India - Fading spirit of tolerance

When actor-social activist Shabana Azmi speaks, the people and the media listen and react. Her comments in a television interview that housing societies in Mumbai were unwilling to sell her accommodation because she was a Muslim sparked off a nation-wide debate.
In Mumbai, Hindustan Times carried a series of articles, the film industry and politicians joined the debate, and the issue dominated the “Letters to the Editor” column. A quick survey indicated a 70-30 ratio favouring the actor.
Who will deny accommodation to people like Shabana and her husband, poet-lyricist-writer Javed Akhtar? Unlike some film personalities, they are not the noisy, partying type. Their secular credentials are well known and, for years, they have been propagating the views of the moderate, modern Muslims.
Criticism
Yet, in cosmopolitan Mumbai, the spirit of tolerance was running out. Shabana’s critics could not understand this. BJP leader Venkiah Naidu blamed her ‘mindset’ for the controversy. He is neither a Muslim nor has hunted for a house for one in Mumbai.
Close friend Shatrughan Sinha accused Shabana of hurting the sentiments of millions in a city that accorded VIP treatment to its Muslim stars.
Some of her friends in the theatre and film world wondered why she had raised the issue when Kashmir was being torn apart by separatist sentiments and the Amarnath Yatra agitation. Does she need more media publicity, they wondered.
But the actor is unfazed. “Should there be a time for raising such important issues?” she asks. Her broker had informed her that landlords in the VIP-dominated Juhu-Vile Parle Development Scheme (JVPD) were unwilling to sell property to a Muslim, non-vegetarian couple who were associated with films. Snaps Shabana, “Why aren’t there similar objections to Hindu, non-vegetarian filmy people?”
Why just JVPD Scheme? I talked to a number of Muslim friends who could not buy property at upper middle class Gujarati-Jain dominated areas like Ghatkopar, Vile-Parle, Malabar Hill and even ‘mixed’ areas like Santa Cruz and Bandra. Script writer, Anjun Rajabali had a look at 94 buildings in Versova and finally bought a flat in his Hindu wife’s name.
Marathi playwright and script writer Ishaq Khan (name changed) almost acquired a flat for his sister in Santa Cruz (E) before the housing society told him the deal was off. “You will not be happy here, because there was no mosque nearby.” Khan finally bought a place at Bhandup.
As the Shabana controversy flared up, her professional colleagues, Saif Ali Khan, Arshad Warsi and Zeenat Aman also aired similar complaints in the media.
Prejudices

Though Muslims are the main victims, the prejudices extend to other groups. Many landlords were unwilling to sell or lease property to bachelors and single women (moral grounds), Punjabis (too noisy) Catholics (meat eaters), film people (noisy and flashy).
This is slowly leading to a kind of polarisation with Muslims forced to flock to Millat Nagar, Bombay Central, Kurla and parts of Bandra.
Of course there are not many changes in the Muslim-dominated areas like Mohammad Ali Road but they are so congested that new construction is impossible.
A local newspaper survey quoted leading builders like Rahejas, RNA, Kalpatru, Lokhandwala and Nahar as well as real estate agents saying they did not discriminate against any community. Others like Windsor and Kabra had reservations on the issue. But often, the builder’s personal politics and financial position decide the issue.
When a builder discovers that the majority of his prospective buyers are uneasy at the prospect of living with Muslims, he would rather not have them. In fact, this happens to Muslims builders too! Once the building is sold and a housing society formed, its members have a say in future transactions including resale.
This is when all kinds of prejudices flare up. The housing societies — bound by law to accommodate anyone — use all kinds of excuses not to sell flats to Muslims. Most buildings in the Bandra Reclamation area are unwilling to accommodate prospective Muslim buyers though not directly.
One building “Al Hillal” had only Muslims owners who did not mind tenants and paying guests from other communities.
The façade of Mumbai being a secular and cosmopolitan city has finally cracked. Similarly, some Catholic housing societies will not admit anyone else and point to a 100-year-old lease agreement reserving the plot only for Catholics.
Why?
What are the reasons behind these prejudices, which have not spared even the affluent classes and their residential areas? The turning point was the 1992-93 communal riots when armed thugs collected names and addresses of Muslims in expensive areas like Worli from the census office and earmarked them for attacks.
Confessed Janardan Patil (name changed), an affluent resident of Worli, “This area was always peaceful, but the 1992 riots shook us up. You see, people here are peaceful but the aggressors were from outside who had collected details about our Muslim friends. Since then, we are nervous about having Muslims as neighbours.”
When Shabana confessed her distress, she only brought up about some hard facts of Mumbai life that can not be ignored. The onset of terrorism and the tendency of the media to label every Muslim as a possible terrorist has worsened the situation.
Recently at Mira Road, a distant suburb where 30 per cent of the population were Muslims, police arrested dozens of Muslim residents from one particular building as possible suspects in bomb blast cases. Mira Road was already polarised into Hindu and Muslim localities.
Today, its innocent Muslim men and women are targets of abuse in offices, schools and colleges. They are so desperate that they now approach the local police and offer to report on sightings of strangers in housing societies. Under such circumstances, the prospects of Hindus and Muslims living together in peace appear bleak.
Is Mumbai slowly turning into another Ahmedabad?