Hindu-Muslim Lurch to the right

Hindu-Muslim lurch to the right

I have retained a soft corner for the people from the Indian province of my birth. My memory is thus most likely to be selective. During the period before we left for Pakistan in 1951, I recall many among my Hindu friends and acquaintances- students in my school and specially teachers, who unfailingly rose above communal frenzy, at a risk to their life and limb. I have dwelt on them elsewhere.
From 1951 to 1965 while I lived in Pakistan. I hardly ever met any Indians except for occasional visitors, who were either members of the extended family or friends, acquaintances or erstwhile neighbors. They were all conformist Muslims and complained of disempowerment and discrimination and were generally bitter against Pakistan and the immigrants to the country from their region who had left them behind to bear the burden of the "betrayal" of Bharat Mata. They regretted the “mistake” they and their forbears had made in being so passionate for carving the land of the pure out of India. Right wing Hindus publicly told them that they had no place in Bharat. They had vivisected her and should go to their cherished land or should agree to "Shuddhi" . They complained that even liberal Hindus practiced subtle discrimination. Progressive and nationalist Muslims who had worked for a United India had been marginalized too.
I used to tell the visitors that I could understand their anger, but why did they root for the Pakistani team when the latter played cricket matches against India? They rather shame facedly confessed that it was like a love affair gone sour. You harbor fond memories of the beloved forever.
Let us glance at history for a moment. Hindu rulers and upper classes fought Muslim invaders, lost and reached an accommodation with them. The warrior Rajput class became particularly close to the victors and entered into political and familial alliances with them. A sub-division of Hindu business class the so called Kaisth adapted Muslim mores more thoroughly. They took over financial and administrative services and boast of many Farsi and Urdu writers of note. In speech, dress and mode of living they were indistinguishable from their Muslim compatriots. A great number of members of the Hindu priestly class took up academic and professional careers. Nehrus are the foremost example. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first PM of India is accused by Hindu chauvinists of being a product of Muslim culture (and English education).
For the Hindu “lower” classes ascendancy of Muslims did not change matters much. For them one ruler was as bad or good-it depended on the nature of the individual- as the other. They had to work and keep the overlord in the luxurious style they demanded. A large number of lower class people converted to Islam. But even that did not much change their life or mode of behavior except that they added a few more to their pantheon of deities. Their belief system did not change much either. It is not a generally known fact that in the Punjab, it was only at the instance of census officials that many in the peasantry decided to accept classification as Muslims. And this happened as late as 1881.
Upper class Hindus had been supplanted by Muslim warlords and harbored latent resentment against the latter. Intolerant Kings like Aurangzeb and adventurers like Mahmud of Ghazni did not help matters. Hindu upper class got the chance to right “historic” wrongs when British overthrew the Moghals. In Bengal they replaced Muslim feudal class and came to occupy nearly all subordinate positions in administration and academies Upper ranks were the exclusive domain of the white man). They were particularly cruel to Muslim lower classes whom they regarded as renegades and worse than their own untouchables.
In the Punjab Sikh chieftains had achieved power and took revenge for injustices of Moghal Kings from the common people. In other provinces which came to constitute Pakistan, non-Muslims controlled all economic, academic, social and security functions .
As independence movement gathered strength demand of Hindu fanatics that Muslims toe their line became more strident. Even moderate Hindus thought it was only fair that Muslims play the second fiddle.
With independence imminent, hatred flared up and communal riots broke out. The common use of the term communal is significant. Riots were not described as religious or as based on nationality. It was a conflagration between two communities, which belonged to one nation.
The country was partitioned. Muslims in India became second class citizens. They did not even have the protection and safe guards accorded to untouchables.
1965 war between the two countries changed the Hindu perspective a great deal. Kashmiri Muslims did not rise in support of Pakistani intruders. Subedar Abdul Hamid of the Indian army won the highest award (equivalent to the congressional Medal of honor in the USA and Victoria cross in Britain) for gallantry. Indian Muslims regained their sense of belonging. They began standing up for their rights again. A movie "Garam Hava" starring the immortal Balraj Sahni depicts the trend very well.
