Indian heart, Muslim soul

Indian heart, Muslim soul

By Syed Shahabuddin
Friday, 17 June , 2005

Muslim Indians have traditionally nursed negative feelings towards the West. Ever since the slow but steady penetration of Western powers in the Indian sub-continent began, Muslim Indians have been influenced by many anti-Western movements: Shah Waliullah’s invitation to Durrani, the fatwa of Shah Abdul Aziz, the jehad by Syed Ahmad Shaheed, the active Muslim participation in the First War of Independence in 1857, the Wahabi Movement, the Muslim rejection of English and Western culture, Muslim sympathy for the Afghans in the third Anglo-Afghan War, the Khilafat movement, the formation of the Provisional Government of Independent India in Kabul, the nationalist Ulema’s fatwa against joining the British Indian Army.

All this was seen by the community through the prism of the Western role in colonising, dividing, dominating and conquering the Muslim World, forcing the withdrawal of the Ottomans from eastern Europe, the defeat of Turkey in the World War One, the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire into states -- some historic, some artificial -- the abolition of the caliphate, and British mandate and subsequent partition of Palestine followed by the steady occupation of Arab Palestine by Israel.

Whether it is the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR in 1979 or the invasion of Iraq by the US in 1991 or the invasion of Afghanistan followed by the occupation of Iraq by the US in 2002, all this is in the eyes of the Muslim World a continuation of the centuries old war against Islam that began with the crusades and the expulsion of the Arabs from Spain.

All these have left multiple scratches on the mind of Muslim India.

Today, the USA, the successor of and synonymous with Western imperialism, is the invincible mega-power and its ideologues do not conceal their pride in the new imperialism.

However, the Muslim world realises that it is the West’s advancement in science and technology and superiority in arms that caused the fall of the Muslim lands.

The US is seen as the chief protagonist in the continuing war against Islam and is held responsible for the neo-colonial economic exploitation of its natural resources as well as for perpetuation of feudalism and tribalism, which block the path to democratisation and modernisation.

There was a time at the end of World War Two when Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia were the only Muslim majority states that enjoyed at least nominal freedom and the visible attributes of sovereignty.

Today there are more than 50, but nearly all of them are seen by Muslims as dancing to US tunes.

The Muslim majority states have emerged from the debris of the colonial order, but during the last 50 years, their people continue to struggle for freedom and democracy, for complete control over their economic resources, for real self-determination.

At every turn, they find their path to freedom and democracy blocked by the West, which has increasingly come to be personified by the USA, externally and internally.

The US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and their continued occupation and military presence in many other Muslim states and its support to anti-democratic regimes make a mockery of its claim to be the standard bearer of freedom and democracy.

Muslim masses everywhere know the name of the game, it is oil and Israel.

Muslim Indians form the geographical centre of the Muslim World though they form a minority in their own country.

They cannot be impervious or insensitive to the currents and cross-currents flowing on the surface or below in the Muslim world. Ideas and emotions have a way of crossing borders.

Then there is another side of the picture. Like all peoples in the developing world, the Muslims are equally mesmerised by the technological progress of the US and by its high standards of living.

Today it is the destination and there is a continuous stream of migration from the developing world to the US in search of knowledge, money and comfort. Muslim Indians are no exception.

So the US is seen both as good and bad; both as the enemy and as the friend, it is both loved and hated; it is both admired and criticised. There is the double image of the USA as morally degenerate and as the frontier of science and technology.

While entertaining suspicions about its intentions towards Islam and the objectives in the Muslim world, while seeing it as the main force behind “Zionist� expansionism and anti-Islamic conspiracies, while dissociating from its culture, Muslim Indians also appreciate its role as the upholder of freedom, equality and justice and the rule of law in the USA.

Muslim Indians, therefore, are not opposed to development of political, scientific, technological and economic cooperation between India and the US.

