Rethinking Muslim Victimhood and Historical Accountability

Is the pervasive sense of victimhood among Muslims unfounded?

Recently, I came across an Instagram Reels video that raised some thought-provoking questions about this concept.

Muslims didn’t start the First World War.

Muslims didn’t start the Second World War.

Hitler was not a Muslim.

Muslims didn’t kill native American people and occupy their land.

Muslims didn’t kill Australian aboriginals and occupy their land.

The core message was straightforward: despite the actions of Western countries resulting in the suffering and displacement of millions, Muslims often find themselves unjustly vilified.

I agree with the narrator’s viewpoint. Even if we disregard religious affiliations, various groups and leaders have been responsible for historical atrocities. For instance, Stalin, who was not a Muslim, personally executed over a million of his own citizens and was associated with an estimated 20–40 million deaths during his rule. Similarly, Mao’s policies led to the deaths of 40–80 million people.

Furthermore, we should contemplate the repercussions of colonialism. Consider British rule in India, where an estimated 3 million people perished during the Bengal famine of 1943, largely due to Winston Churchill’s policies and a strong bias against Hindus.

This raises a more extensive question: should present generations bear the weight of their forebears’ actions? I firmly believe that they cannot evade the inescapable consequences. The actions of previous generations cast a long shadow, and today’s generation both reaps the benefits and must grapple with the consequences of those actions.

In 1947, during the partition, my grandfather lived in a town near Nanakana Sahib, which is now in Pakistan. His family was among the wealthiest Sikh families in the town, having inherited a substantial garment business from their forefathers.

As news of India’s impending partition spread, many people began relocating their assets, businesses, and finances to India. Friends and relatives repeatedly advised my grandfather to do the same. The majority of people he knew migrated to the Indian side, taking everything with them.

My grandfather, however, was adamant, insisting, “Nankana Sahib will not be a part of Pakistan.” He remained deaf to the pleas of even his wife.

Nankana Sahib holds a special place in Sikh history as the birthplace of Guru Nanak, the first Sikh Guru.

When the targeted killings of Hindu and Sikh residents commenced, my grandparents had to escape in the dead of night, leaving behind all their possessions.

Upon their arrival in India, they were destitute and penniless. Although I’m unsure about the nature of their relationship with their relatives, it’s evident that many were displeased with his decision to delay.

Through a government program for refugees, my grandfather secured a modest house in Ambala Cantt (Haryana) and a small 6x4 foot shop. Here, he spent the rest of his life tailoring clothes of the poor. His children grew up in poverty.

In this sense, we are still grappling with the consequences of my grandfather’s choices. If only he had heeded the advice of well-wishers, relocating to India well in advance with his assets, his children and grandchildren would have enjoyed a significantly better standard of living. Our financial situation would have been much better.

Refugees from Pakistan were offered homes in North Delhi (near North Campus). However, my grandfather declined the offer because he had grown attached to their humble abode in Ambala Cantt. This decision cost them a chance to own valuable property worth crores in today’s terms.

His children and grandchildren bore the brunt of his decisions and indecisiveness.

Now, let’s explore another scenario.

Imagine a large house in India. Three centuries ago, Family A resided there. Coerced by a local thug, they were forced to vacate the premises, after which the thug’s family, Family B, moved in.

Over time, the descendants of Family B flourished. They established businesses, secured jobs, pursued education, and some even ventured abroad. The days of thuggery were long gone, and they became respected members of the community, while Family A endured generations of poverty.

Three centuries later, Family A stumbles upon documented evidence revealing that the house in their neighborhood, now inhabited by the respectable Family B, rightfully belonged to their ancestors but was unlawfully seized by force.

What should be the course of action now? Should Family B be compelled to relinquish the house, returning it to the original owners, or should Family A come to terms with the fact that the injustices occurred centuries ago and that the current generations of Family B shouldn’t suffer for their ancestors’ actions?

From Family B’s perspective, should they not ask why Family A should bear the burden of past wrongs committed by the forefathers of Family B?

There may not be a clear-cut solution to this problem, or there might be one, depending on the people involved.

Let’s consider the Babri Masjid-Ayodhya Temple issue. It’s well-established that the Ram Temple existed before. Babar, a Muslim ruler, demolished it and constructed the Babri Masjid on the same site. Since the country was under Muslim rule, Hindus couldn’t take any action.

