Connect with us

Opinion

Muslim versus Islamic

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

🕒

on

IST

By Nadeem Farooq Paracha

Over 95 percent of Pakistanis are Muslim. They have been an overwhelming majority here since Pakistan’s inception on the 14th of August, 1947. Pakistan was carved out from India as a separate country. By 1947, India had been under British colonial rule for almost a hundred years. Before the British finally departed they decided to split the Indian subcontinent into two parts.

Regions with a Muslim majority (but noteworthy Hindu minorities) became Pakistan, and the Hindu-majority areas (with significant Muslim minorities) became India. The Muslim-majority province of East Bengal became part of Pakistan as well (East Pakistan). Like the rest of Pakistan (then known as West Pakistan) East Pakistan too had a Muslim majority, but it had an overwhelming ethnic Bengali population. West Pakistan on the other hand was a more ethnically diverse region. Its prominent ethnic groups included Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Baloch and thousands of Muslim migrants (Mohajirs) who had poured in from areas that had become part of post-colonial India. The East Pakistan region was over 2,000 km from West Pakistan. The vast territory that became India lay between the two wings.

 

Hindus were an almost absolute majority in India before the first Muslim incursions in the region in the 8th century. But these invasions were restricted to what today is the Sindh province of Pakistan. They were led by the armies of the Arab Umayyad Empire. The Muslim minority of India grew significantly during the long Muslim rule in the region from the early 13th till the mid-19th centuries. But Hinduism – rather its many forms – remained the region’s majority religion. Other ancient religions of the region such as Buddhism and Jainism too continued to exist but the number of their adherents progressively declined. India’s religious diversity was further bolstered by the emergence of Sikhism in the late 15th century and the arrival of Christianity from the 16th century onwards.

Most Muslim rulers who ruled India did not overtly impose Islamic laws or initiate any large-scale projects to convert Hindus to Islam. Almost all the major Muslim dynasties which governed India during this period had Central Asian, Persian and Turkic ancestries. Violence between Hindus and Muslims was rare.

But in no way was India a diverse religious Utopia. The Hindus remained to be treated as second-class citizens and there were incidents in which Muslim kings demolished Hindu places of worship. However, this was not always an act of faith. M.A. Qureshi in Memories of Two Failures wrote that It was mostly done to punish the inhabitants of a town or a village that had risen in revolt. Interestingly, even when a Muslim marauder – such as the 11th-century Afghan warrior Mahmud of Ghazni – repeatedly invaded India and destroyed Hindu temples, he mostly did so to loot them of their jewels and gold.

C.E. Bosworth wrote in Ghaznavid Military Organization that Mahmud’s armies also included Hindus recruited from India. But some Muslim rulers did attempt to impose stringent laws and policies in the name of Islam – most prominently the last major Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb (1658-1707 CE). Many of his religious policies sowed the seeds of future ‘communal violence’ between the Hindus and the Muslims of India. According to A Rieck’s hefty history of South Asia’s Shia Muslims, Shias of Pakistan: An Assertive and Beleaguered Minority, Aurangzeb’s actions in this regard also dialed up tensions between the Sunni and Shia Muslim sects when he tried to root out (what he believed) were certain Shia customs that the Mughals (who were Sunni Muslims) had adopted.

Aurangzeb’s rule was long but it was marred by some major revolts by the Sikhs, and the Hindu Rajput and Maratha castes, so much so, that soon after his death, the once powerful Mughal Empire began to weaken and crumble until it was completely abolished by the British in 1857 CE. Till Aurangzeb, Muslim rule in India was just that: Muslim. It was never ‘Islamic,’ as such. Though largely tilted in favor of the Muslims of India and employing Islamic scholars as religious advisors, its disposition towards Islam was, in fact, influenced by the more esoteric strands of the faith, such as Sufism; and, more so, by sheer political pragmatism.

