In the international context, appeasement is a style of diplomacy in which various types of concessions are given to an aggressive power to avoid direct conflict. Appeasement has always been a practical strategy. It reflected British domestic concerns and diplomatic philosophy in the 1930s. The ‘Munich Agreement’ is the most famous example of appeasement. It was signed by Britain, France, Germany, and Italy in 1938.

In UPA rule,…… Waqf law making Jamia a Muslim University, Muslim reservation, Minority Ministry, Ranganath, and Sachar were being implemented to please Muslims. Then the SP government of UP came forward and said that we would give the Taj Mahal to Waqf. In 2005, when Mulayam Singh was in UP and Manmohan Singh was in the center, the Taj Mahal was given to Waqf. The most interesting battle for Muslim votes was and is between the Congress and SP.

In 2005 a formal order of UP Sunni Waqf Board was passed. The instructions of the Chairman went to the CEO of Waqf Board. Taj Mahal was registered as Waqf property. Taj Mahal became private. At this time, the Chairman of UP Sunni Waqf Board, Hafeez Usman, was a Samajwadi Party MLA. He was also the president of Aligarh Muslim University Students Union. Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav said that: “The state government will not interfere in the matter of Waqf Board. He said that: “those who have complaints should go to the court.” Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) rushed to the Supreme Court. Congress leader Salman Khurshid stood up to represent the Waqf Board there. The Supreme Court asked the Waqf Board – Shah Jahan was the owner of Taj Mahal, where are its papers. He will give Taj Mahal to Waqf only when he becomes its owner. He will have to show the papers. The Chief Justice said, “We need a paper with Shah Jahan’s handwriting and signature that he gave the property to the Waqf. When he was in jail, when did he sign? Where is his will?” The papers were not there, so the Waqf Board’s order was stayed. In 2018, the UP Waqf Board withdrew its claim and the Taj Mahal narrowly escaped from becoming a private property. With the change of government, the atmosphere had changed. The Taj Mahal is the property of the government by the government order of 1920.

The debate on the Uniform Civil Code has been going on continuously since independence. Muslim fundamentalism has been opposing change and liberal thinking has been constantly blurred due to the interference of Hindu thinkers who are vocal supporters of reform in Muslim Personal Law. The government does not dare to change its course for fear of losing Muslim votes.

Rajiv Gandhi imposed a ban on Salman Rushdie’s ‘Satanic Verses’, while his successor VP Singh declared a national holiday on the birthday of Prophet Muhammad. And finally, Muslims were appeased by the Muslim Women (Protection of the Right to Divorce) Act, 1986, and by refraining from giving legal form to the Uniform Civil Code.

The publication of the Sachar Report in 2006 gave a new twist to the idea of ​​‘Muslim appeasement’. As a government document, the report highlighted the fact that India’s Muslims were socially, economically, and educationally backward and marginalized. While the report clearly emphasized that the Muslim community structure was diverse and deeply stratified, ‘Muslim persecution’ began to take shape as a new fulcrum of Indian politics. Parties, especially non-BJP parties, used the report to argue that ‘Muslim appeasement’ was a myth created by Hindutva forces and that Muslims should be treated as an excluded community. Hindutva politics adapted itself in the wake of this reaction. It argued that the Congress had no serious interest in empowering Muslims. It used them only as a vote bank, resulting in their further marginalization and exclusion.

It is also said that the BJP’s commitment to equal treatment of all has helped Muslims flourish even in the states it rules. Consider how LK Advani assessed the Sachar report: “… I think Gujarat should be grateful to Justice Sachar for having proved to the country with full vigor that under Narendrabhai Modi’s rule, the condition of Muslims is far better than that of their brethren in other states.”This argument later gave birth to the party’s slogan – “Vikas for all, appeasement for none.”

The publication of the Sachar Report in 2006 gave a new twist to the idea of ​​‘Muslim appeasement’. As a government document, the report highlighted the fact that India’s Muslims were socially, economically, and educationally backward and marginalized. While the report clearly emphasized that the Muslim community structure was diverse and deeply stratified, ‘Muslim persecution’ began to take shape as a new fulcrum of Indian politics. Parties, especially non-BJP parties, used the report to argue that ‘Muslim appeasement’ was a myth created by Hindutva forces and that Muslims should be treated as an excluded community. Hindutva politics adapted itself in the wake of this reaction. It argued that the Congress had no serious interest in empowering Muslims. It used them only as a vote bank, resulting in their further marginalization and exclusion.

In post-2014 India, ‘Muslim appeasement’ has found new political life. The BJP has been successful in establishing the fact that calling Muslims Muslims is also a form of appeasement. The impact of this claim is so deep that even the so-called secular, anti-Hindutva, non-BJP parties have gradually started distancing themselves from Muslims to avoid being branded as ‘Muslim appeasers’.

It seems to me that the concept of ‘Muslim appeasement’ is based on the image of Muslim harmony and solidarity of the Muslim community. But, there is a common belief across all political parties that ‘good Muslims’ have never benefited from ‘Muslim appeasement’. These ‘good Muslims’ keep fighting each other as conscious intellectuals – either to refute ‘Muslim appeasement’ as a myth or to emphasize the slogan ‘Vikas Sabka, Appeasement Kisi Ka Nahi’. The existence of these ‘good Muslims’ underlines the fact that ‘Muslim appeasement’ is not a statement of the objective socio-political situation of Muslims but it is a metaphor of politics. This vague, misleading metaphor is cleverly crafted to instill fear in Muslims. It tells them that you are a pampered people, even though they feel deprived. Thus it creates psychological dissonance in them. This situation prevents them from demanding equality or justice.

In my opinion, Articles 21, 30, and 370 are in favor of minorities and are discriminatory, they should be removed from the Constitution of India. Such provisions should be made in the Constitution that there should be no discrimination among the citizens of India based on religion or worship system. Those Muslims or other minorities who are not ready to give up their separatist tendencies should be declared foreigners and deprived of the right to vote.

I think that the secularist answer to the Hindutva concept of ‘Muslim appeasement’ does not offer any alternative idea. Although it talks about the multi-layered structure of the Muslim community and its neglect, it does not do serious intellectual/political thinking on the possibilities of appeasement, its meanings, forms and effects, etc.

My personal opinion is that every party tries to use confusing, vague, and ambiguous rhetoric to make their party stand out. The issue of ‘Muslim appeasement’ has troubled Indian politics for nearly three decades. Our Constitution provides certain rights to religious minorities, which provide legal protection to autonomous institutions like Waqf, Muslim Personal Law, and educational institutions like Aligarh Muslim University, but these are considered unfair and problematic.

As per me, no one loses anything by claiming any point in time. Tomorrow a claim may be made on the Red Fort. Congress has made a law in favor of the Waqf Board. Unlimited power has been given. India’s historical buildings of national importance are not private but are the property of the Indian people and thus should be protected by law at any cost.

Article written by and Editorial credit: State Bureau Chief Himanshu Nauriyal.