historian Manucci who was present during Aurangzeb’s rule, despite loathing him and preferring his far less religious brother Dara Shikoh (many question whether he was a Muslim at all due to the fact that he tried to create a hybrid religion between Hinduism and Islam), said that Aurangzeb

“…assumes always great humility of attitude”. Even when one of his officers disobeys him, he betrays no anger. All he says is, (and that in the softest voice) that he is only a miserable sinner, that there is no reason for astonishment if his orders are disregarded, since every day those of God Himself are neglected and repudiated. He does not forget, however, to repeat his orders and adopt every exact means of getting them executed.”

In one of his letters, Aurangzeb said, We must put up with every class of people, what is to be done with them? They are also people and Do you know who a brave man is? A brave man is he who puts up with his enemies.

Writing to his father, Shah Jahan of the famous Taj Mahal (incidentally the name “Taj Mahal” is a corruption of the “Mumtaz Mahal” – the name of Shah Jahan’s beloved wife, and for whom the tomb was built for) Aurangzeb insightfully said, "I wish you to recollect that the greatest conquerors are not always the greatest Kings. The nations of the earth have often been subjugated by mere uncivilised barbarians, and the most extensive conquests have, in a few short years, crumbled to pieces. He is the truly great King who makes it the chief business of his life to govern his subjects with equity."

To his son, Prince Azam, Aurangzeb wrote,

I have heard that in your heart Jagir districts oppression is practiced openly […] Fear the sighs of the oppressed.

Modern historians love to paint Aurangzeb as a villain. And yet, even they admit their double standards towards him. Abraham Early writes,

Later historians saw Aurangzeb in an altogether different light. As the passage of time faded the memory of his innumerable small acts of everyday kindness, but magnified his few notable misdeeds, such as his religious intolerance, his ruthlessness as a conqueror, his use of tactics to get the better of others, and more than anything else, his harsh treatment of his father, brothers and sons. But his predecessors too were guilty of similar acts – Jahangir and Shah Jahan had rebelled against their fathers; Jahangir had imprisoned and blinded and even thought of executing one of his sons; Shah Jahan was guilty of liquidating his brothers and nephews, and had also swerved from Akbar’s liberal religious policy; as aggressors, none of them, not even Akbar was much different from Aurangzeb.

Of course the religious intolerance being pointed to here is in comparison to Akbar’s “religious tolerance” – the latter’s included the banning of facial hair for Muslims, declaring it unlawful to believe in Angels, banning the slaughter of cows for Muslims, persecution of scholars and so on. Aurangzeb merely enabled Muslims to practice their religion freely. Any persecution of minorities that did take place was not general, but specific, nor was it religious in nature, but rather political in aim. There are many claims of Aurangzeb “oppressing the Sikhs and their Gurus” when history shows us that there were some Sikh communities who rebelled against Aurangzeb and so, as a ruler, he dealt with them as a ruler deals with his people, not as a Muslim seeking to oppress non-Muslims. Even the Wikipedia page on Aurangzeb states the well-known fact that just as he demolished some (maximum 80 in a country 20 times the size of the UK) temples, which served as political centres for rebellion, he also financed the building of many temples and Gurdwaras which posed no threat to the Mughal rule.

And as for the harsh treatment of his father, brothers and sons – Shah Jahan wanted Aurangzeb’s elder brother, Dara Shikoh to be the next emperor even though Dara Shikoh was a terrible leader and someone who very much wanted to reinstate Akbar’s persecutory laws towards Muslims. Aurangzeb’s other brothers were less exciting – they simply wanted to be emperors. Aurangzeb was the only one who realised that power was a responsibility not an opportunity to exercise one’s desires, and so he was forced to battle his brothers and imprison his father who only wanted power for the sake of power, in a palace, with each and every one of his needs being seen to.

Aurangzeb, unlike many of his predecessors, viewed being a ruler as a sacred duty rather than something to enjoy. He therefore spent every waking moment striving to discharge his responsibilities, lest he be held culpable on the Day of Judgement for not having done so. Once, one of his well-intentioned advisers suggested that Aurangzeb should lighten his workload, but the Emperor would hear none of it.

He (the adviser) seems not to consider that, being born the son of a King, and placed on a throne, I was sent into the world by Providence to live and labour, not for myself, but for others; that it is my duty not to think of my own happiness except so far as it is inseparably connected with the happiness of my people. It is the repose and prosperity of my subjects that it behoves me to consult; nor are these to be sacrificed to anything besides the demands of justice, the maintenance of royal authority, and the security of the State.