Islam in India had arrived on horsebacks, but it was the Sufi saints who were its main instruments of persuasion; men who lived among the masses and preached to the people of all faiths a strand of Islam that was populist, sufficiently flexible and vernacular in nature.

There is thus enough space for one to argue that Muslim rule in India began to dither and erode once its political and social complexion began to transform from being Muslim to ‘Islamic.’ Being Muslim in this context meant being pragmatic, inclusive and keeping the ulema from overtly influencing religious policies. The Mughals thus managed to hold vast swaths of land populated by millions of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs (of various ethnicities and castes).

On the streets the rulers allowed an inclusive strand of Islam to cross-breed and take a more integrated shape. This is one reason why the Mughals overtly patronised Sufi saints. The saints became these rulers’ face of Islam which they exhibited to India’s Hindus and Muslims alike.

The Mughal Emperor Akbar (1556-1605 CE) is a prime example. His attempt to expand the appeal of the Mughal Muslim ethos was rather blatant. In 1582 CE he tried to formulate a syncretic idea of a universal set of beliefs by fusing together ‘the best elements’ of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism and Christianity. After Akbar’s death, some Islamic scholars began to claim that Akbar had blasphemed by trying to create his own religious cult. This accusation had initially come from an Islamic scholar active in Akbar’s court. His name was Ahmad Sirhindi. He had been sidelined by Akbar during his intellectual tussles with the emperor’s grand vizier Abul Fazal, who had defended and promoted the Emperor’s idea of formulating a more inclusive and universal Muslim ethos. Even though to this day, some Islamic scholars and historians claim that this was an attempt to create a whole new religion, it really wasn’t.

Aurangzeb’s actions also dialled up tensions between the Sunni and Shia Muslim sects when he tried to root out (what he believed) were certain Shia customs that the Mughals (who were Sunni Muslims) had adopted
Sirhindi claimed that Akbar had tried to create a new religion called Din-e-Illahi. The truth is that this term only appeared after Akbar’s death. Akbar never called it that. The term was coined by Abul Fazal after Akbar had passed away. As one of Pakistan’s leading revisionist historians Dr. Mubarak Ali put it, the act of trying to formulate an all-inclusive Muslim ethos by Akbar was an extension of the emperor’s policy of co-opting the Hindus into the wider universe of Mughal India and expanding his appeal across the large Hindu population of the country. This was an act of sheer political pragmatism by a Muslim emperor ruling over a Hindu majority.

Dr. Ali wrote that Akbar never called it Din-e-Illahi nor presented it as a religion. The confusion about what it comprised was largely proliferated by the faulty translations of Abul Fazal’s writings by the British in the 19th century.

A number of economic, political and social reasons triggered the fall of Muslim rule in India. But one won’t be exaggerating by suggesting that Aurangzeb’s departure from the religious policies of the previous Mughals also played a role in not only slowly strangulating Muslim rule in India from within but also in creating religious and sectarian schisms that still haunt the region.

Many of his intransigent policies gradually dismantled the carefully constructed edifice of the Mughal Muslim ethos. This triggered violent revolts by the Sikhs and the Hindu Marathas and brought the historical tensions between India’s Sunni and Shia Muslims out into the open.

South Asia is not a very homogenous place. In fact, even today, both India and Pakistan, despite their respective Hindu and Muslim majorities, are segmented by a number of ethnic groups, sects, sub-sects, castes, languages and indigenous cultures. Medieval Muslim rulers of India understood this well. There are still a number of theories trying to answer just why Aurangzeb would so radically depart from the tested policies of the previous Mughals.

Aurangzeb’s active proclivity towards religion was more of a reaction. In his bid to come to power and replace his ailing father, Shah Jehan, Aurangzeb’s chief opponent in this regard was his elder brother, Dara Shikoh.

Dara was deeply impressed by the policies and spiritual disposition of his great-grandfather, Akbar. More of a scholar than a warrior, Dara studied Muslim and Hindu scriptures and was also an ardent follower of Sufi Islam which had been the prominent religious conviction of the Mughal court.

