Reflections on Communal Riots
The issue that has received the greatest attention from Indian Muslim leaders is communal riots—violence between religious communities. Every time a riot breaks out in which Muslims are involved, Muslim writers and speakers are stirred into action. They deliver impassioned speeches on the subject. They issue statements condemning the violence. They set up relief funds. A veritable storm of activity is set in motion in the wake of riots. If all that had to be done to respond to this violence is what Muslims have been doing all along, then this sort of work has already been undertaken, and on such a vast scale that by now such violence should have firmly ended once and for all.
But the reality is just the opposite. The failure of all the efforts that Muslims have hitherto made to put a permanent end to riots very clearly shows that these efforts are definitely not the solution to the problem. Had they been the desired solution, the last several decades, throughout which such efforts have consistently been made, would have sufficed for the issue of communal violence to be solved for good.
Reality thus demands that we should re-examine the entire issue and completely revise our approach and methods.
In most cases, communal riots in India are triggered off over very minor issues. That a small matter can rapidly lead to a horrific communal riot is not a chance occurrence. There are historical and psychological causes and factors behind this. Whether we accept it or not, the fact is that many people from other communities perceive Muslims as their enemies. One reason for this is the memory of the Partition of India. The Partition was in itself enough to provoke and inflame our fellow countrymen. And, more than this, the Partition was engineered in such a way that it left many delicate problems unresolved.
There are numerous other historical factors that have made many of our fellow countrymen see Muslims as their enemies and develop negative feelings about them. It is like an enormous amount of lava bottled up inside a volcano. The volcano can burst at any moment, bringing in its wake tremendous destruction.
I do accept that someone can, on reasonable grounds, claim that the demand for the Partition of India was, in part, a reaction to the attitude of others. But the question is: What is the practical use or benefit of making this claim? This sort of claim may be useful only if the aim is to make a logical or academic analysis of a problem. But it has nothing to do with real-life affairs. When an issue becomes one of life and death, an intelligent person does not think of logical analyses and arguments. Instead, he focuses on the practical aspects of the issue before him, so that he can decide on a practical course of action to follow. If he engages in a heated debate about who is to blame for his woes, he will not be able to take any decision about the practical measures that he needs to adopt to solve them. And so, the real problem will remain as it is, unresolved.
When a knife falls on a watermelon, there is simply no use of trying to logically analyze if the knife was at fault or the watermelon, or if the watermelon was responsible for the fate that has befallen it. In such a scenario, the fundamental issue is how to extricate oneself from the difficult situation one is faced with, rather than to engage in verbal duels, hurling accusations against one’s opponents and blaming them for one’s woes.
It is a well-known and generally-accepted fact that the practical aspect of an issue is more important than its logical or theoretical aspect. This is the case with the question of violence between communities, too.
Once, in a certain city, a man rented a portion of the ground floor of a house. After some days, he found that his ceiling was leaking. Water was dripping from the bathroom of the flat above his. It leaked non-stop, and so it was a terrible headache for the man. Moreover, the water was dirty, because the bath and toilet were in the same room.
The tenant mentioned this problem to the man living in the flat above his. But this man paid no attention to him. Then, he began complaining to the neighbours. But, they, too, did not show any concern for his problem.
One day, someone told the tenant, “Brother! In our city, the custom is that if water falls on your head from someone else’s house, it is you, not that other person, who must arrange and pay for the necessary repairs.”
The tenant replied, “This is absolutely illogical! The man who lives above me should arrange and pay for it. After all, it is his bathroom floor that is cracked, because of which I have to suffer!”
This other man was, however, not moved by the tenant’s logic.
In a short while, the tenant came to understand that his logical arguments did not seem to have any takers at all!
Now, the men who lived in the neighbourhood were all fellow Muslims, and so the tenant began citing verses from the Quran and Hadith to back his stance. But even this did not melt their hearts. Then, some friends suggested to him that he should take to court the man whose bathroom was leaking. But he soon found out that this would be such a costly and time-consuming affair that, in practical terms, it was utterly useless.
Finally, he was forced to agree to pay for the repairs himself!
This story illustrates the approach that most people adopt when it comes to their personal affairs. In such situations, people do not get into the debate about who is right and who is wrong. They know that in this world there is often nothing weaker than logic. No matter how clearly you may prove someone to be guilty through the use of logic, in practical terms it does not solve any problem, because few, if any, people these days are willing to cheerfully accept logical arguments. There is no difference in this regard between Muslims and others, and between supposedly religious and irreligious people. Everyone knows this to be the case as far as their own personal matters are concerned. That is why when it is a question of someone’s personal interests—in other words, when, as in the story recounted earlier, ‘water starts dripping from the floor above yours into your home’—you at once realize that citing evidence, offering logical arguments and engaging in debate with your opponent are all useless. Instead, you accept the responsibility and at once take steps to try to rectify the situation. Strangely, however, no one is willing to adopt this very same basic principle of life when it comes to the problems of the community as a whole. On this issue, almost every Muslim reacts in the same way—by accusing other communities for their woes. The obvious and clearly undeniable fact that such a response, tirelessly repeated over a period of several decades, has produced no practical benefit whatsoever has failed to make any dent in the Muslims’ zeal in reacting in this useless fashion.
This situation has not come by chance, though. Rather, it has deep roots. The easiest thing to do is to blame others for one’s miseries. In contrast, accepting the responsibility for one’s conditions is enormously difficult. To accuse others for your problems, all you need to do is to open your mouth and scream out loud and make a great ruckus. But if someone accepts responsibilities for his problems, he is confronted with the need to exert himself, to act and strive and make necessary positive and meaningful efforts to change the situation in which he finds himself.
The fact of the matter is that Muslim leaders want to do nothing more than issue statements and fiery speeches against others. Spouting fiery rhetoric is their means of maintaining their leadership position. They are not ready to engage in any practical work at all. Had this not been the case, their approach would have been entirely different.
In life, if you want to make any headway, you must try to avail of the existing opportunities. No matter how difficult or unfavourable the situation you find yourself in might seem, and no matter how bad the situation might become, such factors and opportunities are always available.