I came across a cross section of Indians in the UK where I lived from 1965 to 1973. I worked and lived in hospitals and my acquaintances were largely doctors and their families. But they came from all classes of Indian society. I believe they reflected the norms of their regions, cultures and religions. They did have the advantage of years of schooling over the average Indian. College and university education does give a gloss to behavior and manners, but does not change the mindset unless a person has been exposed to leftist student activism. My interlocutors ranged from a small percentage on the extreme left to another small number on the far right. Majority were moderate in their beliefs, social practice and attitudes.
In hospitals where the number of Indians and Pakistanis was substantial, the two nationalities would have their own cliques. In places where the number was small we would behave as one group. In either situation we reverted to pre-partition norms. We would celebrate each other’s festivals, socialize, eat and go out together .
Compared to their Hindu counterparts, Muslims Doctors in the UK were a little inhibited. That state, however, did not last long. Few could resist flirtation with girls. Other steps followed in natural sequence. Some got married to girl friends. Many took to drinking, though quite a few made peace with their God and quit after marriage. A rare one would eat pork. I have always been intrigued by the more pronounced Muslim aversion to pig's meat than to alcohol. My psychiatrist friends tell me that tolerance for swallowing comes easier than it does to chewing. And alcohol offers relief from stresses.
At any rate I found Indian Hindus generally tolerant to Muslim norms and bore little animus to Pakistan. They did wish that Indian Muslims would not have such a strong extra-territorial allegiance, yet regarded them as fully endowed citizens. Friendship, acquaintance, indifference and enmity were on individual preference and bore little relation to faith. Out of India, they shed the taboo of not eating with persons of lower caste and Muslims. They had had Muslim neighbors, bosom friends, teachers and heroes like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and broke the custom on the sly in India too.
Language, culture and geography were more pertinent. I would like to make a special note of a Hindu friend Dr Chaturvedi and a Jain couple named Vohra. They preferred my company to that of followers of their creed. We all hailed from UP in India. Muslim Punjabis felt more comfortable with the non-Muslims of their linguistic group than for example with Muslim Sindhis, the mythical concept of Muslim Ummah notwithstanding.
The relatively amicable atmosphere lasted till the advent of Indra Gandhi as PM of India. The lady was inducted into office on the strength of her illustrious father's legacy. Her rival for office, Morarji Desai though senior in years and experience and a near contemporary of her father, was not well liked . Party bosses thought demure, young and inexperienced Indra would be putty in their hands. She acted the part too, asking for blessings from Morar Ji in their contest for leadership of the parliamentary party.
Bosses were in for the shock of their lives. Indra gradually eased them out and started honing her skills in using the religion card. She began by pitting Muslim against Hindu and gradually antagonized both against the Sikhs. She won the first election on the basis of anti-Pakistan hysteria consequent upon the military suppression of East Pakistan and flight of several million refugees across the border. Most of the refugees were Hindus. Come the next elections, she arrogantly used government transport. It is not illegal in the USA. The President, Vice-President and all secretaries use official planes. In the UK, PM and ministers scrupulously avoid using government transport for politicking purposes. India follows British traditions. The opposition went to court, which found the practice illegal. She imposed emergency rule.
India is bourgeoisie democracy. They control means of production through legal devices. That gives them unequaled status among capitalist countries as the largest democracy in the world. What it means to the common man is a sense of vicarious pride. In actual fact he is as helpless as a citizen of a country under naked dictatorship. Indra could not get away with extra-legal measures for long. The institutions, establishment and political activists reacted vigorously. She had to concede elections in which she was humiliated and lost in her own constituency .
PMs came and went in the country. Right wing fundamentalists made slow but steady gains. But they still had no more than nuisance value. But the central government had been weakened. They could not effectively cope with rising militarism of bigots. Advani of BJP dreamt up a Yatra . The plan was to right the wrong of a mosque built by the Moghal Emperor Babar in sixteenth century allegedly at the site of birth of lord Rama. The mosque was demolished brick by brick while security personnel, local, state and federal looked on. An orgy of wide spread Hindu-Muslim riots followed. Thousands lost heir lives. Untold number were injured. Economic loss was incalculable.
