3 pieces that i read today, force me to think yet again about the minority question.
Is there anything that binds todays muslims in India to India?
The first one is the news article in today's paper about the need to bring changes in the Muslims Personal law which governs issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. Muslims demand special treatment and want the nation to allow them to follow their shariah law. They do not accept a single law to govern all citizens of this country.
This nation accepts a muslim personal law. A 13% muslim population has its word in a nation of 85% non-muslims.
The second piece is about how muslims reject the local idiom, the indian languages, not even to write the names of shops and business' in the State language, leave alone learning and using it in their lives. They are again united in defying the State's decisions and get their way most of the times.
The third piece is a paragraph from the book 'The Argumentative Indian' by Amartya Sen which i was reading on the same day by chance.
This international intellectual forcefully argues that muslims should be accepted using the sanskrit word 'Swikriti', as if this country is persecuting its minorities.
After reading the about the muslim personal law and the language issue, is it wrong to say that it is the muslims who should be more accepting of their duties, their history, their local culture, heritage etc and not just only fight for rights and concessions from the State but also recognize their duties.
If Parsees never had such problems living in this country, it was because they merge, they respect, they accept the local culture, they blend in with the local, just a sugar blends in milk giving a sweet taste; even though they migrated and were never a part of the indian heritage. Whereas, muslims in india, though most of them are converts and were Hindus at one time, they just do not blend in.
Did not Naipaul point out the same after his tours of convert muslim nations?
No comments:
Post a Comment