Posted on : 30-04-11, 3:37 am
MUSLIM COMMUNITY MUST SERIOUSLY LOOK BEYOND CONGRESS IN POLITICS AND ALSO ANALYSE AND CONSIDER THE PROS AND CONS OF THE MUSLIM GROUPS COMING UP WITH OPTIONS OTHER THAN CONGRESS.
T. Arif Ali, Ameer, Jama’at-e-Islami Kerala speaks to Sadaruddin Vazhakkad Sub Editor of the organization’s Malayalam mouth organ, Prabodhanam Weekly on electoral stand taken by the JI in recently held Kerala Assembly Elections. Translated by Zubair Ahmed.
In the last assembly elections, Jamaat assumed a pro-left stand. Recently Jamaat and the Left had locked horns on various issues. Jamaat and SOLIDARITY* had openly opposed and led street protests against the policies of Left government. Apropos, Left had been highly critical of Jamaat. How can you justify Jamaat’s pro-Left stand in such circumstances?
At the outset, before taking any stand in the recently concluded Assembly polls, Jamaat closely scrutinized the 2006-11 term of Left government. Jamaat Shoora reached a conclusion that the 2006-11 LDF government comparatively fared better than the UDF government of 2001-06. Before taking a stand, it was imperative that the performances of both the Fronts were examined thoroughly. And, it could infer that the present LDF government was better than the UDF government.
First of all, LDF government could launch various welfare schemes. It also undertook a range of promising developmental projects. Initially, during the first leg of its term in power, the government was mired in various internal conflicts and showed signs of stagnation. It only overcame it by Lok Sabha polls. The positive change started to become apparent with the elections for local self government institutions. And it could take perceptible steps in developmental works.
At the same time, of late, the image of UDF in Kerala and UPA in Centre took a beating. Corruption touched its pinnacle in the recent times. A few leaders of UDF as well as UPA landed behind bars on corruption charges. Moreover, many cases of corruption and sleaze during the UDF government too started to erupt from its own stable. Stories of corruption started surfacing from the mouths of its own supporters and allies, who earlier had desperately tried to hush up when in power.
The timing of assembly elections colluded when LDF had a makeover through its developmental and welfare schemes and the image of UDF and UPA was tarnished by various scams and scandals. It becomes obvious what stand would Jamaat take in such circumstances.
In that case, why did Jamaat extend support to UDF in 15 constituencies? How could you justify the criticism about the contradiction in terms of supporting LDF for its continuity and simultaneously vote for a change through supporting UDF in some seats?
In fact there is no inconsistency in this decision. We have no claim that the LDF government was hundred percent perfect, when we say that it fared better than UDF. While extending support to LDF, Jamaat decided not to totally ignore all the allies of UDF.
This decision was sent down line to its cadre and after considering their valuable opinion; it decided to extend support to UDF in 15 constituencies. The decision to support UDF was taken by its workers which show the strong and exemplary democratic tradition of Jamaate Islami.
Don’t you think that many policies of the LDF government was not promising for Muslim community in general and Jamaat in particular like Textbook issue, School timing and Madrasa Education, Sachar Committee Report, Raid at Hira Centre, Kinalur Issue and the incessant criticism of Jamaat by CPI-M leadership?
Both issues must be tackled separately – The issue of Muslim community and the matter related with Jamaate Islami.
The Sachar Committee Report is a subject of Central government. The LDF government in Kerala formed a committee headed by Paloli Mohammed Kutty for feasibility study for implementation of the recommendations of the Report. The Paloli Committee consists of many Muslim dignitaries. I doubt any other state has taken pain to constitute such a committee. After taking into account the suggestions of various social activists and groups, the Government has implemented many recommendations of Paloli Committee. For example, the welfare fund scheme for Madrasa teachers. Concurrently, the government had initiated various steps to salvage Malabar region from its backwardness. The main concern of Malabar region was lack of good educational institutions and its backwardness. To overcome this, LDF government allowed new schools and new courses in colleges. In this respect, the government did try to give special attention to minorities.
It was recommended that five extension campuses of Aligarh Muslim University must come up in minority centric regions of the country. Kerala and West Bengal were the only two states all set to implement it. In Kerala, the campus started functioning. Considering the impracticality of such a campus in Perinthalmanna of Malappuram District, many organizations including Jamaat opposed it and insisted that the Aligarh campus must come up only at Panakkad. Overlooking all opposition, Left government through connivance implemented the project at Perinthalmanna. Chamaravattam Project is another example of development of Malabar. SOLIDARITY had made genuine interventions in this matter. It disproves the premise that LDF was against Malabar.