However, they hope that by virtue of its size and influence, India will not become a camp follower and support US foreign policy across the board, and that India will be able to follow an independent policy towards the Muslim world, particularly in supporting the Palestinian cause against Israeli expansionism and in encouraging the forces of modernisation that seek protection against tyrannical rules as well as foreign predators.

Islamic extremism won't work in India

Muslim Indians are in a fortunate situation. They are citizens of a democratic and secular state in which they enjoy freedom, equality and justice.

They value their precious rights when they look at the Muslim world to the west, to the east and to the north. They count their blessings, notwithstanding occasional Nellies, Bhagalpurs and Gujarats.

They are committed to the national aspiration of their country rising to become a pole in tomorrow’s multipolar world.

They hope that India will both restrain anti-Islamic forces within the country and become more effectively involved in international and regional affairs and promote justice and equality in international political and economic relations.

It is widely acknowledged in Muslim circles that Islamic extremism has no scope in India. The extremists who dream of establishing an Islamic state in India or restoring Muslim rules are very few and stand totally marginalised in the community. This explains why terrorism has struck no roots.

This overall understanding underlies the quest of the community for modern education, for acquisition of technology and managerial skills, while maintaining its Islamic identity.

India’s Muslim community, which forms the second largest Muslim community in the world, naturally expects the national leadership and the government to take due cognisance of their sentiments when another Muslim community is in distress as in Palestine, Iraq or Chechnya.

But it is wise enough to realise that India’s attitude towards and relationship with other countries cannot be determined solely in terms of the sensitivities and inclinations of one community, big or small, but of national interests. On the whole, so long as the government sees national interest in maintaining good relations with the Muslim world, there is no conflict at all.

It realises the limits of the pressure it can exercise on the national foreign policy, constituting, as it does, only 13 per cent of the population and a relatively smaller part of its intellectual and academic resources.

So it is wise enough to take in its stride developments that may not be tally to its liking.

In sum, the community feels that India’s relations with world powers, including the US, will not be determined solely on the basis of geo-economic and strategic considerations and that Indian diplomacy shall not severe the moral nerve line that has characterised it since Independence.

Conversely, Muslim Indians have, in the light of their experience, also come to know how little the Muslim world can do for them.

So its pre-Independence exuberance for the Muslim causes in the larger world outside (such as the Khilafat) has cooled off. And happily so.

It lives today, more in the real world and not in an imagined world in which Islam and anti-Islam are constantly pitted against each other.

The Constitutional path, the path of democracy and secularism, it has adopted for addressing its grievances and for correcting the flaws in the system and the anomalies in its working has also served to moderate its impulses and aspirations.

That explains why it gave almost no support to the armed insurgency in Kashmir though it fully sympathised with the Kashmiri grievances of erosion of democracy and autonomy and violation of their human and fundamental rights.

Equally, it has not extended any support to pan-Islamic terrorism. Osama bin Laden has not been able to recruit even one Muslim Indian in all 15 years!

On Building Yong Muslim Leadership from Grass-roots

By Syed Shahabuddin

Not only from friends of the Muslim Community but within the Community itself, one always hears a litany of lament that the Muslim Community lacks leadership. This has a nugget of truth when leadership is identified with political status as it is normally done. But there is no lack of leadership in the theological domain or even in religious affairs in the field of education and to a lesser degree in the economic field.

Apart from Muslim politicians, the Muslim society often turns towards its religious leaders for guidance. This creates the impression, which is rather mistaken that the Muslim society is basically in the hands of the Mullahs and practices, within the larger framework of democracy, a form of Mullahcracy!

