Outstanding Champion of Human Rights

Professor Iqbal Ansari, the one-man army of documentation of facts relating to issues of Muslims in India, passed away on October 13 in his home town of Aligarh, where he grew up and developed a vast treasure of friends working on human rights all over the country. Even those who might have disagreed with some of his overemphasised and simplistic observations, would not disagree with the fact that he was overwhelmingy concerned about the growing animosity on Hindu-Muslim unity, a subject which was very dear to him and brought him in constant touch with the country’s respected human rights activists, peace activists for India-Pakistan friendship as well as all those who were deeply perturbed by the growth of Hindu fundamentalism in India as a counter to Islamic fundamentalism growing elsewhere.

Professor Ansari was a teacher in Aligarh Muslim University and many of his students might not have even thought of him developing such a vast network of individuals working on human rights all over the world. Despite being a regular participant in various human rights forums and meetings in Delhi, he never left his roots in Aligarh. Very rarely would you find a man, in the human rights circles in India, having such a vast knowledge of the human rights system in India and the world over. He was well acquainted with international treaties, conventions and covenants and tried to minutely observe different laws in India which used to be discriminatory. Whether it was TADA or POTA, Gujarat or Maharashtra riots, Babri demolition and its aftermath, or Kashmir, Prof Ansari was everywhere. He did not really need an organi-sation. In fact much later did I realise that for doing his work, he was singlehandedly pursuing so many issues with allout effort. He was a prolific writer, particularly writing lengthy notes, letters on matters relating to the communal situation in India, edited various volumes and magazines, got published everywhere as he would respond immediately to an issue. He was determined to respond to a subject with great alacrity and absolute understanding.

While I disagreed with several views that he expressed in his writings which I perceived to be a mere response to counter the VHP-RSS propaganda and to some extent the typical Hindu upper-caste responses to ‘Hindu-Muslim unity’, a fad which we have seen has failed in india by not addressing the issue within the Muslim community too and seeking their advice; yet the point I admired in him was his never-ending spirit of fighting against what he felt to be injustice being done to the minorities in the secular democratic state of India. He would visit places, attend seminars and speak for hours without wanting to be disturbed, unless told to stop; yet none of his bitterest critics would ever point a finger at the quality and depth of his understanding of the situation.

¨

Two big volumes that he edited on minorities for the Institute of Objective Studies reflect his vision in fighting the propaganda of Hindutva through credible evidence of human rights violations and involving leading human rights luminaries like Justice V.M. Tarkunde, Rajni Kothari, Amrik Singh, Dr R.M. Pal, Y.P. Chhibber, Kuldip Nayar and Justice Rajindar Sachar. The publication that he was editing for the Institute of Objective Studies, known as Human Rights Watch, was the product of a one-man show. He requested for and republished articles from all these leading luminaries, asked them to write for volumes and involved them in the initiative of the Institute of Objective Studies, for securing and protecting minority rights particularly of the Muslims in India.

Three volumes of Reading on Minorities are already out and now we are waiting for his fourth volume on the issue being published by the Institute of Objective Studies. One can only say that he did work very hard to bring these out and was dedicated to place an evidence-based fact-finding report. Though they were too large and sometimes he did place his personal communications with different departments and Ministries in these volumes, yet none would ever question his zeal to work for the community and its common cause within a broad secular society. He was not comfortable with Muslim issues being discussed in isolation. In fact long back at a seminar in Aligarh he talked about a common platform for the Dalits irrespective of their religion so that their problem could be addressed more vigorously.

The disgraceful destruction of the Babri mosque had created a scar on the psyche of the modern nation and it exposed the true face of brahmanical supremacy. Many among the Muslims were talking of avenging such acts, but Ansari was always for rapprochement between the communities. He tirelessly worked with Gandhians, particularly those like late Nirmala Deshpande, though we all know that at the height of the Ayodhya tragedy their role had not been proactive. At a time when the Muslim intellectuals were quite sidelined and in their own ghettoes, Ansari reached out to those beyond the Islamic world and placed his point of view among the secular intelligentsia. That was his biggest forte. He was not an organisa-tional man and that is why even in the journal that he edited many a time he put his own stamp on the entire issue. He wanted to see things from a particular angle and would convert an article into a letter. He opened channels with those dissenters who were despised by the mainstream Muslim intelligentsia and did not shy away from defending Taslima Nasreen’s right to speak while condemning her vilification of Islam. He also wrote articles on Hindu-Muslim unity.

¨

A highly read person, Professor Ansari would be sorely missed in the human rights circles. His efforts to network with different communities, his attempt to develop a ‘Minority Council of India’, his active involvement with social movements particularly related to Muslims and their mainstreaming in India, his various books, publications will remind us of his untiring endeavour to work for human rights in India. He has been a member of the humanist movement in India though writing from a religious angle; once upon a time he claimed he can be a humanist despite being a Muslim. The point I want to make is that whether he believed or not in religion, he believed in the principle of human rights and against discrimination and perhaps he felt that is the best practice of humanism rather then discussing whether God existed or not.

Every time we met at a meeting or a seminar, Professor Ansari would bring some volumes of his work, his letters and distribute and ask us to endorse. He would often ask us about the Minority Council of India and how we can work together. Unfortunately, as I said, some people have good intentions yet they remain essentially academic activists and their stamina and patience level are quite different from what is required to create an organised movement. I particularly felt that whenever publications for the IOS were tried and attempted. Yet, I would always say that whatever he wrote, it came from the heart and, of course, with the best intent and full of ideas and consideration of the national and international laws.

He was a concerned man, a well-equipped intellectual activist and in his death we are deprived of a person who worked for communal harmony all over the country without caring for an award or a reward. Professor Ansari’s writings will always remain masterpieces for those working on human rights. His various studies on communal riots in India (published by the Institute of Objective Studies) are actually an eye-opener and contain a lot of material for all of those who want to know what went wrong. The way he tore apart reports on police reform and suggested what could be done to make our police and paramilitary forces secular is worthy of emulation at this juncture. It is a daunting task for the Government of India to address the limited representation of Muslims in the country’s different sectors including security forces and police, but it must be done by the government.

One hopes that the Institute of Objective Studies and various human rights bodies in India will acknowledge the great work done by Professor Ansari and carry forward his legacy while fulfilling those tasks which he himself undertook, particularly developing a secular society without compromising on the ethnic religious identities of the groups and commu-nities. If India turns out to be a tolerant society respecting traditions and sentiments of each other, including those of the dissenters as well, that would be the finest tribute to Professor Ansari.