But, issues related to Muslim community and other religious groups also cropped up during this period. One among them was the reservations about Marriage Registration. The change of school timing affecting Madrasa education and blasphemous references against religious beliefs in school textbooks were the other two issues. These were the failures of the Left government. When these issues were staunchly taken up by Muslim organizations, the government had to fall in line. Sense prevailed and the government including Chief Minister showed willingness to discuss the issues with Muslim organizations and backtrack from their earlier stance. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable to say that LDF in comparison with UDF showed indifference and enmity with Muslim community. If anyone tows this line for political mileage, people must realize it.
Al Barakah is one of the major steps taken by the Left government. In spite of opposition from various quarters and court cases against Al Barakah, the financial institution was initiated on the lines of Islamic economic system and the government went ahead with the project?
Muslims are a major constituent of Kerala population. Like other sections, Muslims too have achieved economic progress to an extent. Inequitable participation in the financial sector will surely create internal and external difficulty. This Islamic financial institution aims to attract the capital lying with Muslims, due to prohibition of usury and interest, and give them an opportunity to play an equal role in the economic progress of Kerala. This farsighted step shall bring diverse results. Kerala government did comprehend the advantage of such a project and came forward to start Al Barakah, upholding the values of Islamic economic system. This project attracted criticism from various quarters. Litigations also happened. The intervention of Subramaniam Swamy and the litigation gave birth to uncertainties and misunderstandings. Criticizing the project he said that the wealth of a state is going to be reserved for a particular religious community, an awful interpretation. Court dismissed Swamy’s plea and gave the verdict in favour of Al Barakah. The observations of the court were commendable. It is promising that despite criticism, LDF went ahead with the project.
CPM vehemently criticized Jamaat. The protests and campaigns by SOLIDARITY and SIO against the wrong policies of the Left government culminated in physical clashes. Still, Jamaat took a pro-LDF stand?
If anyone honestly analyzes Jamaat’s tradition and the political stance it takes, one would not find any inconsistency or abnormality in this matter. Jamaat instead of giving precedence to its organizational interests gives importance to the interests of the nation while formulating its policies. In election policy too, it gives precedence to public welfare and not to party matters. Jamaat does not consider others stand towards it while extending or denying support to them.
The argument does not hold substance that Jamaat should not support LDF because CPM leaders criticize it, even Congress as well as its allies too criticizes Jamaat. How can we justify our support to Congress and Muslim League if we take such a stand? Despite Pinarayi Vijayan’s staunch disparagement of Jamaat, it extended support to LDF and in same vein, Muslim League, which is still fervently criticizing Jamaat got support for their candidates. In India, Jamaat was twice banned by Congress and not by CPM. Even then Jamaat has supported Congress many times. During last Lok Sabha elections, to stall BJP from coming to power, Jamaat had supported Congress in as many as 220 constituencies. When we extended the support during that period, no one raised voice against it and said that Jamaat was twice banned by Congress and it should not support them. The criticism comes to the fore when Jamaat supports LDF and not when it extends support to UDF. Why this hypocrisy?
In recent times, CPI-M leaders shot a trail of criticism against Jamaat. In many instances, LDF had gone off-track during implementation of its developmental projects. When LDF which is believed to maintain a policy of anti-capitalism, anti-globalization, anti-privatization and pro-poor stand drifted towards capitalist tendencies in some of its developmental projects, Jamaat, its feeder organizations and media openly criticized and strongly reacted against it. For LDF, leaning towards capitalist tendencies were not part of their policy, but diversion. Whereas, for UDF, capitalism is their fundamental policy and not diversion. Jamaat is highly critical about UDF’s fundamental policy and its opposition of the LDF is due to its diversion. Whenever, LDF strays from its policy, Jamaat and its feeder organizations will surely react and oppose the move. Jamaat do not show total submissiveness and support LDF like Muslim organizations support Muslim League. Muslim organizations fail to criticize the policies of UDF or Muslim League. The strength of Jamaat lies in its approach of criticizing the wrong policies of the Left even when it extends its support during elections.
The Jamaat workers had to face severe criticism and even physical assault from CPI-M, when it opposed the wrong policies of Left. They intended to divert the attention of general public from real issues and overcome the opposition of Jamaat and its feeder organizations by raking allegations against Jamaat. I think they realized their folly. But, Jamaat do not wish to take political decisions based on such organizational matters.
Why did Jamaat extend support to Minister Elamaram Kareem, who had direct confrontation with Solidarity and was highly critical of Jamaat?
