Rishi Sunak, an Indian-origin British lawmaker is now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Sunak is the country’s first leader of colour after he was chosen to lead the Conservative Party on Monday evening. He took charge after meeting King Charles III who invited him to form the government. However, even before he takes charge as the PM of the UK, a raging debate, albeit is moronic one, has erupted in India, spearheaded by the very Leftists and Liberals who were days ago deriding Sunak’s Hindu credentials.
At the very outset, it becomes important to place on the record that one does not know if Indian-origin Rishi Sunak would eventually be India’s friend or foe. It would take an incredibly naive person to believe that just because Sunak is a proud Hindu and a leader of Indian origin, he is going to take decisions that are beneficial to India. Sunak is a UK-born British citizen and as the Prime Minister of his nation, he will take decisions that benefit his people, his politics and his party – India would be a diplomatic ally at best, which was true even before Sunak was set to become the Prime Minister.
However, regardless of whether Sunak turns out to be an ally of India or not, every section of the political spectrum in India is using the elevation of Rishi Sunak to talk about the issues they hold dear. The Hindus are, at this point, just celebratory because someone who has asserted his Hindu faith proudly in the past by doing Gau Puja etc, is becoming the leader of a Western Nation. Given the global attacks against Hindus, this jubilation is understandable. It is important to remember that only a few days ago, Hindus came under attack by Islamists in Leicester. The trope that was used to justify the attacks against Hindus and even blame them for their own victimisation was that they “believed in Hindutva” which they branded as a supremacist ideology. It is not true. Hindutva is not supremacist and far more complex than the Guardian or BBC is equipped to understand. However, after the constant vilification, a proud Hindu becoming the leader of the UK is indeed significant for Hindus as far as the global narrative is concerned.
The Leftists and Liberals in India are, however, singing a strange tune that makes very little sense. Apart from the fact that they started by mocking his Gau Puja and claiming that he was “Too Hindu” to saying he was not Hindu at all by spreading fake news about him being a beef-eater, the usual suspects have started talking about the lesson of tolerance that India needs to learn from the UK. An entire article was written about this by The Wire, which has recently been under fire globally for a fabricated story that aimed to turn BJP IT Cell head, Amit Malviya, into some sort of a Transformer who has sweeping power in META. The details can be read here.
The premise of the entire article in essence was that intolerant Hindus need to learn from tolerance Britishers, who are today accepting of a Hindu man in their polity. The same trope was furthered by others as well. The veteran propaganda peddler, Arfa Khanum Sherwani, also a product of the TheWire cluster and a self-professed messiah of Muslims asked when “we” will be ready to accept and elect a Muslim PM in India.
So when will we be ready to accept ( and elect ) a Muslim Prime Minister of India ? #RishiSunakPM
— Arfa Khanum Sherwani (@khanumarfa) October 25, 2022
First of all, we know what Arfa meant when she hid her hate by using the word “we”. If asked, I am certain she would say that she was talking about “Indians”, however, it is evident that she was talking specifically about Hindus, because Muslims, as logic dictates, would not have a problem with a Muslim PM per Arfa’s worldview. Secondly, it is interesting how any conversation around a religious minority in any country, in this case, Hindus, turns into a victimhood Olympic event for Muslim ideologues.
Be that as it may, it is important to dissect this trope that is being furthered not just by The Wire and Arfa, but by several other of her co-religionists and co-ideologists.
Firstly, it is important to clarify that Rishi Sunak was not ‘elected’ per se. He was chosen by Tory MPs to lead the party and therefore become the PM of the UK. Therefore, the trope about how Hindus need to ‘elect’ a Muslim PM like the UK elected a Hindu PM is patently false. Further, several Muslims have served in high offices in India – APJ Abdul Kalam being one of the foremost examples of a Muslim leader who was adored by Indians beyond his religious identity. Other examples are the Kerala governor, Arif Mohammad Khan, who is also respected by Indians across religious lines. Interestingly, the Muslim leaders who are revered beyond their religious identity are also the ones who are vilified by the Muslim community as a whole.
Let us take the example of APJ Abdul Kalam – the man who is large credited with India’s Nuclear program, a veteran scientist and the President of India.
