Mr Sudarshan, Family Planning and Muslim Population

Mr Sudarshan, Family Planning and Muslim Population:

Some Historical and Contemporary Insights

Yogesh Snehi

Abstract

Mr. Sudarshan’s statement on Muslim population has not created much flutter this time, possibly due to Uma Bharti’s episode. Though the issue may look trivial from the point of view of motive behind the statement, it carries larger political implications. Generally these statements lack reason and lead to confusion. A historical insight presents a wider understanding of this issue. The conflict of RSS with the Muslims (and Christians) is a continuation of the discord of brahmanic elites with the ordinary and dissident menial castes, which has historically translated itself into a conflict with Muslims. The development of dalit solidarity among Hindus, Muslims and Christians will facilitate a broader perceptive of the caste question and also help in restricting the communal overtones

________________________________________________
Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh's (RSS) chief has recently expressed his displeasure at the supposedly increasing population of Muslims in India. Mr. Sudarshan has accordingly suggested that Hindus should abandon the family planning, the two child norm. He argues that the Muslim population in India has been rising at a ‘dangerous rate’ and this poses a 'serious threat' for the Hindus. I will argue that although general population growth continues to be serious, the primary reason for the problem is socio-economic depravity of Indian population among whom there is a substantial number of Muslims.

RSS has been irritably syndromic about Muslim population. This issue has not only misled Indians, but has also been responsible for numerous riots in India. At times the issue gets associated with ‘Muslims enticing away Hindu girls, marrying them and stealing away “productive engines” of the Hindus’. It has especially been used in Gujarat in 2002 where we have seen one of the heinous trails of criminality. Muslim populations have also been accused of ignoring family planning, posing a serious threat to the Hindu orthodoxy.

Let us delve on the issue of population first. RSS believes that the growth of Muslim population in India has primarily been the result of the entry of Muslims from outside India and subsequently forced conversion of the Hindus by the Muslim rulers. Fortunately perhaps, conversion for RSS is a non-issue today as far as the Muslim population is concerned, though this has been a major issue in their understanding of medieval and modern Indian history. Conversely, Mr. Sudarshan is all the more vociferous about the growth rate of Muslim population.

This debate goes back to the emergence of Muslims in pre-medieval and medieval India and conversions during that period. It is important to understand the historical account of the emergence of Muslims during this period. Population of Indian Muslims emerged as an outcome of the necessities of trade when a large number of Arab traders flocked the markets in India. This happened much before the establishment of Muslim rule in India, contrary to the belief that the establishment of Muslim rule in India meant the emergence of Muslim population. The native rulers of the subcontinent developed colonies for these traders and often built mosques for them. But this number continued to be insignificant even after the establishment of Muslim rule in India.

The real growth of Muslim population in India started with the entry of Sufis in India. There is ample evidence pointing towards large scale conversion of Indian population, influenced by the simplicity of the Sufis, primarily Chistis. This factor has been significant in the growth of the population of Indian Muslims. Sufi shrines continue to draw people from all faiths. We have parallels of these processes in all parts of India even today. Contemporary history has witnessed the conversion of almost entire population of certain villages in West Bengal to Ramakrishna Mission and to Radhasoamis in Punjab and Haryana. Now the question arises that why is there so much hue and cry over demographic changes then. We will deal with this question in the following discussion.

Firstly, the people in question here are those who converted to Islam in Medieval India. Significantly, these people were primarily Dalits and untouchables. They belonged to the lower segment of the society. But this conversion did not mean a change in their profession. Nor did this mean a change in the antagonism of the elites, including Muslim elites (the people of the royal blood), for this class. In fact, the antagonism increased manifold since these people were no longer bound by the restrictions of caste associated with their menial professions earlier; though they could never abandon it. Thus Shudras and untouchables who were (for example) employed in the professions of weaving and tanning continued to do so for centuries to come. There were some, though insignificant, who moved to urban centres and took up new professions like craftsmanship and worked in royal karkhanas.

This gives a new dimension towards the understanding of this debate. The conflict we see today is perhaps a continuation of these caste conflicts that emerged out of the conversion of menial castes to Islam; which were no longer bound by their caste tags and hence uncontrollable. But this did not solve the problems of their economic deprivations. It is not a surprise that the Muslims in India continue to be among the poorest. The emergence of movement for cow-protection in colonial India gave another turn to these developments. The profession of tanning became a subject of serious conflict. This conflict was not merely limited to the protection of stray and abandoned cows but also included dead cows under its ambit. Thus the tanning castes, among whom there was a significant presence of Muslims, became targets of ‘cow protectors’. Hereafter the issue became communally sensitive. High caste Hindus emerged as the protector of cows and the untouchable Hindu and Muslim tanners became villains. We have seen the eruption of such tensions even in contemporary India. Dulina in Haryana has been the latest successor of these events. Interestingly, the dalits who were lynched for skinning dead cows here were supposedly killed on the pretext of being Muslims. Thus Muslims become villains because they have been the carriers of historically rigid caste tensions. These depravities of caste have continued in independent India.

It is important to understand the above issue in relation to the failure of family planning among the poor segments of Indian society, especially Muslims. Larger families in poorer populations have their own political economy. This perception may not be supported by contemporary studies, but more children signify more earning hands among the sections living at barely subsistence levels. Though this psychological dimension is devoid of reason, it continues to influence the poor segments despite the fact that it may mean loss of education and health to them. Thus, the issue in question is not the religion of the poor but the poverty of these populations. In such cases it is obvious that these sections will move to greener pastures for employment and lead to the diffusion of their population. Interestingly, RSS relates the diffusion of Muslim population in India to the concerns of national security. They project this as a ‘Muslim conspiracy’ to establish Islamic India. How can a nation feel threatened by these poor people from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar who work as labourers and rickshawalas throughout northern India? And if these populations, which have a significant number of Muslims in them, subsequently settle at their place of work and construct Mosques for their daily prayers, their places of worship are translated as ‘networks of terror’.

Thus, we see that it is extremely important to relook into the issue of population and family planning in India and critique the ‘communal perspective’ on the population of Indian Muslims. The statements of the RSS are highly speculative and devoid of reason. Their statements lack coherence and are conflicting and confusing at the same time. They claim that they are trying to reason out the arrival of Muslims in India and the threat they pose to Hindus. But their communalized methodology leaves us perplexed. While on the one hand RSS blames the Muslim majority provinces in India for the partition of sub-continent, on the other hand it condemns the diffusion of the population of Indian Muslims.

What I see is that the conflict of the Right with Muslims (and Christians) is nothing but a continuation of the conflict of brahmanic elites with the ordinary and dissident menial castes, which has historically translated itself into a conflict with Muslims. Thus it becomes extremely significant to develop dalit solidarity among Hindus, Muslims and Christians. It will facilitate a broader understanding of the caste question and also help in restricting the communal overtones. In fact composite cultures in India face serious threat from organizations like RSS and also similar wings within Muslim orthodoxy. It is far more important to talk of general poverty among Muslim population and the dire need to device methods to tackle it, which will indirectly help in making family planning acceptable in this inseparable segment of Indian society.

07 December 2005