Jamaat formed its election policy after evaluating the performance of Left government as well as its ministers. Moreover, the majority of Jamaat workers from that constituency were in favour of the minister. It’s a commendable stand. Without prejudice, Jamaat workers supported a minister who was highly critical of Jamaat and even physically assaulted the workers of SOLIDARITY and others by using police force, when they opposed the government move. It’s commendable that Jamaat and its workers could rise above individual and party interests and give precedence to the welfare of the people keeping in mind the comparatively good governance exhibited by LDF. The workers could have just objected to supporting Karim. But, the vast majority of workers from Kinalur and Kakkodi favoured support for the Left front, once again reiterating its democratic tradition of favoring majority opinion.
It shows the magnanimity of Jamaat workers. Its workers have proved that a principled organization, while taking decisions should give precedence to common good over enmity of the perpetrators. Which other party can claim such graciousness?
The raid at Hira Centre is another aspect. It took place immediately after Left came to power. A few doubt how Jamaat could support Left after such an incident. We had also supported Left candidate in Tiruvambadi, who won the bye election. I don’t believe that a government without any coercion would take such a drastic step within weeks of coming into power. It would have been a miscalculated step taken by some police officials.
Some elements are bent upon creating confusion that there is dissent and rupture in Jamaat after it took the decision of supporting LDF in 124 constituencies. It’s totally absurd. It’s foolishness to compare Jamaat using the yardstick used for conventional and traditional religious organizations and political parties. During the discussions on forming policies, even after presenting dissenting opinions, everyone works in tandem to execute the decision taken by the body.
In 2006 Assembly Elections, in Tiruvambadi Bye Elections, and in the Lok Sabha polls (18 out of 20), Jamaat supported Left front. It has repeated the same with slight modifications during last Assembly elections. Are you not expressing open submission by supporting Left every time?
During 2006 Assembly Elections, while extending support in 140 constituencies, Jamaat had made it clear that it does not support all the policies of LDF and it would show no mercy in differing and opposing the wrong policies of the Left. It was not just a statement. Jamaat has been staunchly opposing the wrong policies of the Left government from the beginning.
Jamaat or its feeder organizations have never remained mute fearing the consequences of criticism from CPI-M leadership or revengeful approach from the Left government while criticizing their wrong policies. Kinalur and Chengara are living examples of Jamaat’s stand against anti-poor policies of the Left government.
Is it right that Muslims have only Left as a political option?
Muslim League has been propounding a misguided theory that Muslims have political option only with Congress. Muslims have been on receiving end since ages due to this notion. Muslim League could never oppose or raise its voice against Congress and remained totally submissive to it due to such a stand. In fact, Muslims have many options other than Congress. It can stand on its own and go by itself thus easily proving its existence. Second option is to go with other fronts except Congress, which Muslims have done in the past too.
Muslims lose bargaining power when it finds itself confined with the notion that it has no option other than Congress. And, they have been facing indifference from Congress due to the same reason. The backwardness brought to the fore by Sachar Committee and the denial of seats to Muslim leaders during last Assembly elections are all result of apathy by Congress.
Take the instance of Muslim League. Out of 20 seats, in every election, two seats are reserved for Muslim League. Both the seats are bastions of Muslims and they can easily win in both constituencies without any support. Is it justifiable that Muslims throughout the state extends support to Congress on the basis of this arrangement? League could never garner the courage to bargain for more seats or even think about it. At the same time, League has been helping Congress a lot. It is true that in constituencies belonging to Muslim League, League workers put hard work and strive to win the elections. Whereas, in other 18 constituencies, Congress tries all other options – interest-groups, mafia, media and corporates – to win elections. Congress have become so weak at grass root level that it could not garner votes by doing social service or by taking up issues or campaigns benefiting common man. Even after all the hard work put by League in garnering vote for Congress, League is not in a position to bargain for their rights or benefits from the Congress.
In such a situation, Muslims should not think that Congress is the only option for them. I have no claim that politics with Congress is out rightly wrong or misconceived. But the situation demands a change – Muslims should not lose their identity by submitting it to the will of Congress. Muslim community must seriously look beyond Congress in politics and also analyse and consider the pros and cons of the Muslim groups coming up with options other than Congress.
Muslim community is being used as vote bank by many. Has the community realized how the political parties use them during elections and throw them out after achieving their goals?
Muslims are being used as stepping stones by political parties to achieve their goals. And, once they attain their goals, they are kicked out. West Bengal is an apt example. Mamta Banerjee had developed a soft corner for Muslims during last two Assembly elections. And, Muslims too supported her during her trying period. But, now when she is hopeful of coming to power, she did not even show the courtesy to engage with Muslim organizations or leaders. Even CPM had been treating Muslims the same way. Tired of such attitude, they turned towards Mamta and supported her in the last elections. But, she is also showing indifference now. Congress too tows the same line. Muslims need to realize it and reconsider their options.
What is the experience in Kerala?
