Thursday, October 30, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
"What are you doing?" I asked Anwar.
"What are you doing?" I asked Anwar.
"What do you mean?" he said.
"Abe ye Jamia me ye rally karne ki kya zaroorat hai? Kyon?" I said. (What is the need for organising a rally in Jamia Milia Islamia?) "You don't understand. This sends very wrong signal, please for God's sake don't do this."
Anwar lost his cool and shouted back. "What do you mean?" He said providing legal aid was a fundamental right, how could I object to that.
"Look no sane person can object to that but these are not times to expect sanity from any one when nobody knows where bomb will explode and if we all will return home safe," I said.
The argument went on and on and it got heated to a point that I thought maybe I would lose a friend. Anwar and I were together in JNU in late 80s and since then we have been like family. We have had very strong and sometimes very diverse views but arguments and debate between us have never threatened to undermine our time-tested relationship.
During the argument I realised that we were not mentioning the real reason for both of us getting irritated. I probably wanted to say that there is something wrong with Muslims, you always explode bombs and he probably wanted to say that the state apparatus and media is dominated by the Hindus, who always think Muslims are terrorists and they should be taught a lesson, and that is why innocent Muslims are always targeted in the name of terrorism.
This was strange, as we both have a history of fighting all kinds of fanaticism and fundamentalism together. We both have been very vocal and explicit in our attack on these forces. So what was this? It was beyond my comprehension. I got an answer this morning when I read an article by senior journalist and legendry editor M J Akbar.
He said very subtly what Anwar wanted to say but could not. Let me clarify I have always had great respect for M J, and still do. He is one of the most modern and understanding editors India has produced. But today while reading his piece in TOI I had a feeling that there is lot of similarity in his written words and Shah Imam Bukhari's verbal outburst?
I was really at loss. I was looking for answers. Is there anything wrong with my thought process? Have I changed? Am I the same person who had opposed Hindu communalism and their anti-Muslim ideology? Why am I doubting the credentials of my dear friend Anwar and learned scholar like M J?
During my thought I was reminded of noted poet and film writer Javed Akhtar, who during a TV debate rebuked one of my very competent anchors Sandeep Choudhary, that his question is communal in nature. I don't exactly remember the question but it was related to Muslims and their identity. Then I wrote a strong piece in a Hindi magazine and raised the question why Arif Mohammad Khan had to lose a battle to Sayed Shahabuddin in late 80s and early 90s? Why does it happen that V P Singh asks Arif Mohammad Khan not to visit Allahabad from where he was contesting Lok Sabha election in 1988, but Shahabuddin was welcome?
Surprisingly I got strong support from Javed Akhtar's one-time good friend Salim Khan. He wrote a piece in Dainik Bhaskar quoting me and my article and very carefully agreeing with some of my arguments. I have no problem in admitting that for some time I have been thinking that time has come when the Muslim as a community need to introspect and analyse and try to ask themselves - has something gone wrong somewhere? Why is it that from Nairoi to Dar-a-salaam, from Indonesia to Sudan, from Madrid to Manhattan, from Kabul to Kashmir, from Chechnya to China their identity is being perceived as somebody who explodes bombs? I know what risk I am running by writing these lines. I know a few will immediately jump up and will say, "look wasn't I was saying Ashutosh practises communalism in the garb of secularism? Now his true message is out." But I don't care.
The bigger question is does the community care why one of the most gifted minds of the 20th century Salman Rushdie can't breathe in fresh air and Tasleema Nasreen can't live in peace even under one of the most secular regimes this country has seen? Why do Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav have to rationalise the lifting of ban on SIMI? Why does it happen that when Maulana Madni of Deoband organises an anti-terrorism rally at Ramleela Maidan and openly condemns terrorism, Urdu press is out to tear him apart?
One can raise the question that fanatics are in every religion. I do agree but there is a difference. If there is a strong fanatic Hindu voice, there is an equal or may be more forceful anti-fanatic and liberal voice. Christianity has long back lost a critical battle that religion is good only in the private sphere, it has no business to get into political domain. There is nobody in Hinduism and in Christianity called Abul Ala Maududi who claims that Islam is a revolutionary doctrine and system that overthrows governments.
It is this so-called radical Islam or political Islam which is creating problems for their own community and society at large. But irony is there is no VOCAL forceful anti-radical Islam or anti political-Islam voice, neither in India nor outside. Majority of sane and liberal voice is keeping quiet, or if not so, then not making enough noise to be heard by its own community.
Fareed Zakaria writes in his latest book Post American World, "Muslim World is also modernising, though more slowly than the rest, and there are those who try to become leaders in rebellion against it. Reactionaries in the world of Islam are more numerous and extreme than those in other cultures - that world does have its dysfunctions. But they remain a tiny minority of the world's billion-plus Muslims."
I agree that people like Maududi are a tiny minority otherwise I would not have friends like Anwar and Sazid and Arfin etc but unfortunately they let these tiny minority to rule the rest. It is the silence of the overwhelming majority which is a worrying factor and now this silence has started developing into a very complicated complex. It is the result of this complex that a police encounter in Jamia Nagar becomes a rallying point for the Muslim intelligentsia to assert their Muslim identity. My question is why an encounter is construed as an attack on Muslim community? Police encounter is nothing new, be it real, fake or staged. It happens every day. Why when somebody called Atif Ameen is killed it becomes an issue why not when Keval Nandu is killed there is rally in Jamia and at Jantar Mantar?