Sufism was also the main folk-religion of the common Muslims of India. When Dara was defeated by Aurangzeb, and then captured, he was immediately executed. A group of clerics and ulema who had risen in prominence by siding with Aurangzeb, declared Dara to be an apostate.

During much of Muslim rule in India, the ulema had only been allowed to play a nominal role in the workings of the government. But as Muslim rule receded, the ulema took upon themselves the right to address the resultant concerns of India’s Muslims. The ulema insisted on explaining the decline of the Mughal Empire as something which took place due to the deterioration of ‘true Islam’ and the inclusive policies of the Mughals, which, according to the ulema, strengthened the Hindus and the Sikhs.

In a 1997 essay, the brilliant sociologist Hamza Alavi wrote that this tendency emerged with full force during the Khilafat Movment (1919-1924). The politicised ulema were not only antagonistic towards the British, they exhibited hostility towards South Asian Muslims who were contemporary extensions of the Mughal Muslim ethos. These included those who led the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

For example, whereas Jinnah and his comrades had explained Pakistan as a Muslim-majority state, their religious opponents described it as an ‘Islamic state.’ The tussle between the two tendencies is still alive.

(Courtesy: Friday Times, Lahore)


The Kashmir Monitor is the fastest growing newspaper as well as digitial platform covering news from all angles.

Advertisement
Loading...
Comments

Opinion

Not in the Mahatma’s name

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Apoorvanand

The recent uproar over the glorification of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin, NathuramGodse, by the BharatiyaJanata Party’s Bhopal candidate Pragya Singh Thakur has forced her party to tick her off. It should be a solace for us that there is at least one non-negotiable in Indian politics, that the political cost of the celebration of the murder of the Mahatma is formidably high! But now we would be told to let the matter rest as she has been chided even by her mentors.

Let us look at the implication of this approach, that Ms. Thakur, sans this statement, should be acceptable to us as a potential representative in Parliament. She continues to be the ‘symbol of Hinduism’, as she claimed Prime Minister NarendraModi had said of her. Our satisfaction over the condemnation of Ms. Thakur makes us forget that she is being audaciously presented as the most fitting answer to secular politics, which holds that a person accused of attacks on Muslims cannot be a people’s representative in India.

 

The idea that a Hindu can never indulge in a terror act is, in fact, another way of saying that terror acts are always committed by non-Hindus. Or, by Pakistan, which for BJP leaders is a proxy for Muslims. Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh, while talking about the Samjhauta Express blast case acquittals, claimed that it was unimaginable to accept that Hindus could be involved in such acts, and that he believed that in all such crimes there was the hand of Pakistan. A crime has been committed, and since the Hindu suspects cannot (being Hindus) do it, it can only be Muslims even if they are not caught — this is the underlying assumption.

It is this theory which is being thrown at us by the BJP by presenting Ms. Thakur as its choice for the electorate of Bhopal. It has another sinister aspect. She was selected knowing well that she could not be a choice for Muslims. Her selection is therefore a message to Muslims that by not voting for her, they disregard the sentiments of Hindus, thus showing intolerance towards the majority.

By supporting her, the ‘symbol of Hinduism’, they have a chance to endear themselves to the Hindus. If they don’t, they would always be a suspect.

This argument is not new. Many pundits, while accepting that Mr.Modi was a divisive figure, urged Indians to choose him as he was the best bet for the economic development of India. So, can Muslims be so sectarian as to think only about themselves while the greater national interest is at stake?

The swift and determined move by the BJP to reject her statement on Godse is a clever ploy to make this issue irrelevant while judging her. It is as if we are asked to judge Godse, setting aside the act of murder of Gandhi by him. There are ‘respectable’ people who feel that Godse spoilt his case by murdering the Mahatma. They regret this folly as they believe that there was strong merit in his ideological stance. According to them, he rightly opposed the Muslim appeasement of Gandhi, his anger at the dangerous friendliness of Gandhi towards Pakistan is correct, and his impatience with the unwise and impractical pacifism of Gandhi is to be understood if we want to make India strong.