This desire to serve God, something which was equally as manifest in his great, great, great grandfather Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, was apparent to all those around Him. The British Ambassador Norris reports that he used to see Aurangzeb, even during battle,

surrounded by greate numbers of Horse & vast numbers of people crowding to see Him […] he himselfe tho’ carryd openly saw nobody, having his eyes always affixed upon a Booke he carryd in his hands & reading all ye way he went without ever divertinge to any other object.

This book was the Qur’ān. Aurangzeb had memorised it completely. And he would constantly recite it. Abdul Aziz, the chief of the Uzbegs who had rebelled against Aurangzeb, famously noted that even during their famous battle, Aurangzeb would calmly spread his prayer mat on the field, kneeling down to say the evening prayers in the midst of the furore that was taking place around him. “To fight with such a man,” he said, “is to court one’s own destruction.” In fact, the Qur’ān was his sole means of finance. Though he presided over the richest empire in the world at the time (Shah Jahan’s famous peacock throne made from pure gold is in today’s terms worth more than $804 million), he refused to take any money from the treasury. Instead, he would earn his living by producing handwritten copies of the Qur’ān, using the beautiful calligraphy he had mastered as a child.

“His vest did not cost above 8 Rupees, and his outer garments, less. Whatever Aurangzeb needed for his own use he always paid for, never accepting presents from others,” continued Norris.

Even the shroud he was buried in was bought using this same source of revenue. Towards the end of his life, having taken the Mughal Empire to the peak of its existence (henceforth it would plummet into its abolition in 1857) the Alamgir (“Conqueror of the World” – a title he adopted in ascending to the throne) would often recite:

In a twinkle, in a minute, in a breath,

The condition of the world changes.

In a final letter to his sons, he said,

I brought nothing with me into this world and am carrying with me the fruits of my sins. I know not what punishment will fall on me […] Whatever the wind may be, I am launching my boat on the water.

And to his Vizier, Asad Khan, he wrote,

Praise be to God, that in whatever place and abode I have been, I have been passing through it, withdrawn my heart from all things connected with it, and made death easy for myself.

Aurangzeb, may God be pleased with him, passed away during the dawn prayers. Even as he lost consciousness, says Mustaid Khan,

the force of habit prevailed, and the fingers of the dying King continued mechanically to tell the beads of the Tasbih they held.

And what was his funeral like? In accordance with his will: “Three hundred and five rupees, from the wages of copying the Qur’ān, are in my purse for personal expenses. Distribute them to the poor and needy on the day of my death […] do not spend it on my shroud and other necessitates.” He stated elsewhere that this was “in case I had made a mistake in copying the Qur’ān, as I will be answerable to that” “Bury this wanderer […] with his head bare, because every ruined sinner who is conducted bare headed before the Grand Emperor (God), is sure to be an object of mercy [...]”

May God have mercy on you, Sultan Aurangzeb! He used you as a means of preserving His faith and His justice in the subcontinent, and as a result, I was able to be born into His faith. You are an example for all leaders to come, an inspiration for all those who believe in Him and a reminder for us all of the responsibilities we must discharge as believers in Him. May God forgive you and gift you with the companionship of your beloved Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) in the hereafter.

Originally, the grave of Sultan Aurangzeb only consisted of a wooden slab with an inscription in Farsi which said, “No marble sheets should shield me from the sky as I lie there one with the earth.” But it was later embellished and renovated with marble by the Nizam of Hyderabad.

Notes:

[1] Nadwi, A. Saviours of the Islamic Spirit. India: Academy of Islamic Research.

[2] Early, A. The Mughal Throne: The Saga of India’s Great Emperors. London: Phoenix, 2004

[3] Eaton, R. Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim States. Oxford: Journal of Islamic studies, 11:3 (2000) pp. 283 – 319.

[4] Siddiqui, H. Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History? (http://www.albalagh.net/general/0093.shtml)

[5] Sarkar, J. A life of Aurangzib and Historical notes: An English translation of Ahkam-i- Alamgiri ascribed to Hamid-ud-din Khan Bahadur. Calcutta: Sarkar and Sons, 1925. (https://archive.org/stream/AnecdotesOfAurangzeb/AnecdotesOfAurangzib_djvu.txt)

[6] Currim, M., Mitchell, G. Dargahs – Abodes of the Saints. Mumbai: Marg Publications, 2004.