In Pakistan and BD a reign of terror was let loose on Hindus. A sitting minister of the Pakistani Punjab government led a mob to demolition of a Hindu temple in Multan. Scores were killed, women abducted and raped, homes put to torch and businesses looted).
In the aftermath BJP won the elections at the center.
It has been down hill ever since. Government sponsored riots in Gujarat took India to a new low. Inter communal relations have deteriorated elsewhere in India too. In 2005, congress returned to power, courtesy of solid Muslim backing and unstinted help from communist parties. But riots continue.
The first inkling of how much middle class and literate Hindus felt alienated from Muslims was in Canada as long ago as 1973. A dear friend's wife referred to Indian Muslims as Pakistanis. I thought I had misunderstood her. She was an honest soul and explained with an apology that though it was a slip of tongue, it was how Muslims were regarded in UP, and the rest of the Northern belt of India. She continued that the average Hindu also believed that Muslims were deliberately breeding at a much faster rate in order to become a majority in the country by 2050. That was unreal. But my interlocutor pointed to the accelerated growth of Muslim population. In un-divided India in 1947 Muslim population was 80 million out of a total of 400. In 1974 there were 100 million of them in India alone. Add the 100 in Pakistan to the 100 in BD; they would be 300 out of a total of 950. That would make them 32%; a net increase of 7%. I pointed out that if the statistics were accurate, they would relate to the poor socio-economic condition of the Muslims rather than a deliberate policy. She agreed. I was right, but tell that to the average Hindu. They listen to BJP- Bharatya Junta Party-Bharat People's Party. BJP is the political wing of the communalist high caste Hindu Maha Sabha- the Muslim, low caste Hindu and other minority baiting party. A member of its militant wing had assassinated Gandhi for supporting Muslims.
I thought that my friend was un-necessarily pessimistic. This alienation was an aberrant trend. Hindu-Muslim riots were endemic in India. In a sense they were a reaction to historic memory. Muslim masses bore the burden of all the atrocities that Muslim invaders had perpetrated on the local population, desecration of Somnath temple, pillage of town and country, conversion of millions of Hindus to Islam and innumerable marriages of Hindu women to Muslim notables. One of my classmates in India was particularly chagrined by Alauddin Khilji’s attack on Chittor. The Rani was a ravishing beauty and the King wanted her in his Harem. I told him that it was no use being the king of all India, if one could not lay claim to a princess of a small state. That remark nearly caused a minor riot.
The average Hindu forgets that Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Somnath temple for its gold plates, idols of solid gold, walls encrusted with diamonds and other precious stones, and not because it was a place of infidel worship. He did not tarry on the way from Afghanistan to Gujarat to demolish poorly furnished places of worship. They also ignore the fact that marriage between males of the victorious party and females of the defeated people is as old as human, nay biological history. Lions, bulls and other animals vanquish other males and gain control over females. Among humans the idea that women are a commodity has religious sanction behind it. The concept of females as equal individuals is very recent. It took hold in Western society in the later part of twentieth century and is yet to find acceptance in the East.
But my friend was right. Perception is reality. An average person is not inclined to logic. Poor socio-economic conditions lead to all kinds of evils. Bigotry is just one of them.
Detractors of economic basis of ethnic, cultural, linguistic, racial and religious hatred point to the leaders of such campaigns. They are all educated. But one must keep in mind the fact that education, literacy and open mindedness do not necessarily go together. I have come across PhDs in archeology who hold a firm belief that earth is only ten thousand years of age. Only few leaders are truly honest practitioners of the art of politics. Jinnah was secular to the core. He did not let that get in the way of allowing his minions to shout, “Islam is in danger” from rooftops. BJP leaders do not hate Muslims at a personal level. That did not stop them from leading a yatra to demolish Babri mosque.