Do I need to tell M J Akbar that police do shoot themselves to make a fake encounter look real? Rajbeer, Daya Nayak and Pradeep Sharma did not become hero by doing real shootings they became hero by killing captive ones. Mohan Chandra Sharma was also no saint. But why M J needs to indicate that M C Sharma might be a victim of a "friendly fire" when encounter happens in Jamia Nagar? My question is - Is he reacting as Muslim or as a responsible citizen of this country? And the same question is to my dear friend Anwar too?
It is not my assumption but firm belief that both the gentlemen are not reacting like citizens. And their words have lot of resonance in what common Muslim is saying on the streets of Jamia Nagar and also in Sarai Meer, Azamgarh. Probably there it is more clearly articulated. It is openly said that in the name of countering terrorism, innocent Muslims are butchered. Earlier this resonance was not there. The line is blurring.
Does it mean that in Indian context, liberal space within Muslims is shrinking? My answer is a big NO. Then why such reactions? I call it little-boy-syndrome - a boy who is repeatedly being accused of something which he has not done, then out of sheer frustration he develops a kind of stubbornness and readily admits, "Yes I did that. What will you do?"
Since Taliban took over Afghanistan and emergence of al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, the identity of a liberal Muslim is seriously under threat. They are constantly being watched. Their name evokes a very demeaning stare, be it New York or New Delhi. They all know they are not part of this madness; they don't approve either the bomb mentality or the conspiracy theories that Hindu, Jews, Christians or India, Israel, America are out to finish Islam. But what can they do? They are helpless. And out of this helplessness is born the involuntary reaction which is more of a reflex in nature, raising question on an encounter which would have been praised otherwise.
Anwar, my dear, as a very fine mind you need to get out of this little-boy-syndrome because if you become prisoner of this siege mentality of Maududi and Sayed Qutb and Osama and Jawahiri there is no future for a religion which always teaches peace and forgiveness. Time has come to make sane majority voice powerful and loud enough to frighten tiny minority. And if it does not happen then you, M J and I too will be villains of history and forces like Hindu fundamentalists will be ruling this country.
Posted by Ashutosh 69 comments
Total Comments: 69
Read Comment Post Comment
Posted 2008-10-08 10:22:32 : By jmi-aalam
Jamia encounter and Muslim identity: Response to Asutosh’s blog. LAST By, anwar alam, contnd...Bernard Lewis, the late celebrated rightwing American historian, ask the same question and found the answer of current spate of violence committed by radical Islamic organisations in the ideological structure of Islam without taking into consideration of the context. Many share Bernard Lewish prescription and pose a question: why there is no Gandhi or Martin Luther King in Islamic traditions? Or why Salman Rusdie and Taslima Nasreen can not afford their living in a Muslim society, as you ask? Such questions are often posed to contrast the violent, illiberal legacy of Islamic tradition with the peaceful, liberal legacy of non-Islamic religious traditions. It is not that the apostle of peace does not exist in Islamic historiography; there are many. The Islamic world during its hey day did not witness the persecution of Jews; the renaissance of Jewish community took place in the Islamic empire of Andalusia. The systematic historical persecution of Jews in Europe including Holocaust was not without the support of Church and Christian religious justification. For centuries Europe witnessed the worst kind of religious war. One can easily demonstrate how the systematic persecution of Palestinians by the Israeli state has location in the religious imagery of Old Testament. To be fair, all religious traditions have shared history of peace, degree of liberalism and violence. Every society including Muslim lives by its certain collective sacred symbols and codes through which community derives its identity and relate themselves. Any attempt to vilify or ridicule them will bound to evoke a protest from a section of society. For this reason every state regulates the boundary of principle of freedom of expression. The Law of Blasphemy continues to impinge on the freedom of expression in UK. And in many parts of Europe questioning the authenticity of holocaust is punishable by law. Salman Rushdie was living peacefully till he wrote Satanic Verses. In nutshell, In order to confront the challenges of terrorism one has to go beyond textual understanding of the things. I do recognize the connection between radicalization of ideology and violence. But this is not confined to Muslim society alone. The process of ideologisation of fuzzy religious tradition is not unique to Muslim society. All societies including ours have witnessed such trends. The difference lies in the degree. And where community in question happens to minority religious community, they felt the pressure from outside (nation) more acute and steeped out in the ritualistic business of ‘condemnation’ of such ghastly acts without undertaking the necessary democratic and social reform measures required to fight the forces of fundamentalism within the community. Recently the dominant Muslim/Islamic organizations/leaders including Deoband and Jamait ulema Hind- hold a public rally and condemned the current spate of terrorism. It is absurd that to think that Muslims find themselves constrained in condemning incidents like this. One may ask which and how many Hindu organizations-whether liberal or elseâ€"are condemning the mayhem and violence caused by the forces of Hindutava----- particularly VHP and Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena ? The defeat or success of BJP in electoral term has different political trajectory and therefore should not be construed in terms of conflict between liberal Hindus and conservative-fundamentalist Hindus or secularism vs communalism. Ashu rightly identifies the media (but not all media) as one of most important institution that is fighting against the majoritarian communalism. But should media be considered as an institution of liberal Hindu as he would like to identify and then assert that it is the liberal Hindus that is fighting the Hindutava!!!!! Will he also identify the root of Hindutava and its associated violence into the so called ‘Hindu mindset’, as he preferred the ‘Muslim mindset’ to denote the spate of global terrorism? For Ashu it is ‘religious mindset’ that needs to be decoded, for me it is the ‘structure of modernity’ that needs to be critically decoded; for whether be it a Muslim fanatic or a Hindu fanatic or Christian fanatic----- they are unquestionably a modern mind. END....
Reply"What do you mean?" he said.
"Abe ye Jamia me ye rally karne ki kya zaroorat hai? Kyon?" I said. (What is the need for organising a rally in Jamia Milia Islamia?) "You don't understand. This sends very wrong signal, please for God's sake don't do this."