We are asked to understand that there was a reason Godse was forced to kill Gandhi. We are asked to not treat him as a simple criminal. He was driven by high ideas. To make him a man of ideas, he is constantly humanised. We have seen over the years people talking about his childhood, his education, his editorship. Gandhi must have done something really horrible to provoke a thoughtful human being to turn into an assassin. If anything, they imply, he was a just assassin!

So, we are asked to move away from the trivia, that is the act of the murder, to the substantive, the issues raised by Nathuram in his ‘brave defence’ in the court, which had moved people to tears even then.

The RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh (RSS), unlike the Islamic State and the Maoists, understands it well that an individual and identifiable act of violence makes it abhorrent and repulsive for the masses, whereas anonymous acts of violence are always more palatable. It was therefore important for Savarkar to distance himself from his disciple, Godse, to remain respectable. For the RSS it was necessary to disown Godse to be able to keep working on the majoritarian ideas he shared with or had learnt from Savarkar and the RSS. No known RSS hand soils his hands with blood; yet it is the politics of the RSS, not at all different from Godse’s, which makes blood flow.

Gandhi had said again and again that it would be better for him to die if India were to become inhospitable to Muslims. He was talking to those who were objecting to the recitation from the Koran at his prayer meetings. Death he could accept but not the narrowing of his heart! Neither bowing to threats or force! In the same invocation, he said, if you ask me to recite the Gita at gun point, I would refuse to obey you.

Gandhi told his audience, your heart is also large. Don’t constrict it. It is this challenge which needs to be accepted. It requires immense bravery of intelligence and humanity to be able to hear Gandhi. This intelligence would tell us that the distancing from the murder of the Mahatma by the co-travellers of Godse is in fact a strategy to enlarge the space for majoritarian ideas and draw more and more Hindus towards them, thus making Gandhi irrelevant while keeping his facade decorated.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Why I want Pragya Thakur to win

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Saba Naqvi

Regardless of whether NarendraModi remains Prime Minister or not I want terror accused Pragya Thakur to win from Bhopal. The esteemed leadership of India’s pre-eminent political party chose a terror accused as a candidate and they must endure her tenure as MP.

Pragya may be a poisonous vendor of hate and violence but she is not a hypocrite. Ever since she spoke her mind on describing NathuramGodse, the individual who shot MK Gandhi to death, as a patriot, the BJP national leadership has claimed to be disturbed. The Prime Minister spoke up after her statement, saying, he would never forgive her for what she had said and the party stated that it had initiated disciplinary action against her.

 

But by the time the party took this position, many members of the BJP had come up with twisted arguments somehow justifying Pragya’s validation of the assassin of a figure many revere as a Mahatma or Great Soul. Party members exposed their own problematic ideological heritage that included non-participation in the freedom movement led by Gandhi. Some of them could not help but reveal their own natural impulse to drop the veneer of falsehood and come clean on how they do indeed believe that Godse was a patriot despite having killed Gandhi.

The Godse remark in just two days exposed the ideological underbelly of the ruling party that does indeed have members who believe that Gandhi was a villain who loved Muslims and Pakistan. That’s why Godse, by his own account in a famous trial, shot him. A must-read for those who wish to engage with this debate is the book titled “The Men Who Killed Gandhi” by ManoharMalgonkar.

Seventy-one years after that crime on January 30, 1948, we have come to the point where a candidate contesting in an election for Parliament embraces the Godse world view. What’s more, a member of Modi’s council of ministers, AnantkumarHegde, endorsed her position. The MP from Karnataka had earlier kicked up a storm when he had said that “we are here to change the Constitution”. Yes, the same Constitution he took an oath to protect.