But I did not lose hope. We shall overcome, was my motto. Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs had killed each other with crazy abandon in 1947. A few years later survivors of the Holocaust were received like long lost brothers in Lahore. I have mentioned elsewhere that during the visit Sikhs being of distinctive appearance were not charged for food, lodging and transport. Hindus were peeved and promised not to shave for a few months before the next visit to Pakistan. Pakistani visitors to the shrine in Ajmer were accorded a similar rapturous welcome.
Muslim swing to the right dates back to early Abbasid period. Political decline leading to further shift in the direction started in late fifteenth century (failed siege of Vienna 1494). It is a complicated subject and requires an independent study. I will confine myself to the trend in the last six decades.
Islam has pervasive influence over all aspects of life. It takes greater struggle for a Muslim to break the shackles of religion than it does a Hindu, (A common and slightly disparaging belief among Muslims in India was that Hindus actually seek sanction from their gods for chicanery in business dealings. Unto God and Caesar is a popular axiom among Christians) Christian or even a Jew. Curiously enough adherents of the Shia sect find the transition much easier. The sect has produced far greater number of Communist leaders than its percentage among Muslims would merit. It may have some thing to do with the tradition of rebellion. Barring Sufism, which strictly speaking, is a synthesis of the tolerant trends of all religions and mysticism, even the most inclusive interpretation of Islam is quite rigid.
Roots of intolerance, as noted earlier, go back to the third Muslim century, when for reasons of state jurists were induced to invention of orthodoxy. It later came to be associated with the name of an obscure cleric Abdul Wahab. He made a compact with the progenitors of the current rulers of Saudi Arabia. The clan, when it got into oil money, dispatched Mullahs to build seminaries in Pakistan and other poor Muslim countries. Implicit understanding was that the rulers be left to their wine and women. Guardianship of the house of God at Kaaba will ensure their safe passage to heaven. Taliban were the harvest.
For reasons discussed elsewhere, Muslims of India had come to depend upon the British colonizers for security and economic sustenance. Historic memory had made them apprehensive of living under Ram Raj promised by Gandhi. Waking up to the fact rather late that he had committed a political blunder, he tried hard to convince Muslims that Ram Raj was not Hindu rule. It was Insaaf (justice) Raj. But he had irretrievably sacrificed Hindu-Muslim unity at the alter of populism.
Let us focus our attention on Pakistan. It is by definition a reactionary state. It was created as a reaction to the apprehension of Hindu domination and in fear of the INC pledge to abolish the feudal system. Its people have been fed on a steady diet of “Islam in danger” slogan. With time they have been immunized to the call and now know that the peril is to the government in power and not any hazard to the creed, which makes the leader, scream the inanity. With passage of Objectives resolution in 1950, which stated that all sovereignty resided in Allah, the country lost all claim to democracy in the usual sense. You cannot place the belief system of a section of the population, albeit a majority, and still cling to the status of democracy where all people have equal rights, duties and privileges.
India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir promoted the fast slide to the right. When adversity hits, one tends to seek refuge in and solace from the ultimate unknown, your particular God. Muslims of Pakistan, unable to get the better of technologically, economically and militarily superior India, did just that.
The country under went the trauma of 1971 civil war. Mosques started overflowing with worshippers in the aftermath.
A relatively secular interlude of ZAB fascist rule followed. His own overweening arrogance did contribute to his eventual fall, but the decisive factor was the apprehension of the evil Quad that given time, he would be able to establish Papa Doc type of regime, with all powers in the hands of the supremo which he would be able to dispense at will. (Papa doc had invested his three years old daughter with the rank of an admiral and appointed her leader of the country’s delegation to a UN general assembly session). The Quad willingly did the bidding of American government who had failed to persuade ZAB from trying to develop a “Muslim” nuclear bomb.
Zia followed. He was the biggest boon to religious intolerance since the infamous Wahab. The USSR helped out by trying to shore up the rule of military-leftist clique in Afghanistan. The USA got a chance of sweet revenge for their humiliation in Viet Nam. It groomed Osama and Taliban. Soviet forces had to leave the country in disarray, but militant fundamentalists overcame the agents of the Empire easily. They never looked back.