Anwar lost his cool and shouted back. "What do you mean?" He said providing legal aid was a fundamental right, how could I object to that.
"Look no sane person can object to that but these are not times to expect sanity from any one when nobody knows where bomb will explode and if we all will return home safe," I said.
The argument went on and on and it got heated to a point that I thought maybe I would lose a friend. Anwar and I were together in JNU in late 80s and since then we have been like family. We have had very strong and sometimes very diverse views but arguments and debate between us have never threatened to undermine our time-tested relationship.
During the argument I realised that we were not mentioning the real reason for both of us getting irritated. I probably wanted to say that there is something wrong with Muslims, you always explode bombs and he probably wanted to say that the state apparatus and media is dominated by the Hindus, who always think Muslims are terrorists and they should be taught a lesson, and that is why innocent Muslims are always targeted in the name of terrorism.
This was strange, as we both have a history of fighting all kinds of fanaticism and fundamentalism together. We both have been very vocal and explicit in our attack on these forces. So what was this? It was beyond my comprehension. I got an answer this morning when I read an article by senior journalist and legendry editor M J Akbar.
He said very subtly what Anwar wanted to say but could not. Let me clarify I have always had great respect for M J, and still do. He is one of the most modern and understanding editors India has produced. But today while reading his piece in TOI I had a feeling that there is lot of similarity in his written words and Shah Imam Bukhari's verbal outburst?
I was really at loss. I was looking for answers. Is there anything wrong with my thought process? Have I changed? Am I the same person who had opposed Hindu communalism and their anti-Muslim ideology? Why am I doubting the credentials of my dear friend Anwar and learned scholar like M J?
During my thought I was reminded of noted poet and film writer Javed Akhtar, who during a TV debate rebuked one of my very competent anchors Sandeep Choudhary, that his question is communal in nature. I don't exactly remember the question but it was related to Muslims and their identity. Then I wrote a strong piece in a Hindi magazine and raised the question why Arif Mohammad Khan had to lose a battle to Sayed Shahabuddin in late 80s and early 90s? Why does it happen that V P Singh asks Arif Mohammad Khan not to visit Allahabad from where he was contesting Lok Sabha election in 1988, but Shahabuddin was welcome?
Surprisingly I got strong support from Javed Akhtar's one-time good friend Salim Khan. He wrote a piece in Dainik Bhaskar quoting me and my article and very carefully agreeing with some of my arguments. I have no problem in admitting that for some time I have been thinking that time has come when the Muslim as a community need to introspect and analyse and try to ask themselves - has something gone wrong somewhere? Why is it that from Nairoi to Dar-a-salaam, from Indonesia to Sudan, from Madrid to Manhattan, from Kabul to Kashmir, from Chechnya to China their identity is being perceived as somebody who explodes bombs? I know what risk I am running by writing these lines. I know a few will immediately jump up and will say, "look wasn't I was saying Ashutosh practises communalism in the garb of secularism? Now his true message is out." But I don't care.
The bigger question is does the community care why one of the most gifted minds of the 20th century Salman Rushdie can't breathe in fresh air and Tasleema Nasreen can't live in peace even under one of the most secular regimes this country has seen? Why do Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav have to rationalise the lifting of ban on SIMI? Why does it happen that when Maulana Madni of Deoband organises an anti-terrorism rally at Ramleela Maidan and openly condemns terrorism, Urdu press is out to tear him apart?
One can raise the question that fanatics are in every religion. I do agree but there is a difference. If there is a strong fanatic Hindu voice, there is an equal or may be more forceful anti-fanatic and liberal voice. Christianity has long back lost a critical battle that religion is good only in the private sphere, it has no business to get into political domain. There is nobody in Hinduism and in Christianity called Abul Ala Maududi who claims that Islam is a revolutionary doctrine and system that overthrows governments.
It is this so-called radical Islam or political Islam which is creating problems for their own community and society at large. But irony is there is no VOCAL forceful anti-radical Islam or anti political-Islam voice, neither in India nor outside. Majority of sane and liberal voice is keeping quiet, or if not so, then not making enough noise to be heard by its own community.
Fareed Zakaria writes in his latest book Post American World, "Muslim World is also modernising, though more slowly than the rest, and there are those who try to become leaders in rebellion against it. Reactionaries in the world of Islam are more numerous and extreme than those in other cultures - that world does have its dysfunctions. But they remain a tiny minority of the world's billion-plus Muslims."
I agree that people like Maududi are a tiny minority otherwise I would not have friends like Anwar and Sazid and Arfin etc but unfortunately they let these tiny minority to rule the rest. It is the silence of the overwhelming majority which is a worrying factor and now this silence has started developing into a very complicated complex. It is the result of this complex that a police encounter in Jamia Nagar becomes a rallying point for the Muslim intelligentsia to assert their Muslim identity. My question is why an encounter is construed as an attack on Muslim community? Police encounter is nothing new, be it real, fake or staged. It happens every day. Why when somebody called Atif Ameen is killed it becomes an issue why not when Keval Nandu is killed there is rally in Jamia and at Jantar Mantar?
Do I need to tell M J Akbar that police do shoot themselves to make a fake encounter look real? Rajbeer, Daya Nayak and Pradeep Sharma did not become hero by doing real shootings they became hero by killing captive ones. Mohan Chandra Sharma was also no saint. But why M J needs to indicate that M C Sharma might be a victim of a "friendly fire" when encounter happens in Jamia Nagar? My question is - Is he reacting as Muslim or as a responsible citizen of this country? And the same question is to my dear friend Anwar too?