BJP vis-a-vis Indian Muslims and the elections

BJP vis-a-vis INDIAN MUSLIMS AND INDIA ELECTIONS
This article has made a sincere effort to present the current relationship between BJP vis-a-vis Muslims, although it is not complete, it has the elements that Muslim and Hindus will find agreement with. 

Continued http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-crescent-in-lotus.html
---

Mike Ghouse 

The crescent in the lotus

BJP vis-a-vis INDIAN MUSLIMS AND INDIA ELECTIONS
http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-crescent-in-lotus.html

This article has made a sincere effort to present the current relationship between BJP vis-a-vis Muslims, although it is not complete, it has the elements that Muslim and Hindus will find agreement with.

A few Christians have a deep seated hatred for Jews, as the Christ Killers, and it erupts every now and then in the form of blatant or subtle anti-Semitism. Likewise, a few Hindus have carried hatred for Muslims from the ugly acts of Ghazni, Aurangzeb and other tyrants, who shamelessly wore the Muslim label. Both people have not taken up to understand that. We simply cannot carry this ill-will forever; we have to shed this and come together on current terms. None of the Muslims of today are related to those bad guys, nor are they beneficiaries of those tyrants.

Neither Hindus nor Muslims follow their own faith – if they understand and believe in the wisdom of Bhagvad Gita and Quran, they would look up to each other as members of the larger tent and not carry this venom.

The new generation of RSS members may not be as prejudiced as the old farts who cannot purify themselves with the hatred formed over the years, I am sure they have made sincere attempts to get mukti from their hatred for Muslims, but unfortunately they are stuck, they cannot find freedom from that bondage of hate, as it erupts now and then, and all we (Indians together) can do is pray for them to be free.

The fact of the matter is a majority of Muslims and Hindu are reflecting and struggling about it, while a few on both sides spew venom.

If BJP wants to be a genuine party of India, then it needs to act and represent all Indians, include all Indians, and abandon the idiotic idea of treating Muslims, Dalits or Christians as having lesser rights than themselves. Until the old farts die off, and their poisoned children die, things will be difficult to change, but if they raise the new generation with purity, then BJP can hope to be a national party of Indians, by Indians for Indians.

Why should any Indian support a party that will tear up India? Is it good for India in the long run? The few Muslims, who are joining BJP, must join as fully contributing members of the nation with equal stakes in party’s outcomes – and not as tokens or appeasement. If they cannot be treated as equal, they should not join and suffer the humiliation. I feel sorry for them.

Mike Ghouse

MikeGhouseforIndia.blogspot.com
www.MikeGhouse.net

 

The new generation of

The crescent in the lotus

What does it mean to be a Muslim leader in the Bharatiya Janata Party? The author digs deeper to understand how they are perceived by their party and the community

Archis Mohan 

April 19, 2014 Last Updated at 00:24 IST

In early March, Syed Shahnawaz Hussain, the Muslim poster boy of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was shocked out of his wits to hear that the party might field him from the Kishanganj Lok Sabha seat in Bihar. The 45-year-old former civil aviation minister soon discovered that Ashwini Kumar Choubey, another BJP leader from Bihar, had convinced the party leadership that Hussain contesting from the Muslim majority Kishanganj made more electoral sense than making him the party candidate yet again from the predominantly Hindu Bhagalpur.

Hussain, say party insiders, felt insulted. He was aghast that BJP would subject him, the party's only Muslim face in the outgoing Lok Sabha and its sitting MP from Bhagalpur, to exactly the kind of vote bank politics and appeasement of Muslims that it criticises the so-called 'secular' parties for. Hussain's argument appealed to the leadership. The engineer-turned-politician was retained as the Bhagalpur candidate of the party, while Choubey, who had eyed that seat, was asked to contest from Buxar.

But what hurt Hussain, say his confidants, was how none from the senior leadership of the party so much as rebuked Choubey for the bigoted public attack he had launched on the Muslim leader. "Choubey went around telling people how Muslims shouldn't be allowed to take over BJP, and that our (Muslim's) entry in the party should be restricted," says a close aide of Hussain. A couple of senior leaders did, however, sympathise with Hussain and apologised for Choubey's behaviour. "You journalists are quick to describe us as masks but don't try to understand how much we endure," the Hussain aide says.

