In last part to this series on Patriotism and Indian Muslims, writer Charu Bahri reflects on the assignment that was given to her. To read part I of this story click here.

We would like to hear from Muslims and non-Muslims on this topic, please tell us what you think by filling out the form towards the bottom of this page.

Part II

When I set about writing this piece, I called for responses from Indian Muslims of various backgrounds. Sadly, the responses did not flow. They trickled in from a few corners. This in itself was a pointer, indicating that possibly, Indian Muslims are not overly enthusiastic to voice their outlook on ‘sensitive’ issues.

So do Indian Muslims wish to keep their opinion under wraps?

Interestingly, though I asked for responses from Indian Muslims, I received replies from a section of Indian Hindus, cautioning me of the fact that Indian Muslims always have a hidden agenda – to promote Islam.

Really!

This got me thinking. Not about possible hidden agendas, but on how few of us deeply understand that there is a core set of principles inherent to every religion that remains the same across the board, so to speak. These tenets include respect for life, and as a corollary, the promotion and preservation of peace.

But sadly, political events such as Kargil adversely impact fragile communal relations. In the post-Kargil charged atmosphere, right-wing Hindu associations and some political parties insisted on pressing on with ‘Nationalism is Hinduism’ campaigns and ended up nullifying any progress in cross-cultural efforts aimed at building bridges between communities.

For the majority Indian populace, the Kargil episode evokes a bias against Pakistan which snowballs to an intense dislike for Islam, thus increasing anti-Muslim prejudices. The fallout is frequent rioting as tensions run high and sensitivities are easily inflamed.

As every secular-thinking Indian laments the situation, it may help to take note of similar circumstances in a supposedly modern and liberal nation, USA.

Post 9/11, both a curiosity about and prejudice against Islam rose considerably in USA. Bearing in mind that 9/11 was possibly the first major terrorist act on American soil, this change in the attitude of the Christian-Jewish majority mirrors in a sense, the Hindu bias against Muslims. Hypothetically, if such citizens in USA were to witness continued terrorist activity in their country perpetrated by Islamic terrorists, one can only imagine that they would sooner or later develop preconceived notions about every Muslim they interact with.

A misunderstood solidarity

Just like Indian Hindus, these people would forget that a few terrorists cannot stand for the majority of the Muslim community. They would forget that as Indian Muslims feel bad both whenever a civilian is killed or abused as a result of terrorist activities as well as, as a result of counter-terrorist Army activities in Jammu & Kashmir, Muslims across the world (even enlightened non-Muslims) feel strongly for the death of every innocent civilian in Iraq, or Afghanistan or even Lebanon, for that matter. Sadly, the approach of politicians whether in India or in USA often breeds disrespect and misunderstanding among the less-informed populace.

Author of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror, Mahmood Mamdani was asked to explain the origins of the title of his book. In response, Mamdani said that when Bush speaks of ‘good’ Muslims and ‘bad’ Muslims, what he means by ‘good’ Muslims is really pro-American Muslims and by ‘bad’ Muslims he means anti-American Muslims. Once you recognize that, then it is no longer puzzling why good Muslims are becoming bad Muslims at such a rapid rate. You can actually begin to think through that development. If, however, you think of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Muslims in cultural terms, it is mind-boggling that in one week, you can have a whole crop of ‘bad’ Muslims - cultural changes do not usually happen with such rapidity! But if you have the aerial bombing of Falluja and the targeting of civilian populations accused of hosting ‘bad’ Muslims, then you harvest an entire yield of bad Muslims at the end of the day, and the whole phenomenon becomes slightly less puzzling.

Mamdani speaks of army action outside of America, yet the Indian context is related to events within a country. It boils down to the fact that irrespective of India being a democratic country, every Indian Muslim must support Indian Government action (central and state) in every instance. But the Godhra Gujarat riots are a perfect example of the futility of reposing blind faith in the ruling state government, as called for by the majority community, even in cases where state policies are skewed in favor of the majority populace.

Further, Muslim solidarity with their religious brethren across the world should not be misunderstood as a desire for more terrorist activity. It may simply imply that they hold a different perspective insofar as the resolution of a crisis is concerned.

Further, Mamdani has also pointed out that as opposed to differentiating between good and bad persons, or between criminals and civic citizens, who both happen to be Muslims, the debate has turned to good Muslims and bad Muslims. Sounds familiar?

Mamdani concludes by saying that “Terrorism is not a necessary effect of religious tendencies, whether fundamentalist or secular. Rather, terrorism is born of a political encounter.� Thinking of the supposedly separatist movement in Jammu & Kashmir which is fueled by cross-border terrorist outfits, ostensibly to redraw political boundaries, one can see the logic in this statement.

For more reading, refer:

http://sipa.columbia.edu/academics/directory/mm1124-fac.html

http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/mamdani.cfm

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375422854/102-9492025-1167350?v=glance...

Who is Mahmood Mamdani?

Mahmood Mamdani is a third generation East African of Indian origin born in Kampala, Uganda. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1974. Since 1999 he has been the Herbert Lehman Professor of Government in the Departments of Anthropology and International Affairs, and Director of the Institute of African Studies at Columbia University. In 2001 he presented one of the nine papers that were delivered at the Nobel Peace Prize Centennial Symposium.

[To read part I of this story click here.]

[Photo : Mahatma4711]