It is not my assumption but firm belief that both the gentlemen are not reacting like citizens. And their words have lot of resonance in what common Muslim is saying on the streets of Jamia Nagar and also in Sarai Meer, Azamgarh. Probably there it is more clearly articulated. It is openly said that in the name of countering terrorism, innocent Muslims are butchered. Earlier this resonance was not there. The line is blurring.
Does it mean that in Indian context, liberal space within Muslims is shrinking? My answer is a big NO. Then why such reactions? I call it little-boy-syndrome - a boy who is repeatedly being accused of something which he has not done, then out of sheer frustration he develops a kind of stubbornness and readily admits, "Yes I did that. What will you do?"
Since Taliban took over Afghanistan and emergence of al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, the identity of a liberal Muslim is seriously under threat. They are constantly being watched. Their name evokes a very demeaning stare, be it New York or New Delhi. They all know they are not part of this madness; they don't approve either the bomb mentality or the conspiracy theories that Hindu, Jews, Christians or India, Israel, America are out to finish Islam. But what can they do? They are helpless. And out of this helplessness is born the involuntary reaction which is more of a reflex in nature, raising question on an encounter which would have been praised otherwise.
Anwar, my dear, as a very fine mind you need to get out of this little-boy-syndrome because if you become prisoner of this siege mentality of Maududi and Sayed Qutb and Osama and Jawahiri there is no future for a religion which always teaches peace and forgiveness. Time has come to make sane majority voice powerful and loud enough to frighten tiny minority. And if it does not happen then you, M J and I too will be villains of history and forces like Hindu fundamentalists will be ruling this country.
Posted by Ashutosh 69 comments
Total Comments: 69
Read Comment Post Comment
Posted 2008-10-08 10:22:32 : By jmi-aalam
Jamia encounter and Muslim identity: Response to Asutosh’s blog. LAST By, anwar alam, contnd...Bernard Lewis, the late celebrated rightwing American historian, ask the same question and found the answer of current spate of violence committed by radical Islamic organisations in the ideological structure of Islam without taking into consideration of the context. Many share Bernard Lewish prescription and pose a question: why there is no Gandhi or Martin Luther King in Islamic traditions? Or why Salman Rusdie and Taslima Nasreen can not afford their living in a Muslim society, as you ask? Such questions are often posed to contrast the violent, illiberal legacy of Islamic tradition with the peaceful, liberal legacy of non-Islamic religious traditions. It is not that the apostle of peace does not exist in Islamic historiography; there are many. The Islamic world during its hey day did not witness the persecution of Jews; the renaissance of Jewish community took place in the Islamic empire of Andalusia. The systematic historical persecution of Jews in Europe including Holocaust was not without the support of Church and Christian religious justification. For centuries Europe witnessed the worst kind of religious war. One can easily demonstrate how the systematic persecution of Palestinians by the Israeli state has location in the religious imagery of Old Testament. To be fair, all religious traditions have shared history of peace, degree of liberalism and violence. Every society including Muslim lives by its certain collective sacred symbols and codes through which community derives its identity and relate themselves. Any attempt to vilify or ridicule them will bound to evoke a protest from a section of society. For this reason every state regulates the boundary of principle of freedom of expression. The Law of Blasphemy continues to impinge on the freedom of expression in UK. And in many parts of Europe questioning the authenticity of holocaust is punishable by law. Salman Rushdie was living peacefully till he wrote Satanic Verses. In nutshell, In order to confront the challenges of terrorism one has to go beyond textual understanding of the things. I do recognize the connection between radicalization of ideology and violence. But this is not confined to Muslim society alone. The process of ideologisation of fuzzy religious tradition is not unique to Muslim society. All societies including ours have witnessed such trends. The difference lies in the degree. And where community in question happens to minority religious community, they felt the pressure from outside (nation) more acute and steeped out in the ritualistic business of ‘condemnation’ of such ghastly acts without undertaking the necessary democratic and social reform measures required to fight the forces of fundamentalism within the community. Recently the dominant Muslim/Islamic organizations/leaders including Deoband and Jamait ulema Hind- hold a public rally and condemned the current spate of terrorism. It is absurd that to think that Muslims find themselves constrained in condemning incidents like this. One may ask which and how many Hindu organizations-whether liberal or elseâ€"are condemning the mayhem and violence caused by the forces of Hindutava----- particularly VHP and Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena ? The defeat or success of BJP in electoral term has different political trajectory and therefore should not be construed in terms of conflict between liberal Hindus and conservative-fundamentalist Hindus or secularism vs communalism. Ashu rightly identifies the media (but not all media) as one of most important institution that is fighting against the majoritarian communalism. But should media be considered as an institution of liberal Hindu as he would like to identify and then assert that it is the liberal Hindus that is fighting the Hindutava!!!!! Will he also identify the root of Hindutava and its associated violence into the so called ‘Hindu mindset’, as he preferred the ‘Muslim mindset’ to denote the spate of global terrorism? For Ashu it is ‘religious mindset’ that needs to be decoded, for me it is the ‘structure of modernity’ that needs to be critically decoded; for whether be it a Muslim fanatic or a Hindu fanatic or Christian fanatic----- they are unquestionably a modern mind. END....