Zia, beset by opposition from ZAB’s people party and resurgence of opposition from other quarters, orchestrated creation of ethnic parties. Riots inevitably followed. Flames of sectarian hatred were fed new fuel. Karachi went through a period of virtual civil war for nearly a decade. Shias, Sunnis, Mohajirs, Punjabis, Sindhis and Pathans in various combinations went at each other’s throats with abandon.
I visited Delhi in 1990. During a Rickshaw ride I started talking to the driver. He turned out to be a Muslim. After introducing myself I asked him about the condition of Muslims in India. He said it was bad. After a pause he added that it was not as bad as that of immigrants in Karachi.
Non-Punjabi immigrants to Pakistan have been officially discriminated against since the time of Ayub Khan. ZAB introduced the concept of urban and rural quota in jobs and admissions in colleges. Sindhis lived villages. Cities had been taken over by Mohajirs. Rural areas were given a much higher allotment of jobs and college seats than their population would justify.
At the central government level, place and country of birth of the applicant’s father had routinely been asked in the application for jobs and passports. With passage of time fathers also had Pakistan as their country of birth. Now the place of birth of grandparents was included in question. I have mentioned the concept of son of the soil elsewhere. Those born in what became Pakistan were so classified. But in practice only the Punjabis were the genuine article. Curiously enough, but not surprising in practice, those born in Indian Punjab were included in the definition of sons of the soil.
Mohajirs stuck to the myth of full citizenship. The anarchic conditions obtaining in Karachi finally convinced them that they would remain outsiders forever. It was not only culture, language and norms which distinguished them. They were non-feudal and out of the main stream of politics. When their political party Mohajir Qaumi movement (Refugee National Movement) tried to make inroads to Punjabi heartland and when its leader Altaf Husain buoyed by his reception in Rawalpindi, Lahore and Multan so far forgot himself that he changed the name of the party to Muttahda Qaumi movement (United National movement), army came down with a heavy hand and butchered thousands of Mohajir youth in cold blood.
The combination of officially sponsored religious bigotry and ethnic strife have led to unprecedented fragmentation of society and acute lurch to the right.
Arabs had made a bargain with the British and the French to get rid of the Turkish overlords. It was akin to getting money from a loan shark to pay a regular bank. The British divided the region whimsically, creating countries out of tribal territory. Minor Chieftains were named kings and told that they could have a good life as long as they did not harbor pretensions of real authority. The virtual colonists exploited the rich resources of the land. Kings were and are (Now dictators have joined their ranks) no more than favored concubines
WWII had changed the equation. Britain and France had been weakened. The USA was new at the game. Soviet union was looming large. It was more than a colonial power and bore an ideological message that Neo- Colonization was not the necessary fate of Africa and Asia. Capitalism was unjust, unfair and defeatable.
Nasser took over in Egypt in 1951 and changed the Arab world. He faced off Britain, France and Israel in 1956 and made them blink. That was the last victory Arabs were to have, barring the Algerian war of independence, over the neo-imperialist powers. 1967 war was an Arab debacle. It is said that in 1973 military ineptitude snatched defeat out of jaws of victory. Egyptians could not believe that they had advanced well with in reach of Tel Aviv by force of arms and suspecting a trick, halted in their tracks. That, though, is an uncharitable view. Israel was backed to the hilt by the USA and they had threatened to "Nuke" Cairo and Damascus. But it resulted in general depression. Tilt to the right, temporarily stemmed by Nasser, was given tremendous boost by accelerated Israeli maximalist policies.
In 1954 the left leaning Tudeh party of Iran tried to nationalize the oil resources. They had not made adequate in roads in grass roots. The US-UK combine was able to restore the Shah. Iranians had to wait for twenty-five years before Khomeini got rid of the puppet. But the bargain was expensive. Clerics have ruled the country since. But they have a stronger sanction of the people than do the so-called democracies in India and the West.
The left led by the communist party had power nearly with in its grasp in Indonesia. Neo-imperialist cabal struck in 1965. 1.5 million were killed. The country is still in the grip of fascists. The atrocity gave an impetus to militancy of the religious kind. The country has more Al-Qaida supporters than any other country in the world.