Right after Dr APJ Abdul Kalam became the 11th President of India, there were several opinion pieces that derided him for not being Muslim enough, most of these op-eds, written by Muslim intellectuals and some, by their sympathisers.
One such article was written by Dr Rafiq Zakaria, an Indian politician and Islamic cleric who passed away in 2005. Known for his propagation and advocacy of conservative Islam, Zakaria was closely associated with Indian National Congress (INC) during the freedom struggle as well.
In his article, Zakaria essentially says that APJ Abdul Kalam, while a great asset to India is just not Muslim enough.
Zakaria, while praising Dr Kalam for being a great patriot, writes, “He was born a Muslim and bears a Muslim name, he should not be put in the same category as the two former Muslim Presidents, Dr Zakir Husain and Mr Fakruddin Ali Ahmed. Both of them were as great a patriot and Indian to the core as Dr Kalam. But they were also Muslims in the real sense of the word; they believed in the tenets of the Quran and faithfully followed the traditions of the Prophet”.
Essentially, Zakaria takes a strong exception to the respect being accorded to Dr Kalam because per the Islamic intellectual, Kalam was a mere ‘Muslim in name’. Despite the honey-dripping that Zakaria tries to further by calling Kalam a great patriot and scientist, his disdain for someone who doesn’t follow the strict tenets of Islam as outlined in the Quran is rather evident.
Zakaria had written back then, “Dr Kalam feels much more at home with the Hindus. His Hindu friends, with whom he has spent a good deal of his life, have testified to the fact that he is far more attracted to Hinduism than Islam; I find nothing wrong with it. But for God’s sake, don’t describe him as a Muslim President and take credit for having obliged the Muslims for giving them this great honour… Dr Kalam never reads the Quran but every morning he goes through the Gita and is enchanted by it. He is sincerely devoted to Krishna. He recites the Hindu mantras on every occasion. Namaz does not appeal him nor has he ever fasted in the month of Ramzan. He is a strict vegetarian and a life-long Brahmachari. His roots are really in Hinduism and he enjoys all the sacred Hindu scriptures. Hence the credit for his elevation, in communal terms, should go to the Hindus; to give it to the Muslims would be wrong. In fact, Dr Kalam himself would be happy if he is not described as a Muslim President and his name is not linked with Dr Zakir Husain and Mr Fakruddin Ali Ahmad”.
In fact, the very Arfa Khanum Sherwani, who is today wondering when Hindus would accept a Muslim as their leader, had derided Dr Kalam earlier.
She had asked on social media why Dr APJ Abdul Kalam is eulogised and Hamid Ansari is ‘demonised’. She even trivialised her comment stating what kind of Muslim will be ‘acceptable’ to the right wing. Sherwani had earlier stated that Dr Kalam is eulogised because, according to her, he had embraced the Hindu way of life, and insinuated that Hamid Ansari is ‘demonised’ because he did not do that.
To answer Arfa’s question, India and Hindus would accept a Muslim leader like Dr Kalam because he never imposed his own religious views on India and Hindus at large, had respect for Hindus and their way of life and was patriotic enough to put his national duties above religious constraints. It is evident from these comments that the “kind of Muslim” that many such Muslims want Hindus to accept is someone like Hamid Ansari, who attended events by now banned terrorist outfit PFI – an organisation that wanted to turn India into an Islamic nation and dreamed about the genocide of Hindus. They, in their vision 2047 document had spoken extensively about unleashing violence against Hindus, murdering Hindu leaders and establishing an Islamic constitution – turning Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam.
These Muslim intellectuals, therefore, want Hindus to embrace their own annihilation and the desecration of everything they hold sacred in the name of syncretic culture while deriding the Muslims who truly work for the interest of the nation and respect the Hindu foundation of India and its people. A good Muslim who must be acceptable to Hindus must be an Islamist and Hindus, to prove they are tolerant, must embrace their own demise – is what people like Arfa would have us believe.