Posted 2008-10-08 10:19:35 : By jmi-aalam
Jamia encounter and Muslim identity: Response to Asutosh’s blog Part V By, anwar alam, ... contnd He shares the popular perception that Muslims is not condemning this phenomenon, neither fighting the fundamentalist forces within the community, while it is the liberal Hindu including himself that is fighting the Hindu communalism. Like the other segment of population Muslims are also a member of different political and civil society organizations. Their condemnations of terrorist incidents also means that these organizations also echoing the voices of segments of Muslims. Why Muslim as community or organization is required to condemn such incident, I do not understand? Such expectations and reasoning share a widespread perception that see the connection between terrorism/violence and community or at least the crime is perpetrated in the name of community symbols. Hence it is the moral responsibility of the community, particularly its liberal segments, to equivocally condemn such incident and still clear the name of its religious tradition in whose name such incidents are perpetrated. In the present context the global dimension of violence connected with a section of Muslim community is forcing many including Ashu to ask a question ‘What is wrong with Islam and Muslim community’? This question would have not assumed its significance had this being raised in the age of Crusuades or in an age where religious sanction of violence was legitimate discourse. Today we live in the increasingly secularized world, hence violence in the name of religion becomes problematic, and otherwise violence committed in the name of nation or any secular symbols is fine. Violence per se is not problematic but its source of justification is problematic!!!!!! Ashu sees the solution of this syndrome in making religion a private and personal matter. All major religions of the world have been brought to this domain except Islam that retains the claim of forming the government. This is a modernist myth that religion is a private affair and has nothing to do with the public domain. Read Casonova’s ‘Public religion in Modern world’ in which he propounded the theory of de-privitization. Religions all over the world are refusing to become privatized, in some cases they have become overtly political, in other cases they shifted their public location: from political to social. Further the occurrence and non-occurrence of violence does not correspond to the principle of fusion of religion and politics (as found mostly in Muslim societies) and the principle separation of religion and politics (as to be found mostly in Western societies) respectively. The modern West including the ‘secular America’, that claims to banish religion to the private sphere, has committed more genocide, holocaust, attacks other nations and brutalized a sea of humanity in the name of progress and democracy. The connection between modernity and violence is much sharp than the connection between tradition and violence. The clerical Iran during more than 25 years of its rule has no history of attacking other nations or dehumanizing the religious minority. Gandhi mixed up religion and politics but remained the apostle of peace and non- violence. Each religion has specific values and tradition and therefore the English term ‘religion’ is incapable of comprehending the differential dimensions of non- Christian religions. For this reason there will be no Maudidi or Syed Qutub in non-Islamic religious traditions. But why is this a problem, I can not understand? Political Islam is not terrorism as you would like to maintain. Though I do not share the vision of Political Islam but in many Muslim countries it champions the democratic aspiration of Muslim masses against the brutal, authoritarian secular military regime. The representation of what is called ‘Jihadi Islam’, a fringe ideological trend within the otherwise a vast majority of Muslims continue to practice various forms of political and Muslim community, as ‘the face of Islam’ thrives in media and state establishment, social Islam. ... to be continued....
Reply
Posted 2008-10-08 10:15:12 : By jmi-aalam
Jamia encounter and Muslim identity: Response to Asutosh’s blog Part IV By, anwar alam contd...A history of communal riots, institutionalized pogrom, lack of access to developmental process, ghettoized pattern of life along with the increasing global demonization of Islam and its traditions and in national context where Muslim has emerged as ‘the other’ in ‘national collective mind’---- all these process have seriously jolted the confidence of the Muslim community in the prevailing state security structure, making them more insecure, vulnerable, hyper sensitive about the identity and is caught between the vicious cycle of defensive outlook. This is not to advance the thesis of conspiracy theory that a majority within the community believes but to sensitize you about their location in the ‘national geographical imagery’ and a very specific complex process that govern the relationship between the majoritarian nation state and religious minority. This is important to understand the ‘community reaction’, if there is any, when community is targeted, vilified, demonized through the acts of single individual/group/ organizations. I do agree with you there is a far less degree of liberal spaces within the Muslim community in comparison to other religious community or traditions. There are historical reasons that I am not going to deliberate upon here. In the Indian context while state helped to expand the liberal spaces within the majoritarian Hindu religious tradition, it dithered from imposing any reformist agenda on the Muslim community for various reasons. From below the conservative-fundamentalist sections of the community did not allow any liberal reformist agenda to emerge. As a result the community has become sandwiched. In this context it is totally absurd to see the downfall of Arif Mohammad Khan and rise of Syed Shabuddin in terms of defeat of liberal forces/values and success of conservative-fundamentalist forces/ values among the Indian Muslims as you would like to maintain. Arif Mohammad khan rose to national-political level due to Congress and also lost that position due to Congress politics; his values did not have any role to play in this political journey. He paraded his liberalism in post -Shah Bano controversy to demonstrate the communal-fundamentalist character of Congress. His liberal values did not prevent him from traveling from Jan Morcha to BJP. Today both Arif Mohammad Khan and Syed Shabuddin are in political hibernation irrespective of their value systems. Shabuddin’s Insaff Party remained a non- starter. In fact the Indian political system is flexible enough to accommodate all kind of political tendencies and value systems. The juxtaposition of individuals in political arena in terms of conflict of values hardly helps in understanding the trends within the community or society at large. In fact liberalism and liberal values is constantly retreating in the Indian society since the rise of Hindutuva. And as Hindutava began to acquire a shape of normal discourse the retreat of liberalism is not even registered in the consciousness of majority community (unless something unprecedented event like pogrom in Gujrat happens) and gradually the focus of debate on liberalism shifts to the terrain of minority religious community, particularly the Muslims. Such debates often emerged as the marker of differentiation for the members of majority community.
....to be continued....