Israeli atrocities have continued unabated. Muslims continue to be ruled by minions of the Empire. (The word Empire is used here in its common context. It stands for a combine of Global Capitalism and its agents the Western powers). People continued to suffer. Osama used his millions and the disaffection to seed Al-Qaida cells everywhere. The USA as the public face of Global capital and the chief benefactor of Israel became the prime target. After practice runs at US ships, embassies and an abortive attack at the world trade center in 1993, Al-Qaida came of age and demolished the twin towers and part of Pentagon.
Led by a maximalist fundamentalist in thrall to global Capital, the American government blamed all comers except the US policy over several decades. Introspection is not associated with big power. A spate of protective measures, some rational, others ludicrous followed. The USA, from the most tolerant society in the world, became the most paranoid. Security agencies, whose lack of foresight and cohesion had made Al-Qaida exploit possible and practical, had a field day. Bigots got into their own and targeted all out siders and adherents of other creeds.
To compound their folly, they launched an attack on Iraq. They are stuck there worse than they were in Viet Nam. If they had planned to promote terrorists, they could not have done better.
Muslim bigots took a giant step into the realm of frenzied reaction. They hit a railway train in Spain, a bus and subways in the UK and minor targets elsewhere. Al-Qaida has spread like a particularly invasive cancer. It needs whole body radiation combined with chemotherapy. Attempts at excising its growth in isolated parts of the body will only make it infiltrate faster.
The slide to the right is an international phenomenon. It pervades followers of all religions. It is in the nature of an aftermath of the collapse of Soviet Union and decline of the left and its study is beyond the scope of this work.

This is a derogatory term for re-conversion to Hindu creed. It literally means re-purification. Hindu religion does not accept conversions. You have to be born in the faith, and remain encumbered/privileged with your caste till death.
It is politically incorrect to call them Shuddar- untouchables- Gandhi took to calling them Harijans- progeny of gods. It did not do them much good, but helped Indian National congress a great deal. Harijans were inclined towards Muslim League and wanted to be classified as a minority, and not among Hindus. Gandhi coerced their leader Dr Ambedkar into letting his people be counted as Hindu. If Gandhi had not had his way it would have been disastrous for not only for the congress but for the country as whole. Upper caste Hindus constituted only twenty five percent of the population. India would have been Balkanized),
The wide gap in the status of Muslims and non-Muslims in Muslim majority provinces was a direct consequence of British policy to promote minority at the expense of the majority. In the same vein the new rulers patronized Muslims in the provinces in which they were in minority. In the UP for example where Muslims constituted only nine percent of the population they occupied twenty four percent of subordinate government jobs and seventy four percent of jobs in security services.
Pakistanis, I would submit, were less out going. I attributed it to their social and religious back ground. They had ostensibly parted ways with the majority community on grounds of religion. They were, moreover, not allowed alcohol and were not supposed to be on familiar terms with "Na Mehrum"* women. This rather quaint term is difficult of explanation. All boys and girls over twelve, unless related by blood have to behave with each other with circumspection and with in well defined limits. Restrictions apply essentially to girls. They may not socialize and may not be together alone by themselves. Blood relation in this context means parents, siblings, grand parents, aunts and uncles. Relation by marriage applies to wife of paternal uncle (spouses of mothers brothers and sisters are excluded as are the husbands of father's sister), a girl’s father in law, (not brother in law, neither a girl’s/boy's sisters or bothers). A Boy's mother in law is Mehrum for him. Cousins who are the predominant choice for marriage among Muslims are very definitely beyond the pale. A girl is required to keep her body covered in loose attire, lest the curves be exposed and admired. Hair and hands are to be covered too, but face may be uncovered. All this is in aid of keeping lecherous thoughts of the males under control. The more orthodox women wear a Burqa, which makes a woman look like a sack on the move. It exposes only the eyes through a gauze mesh.
