Opinion
-
Leader Page Articles
Understanding Indian Muslims
By Balraj Puri
|
Cultural heritage and political aspirations of a community are as much a factor in influencing its behaviour as its theological beliefs.
|
DURING THE America-led war against global terrorism, a controversy arose on the attitude of Indian Muslims. Those who did not support fundamentalism, communalism, puritanism and militant Islam and hence were not disloyal to the country were asked to speak out and be counted. The liberal Muslims protested that the media noticed only the extremist viewpoint and ignored them, whereas they represented the silent majority.
The fact, however, cannot be denied that Muslims all over the world have been affected by a sort of anti-America wave, in varying degrees, notwithstanding the stand of their Governments and their internal contradictions. There are a number of reasons for this, including the post- modern communication revolution which has drastically reduced distances between members of a community and sharpened their urge for identity. The clash of civilisations thesis and America's perceived anti-Muslim policies further consolidated the current Muslim mood. No one is more conscious of it than leaders of the anti-terrorism coalition. Extensive diplomatic efforts, tours of the Muslim countries and Iftar parties to neutralise Muslim hostility bear that out.
India had obvious advantages in playing its role in the emerging international situation. Not only its large Muslim population, which had played a leading role in the constructive evolution of Islamic thought, but also its traditional relations with Muslim countries as a leader of the non-aligned block, of which most of them were members, were its unique assets.
Far from using our external and internal assets to evolve a consensus on a possible attitude towards American policies and global terrorism, this very issue was sought to be used as a new loyalty test for the Muslims of India by a section of our countrymen. Take the case of the Shahi Imam, for instance. Granted that his views are obscurantist and parochial and expression is intemperate. But how do these characteristics qualify him to be disloyal to the country? The Imam had also condemned General Pervez Musharraf for ``betraying Islam''. He also condemned jehad in Kashmir as anti-Islam. Anti-Pakistanism and Indian sovereignty over Kashmir have been prescribed as a test of patriotism for Muslims. Why then was the Imam branded anti-national and demands made for his arrest on the charge of sedition? Why did the police pounce on Muslim youth in Malegaon and tear off the posters which urged boycott of products of American companies? When Muslims of Kashmir demonstrated against the American bombing of Afghanistan, without raising pro-Pakistan or anti-India slogans, why did the Indian authorities feel scared?
The question is not whether these manifestations of the Muslims' viewpoint represent a majority or minority of the community and whether they are right or wrong. The real question relates to the concept of Indian nationalism and which one of the viewpoints cited above defies it.
Again, the widely-held presumption that Muslims are more easily swayed by the appeal of religion needs to be examined more closely in this context. Religion has two aspects: one, beliefs and practices and, two, basis of an identity. These aspects clashed in the personalities of Maulana Azad and M. A. Jinnah. While the former claimed that the Quran was the sole source of his knowledge, the latter was completely ignorant of it. Azad, with his humanitarian and cosmopolitan interpretation of the Quran, led the ulema almost as a class to become an ally of Indian nationalism led by Gandhi. Jinnah, steeped in western culture, was for all practical purposes a non-practising Muslim. He defied many strict Islamic injunctions in his personal life.
The moral of the pre-Partition clash between the two approaches was clear - viz, Jinnah's concerns for Muslim identity and its mundane political and economic interests expressed in non-religious language triumphed over the religious appeal of Islamic scholars and the ulema led by Azad. In fact, the effective Muslim leadership then, from Sir Syed Ahmad, Ameer Ali, Chirag Ali, Agha Khan, Allama Iqbal to Jinnah, was westernised and modernised. None of them could be accused of being a fundamentalist or a puritan. As against that the Hindu leadership from Dayanand, Madan Mohan Malviya, Vivekananda, Tilak to Gandhi was thoroughly religious. The cordial understanding between it and the religious Muslim leadership did not deliver the desired goods because the Muslim masses did not respond to the religious idiom and the message of the latter. No value judgment is implied on the roles of Azad and Jinnah except to underline the point that religion - a set of beliefs and practices - was not the decisive factor in the Muslim behaviour in pre-Partition India. It should be obvious that a thoroughly religious person may not be a communalist and a communalist need not be a puritan. And all of them need not be disloyal to the country.
The Indian ulema have, no doubt, made a seminal and original contribution to the growth of Islamic thought. But historically their role in shaping the Muslim mind has been far less than that of the Sufis and the political establishment of Muslim kings; none of them practised Islamic codes being preached by modern fundamentalists. The Sufis freely borrowed local customs and culture and preached more through music, poetry and humane conduct than through quotations from scriptures and prescribing a rigid religious code of conduct. Many of the kings were hedonists and indulged in pursuits prohibited by orthodox Islam.
Having interacted with the two greatest civilisations of the world, Indian and Western, Indian Muslims were, culturally and intellectually, the richest Muslim community of the world. If, in spite of these facts, some Muslims of India today betray tendencies towards any kind of fundamentalist, puritan and militant Islam, it is for the whole nation to find out its reasons and remedies and not for the Muslims alone.
Cultural heritage and political aspirations of a community are as much a factor in influencing its behaviour as its theological beliefs. It is important to understand the cultural heritage of Indian Muslims which they share at the national and to a greater extent at the regional level with non-Muslims. Politically nothing hurts them more than special loyalty tests that are being prescribed for them.
The contribution of the Indian ulema, Sufis, Muslim poets and artists is so rich that it can inspire the rest of the Muslim world. No other Muslim community is so richly endowed. They are equally inheritors of a 5000-year-old civilisation and citizens of a genuinely functioning democratic and plural country.
The debate between liberals and non-liberals, between Hindus and Muslims may continue. But it would generate more light, rather than just heat, everyone is able to proclaim that he/she is a proud inheritor of the great composite heritage of India.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Opinion
|