Reply
Posted 2008-10-08 10:13:19 : By jmi-aalam
Jamia encounter and Muslim identity: Response to Asutosh’s blog Part III By, anwar alam....contd Ashu proposes a simple, sharp and commonsensical question: A police encounter is encounter (fake, alleged, trueâ€"something that happens everyday basis), hence why Muslims rose up to defend when a person bearing a Muslim name is killed and not vica-versa. In other words why killing of Ateef Amin evokes a response from Muslim community and why killing of keval Nandu does not evoke a similar response from Jamia or the community that he belongs or from any group? Though he did not pose the question in these words but this is what he intended to ask. First, what makes him to classify the reaction of an individual/section/group living in that area first as ‘Muslim’ and then ‘community’ reaction? Were these individuals/groups representative (in any sense---legal or social) of the Muslim community living in that area or outside? Is Shahi Imam a representative of Muslim community? Politics of representation of community (that is mostly self-claimed) is one thing, something which is carried out in every religious community, but its dejure recognition is another thing. If the state for its own reasons considers certain individuals/ organizations as representative of community that does not make these privileged individuals/organizations as legitimate representative in the eyes of masses. Further, did any Muslim take the position that Jamia encounter was deliberately aimed at defaming/maligning Islam? In fact a majority of Muslim feels sad that a tiny minority within the community with their violent activities is bringing a bad name to Islam. The problem not only lies in representing the ‘citizen individual’ belonging to minority religious community with, first and foremost, his/her religious identity but also making Muslim and Islam synonymous. The assumption underlying the question, that sees response of individual with Muslim identity in a collective sense, is deeply problematic. This question follows from an understanding that Muslim community is primarily a monolithic community, despite its diverse reality. His metaphor of ‘little boy syndrome’ follows from the same understanding; however metaphor does not capture the reaction of the community. The community, out of frustration, is not saying that ‘yes we did that, what will you do’, on the contrary the community is suffering from ‘denial syndrome’. Second, in the history of police encounter there are many Muslim criminals/terrorists that have been killed, how many times Muslim as community defended such criminals/terrorists? Today Sahabuddin, an RJD MP and a notorious criminal, is behind bar, do you think that Muslim as community stands by him if he was to be killed in encounter? Like him there are many criminals with Hindu identity that have won the elections. No community including Muslim community will defend the killing of person with credible, proven criminal/terrorist record. Problem arises when circumstantial and other evidences does not support the police’s claim that person â€"whether Atif Ameen or else---- killed was terrorist or die hard criminal. Further, police record in this matter does not evoke any confidence within the community. Indiscriminate arrest of good number of Muslims under TADA has taken place but a majority was released in the absence of evidence. Equally important here is to note about the ‘communal profiling’ of arrested/killed Muslims (whether criminals/terrorists) by state, media and other dominant agencies in the society, which is so badly missing in the case of non- Muslim criminals/terrorists. What makes these dominant agencies to escape the communal profiling of Bajrang Dal activists or VHP activists in case of their arrest? Is it because they happen to belong to majority community of the nation, operating in the name of ‘defending Hindu national tradition’ or their action can not be demonstrated as coming from the reading of particular Hindu text? The difference lies in the way the case of those arrested/killed are portrayed/ represented by the dominant agencies of state system. Imagine electronic media caption: Azamgarh or Attankgarh!!!! One can understand the political compulsion of Mulayan Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad Yadav (given the fact that Muslims constitute their support base) to demand the lifting of ban on SIMI, but what about central government’s own commission that found no basis for renewing the ban on SIMI and government had to approach the Supreme Court for the extension of ban? ....to be continued....
Reply
Posted 2008-10-08 09:34:36 : By jmi-aalam
Jamia encounter and Muslim identity: Response to Asutosh’s blog part II By, anwar alam cntd... Ashu has a priori understanding of ‘Indian citizen’ and anybody failing to adhere to his understanding of ‘citizen’ can simply be castigated as ‘community centered’. If he means by citizen as ‘law abiding citizen’ that in essence means internalizing the discourse of state, then I beg to differ. I think he was writing from this perspective. He first identifies the root of global terrorism in the ‘Muslim mindset’, then felt very uncomfortable that there is hardly any Muslim including the liberal section within the community that is openly condemning this menace of terrorism or openly coming out to fight out this mayhem. He further felt deeply hurt when he saw the ‘alternative version’ to ‘Jamia encounter’ and demand for impartial judicial inquiry and considered this as nothing but a defense of community. In other words he came to the conclusion that even the Muslim liberal intelligentsia is not acting in the ‘national interest’. He expected the community to remain in silent over the incident and endorse the police action as a ‘good citizen’. Questioning state action in this context is a bad strategy, according to him, that will help terrorist to consolidate his position. Little he realized that he has moved to far right fascist position while taking this position. After all, the domain of civil liberty becomes the first causality at the hand of state in the context of fighting terrorism. It is for this reason that I totally endorse Prof Mushirul Hasan’s bold, courageous and imaginative position of providing a legal aid to those arrested students of JMI till they are proven guilty in the court of law, which my friend, Ashu, sees as nothing but a ‘politics of community’ to achieve a higher political gain. Had it been not for the initiative of Prof. Musirul Hasan and a group of Jamia teachers, the field would been remained open for the fundamentalist forces within community to give a communal and radical colour to the entire episode. Keeping a balance between civil liberty and tough law that is required to tackle terrorism is indeed a difficult terrain for any democratic state to maintain. However this does not mean that one should accept the state actions/version as matter of truth. The job of media is to promote multiple points of view and should avoid stepping into the shoes of policing. They must also avoid the role of “serving the national interestâ€, because it is the sectarian interest that is often served in the name of national interest.