Hegde’s also received a show-cause notice to explain his position and on May 17 BJP president Amit Shah said the party’s disciplinary committee would submit a report on the matter in 10 days, after the election verdict, that is. There was more: the BJP media cell chief in Madhya Pradesh, the state from where Pragya is contesting, was brazen enough to say that Gandhi was the father of the nation of Pakistan. The BJP suspended him.

So how do we read the ideological contortions ever since Pragya uttered the “Godse is a patriot” words? One could say that the BJP is trying to occupy the space of both extreme and moderate in a national ideological pendulum that has shifted right-wards. It’s not a bad ploy—the ideological family plays to the more core beliefs, that are to be revealed step by step, and just in case some voters find them unpalatable, there are the “reasonable” elements as well.

And, voila! Modi becomes a moderate who is being stern with the fringe! That is a useful projection at a time when there is the possibility of needing some allies post-23 May. The BJP has made this ideological journey before, of being all things to all men. Earlier, former Prime Minister AtalBihari Vajpayee was offered up as the moderate to LK Advani, the architect of the Ram temple movement, who brought the BJP to national prominence. Today Modi today is the moderate who is speaking up against the hardliners, who are called “fringe” by those who believe it’s all part of a great national purpose.

It’s not. The “fringe” has been mainstream for some years now. Much before Pragya was presented to the nation as a candidate for parliament, the BJP leadership chose an unabashed Muslim-hating monk of a religious order to be the chief minister of India’s most populous state. All these debates about ‘moderate’ and ‘hardliner’ are a farce designed to make the BJP constituency feel better about themselves. It’s part of the good cop/ bad cop tactic.

To conclude, therefore, I want a terror accused to win, just so that we can, as a nation, get a reality check on where we have landed up. And just in case someone wants to ask me about whether I am afraid, here is my reply: I am so certain about the courage of my convictions, that there is no fear, although I do feel some shame for those who have tied themselves into knots over something about which there should have been no ambiguity. Bring on Pragya and let’s see what happens next.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The ‘unpeople’ of India

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Abdul Khaliq

Muslims now have to live with the bleak truth that the most powerful political party and its ideological parent, with tentacles spread across the country, are pathologically hostile to Muslims.

I fear for our future as a secular, multicultural country that once celebrated a richness of culture and tradition. Till not long ago we affirmed our common humanity even as we celebrated our differences. Our nation represented diversity, kindness, compassion and a revulsion of extremist views. But, over time, our collective souls have been deadened by violence, deepening communal and caste divides and the most perverse thinking. The cosmopolitan spirit has been throttled by hyper nationalism, populism and a deep distrust of the liberal values of tolerance and inclusion. A creeping majoritarianism is spreading across the land.

 

In this overheated, protracted election season, Muslims are up against it, caught between a rock and a hard place. Theirs is an Orwellian world where they are the “unpeople”— a term coined by George Orwell in his scary masterpiece 1984, to define those whose names and existence had been erased because they had incurred “Big Brother’s” ire. Muslims now have to live with the bleak truth that the most powerful political party and its ideological parent, with tentacles spread across the country, are pathologically hostile to Muslims. What makes their plight infinitely worse, is the fact that even the major allegedly secular party has consigned Muslims to social invisibility. Can one trust a party that is afraid to even allude to the Muslims’ problems, let alone address them?

When the PM evoked the 1984 mass slaughter of Sikhs and quoted Rajiv Gandhi’s infamous justification about the inevitable effect of the falling of a big tree, why did the Congress president not hit back by recalling the 2002 Gujarat riots and Modi’s Newtonian observation justifying the killing of hundreds of Muslims as a reaction to an action? He refrained, not for any ethical reason, but simply for fear of being seen as empathetic to Muslims and their problems and of equating the two tragedies. Caught between the flagrant hostility of the right-wing and the fraudulent concern of the secular front, Muslims are India’s outcasts.