After the Assembly Election debacle, Congress leaders Oommen Chandy, Ramesh Chennitala and M I Shahnawaz met Jamaat leadership and held long discussions. The meeting was in Ernakulam. In the discussion, they openly admitted that they have learnt a lesson from the election failure that “Congress needs to engage other Muslim organizations too apart from Muslim League.” Concluding the discussion, they sought the help of Jamaat in garnering support for Congress in Karnataka Assembly elections. It’s a policy decision for Jamaat to support Congress to keep BJP at bay. Hence, Jamaat was willing to accept the demand of Congress leaders. We departed with the promise that Jamaat will facilitate a meeting of Karnataka Jamaat with Congress. But, Congress backtracked without any effort. When enquired, the reply we got was astonishing. The reason behind it was that Muslims are bound to vote for Congress in Karnataka and it would not like to create a liability by meeting the Muslim leaders and seeking their support separately. Congress thinks that when Congress and BJP contests, Muslims will naturally vote for Congress, and it is their duty. In fact, Congress does not perceive Muslims as a potential political group or as a society in general.
Some of the political leaders denied having engaged with Jamaat. What do you think about such approaches?
In the recent times, in connection with the Assembly polls, Jamaat was widely in discussion and controversies. Some political parties tried to create controversies about discussions with Jamaat and some of them tried to stamp it as a terrorist group. While forming political decisions and policy, Jamaat engages in discussions with all political, social and cultural organizations. There won’t be any organization, which can claim that it has not engaged in discussion with Jamaat. But, our politicians indulge in depravity and self denial. For short term gains, they won’t shy from spreading falsehood, create misunderstanding and even create communal polarization. This won’t stop Jamaat from performing its duties. They may try to attack and even marginalize us. The same people have come to Jamaat seeking their support at many times. Maintaining the political decency, Jamaat does not like to publicize about it. When they attack today, we know that they will come back to us tomorrow, heads down. “We will bring that Day repeatedly”, says Holy Quran. Hence, the loud noise outside does not dishearten our organization.
Support to Left Front has already created ripple. A person from Jamaat leadership left protesting its election policy?
One brother from leadership left Jamaat opposing the decision even before our election policy was finalized or declared. In a press meet, justifying his walkout, he said that his opinion was not accepted by Jamaat. In any organization, if everyone leaves saying that their opinions were not accepted, the organizations will cease to exist. An organization is a group of individuals with diverse opinions. An organization takes shape when such opinions are respected, considered, analyzed and a balanced stand is taken. If people start facing press conferences for organization’s non-acceptance of one’s opinion, they will have to call press conferences umpteen number of times. The person has either failed to understand the nuances of Jamaat and its social life or the organizational culture of Jamaat. I think he would have left Jamaat for some other reasons.
It’s nothing new that people leave Jamaat. Many respectable persons have left Jamaat. Personalities like world renowned scholars Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, Maulana Ameen Ahsan Islahi, Maulana Shams Peerzada, Maulana Ziaur Rahman and Maulana Wahiduddin Khan left the organization. It’s not relevant to compare a common man with such personalities. Even though, we need to give it a thought. All the aforesaid personalities maintained a cordial relationship with the movement even after leaving it. They loved the movement even when they differed with it. And, they supported the movement when it faced challenges. They never showed enmity towards the movement, even though they differed with its policies. And they never called press conferences to show their dissent. Considering the event of last week, it is a strange case in the history of the movement. We have taken serious note of the way the person, a member of the highest body of the organization, throwing all decorum into thin air, went public. In fact, the motive was not dissent with the election policy or ideological difference, but personal reasons. He tried to exploit the personal space that the movement endows with to each member. And, it’s natural that the question may rise how such a person reaches the leadership of the movement. It’s a relevant question. The movement will certainly analyze the issue and take proper measures if required.
The qualities required in an individual as pre-requisite for Islamic movement may deteriorate?
Ikhlas (dedication) and commitment in one’s action is very pertinent. The prophetic saying that “Deeds are based on intentions” is placed in the beginning in his Hadith collection by Imam Bukhari. Niyyah or Intention is something which the individual and God alone can know. Nobody can find it out. It can deteriorate. Iman or faith itself is something which increases as well as decreases. An individual’s perfect Iman can decline as well as he may lose it. It’s not necessary that one’s outlook changes with the alteration in his Iman. They may perform Islamic activities or prayers without Iman. Some individuals fall into moral turpitude. They may face huge moral humiliation and leave organization like Jamaate Islami which maintains high moral standards. Some get caught in financial fraud. They may resign from the movement before the fraud is exposed. The movement has seen many such cases in its long history. But, we should constantly remind ourselves that we will have to face Allah the Almighty, Who knows every secret hidden in us and will have to reply to his questions, however and whatever way we try to convince the people or respond to the queries of the media.