After five centuries, Hindus were in a position to demolish the mosque and rebuild the temple at its original location.

Muslims worldwide objected strongly. Despite archaeological evidence of temple remains under the mosque, they insist that there was no temple there before the mosque. However, the courts have ruled otherwise.

Muslims hold a strong belief that one day they will govern India, a notion referred to as Ghazwa-e Hind. They claim that when they come to power, they will reconstruct the mosque on the same spot, even if the temple is rebuilt. This belief stems from the fact that once a mosque is built, it cannot be undone, regardless of whether a temple existed before or not.

Hagia Sophia, according to Wikipedia, was originally built as a church in 537 A.D. Subsequently, it was converted into a mosque when Turkey came under Muslim rule. At a later point, it was transformed back into a church. Recently, it was again converted into a mosque.

What’s your perspective on this? Was it wrong to change the mosque back into a church when it was originally a church that had been converted into a mosque? Was it wrong for Muslims to revert it into a mosque when it had originally been a church? Who is exerting influence on whom?

The land of Israel had originally belonged to Jews. Jews, Christians, and people of various faiths had lived across Arabia and Northern Africa, which are now predominantly Muslim regions.

Both Jordan and Syria were originally Christian countries, but within a few decades, they transitioned into Muslim-majority nations.

Just as Muslims argue that Jews should leave Israel because the land belonged to Muslims or Palestinians a few decades ago, can Christians and Jews also assert that the land belonged to them a few centuries ago?

In recent times, Kashmiri Muslims have been raising concerns about the Indian government’s attempts to alter the population makeup of the region. This entails encouraging individuals from various parts of India to settle in Kashmir, which currently holds a Muslim majority.

Applying the same rationale, it can be argued that Kashmir originally belonged to Hindus. The arrival of Muslims in the region marked an invasion, leading to the displacement of the indigenous population. In more recent times, Kashmiri Hindus experienced a horrific genocide, and those who survived were forced to become refugees in their own country.

Turning our attention to the American continents, they were initially inhabited by indigenous peoples. However, Europeans and Caucasians eventually overpowered Native Americans, simply because they possessed the means to do so.

Similarly, in Australia, the Aboriginal population was systematically decimated by settlers arriving from Europe and other parts of the world. Once again, this happened because they had the power to make it so.

Now, if, for some reason, both Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals were to regain the ability to resist the current occupants, would you consider their struggle unjust? Shouldn’t the fact that they are the original inhabitants entail that Europeans and others who have settled in these lands should either leave or adhere to the conditions imposed by Native Americans and Aboriginals?

Throughout history, Afghanistan and Pakistan had Hindu populations. The conversions to Islam in these regions were not always voluntary; many were coerced, with those who resisted often facing violence.

What if the Hindu communities in Pakistan and Afghanistan, having grown stronger, began to challenge the “occupying” forces in their countries? Could they seek to rectify historical injustices, akin to the Israel-Palestine conflict?

The point I’m making here is that, eventually, Muslims must recognize that they are not the sole victims on the global stage. The world operates in a way where sometimes they suffer from others’ actions, and sometimes they inflict suffering on others. We may not like this reality, but it is how our world functions.

Is there a solution to these complex issues? I cannot claim to possess the definitive answer.

However, one thing is clear: there is a need to address the prevalence of aggression among Muslims at large. They must learn to coexist with the world around them and shed the sense of entitlement that permeates their interactions. It is crucial for them to understand that not everything in the world revolves around them, and that other communities also have the right to live according to their beliefs and practices.

For instance, in the case of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, a show of civilizational empathy would have been for Muslims themselves to offer the land for the construction of a Ram temple. Unfortunately, this sentiment appears to be lacking.

It’s important to note that this attitude is not unique to Muslims alone. While they may not always appear as refined or diplomatic as Western countries, they are not the sole bearers of this mindset.

We may also question why historical figures like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are not often labeled as terrorists. Furthermore, we can scrutinize the actions of powerful nations, such as the United States and Russia, and their involvement in other countries. Afghanistan was a relatively liberal society before the Russian invasion, and Iran underwent a significant transformation for the worse following Western-backed regime change. Similarly, Gaddafi’s efforts toward an African currency met a tragic end amidst a regime change.

These events can indeed be seen as acts of terrorism.