A Mythical Monolith

One cannot but agree with Vinod Mehta that today Mediumis the Image (Outlook, Nov.1, 2004). However, in case of "IndianMuslims", those images in the dominant Indian media are generally skewed, ordistorted, or even imaginary, thereby aiding and abetting the spread of falseperception vis-à-vis them.

But, can the blame for misleading depiction be laid at the door of all IndianMuslims? Is it not the responsibility of the media to show the variegated IndianMuslim society, and not to take the likes of All India Muslim Personal Law Board(AIMPLB) as the representative of all Indian Muslims, when VHP is notaccorded similar status vis-à-vis Indian Hindus?

Mehta’s opening observation is:

"Indian Muslims face multiple problems, possibly more than any other religious group in our secular republic".

The observation--in isolation--is in all probability right; but the underlyingpremise is not. The fault lies with Mehta’s categorization--"IndianMuslims"--which reflects the premise that society can be understood asan aggregate of religious groups. It would imply that religion is the soledeterminant of an individual’s identity, and a religious community, at leastwithin the confines of a nation state, is a monolith.

First, and foremost, religion, in the ultimate, is a response,a component of ideology, and not an independent active agent and determinant ofideology. And, that is true for all religions--coded ones like Islamincluded. If it were not that, then there should not have been any differences,or at least not much differences, between the followers of any given religion,especially the coded ones like Islam. But, just to cite one example, during thelast decade, in J&K, thousands of Indian Muslims have been killedby Indian Muslims!

Even otherwise, we all know that history--and also the present--is repletewith as divergent views amongst Indian Muslims, as between followers ofany other religion. To cite some outstanding examples from our freedom struggle,one can recall the roles of Ashfaqullah Khan, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan andMaulana Abul Kalam Azad on one side, and Maulana Abul A’la Maududi and M. A.Jinah on the other side.

And, where shall one place the outstanding Muslim communists like MuzaffarAhmad, Dr. Mohammad Ashraf, Sajjad Zaheer and host of other poets and literarystalwarts? Do we remember Qazi Nazrul Islam as a "Muslim" poet or as aBengali progressive legend? Lest one think that snatching away the Muslimidentity of Communist Muslims could solve the problem, many non-communist IndianMuslims such as Sa’dat Hasan Manto would smile from their graves, and show themirror!

In fact, the whole tradition of Urdu poetry--penned, among others, by thefinest of Indian Muslims--is just the reverse of the stereotype image of IndianMuslim presented by the dominant Indian media. And, Urdu poetry is mostliberally quoted by the Urdu-knowing Indian Muslims in theirdiscourse--daily life as well as literary one, both. The symbols like "Waiz"(Preacher)  having religious connotation carry negative overtones, and are poked funat; whereas symbols like "Sharab" (wine) are praised. To quote Ghalib,the all-time-great poet:

Waiz, nah khud pio, nah kisi ko pila sako
Kya baat hai tumhari sharab-e tahoor ki

[O Preacher, you do not drink, nor can you offer any one/What a thing yourpristine wine is --"sharab-e tahoor" translated as "pristinewine" is the wine promised to be given in heavens]

A very interesting, and telling, anecdote pertaining to Ghalib, isthat when asked by an English officer about his religion, in the backdrop ofrevolt of 1857and persecution of Muslims by the British, Ghalib replied: "I amhalf-Muslim, I drink wine, but do not eat pork". (Muslims are supposed toabstain from wine and pork, both.) Even otherwise, Ghalib’s poetry is full ofprogressive thought, and his non-religiosity was well known; but the peoplehotly debated if his last rites should be performed according to Sunni or Shi’itenorms. If different sects of Islam claimed Ghalib’s dead body, Kabir’s deadbody was a bone of contention between Hindus and Muslims.

The breed of progressive Indian Muslims has notvanished - even if its depiction in the dominant Indian media has greatlydiminished over time. Muslims are producing progressive literature in abundance,and are also active in different arenas of societal life. The formation of "Muslimsfor Secular Democracy" last year is a sure sign of Muslims’ consolidation asa progressive social formation. The critiques of reactionary formations such asAIMPLB and ideologues such as Sayed Shahabuddin, not only in progressive orhighbrow publications, but also in common Urdu periodicals, are not uncommon.

Recently, Saba Naqvi Bhowmick’s critique of AIMPLB, TheBoard Of No Control, found its translation appearing in the large-circulatedQaumi Awaz. It may be a pleasant surprise to many that AIMPLB and SayedShahabuddin generally do not join issue with their critics (like Saba or thepresent author) in Urdu press.

The foregoing however does not mean that amongst IndianMuslims, in the past or the present, only, or even predominantly, progressivesare to be found. But, equally importantly, and certainly, the progressive trend,especially among educated Indian Muslims--of yesteryears or presentgeneration--cannot be ignored either. And, ultimately, in a secular discourse,the bottom-line has to be Progressive versus Reactionary, and not the religiousdenomination of a grouping.

The long and short of the above discussion is that, for secular issues,the society is not to be understood as an aggregate of religiousgroups--notwithstanding that a particular religious group may be more backwardand downtrodden than another one. But, the foregoing is, also not to deny thatthere are no handicaps specific to Indian Muslims.

The most outstanding handicap of Indian Muslims is their feeling ofinsecurity. The so-called communal riots only kill and rob some people.However, the subsequent denial of justice--both, in letting the guilty gounpunished, and the non-compensation of the riot victims--not only ruins thelives of those who lose kith and kin and/or material property in these riots,but also creates conditions that are conducive to killing of progressive thoughtand action on part of all Indians, particularly Muslims. Therefore, thecommunal riots are extremely important for the twin reasons that people actuallysuffer, and these riots further reactionary ideology and practice, asnothing else does, or can.

The religious categorisation of society provides a ground conducive for theseso-called communal riots. Once, the logic of religious categorisation isaccepted, it is only small, albeit crucial, steps away from ‘consolidating’the grouping on religious grounds, holding ‘the other’ responsiblefor all ills afflicting the society, and then ‘punishing’ some members ofthe group for the real or imagined faults/ crimes of some other members of thehypothesised group.

The simple fact, which is often lost sight of, is that the secular affairs ofthe society cannot be understood in terms of religious groupings, because thebasic building block of the society is a thinking being, withmulti-dimensional identities and highly complexly organised and functioningbrain. A multi-dimensional analysis, giving primacy to the basic human needs ofpeace, education, health, bread and butter--none of which is, logicallyspeaking, even remotely connected with religion--alone can make media a truereflector of highly differentiated and complex society, including ‘IndianMuslims’.