No, not through religion

TERRORISM: Whoever advised Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to have a meeting with Muslim religious leaders did not serve him well. One, there is no recognised religious leader in the community. There are only a few institutions ploughing a lonely furrow. Two, the influence of religious leaders is more negative than positive. They issue too many fatwas which evoke controversy, not consensus.

Yet the very idea of a secular polity mixing religion with the law and order problem has serious repercussions. The Prime Minister's meeting has established a court of appeal of sorts.

Unwittingly, the exercise has put the entire Muslim community in the dock while Mumbai bomb blasts were the handiwork of only a few.

If terrorism is the determining factor, the government should have had a meeting with Sikh religious leaders when Punjab was burning. Similarly, the Nagaland is all Christian. No religious leader has been associated with the talks on the quantum of autonomy for the Nagas.

When Manmohan Singh resisted in the past a meeting with religious leaders _ it was to discuss the anti-America feeling among the Muslims following the visit of President Bush to India _ why did the Prime Minister agree to meet them this time? Was it a move to win over Muslims?

Manmohan Singh was, however, on the right track when he addressed state chief ministers and advised them "to treat the community with sensitivity." This was long over due. The Muslim community is treated indiscriminately and the sins of Pakistan still visit them.

True, the nation has been shocked to find terrorists among Indian Muslims because the impression so far has been different: they were praised for not responding to the Taliban's call for jihad in their fight in Afghanistan and community was appreciated for having kept themselves distant from the happenings in Kashmir.

To put the blame on the Muslim community or to pick up 'Muslim suspects" at random, as it has been done after Mumbai blasts, is not to deal with the problem squarely.

This is, in fact, what the Al-Qaeda wants so that it may recruit from the community the innocent who go through untold indignities and troubles at the hands of police almost daily.

The fact is that there are chinks in our pluralistic policy. We must analyse where the nation has gone wrong and why some Muslims have become so desperate that they have opted to become part of the network which they had shunned in the past.

We should also find out how the contamination began and when. Some say it was after the demolition of the Babri masjid while some attribute it to the happenings in Gujarat. Both arguments may well be true. I think they are contributory factors. The real reason is economic.

Muslims' share in the cake has been very small. They have been left to fend for themselves. Lack of education explains a lot about the backwardness of Muslims.

But when the affluent from among them left for Pakistan after partition, the artisans, craftsmen and the like stayed behind because they did not want to leave the land of their forefathers.

They could not afford education for their children who were also extra hands to add to the meagre income. The government did little.

Unfortunately, education was not on the priority list of post-independent government. A special attention to the minorities was not even considered pertinent.

I do not know why India's first Education Minister Maulana Abul Kalam Azad could not have his way when he reportedly proposed some "weightage" for Muslims.

Besides education, there were many other fields where Muslims have felt discriminated, particularly while finding accommodation. They have to live in certain localities where they are bound to acquire the ghetto mentality.

Even in the redress of grievances they find authorities treating them with disdain. That the community has been used as a vote bank is nothing new.

This has happened election after election. Promises made to them were mere promises. On the other hand, the Muslims who were on the defensive for nearly four decades have begun to speak up. They were held responsible for partition which the majority community felt had brought it all ills.

But their argument now is that two generations had paid the price if that was what was sought to be exacted. In any case, the youth believes that the "sins of their forefathers should not visit them." Why should they be denied their due?

Whenever Hindu-Muslim riots have broken out, the Muslim community finds that the authorities are generally on the side of Hindus and, at some places, the police even help them.

Many commissions have pointed this out in their report but no action has been taken against the erring policemen or their superiors. All this is true and probably more.

Muslim community has every right to feel bitter. But the betrayal of the country by some of its members is unthinkable. Some Hindus also have done so but seldom in the name of religion.

The blasts at Varanasi, Bangalore, Delhi and now in Mumbai have not only tarnished the image of Muslim community but have made the BJP and other Sangh parivar members say: "We told you so." The RSS efforts to convert pluralistic India into a theocratic state get strengthened.

The problem with the parivar is that it has not yet appreciated the pluralistic ethos of the country and it goes on communalising every facet and field of India.

The few Muslim terrorists remind me of Sikh terrorists who were able to spoil the peace of Punjab for many years. Bhindrawale was a symptom, not the disease.

Still, the entire community suffered terribly. That was India's saddest period. I want to offer the same advice to the Muslim terrorists as I did in the case of Sikh terrorists long ago. During my recent trips to the US and the UK, I repeated it.

The few Muslims who have been driven to terrorism because of the "circumstances" should realise that the government and the country are two separate entities.

Mistakes of one should not visit the other. Governments can be changed through the ballot box as we did in 1977 and defeated the mighty Indira Gandhi. But the harm rendered to the country is irreparable.

Likewise, the Muslim community should realise that their grievance is against the government which can be changed through the ballot box. Any harm to the country is indefensible. As Jawaharlal Nehru said, who dies if India lives and who lives if India dies?

Our forefathers sacrificed all to free the country from bondage. Now it requires peace and unity for economical development. By indulging in killings and destruction, we only stall its progress.