Considering that religious faith is the core element of Muslim identity, it would indeed be surprising if the Community as a whole was not inclined towards religion, even those who were only culturally Muslims turned towards religion; when they faced situations of discrimination. Some problem arises because most religious scholars and functionaries continue to live in the past and have a generally conservative outlook and do not quite understand the way the larger national society is managed. Their hold on the masses also opens the Community to the charge of embracing extremism and rejecting liberalism and modernization. However, given its religious sensitivities, the Muslim community, which is living in a hostile environment, resists all propositions for ‘reforming’ Islam made by ill-informed and even basely motivated intellectuals and stoutly resists attacks on Islam, per se, the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet. But it responds to economic, social and cultural changes, not only in the Muslim majority states but Muslim minority countries. The process of change, however, is relatively slow in the latter because a minority always, everywhere, tends to be conservative.
There is an understandable reason for the prevalent level of orthodoxy in Muslim India: the overall sense of insecurity in the mind of the Community which has been living for decades in a state of siege. No doubt the Constitution grants them equality of citizenship and freedom of religion, for historical and psychological reasons the Muslim Indians constantly experience victimisation as physical, religious, cultural, economic and social targets. This is further strengthened by political under-representation and economical deprivation. In the circumstances, there is a strong urge at least to hug its religiosity and express it in various ways.

Orthodox or liberal, modern or obscurant, no one can take away the rights of the religious group as human beings, as a minority and as citizens. The modern state, even if does not proclaim its secularism from the housetop, can not deny equality and justice to a community, only because it appears to be orthodox.

The theologians with all their piety and moral influence, and the Mullahs with all their proximity to the grass-roots cannot be a substitute for politicians. At critical times, the religious ‘leaders’ also enter politics. Get their reward in the form of seats in the legislatures or in the party hierarchy. But they are largely useful for themselves because they simply lack the necessary legal knowledge and political experience. They fail to keep the Community together because of sectarian differences. In other words, they cannot unlock the doors of power and manage the pressure of change. And that is why political leadership is, in the final analysis, important for the future of the Community.

Few Muslims in politics can take a bold, independent stand and remove obstacles and impediments the Community faces, not the least of which is the memory of Muslim rule and dominance, particularly, its dark aspects which are emphasized and publicized endlessly by the anti-Muslim forces. Their path is also impeded by the course of political development under the British which culminated in the division of the county and the fact that at the critical time during 1945-1947 virtually the entire Muslim public opinion in what is now India stupidly supported the idea of Pakistan. Since the more vocal supporters migrated to Pakistan in search of greener pastures, the Muslim Indians faced a vacuum and indeed became leaderless. Those who took off Jinnah caps to put on Gandhi caps were looked upon as unreliable both by the Hindus and the Muslims. In the first 15 years after independence the community simply did not know which way to turn for support and succor. Inevitably it took shelter under the existing power structure. To survive, it learnt to keep mum even on its legitimate grievances, to accept whatever came its way, to speak humbly and softly, seek favours and to crawl its way into the durbars of the new rulers.

Along with democracy had come an electoral system based on first-past-the-post principle which did not allow any aggrieved and oppressed section freely to choose its representatives, who may sincerely and selflessly project their concerns and seek viable remedies. Muslims who entered the legislature and became Ministers, by the grace of political parties, with few exceptions represented their parties and not the Community. Nearly all persons who dominated political parties generally looked upon Muslims with hostility or suspicion. They nursed an overall apathy towards them and tended to overlook their miserable condition, ‘let them stew in their own juice and pay for the sins of their forefathers.’ The Muslims living in their ghettos had no option but to accept every affront, all injustice and suffer patent inequality. Few had the courage to raise grievances in the councils of power; fewer tried to seek remedies and invoke understanding or sympathy of the powerful. Muslim legislators or Muslim Ministers knew which side of their bread was buttered and always kept on the right side of the party and the government. They refused to knock loudly, lest it upset the ‘Malik’, even while their people were being butchered.