Ashu proposes a simple, sharp and commonsensical question: A police encounter is encounter (fake, alleged, trueâ€"something that happens everyday basis), hence why Muslims rose up to defend when a person bearing a Muslim name is killed and not vica-versa. In other words why killing of Ateef Amin evokes a response from Muslim community and why killing of keval Nandu does not evoke a similar response from Jamia or the community that he belongs or from any group? Though he did not pose the question in these words but this is what he intended to ask. First, what makes him to classify the reaction of an individual/section/group living in that area first as ‘Muslim’ and then ‘community’ reaction? Were these individuals/groups representative (in any sense---legal or social) of the Muslim community living in that area or outside? Is Shahi Imam a representative of Muslim community? Politics of representation of community (that is mostly self-claimed) is one thing, something which is carried out in every religious community, but its dejure recognition is another thing. If the state for its own reasons considers certain individuals/ organizations as representative of community that does not make these privileged individuals/organizations as legitimate representative in the eyes of masses. Further, did any Muslim take the position that Jamia encounter was deliberately aimed at defaming/maligning Islam? In fact a majority of Muslim feels sad that a tiny minority within the community with their violent activities is bringing a bad name to Islam. The problem not only lies in representing the ‘citizen individual’ belonging to minority religious community with, first and foremost, his/her religious identity but also making Muslim and Islam synonymous. The assumption underlying the question, that sees response of individual with Muslim identity in a collective sense, is deeply problematic. This question follows from an understanding that Muslim community is primarily a monolithic community, despite its diverse reality. His metaphor of ‘little boy syndrome’ follows from the same understanding; however metaphor does not capture the reaction of the community. The community, out of frustration, is not saying that ‘yes we did that, what will you do’, on the contrary the community is suffering from ‘denial syndrome’. to be continued.......
Posted 2008-10-08 09:34:36 : By jmi-aalam
Jamia encounter and Muslim identity: Response to Asutosh’s blog part II By, anwar alam cntd... Ashu has a priori understanding of ‘Indian citizen’ and anybody failing to adhere to his understanding of ‘citizen’ can simply be castigated as ‘community centered’. If he means by citizen as ‘law abiding citizen’ that in essence means internalizing the discourse of state, then I beg to differ. I think he was writing from this perspective. He first identifies the root of global terrorism in the ‘Muslim mindset’, then felt very uncomfortable that there is hardly any Muslim including the liberal section within the community that is openly condemning this menace of terrorism or openly coming out to fight out this mayhem. He further felt deeply hurt when he saw the ‘alternative version’ to ‘Jamia encounter’ and demand for impartial judicial inquiry and considered this as nothing but a defense of community. In other words he came to the conclusion that even the Muslim liberal intelligentsia is not acting in the ‘national interest’. He expected the community to remain in silent over the incident and endorse the police action as a ‘good citizen’. Questioning state action in this context is a bad strategy, according to him, that will help terrorist to consolidate his position. Little he realized that he has moved to far right fascist position while taking this position. After all, the domain of civil liberty becomes the first causality at the hand of state in the context of fighting terrorism. It is for this reason that I totally endorse Prof Mushirul Hasan’s bold, courageous and imaginative position of providing a legal aid to those arrested students of JMI till they are proven guilty in the court of law, which my friend, Ashu, sees as nothing but a ‘politics of community’ to achieve a higher political gain. Had it been not for the initiative of Prof. Musirul Hasan and a group of Jamia teachers, the field would been remained open for the fundamentalist forces within community to give a communal and radical colour to the entire episode. Keeping a balance between civil liberty and tough law that is required to tackle terrorism is indeed a difficult terrain for any democratic state to maintain. However this does not mean that one should accept the state actions/version as matter of truth. The job of media is to promote multiple points of view and should avoid stepping into the shoes of policing. They must also avoid the role of “serving the national interestâ€, because it is the sectarian interest that is often served in the name of national interest.
Ashu proposes a simple, sharp and commonsensical question: A police encounter is encounter (fake, alleged, trueâ€"something that happens everyday basis), hence why Muslims rose up to defend when a person bearing a Muslim name is killed and not vica-versa. In other words why killing of Ateef Amin evokes a response from Muslim community and why killing of keval Nandu does not evoke a similar response from Jamia or the community that he belongs or from any group? Though he did not pose the question in these words but this is what he intended to ask. First, what makes him to classify the reaction of an individual/section/group living in that area first as ‘Muslim’ and then ‘community’ reaction? Were these individuals/groups representative (in any sense---legal or social) of the Muslim community living in that area or outside? Is Shahi Imam a representative of Muslim community? Politics of representation of community (that is mostly self-claimed) is one thing, something which is carried out in every religious community, but its dejure recognition is another thing. If the state for its own reasons considers certain individuals/ organizations as representative of community that does not make these privileged individuals/organizations as legitimate representative in the eyes of masses. Further, did any Muslim take the position that Jamia encounter was deliberately aimed at defaming/maligning Islam? In fact a majority of Muslim feels sad that a tiny minority within the community with their violent activities is bringing a bad name to Islam. The problem not only lies in representing the ‘citizen individual’ belonging to minority religious community with, first and foremost, his/her religious identity but also making Muslim and Islam synonymous. The assumption underlying the question, that sees response of individual with Muslim identity in a collective sense, is deeply problematic. This question follows from an understanding that Muslim community is primarily a monolithic community, despite its diverse reality. His metaphor of ‘little boy syndrome’ follows from the same understanding; however metaphor does not capture the reaction of the community. The community, out of frustration, is not saying that ‘yes we did that, what will you do’, on the contrary the community is suffering from ‘denial syndrome’. to be continued.......
Reply
Read More Comments
All the content posted in the 'IBN Blogs' section, unless specified otherwise, are made by CNN-IBN employees. The content posted in 'IBN Blogs' does not follow routine internal CNN-IBN reviews and editorial processes and should be considered only as the views and opinions of the employees and not of CNN-IBN.