Beyond the “kind of Muslim” that the Islamists want Hindus to accept, the trope comparing the elevation of Rishi Sunak to Hindus choosing a Muslim leader is itself flawed. Firstly, let us be clear – the UK is accepting of an Indian-origin man as their leader. Indians have never subjugated the Brits – in fact, it was the other way around. Therefore comparing it to Hindus choosing a Muslim as their leader is incomparable to the situation in the UK. Historically, Hindus have been victims of violence at the hands of the Muslim community, violence that continues to date. India herself was partitioned on religious lines with Muslims at the time claiming that Muslims were a nation unto themselves and are incapable of sharing their national identity with Kafirs. The two situations are not comparable. There are historical nuances that must be evaluated honestly if we assume a mistrust exists – a premise that people like Arfa want us to believe, even though Hindus have, despite their own subjugation, been accepting of Muslim leaders who have given them respect and worked for the nation.
Another important premise that this argument draws on is, of course, equating Hinduism and Islam as religions and their followers as religious communities. This is an extension of the forced idea that “all religions are the same” that took root with the teachings of MK Gandhi. All religions are certainly not the same and the conduct of the community as a whole is not the same either.
The notion that all religions are the same stems from the concept of religious pluralism that assumes that not only do all religions claim that their truth is the ‘only truth’ that exists, but that all religions are based on the principles of Universal Truths and thus, these are the two tenets that need to be dealt with if religions are to co-exist peacefully.
Religious Pluralism essentially says that firstly, all religions must acknowledge that certain truths exist in other religions as well, thereby declaring that it is not only their own religion that is the ‘only truth’. Further, it says that all religions must acknowledge that every religion teaches basic universal truths that have been taught since before the advent of religion itself.
When one talks about religious pluralism, Islam is not inherently plural because it would never acknowledge that other religions have at least some amount of truth to them and that the only Universal Truth is “Their truth”. For example, Islam rejects idol worship summarily, which is the very foundation of Hinduism. Islam also claims that those who do not submit to Islam must be converted even if violence needs to be used – if they refuse to convert – they can be murdered mercilessly. Islam is an absolutist faith and therefore, it is not the “same” as Hinduism which inherently acknowledges that all religions are based on some truths to begin with.
Couple the theological absolutism with the violence that the Muslim community has unleashed on not just Hindus, but all non-Muslim communities and one does not have to wonder why Muslim leaders perhaps don’t inspire as much faith as Hindu leaders may. Let us simply draw a comparison between Sadiq Khan (London Mayor) and Rishi Sunak. Rishi Sunak has been chosen by Tory MPs, who are, mostly religious Christian conservatives. Sadiq Khan on the other hand has been slammed several times by the Conservatives – on several occasions.
It is also an empirical truth that Hindus as a group behave differently from Muslims as a group. This is not to say that every Muslim is violent, however, we have to acknowledge the reality that the Muslim community as a group does indulge in violence against non-Muslims. They also start demanding Islamic laws in non-Islamic nations after they flee the persecution that they faced in Islamic nations. It is a fact that Hindus come under attack by Islamists on a regular basis. It is a fact that terrorist attacks across the world are carried out by pious Muslims who believe they are serving their God by attacking non-Muslims and their countries. It is a fact that the UK saw millions of girls raped by Muslim grooming gangs. All of this, and more, are facts that can be whitewashed but cannot be denied when one looks at data. It is also a fact that not all Muslims are terrorists and not all Muslims unleash violence against non-Muslims, however, the collective behaviour of the Muslim community would never let the better voices gain prominence and if they do, they will be summarily put down by the Muslim community itself – Dr Kalam is a shining example of this phenomenon.
It is therefore imperative that Muslims introspect as to why they are not as trusted as Hindus (according to their own assertions), who tend to go about their lives peacefully and assimilate, respect and accept cultural and religious differences. It is also imperative that the Islamists realise that guilt-tripping Hindus into accepting “their kind of Muslim” as their leader would not work, not anymore, at least. The onus that this question – Can India elect a Muslim PM – places the onus squarely on Hindus while Hindus have proven that they are willing to accept Muslims as their leaders as long as the Muslim works for the nation and accords them with the respect they deserve. The question the Muslim community needs to ask itself is whether they want Hindus to accept their own subjugation simply because we want to be called tolerant and if the Hindus do choose a tolerant, plural Muslim as their leader, would the Muslim community treat him exactly the way they treated Dr Kalam.
