Click here to read Part One
Click here to read part Two
That is something for the government of the past to answer. This is the government of the present and we cannot answer for what that government did or did not do.
The BJP is contesting elections everywhere and amazingly it does not have a single Muslim face to show as a candidate although it has kept some Muslim faces as spokespersons but they will naturally have to say on public platforms whatever the party wants them to say since it is their employer.
What would be the difference if 15% of the candidates fielded by the BJP were Muslims? They could not defect because they would be less than 1/3. They cannot vote in favour of the Muslims’ point of view even if they wanted to because the party whip has to be followed at the time any vote is held on any matter. So how has it disadvantaged you Muslims?
You may be right about defection and being forced to vote in favour of the motion or against it as directed by the whip but the fact that not a single Muslim face finds place in the candidates list establishes that for the BJP the Muslims are non-existent and it does not care at all for either their views or their vote or their welfare.
Had that been the case all minority beneficial schemes would have been wound up by the government. If what you say is true why has that not been done?
Well it would not have been done because the BJP is anti-minority, but would not want to appear openly and brazenly to be anti-minority.
Why would that happen to benefit it, considering that the more anti-minorities it appears the more it consolidates its anti-minority majoritarian vote?
Maybe it is apprehensive that the courts would then step in and it would lose its aura of invincibility or appear a less legitimate contender for continued political patronage.
A short while ago you said that the courts were passing judgments supporting the BJP view.
I was referring to major contentious matters which seem to suggest an approval of a certain viewpoint.
Is it not your case that the judiciary favours the BJP?
I would say the judiciary in recent times has passed orders that suggest it finds the government’s stands acceptable, and to us it seems perhaps it is sometimes making mistakes.
Stop whining. You got your Pakistan. Why not just pack your bags and go to a country you love so much?
You see, the problem with that is…
So Muslims have a problem even with that?!
No, you cut me off mid-sentence. The problem is not for me. It is about your thinking. When partition happened, those, Muslims as well as Hindus, who wanted to live in a theocratic state, opted for Pakistan. Those of us, Muslims as well as Hindus, who wanted to be part of a secular state, where all citizens would be equal with equal rights and constitutional protections, and rule of law would prevail, opted for staying here. So “you” got “your” Pakistan is utter nonsense. We got nothing of the kind, nor did we want it. We stayed in our country, continue to do so, and will.
Were you not paid huge sums of money by Gandhi.
Wrong again. Since the nation was being divided, and there was no infrastructure in the separating part, to build government infrastructure which remained in and was retained by the larger part, a compensatory payment was made. Don’t you know an identical situation arose when Andhra and Telangana were separated and Andhra had no capital city infrastructure?
If you wanted to stay in India why did you seek special minority status, special application of Shariah laws?
Misleading question! “We” as Muslims, did not. “We” as in all Indians represented by Constituent Assembly members, did. That included Hindus and all other denominations as well. The Constitution protects not just Shariah laws regarding Muslims, It similarly protects tribal laws, Agency Area laws, religious customs of all religions, and so on. You people mislead by incorrect or inapplicable false equivalences.
Then why are not Shariah laws applied to you in criminal cases?
The criminal law has to be the same because the people involved may or may not belong to the same religious denomination. In a civil dispute the parties are the only ones affected. When a crime takes place, the aggrieved party is deemed to be the entire society, since everyone has a stake in maintenance of law and order, so uniformity is required. Else there can be allegations that discriminatory results follow.
Why do you crib about uniform civil code?
We don’t “crib about” it. We say, we suspect the Government’s motives, so require that it be first placed before the nation for sustained careful deliberation, and then an honest, not politically motivated anti-minority opinion, be formed taking in to consideration all, not just the majority, of views placed on record. You clamour for such a code because you want anything and everything so long as it is against whatever the minorities want. Also, how does it bother you if in matters internal to members of that group, their law applies, when in all matters where others are also involved, it is the country’s law applicable across the spectrum?
No, we are against it because Islamic law or Sharia supports child marriage.
That again is a misconception, and there is no child marriage in Islam. In many countries there are differing laws as far as age of majority is concerned. In Sharia majority is connected with puberty and not with some arbitrary number. As an extreme example, is it logical that at 17 years 364 days a person is a minor and 24 hours later he or she magically becomes an adult? Also, Sharia is not confined within one nation’s borders and is spread across the globe where different climatic conditions different diets different lifestyles causeway puberty to accrue at different ages.
Do you deny that there is child marriage in Islam?
Yes, I do. You confuse Islam with the cultural practises followed by Muslims in different parts of the world. Among Hindus also in many parts of rural India and even in urban areas you find instances of young children being married that has nothing to do with the religion concern whether Hindu or Muslim and is a cultural practise which is incorrect.
So even if a girl becomes in Islamic law an adult at 14 is her marriage proper considering her body is not yet mature enough to bear children?
Misconceptions again. If a girl and a boy both below 18 have attained puberty and have physiological and physical desires which require sexual gratification and society prevents them from getting married they can feel compelled to satisfy those natural urges through illicit sexual connexions and indulging in immorality. What Islam does is to provide a wholesome legitimate framework in which those urges can be properly satisfied without the taint of sin or criminality on an individual’s mind and preventing promiscuity from becoming prevalent in adolescent society. People do not appreciate that marriage has nothing to do with immediately starting a family and nothing prevents people from exercising birth control measures to ensure that when a girl is ready for childbirth alone does she become pregnant.
When in Saudi Arabia, where Islam began, mosques can be demolished and moved aside to make way for road construction what prevents mosques in India from being treated the same way?
One more misconception. Islam did not begin in Saudi Arabia! Right from the very first human, Adam, every prophet down the centuries has said that his religion is Islam which is basically submission to the will of Allah. Islam that spread in the 6th century after the last revelation spread for Saudi Arabia. What happens in Saudi Arabia being of no concern as far as we Muslims in India are concerned. Every country has its own constitution and the laws applied there are those that can be upheld under that constitution my rights as a Muslim in India are guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and not by what happens in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Indonesia or Malaysia whatever may be the percentage of Muslim population there. Incidentally I do not think that Muslims as a political entity would really object if a mosque is shifted or demolished unless it is of great religious or architectural or heritage significance or unless the action is only to try and show to Muslims that an environment hostile to their sentiments has come about.
Why do you say an environment hostile to Muslim sentiments has come about?
Look at the number of temples that are being renovated everywhere and are coming up in large numbers. Can mosques be similarly renovated? Can you get permission today to build a mosque? Where bulldozers are used to demolish houses, whose houses are being demolished? Is rule of law or due process followed in cases of those persons? Do they belong to one particular religion? Is that just coincidence? These are unanswered questions which justify the conclusion that at the executive level the Muslims are under siege in their own country and that the judiciary which can suo motu intervene has not yet done so.
Where you have no answer you take pot shots at the judiciary.
I do not. I am merely enumerating facts. The conclusions are for you to draw.
Now, possibly the confusing contradictory constitutional conversation continues, but whether it does depends on what the readers so far conclude, and whether they desire the conversation to continue…
| 