In today’s India, where all issues across the political spectrum are seen through the lens of identity politics, Muslims are vilified for their custom, dress and tradition. They are physically attacked for the food they eat, discriminated against in employment, housing, and even civic amenities, and, they are routinely victimised by law-enforcement authorities simply for being Muslim. Social media is awash with the most hateful, stereotypical portrayal of Muslims as terrorist sympathisers, baby producing factories and worse. Although India has been the home of Islam and its adherents for much more than a millennium, Muslims today are constantly pilloried about their loyalty to the nation.

All assessments about Muslims are universalised, in black and white and deeply problematic. In a conversation with two CRPF sub-inspectors who have recently returned from Kashmir (I did not reveal that I was Muslim), I was told that “these Muslims are a nuisance as even their women throw stones at us.” Please note that the stone-throwing by the disgruntled Kashmiris is perceived as a common trait of Muslims — all 190 million of them. Their other complaints were that Muslims support Pakistan and insist on eating only halal meat. When I asked how the civil unrest in Kashmir could be resolved, I got an answer that stunned me: “Make sure that the police force in Kashmir is recruited only from the Shia community and they will teach these Sunnis a lesson!” How well have the British taught us the art of “divide and rule” and of polarising communities! The conversation filled me with anguish at the gratuitous distrust and hatred for Muslims. The animosity runs deep and is expressed by ordinary citizens in a matter-of-fact tone that is unnerving.

I recall clearly the sense of cautious optimism among Muslims when NarendraModi assumed power in 2014. His swearing-in was a strikingly symbolic moment, epitomised by the presence of the Pakistani PM that signalled hope of rapprochement with Pakistan (Indian Muslims know through experience that their well-being is linked to this crucial relationship). The PM represented a more decisive polity that promised an equitable social order expressed most eloquently in the Socratic slogan, “Sabkasaathsabkavikas”. This slogan encapsulated this nation’s foremost mission of fostering social solidarity based on the principle that every human being matters. Minorities felt reassured by the PM’s emphatic assertion in 2015 that “my government will not allow any religious group, belonging to the majority or minority, to incite hatred against others, overtly or covertly.” He repeatedly made appeals to preserve our core values of diversity, tolerance and plurality, calling on Hindus and Muslims to work together to fight poverty instead of fighting one another. His stunning embrace of Nawaz Sharif on Christmas Day 2015 filled everyone with hope.

On the ground, however, India began witnessing a deepening cultural mutation as vigilante squads terrorised and lynched Muslims in the name of protecting the cow, launched “gharwapsi” campaigns that have all but ended the freedom to choose one’s faith and used “love jihad” to stifle any kind of solidarity between the two communities. Minorities began to believe that the present dispensation’s aim is to convert India into the Hindu Rashtra of Hindutva where Muslims and Christians would live as second-class citizens. The current election rhetoric has only exacerbated those fears. The BJP LokSabha candidate for Barabanki boasted that “NarendraModi has made attempts to break the morale of Muslims. Vote for Modi if you want to destroy the breed of Muslims.”

We are on the cusp of having a new government at the Centre. Opinion polls and the most reliable — the bookies — predict victory for the NDA, but with a reduced majority. Ironically, the return of Modi as PM is the best hope for peace within the country and the neighbourhood. Imran Khan was right when he said that only Modi could help resolve Kashmir. He is the only leader with the power to rein in the lunatics whose purpose in life is to polarise communities and engage in eternal war with Pakistan. In any case, the new government’s first task would be to combat the overpowering atmosphere of distrust and hate bedevilling society which constitutes the foremost threat to the nation, more so than terrorism. The creation of a truly secular society free of prejudice and discrimination must be the prime mission.

Continue Reading

Latest News

Subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor and receive notifications of new stories by email.

Join 1,010,460 other subscribers

Archives

May 2019
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Advertisement