I, for one, cannot understand the logic of it. But I am partial to eyes and unless a woman is completely shrouded from head to toes, I can still be enchanted. This practice leads to strange passions. Krishan Chander, the foremost Urdu short story writer, tells of a boy who fell in love with a girl because he was captivated by the mole on her chin. He questioned the advisability of longing to spend the rest of ones life with the whole body, just because of a tiny mole! One friend told me that her father married her mother, after spying a bit of her ankle at a bus stop.
Strict segregation leads to sexual frustration and all kinds of mental sickness. Rape of girls under ten by cousins and close relatives is much more common than reported in the press or by word of mouth.
I am told that the reason women are required to stand behind men in prayers is that the act of bending at the knees during prayers would exhibit their posteriors in a suggestive fashion and would distract men. One of my irreverent friends speculated on the probability of the women being enticed by men's behinds.
The restrictions would make a necessity of the "evil' of arranged marriages. In theory Islam confers free choice in selecting mates. How does a boy choose a life partner, if he is not allowed even to look at her hands? In this context Islam is feminist. A girl can see the whole boy through the slits in the Burqa! But how does either determine mental compatibility, if either has Neanderthal mind set? I have made serious attempts at unraveling the mystery of Islamic dating. I have been offered rationalizations and the advantages of chaperoned meetings. The arrangement described to me would be the envy of a strict convent.
It is a good thing though that the religion got indianized and divorce became taboo. Under strict norms of the creed, I doubt if many would have clung to the bonds of matrimony).
In strict orthodoxy a Hindu could eat only with other members of his caste. But the worst strictures were restricted to untouchables. If the shadow of an untouchable were to fall on a Brahmin, the latter could regain his caste only by a dip in holy Ganges. If an untouchable were to catch the sound of a religious hymn, molten lead would be poured in his/her ears. They had to live out side the main settlement or town and had to announce their passage through streets as lepers had to in medieval times. That, though did not stop upper caste men seeking sexual favors-it was more an imposition-of lower class women. The product of the liaison would be even worse than an untouchable. In pre-independence India Railway stations had “Muslim” and “Hindu” water cans. In practice segregation was class based. Upper class Hindus consorted with upper class Muslims. A psychological pull helped break barriers. The rarely achievable is always more tantalizing. Many Hindu men thought Muslim girls were more desirable. Muslim boys I recall were enamored of Hindu girls. When I first saw my first wife I thought she was a Hindu. I call my wife Paro. I fantasized that her name was Parvati and gave her the "love" name).
He was an ascetic and had introduced alcohol prohibition in Maharashtra when he was the chief minister of the province. Bombay-its new name is Mumbai- is the provincial capital. It hosts the film industry of India and the section housing the industry is popularly known as Bollywood. It is also the leading cultural center of the country. The prohibition must have cramped the style of the beautiful people to no small degree. It created a boot legging trade rivaling the one in the USA in thirties. He had other weird convictions too. He believed urine had great health giving properties and was widely known to drink his own.
I have described the sequel in greater detail in the chapter on Indra. In summary, she was harassed and briefly jailed. That is the mistake none in power can resist making. Indra acted the victimized helpless female. The masses rose to her defense. The government, a hotchpotch of parties with differing and contradictory agenda, could not resist the tidal wave. It fell. New elections were called. She now used the religion card to the fullest extent and was returned with a large majority in the parliament. Her own Sikh guards assassinated her for desecrating their holiest of holies, the golden Temple in Amritsar. Obscurantist bigots and fundamentalist parties they led had hitherto been on the fringe. Now they had achieved general acceptability).
Pilgrimage; aping Hindu chieftains of old he trekked across India in “Ruth” carriage drawn by two bulls. It was an imagined replica of the chariot supposed to have been used by Rama in his expeditions).
Public perception is that Hindus accepted Islam under compulsion. That is historically in correct. If that were true Northern belt of India where Muslim influence was the greatest would have a Muslim majority. In fact Muslim majority areas of North West and East were separated by Dehli, UP and Bihar where Hindus retained their preponderant numbers through a millennium of Muslim rule. Bengalis took to Islam under influence of a Sufi Bayazid Bustami