A couple of weeks later, the other important Muslim face of BJP too landed in a controversy. Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi publicly protested against the entry of Janata Dal (United) discard Sabir Ali in the party. "Terrorist Bhatkal friend joins BJP...soon accepting Dawood (Ibrahim)", Naqvi tweeted on March 28 within hours of party president Rajnath Singh accepting Ali in the BJP fold.

Few in the party took notice of Naqvi's tweet. Fewer still could make sense of Naqvi's opposition to Ali becoming a BJP member. None could fathom why Naqvi, a Shia from Uttar Pradesh, should have any problems with the entry of Ali, a leader of the backward and predominantly Sunni Muslim weavers of Bihar? The BJP leadership, including Singh and its prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, had hoped Ali would bolster BJP's electoral chances in Bihar.

Party leaders were alarmed the next morning when Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) spokesperson Ram Madhav echoed Naqvi's statement. "Sabir Ali's induction has caused great resentment. Party leadership has been apprised of the strong views of the cadre and people against it," tweeted Madhav. Ali was thrown out of the party within 24-hours of having joined it.

The incident left the leaders, who thought they had won in Ali a valuable electoral trophy, upset with RSS. It was also evident that RSS had wanted a Muslim to oppose the entry of another lest it was, yet again, painted as anti-Muslim.

Both incidents, says a Dalit BJP leader, illustrate the tenuous relationship the Sangh Parivar has with party leaders who represent marginalised communities like the Muslims and Dalits. "Much has changed in the party's approach to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) because of the emergence of leaders like Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharati and Modi. But the party is still learning to engage with Dalits and Muslims more effectively," says the leader. He admires Modi for having initiated the process of inducting more Muslims and Dalits into the party.

But this lack of trust leads Muslim leaders of the party to constantly feel a need to prove their allegiance to the Sangh Parivar. They feel, confessed a BJP Minority Morcha worker, that their conduct is perennially under the microscope. It further weakens their position within the party that the Muslim community doesn't give the BJP's Muslim leaders the same respect that it would accord to, say, an Azam Khan of the Samajwadi Party or a K Rehman Khan of the Congress.

"Both Muslims and Dalits need to continuously engage with the Sangh Parivar as also their own communities to change attitudes and carve out a bigger space for themselves in BJP," says the Dalit leader.

Journalist Shahid Siddiqui agrees with the assessment. "More and more Muslims need to engage with BJP. My community needs to get out of the voting ghetto that it has become for the so-called secular parties," he says. Siddiqui, who edits Urdu weekly Nai Duniya, says it was likely BJP will give representation to more Muslims if the community were to join it in larger numbers. Until now, the party has just two Muslim MPs, Naqvi and Congress discard Najma Heptullah, in the ranks of its 46 Rajya Sabha members.

Hussain was the lone Muslim among BJP's 116 MPs in the outgoing Lok Sabha. He is likely to remain the party's only MP in the next Lok Sabha as well despite the party having fielded as many as five Muslims this time. The other four are contesting from Anantnag and Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir, and Tamluk and Ghatal in West Bengal - seats the party has never won and is unlikely to win this time either.

Such is the party's lack of confidence in its ability to attract Muslim voters to its side that it didn't field a single Muslim candidate in Uttar Pradesh, where many of the 80 Lok Sabha seats have a Muslim population sizeable enough to determine the result.

Over the years, both BJP and its earlier avatar, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, have struggled to find credible Muslim faces that they could accommodate in their frontline leadership. Journalists M J Akbar and Aijaz Ilmi, inducted in BJP in mid-March, are the latest entrants to the very small club of the party's Muslim leaders.

Incidentally, Ilmi is the brother-in-law of Arif Mohammed Khan, a well-known Muslim leader whose entry into BJP in 2004 was considered a coup of sorts for the party. Arif's stay in the party was shortlived and is instructive of how the saffron party treats its Muslim leaders differently when in power and when out of it.

Arif Mohammad Khan, with an impeccable image of a progressive Muslim who had quit the Rajiv Gandhi government on the issue of the latter's handling of the Shah Bano case and the decision to open the gates of Ram Janmabhoomi in 1986, had joined BJP when most expected the party to return to power on the strength of its 'India Shining' campaign.