Muslim masses had to accept as their representatives those imposed by the system and built up as living evidence of secularism. Their personal ambition coupled with relative incompetence came in their way. If they raised inconvenient questions, they would be cut to size or dropped in the next reshuffle or denied tickets in the next election. The masses were kept divided in the name of sects and denominations and even baradaris, a form of Muslim casteism. This was not only encouraged by their religious or social leaders but also promoted from outside by political parties. Each party wanted a slice of Muslim votes to further the interests of its core social constituency. This we see happening even today. This disunity in the Community which it often laments makes it impossible for it to act unitedly, even at the local levels such as elections to panchayats or municipalities.

With democratic experience every social group in the multi-group Indians society has mastered the technique of breaking the monopoly of powerful groups which control national parties and forming state and regional parties with itself at the core and in the driving seat. The Community never mastered this political strategy or developed its own brand of ‘camouflage’ politics, though it has learnt to see through the mask of secularism and social justice, worn by political parties.

1971 was a water-shed and since the 70’s, Muslims have gradually stabilized economically and politically. The younger generation has overcome the burden of partition. But given the electoral system and the open hostility or fake secularism of political parties, Muslim masses had no option but to support the party which made the sweetest promises and assured physical security. Their political strategy was reduced to vote for the strongest secular party across the board, through-out a state. In the 1990s, however, they began to differentiate between one constituency and another and to practice tactical voting, constituency-wise depending upon the winnability and record of candidates. Now the third change is taking place; preference to Muslim candidates in Muslim concentration constituencies. No Muslim party or Muslim-core party has ever registered its presence in the vast expanse of north India. And even the parties the Muslim vote for sometimes put up token Muslim candidates from unwinnable seats. If the ruling party or coalition has some Muslim members, it gives rise to an illusion that the Muslims have become king-makers! In reality Muslim ministers were fobbed off with minor portfolios. In a nut-shell, the political field has so far been a barren wasteland for the Community. This explains why during the last 50 years it has not benefited as it should have from welfare and development schemes at the local level. Some times it receives a morsel but that too as an act of charity or benevolence.

This sad state was put by the Sachar Committee in all its starkness before the nation. But it ignored the continuing thread of bias, prejudice and historical animus in the government machinery when it seeks remedies.

No doubt an important factor is the inability of the Community to throw up a political leadership which has knowledge and experience, which is selfless and committed, which is courageous and uncompromising. The residue of the feudal order which has passed into history, the propertied class and a few bureaucrats are largely self centred. The affluent who sometimes contribute to religious charities cannot provide leadership. The well-placed elite suffer no disability, except perhaps in times of communal carnage. They can get things done for themselves and for their families, including admission and jobs for their progeny. Their interest lies in keeping on good terms with the people who run the system. They are rarely inclined to speak for the masses who suffers deprivation, with no primary school in their villages and no jobs even as chaprasi, driver or clerk.

Even if some practicable ideas are distilled from the Sachar Report, the Community lacks the leadership to monitor its implementation at various levels, to ensure that development funds, set aside for the Community reach the deserving, that the Community gets appropriate share of state expenditure on welfare and development, at least in the operational area. Those in the power structure, the elite and the affluent, the theologian and the Mullahs cannot even monitor local distribution.

What then is the solution? My only hope is the Muslim youth who are not just literate but educated enough to be assertive, bold enough to speak to the authorities face to face and demand due share, ask for transparent accounting, expose corruption and oppose diversion. Since the system silences individuals, the community needs to set up institutions to disseminate information about openings and schemes and to service the potential beneficiaries, to file their applications and pursue their cases.

A positive asset the Community has is Masjids. Masjid was the Community center to begin with in the time of the Holy Prophet and has been gradually reduced to a place of worship and no more. Resources of the Masjid, its space, its income from wakfs and donations can provide a base for their ‘reverse modernisation’ and restoration of their original function. The Masjids in villages, qasbas, mohallas and towns can establish or encourage a committed team of local youth to establish Information-cum-Service Centres in their premises, fight injustice level by level. This new Muslim leadership will arise from the grass-roots and gradually build the network upwards, as it acquires confidence and experience. This is the only hope.