Explaining his decision to join BJP, Khan had cited Muslim social activist Sir Syed Ahmad Khan who had come to the conclusion in 1857 that it was not possible for the Muslims to fight the British because they were much superior in all aspects. "Therefore, Sir Syed said instead of fighting, befriend them, learn, overcome your drawbacks, and then see if you can create goodwill. Likewise, today I feel the same thing after having spent so much time in Gujarat," Arif Mohammad Khan had said. He argued that the Muslims should also increase their engagement with a BJP that was growing politically stronger by the day. But BJP failed to make it to Delhi, and three years later in 2007 Arif Mohammad Khan quit the party complaining that BJP had ignored him.

Khan was possibly the tallest Muslim leader to join BJP after Sikander Bakht and Arif Baig. Bakht, a founding member of BJP when it was launched in its new avatar in April 1980 and somebody happier to stay in the shadows of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani, passed away in 2002. He was the party's pre-eminent leader in Delhi, was a cabinet minister in both the 13-day government of 1996 and then in the 1998 and 1999 governments before becoming a governor. Meanwhile, Baig had quit the socialists to join the Bharatiya Jana Sangh in 1973. He famously defeated Shankar Dayal Sharma as the Janata Party candidate in 1977 and was a BJP MP from Betul in 1989. When he quit the party in 1996, Baig told the media that the party was "unwilling to accept any Muslims" and only wanted people with Muslim sounding names. Baig returned to BJP in 2003 but couldn't convince his Muslim supporters to vote for the party. He was the only Muslim BJP candidate in the Madhya Pradesh assembly elections of 2013 but lost to the Congress' Arif Aqueel.

Apart from these two, the Jana Sangh had several Muslim leaders in Delhi. Urdu litterateur Imdad Sabri represented it in Delhi Metropolitan Council and became Delhi's mayor. Other local level leaders were cleric Maulana Ikhlaq Hussain Qasmi, Anwar Ali Dehelvi, Begum Khurshid Kidwai and Md Ismail. All of them represented the party from Muslim majority areas.

BJP has continued the trend of giving Muslims representation at the municipal level. Currently, there are 100 Muslims representing the party in urban bodies across Madhya Pradesh. There are four Muslim MLAs in Rajasthan. In Gujarat, between 2009 and 2013, the party nominated 297 Muslims for local body elections, of whom 142 (48 per cent) won. Surprisingly, the party denied tickets to Muslims in the assembly elections of 2012.

Many, like party's in-house psephologist GVL Narasimha Rao, have argued in the past that BJP shouldn't bother with the Muslims. In 2012, Rao pointed out how the party bagged 52 of Uttar Pradesh's 85 seats in 1996 and 57 seats in 1998 on the strength of a consolidated Hindu vote. He claimed the party won despite the vehement opposition from the Muslims and their tactical voting against the party. But a year later, the party's tally dipped to 29 seats in the 1999 elections, exposing the limits of its vote catching abilities in times of religious calm.

Muslims like Nai Duniya editor Siddiqui believe it is in times of such calm that more and more of his co-religionists should engage with BJP. He says neither the party nor the Muslims should wait for the other to make the first move. "It is like a chicken and egg situation. BJP feels why give tickets to Muslims when the community doesn't vote for the party. The Muslims think they would rather not give their votes to a party that doesn't represent them or talk of their interests," says Siddiqui. "Muslims engaging with BJP will be healthy for a secular democracy." BJP, he adds, also needs to take a few more steps to win the hearts and minds of the Muslims.

Mumbai-based social activist Pheroze Mithiborewalla, however, disagrees with both Siddiqui and Khan. He says Muslims continue to suffer in Gujarat and are denied democratic freedoms like holding public rallies. "These Muslim BJP leaders and that party's outreach to the community aren't to get Muslim votes, but to fool centrist and secular Hindus into believing that BJP has changed. Unfortunately, it cannot change its anti-Muslim core," he avers, adding that BJP's Muslim faces were mostly seen as opportunists within the community.

Zafar-ul-Islam Khan, editor of the Milli Gazette, says the Muslims would be willing to support the saffron party and its Muslim faces if only it showed sensitivity to Muslim concerns. He cites how the Gujarat government is yet to give compensation to the victims of the 2002 riots in Gujarat, the absence of a minority commission in that state and the Gujarat government's refusal to allow scholarship scheme for minorities as examples that BJP remained unchanged in its stance. "Our community," says Khan, "is not their enemy. Let them show us that that they have our interest at heart."

http://www.business-standard.com/article/specials/the-crescent-in-the-lotus-114041800980_1.html