(....Time has come to make sane majority voice powerful and loud enough to frighten tiny minority... Editor-in-Chief IBN-7, Ashutosh, wrote this blog on September 28 after the Jamia encounter. Following is a response from Aalam Anwar, Professor at Jamia Millia Islamia)
I am sad to see a piece by my friend, Ashutosh, on ‘Jamia Encounter’. Sad more, because when a person is a ‘public person’, his opinion matters and influences other minds.
Therefore I have to reply to his provocative journalistic piece. Certainly we have grown up together and it is also true that despite our differences in understanding the social phenomenon, we remain friend. The conflict of approach has not marred our close relationship. My response to your piece will not be based merely on what you have stated in your blog but also informal discussion that you had with me in the context of Jamia episode.
What you wrote smacks a kind of public sobriety posture that does not allow you to retain the same content, structure of languages, metaphor and rhetoric in the public domain that you articulated internally. A part of the problem of your piece lies in this dualism.
I share your anguish, frustration and helplessness that result from our failure to fight back the menace of terrorism. It is sad that you see our reaction to Jamia episode as ‘Muslim’ and not as ‘citizen’ and very quickly put me along with M J Akbar in the company of Maududi and Osama Bin Laden.
This is nothing but a worst kind of generalisation that does not hold any ground. I would not go as far as putting you and Togadia in the same box because I recognise the subtle differences between the two even while both share the broad spectrum of same discourse.
I do not claim myself as liberal Muslim, it is others that choose this label to brand a person like me. I was born in a Muslim family and hence having a Muslim identity. Beyond this there is nothing.
Ashu knows this well. Interestingly he also retains the right to decide when I act as Muslim and when I act as citizen. Since he happens to born with Hindu identity he never bothered to know whether his action amounts to ‘Hindu action’ or ‘Indian’ or ‘citizen’ action. Hindu, India and citizen are all synonymous for him. After all, religious minority in any society has to shoulder the burden of proving loyalty to the ‘majoritarian’ nation. It is this problematic that forces Ashu to consider Jamia Millia Islamia as ‘Muslim university’ and then classified the reaction of a group of Jamia teachers as ‘Muslim’, despite the fact a good number of teachers at JMI has ‘Hindu Identity’ and was at the forefront in articulating the response of a group of Jamia teachers.
Should Ashu then consider Banaras Hindu University as primarily a ‘Hindu University’ and would classify the response of a group of BHU teachers as ‘Hindu reaction’ if something similar happens in that university or its neighbourhood? Probably not.
Ashu has a priori understanding of ‘Indian citizen’ and anybody failing to adhere to his understanding of ‘citizen’ can simply be castigated as ‘community centered’. If he means by citizen as ‘law abiding citizen’ that in essence means internalizing the discourse of state, then I beg to differ. I think he was writing from this perspective.
He first identifies the root of global terrorism in the ‘Muslim mindset’, then felt very uncomfortable that there is hardly any Muslim including the liberal section within the community that is openly condemning this menace of terrorism or openly coming out to fight out this mayhem.
He further felt deeply hurt when he saw the ‘alternative version’ to ‘Jamia encounter’ and demand for impartial judicial inquiry and considered this as nothing but a defense of community.
In other words he came to the conclusion that even the Muslim liberal intelligentsia is not acting in the ‘national interest’.
He expected the community to remain in silent over the incident and endorse the police action as a ‘good citizen’. Questioning state action in this context is a bad strategy, according to him, that will help terrorist to consolidate his position. Little he realized that he has moved to far right fascist position while taking this position. After all, the domain of civil liberty becomes the first causality at the hand of state in the context of fighting terrorism.
It is for this reason that I totally endorse Prof Mushirul Hasan’s bold, courageous and imaginative position of providing a legal aid to those arrested students of JMI till they are proven guilty in the court of law, which my friend, Ashu, sees as nothing but a ‘politics of community’ to achieve a higher political gain.
Had it been not for the initiative of Prof. Musirul Hasan and a group of Jamia teachers, the field would been remained open for the fundamentalist forces within community to give a communal and radical colour to the entire episode. Keeping a balance between civil liberty and tough law that is required to tackle terrorism is indeed a difficult terrain for any democratic state to maintain.
However this does not mean that one should accept the state actions/version as matter of truth. The job of media is to promote multiple points of view and should avoid stepping into the shoes of policing. They must also avoid the role of “serving the national interest”, because it is the sectarian interest that is often served in the name of national interest.
Ashu proposes a simple, sharp and commonsensical question: A police encounter is encounter (fake, alleged, true something that happens everyday basis), hence why Muslims rose up to defend when a person bearing a Muslim name is killed and not vica-versa.
In other words why killing of Ateef Amin evokes a response from Muslim community and why killing of keval Nandu does not evoke a similar response from Jamia or the community that he belongs or from any group? Though he did not pose the question in these words but this is what he intended to ask.
First, what makes him to classify the reaction of an individual/section/group living in that area first as ‘Muslim’ and then ‘community’ reaction? Were these individuals/groups representative (in any sense---legal or social) of the Muslim community living in that area or outside? Is Shahi Imam a representative of Muslim community? Politics of representation of community (that is mostly self-claimed) is one thing, something which is carried out in every religious community, but its dejure recognition is another thing.
If the state for its own reasons considers certain individuals/ organizations as representative of community that does not make these privileged individuals/organizations as legitimate representative in the eyes of masses. Further, did any Muslim take the position that Jamia encounter was deliberately aimed at defaming/maligning Islam?
In fact a majority of Muslim feels sad that a tiny minority within the community with their violent activities is bringing a bad name to Islam. The problem not only lies in representing the ‘citizen individual’ belonging to minority religious community with, first and foremost, his/her religious identity but also making Muslim and Islam synonymous. The assumption underlying the question, that sees response of individual with Muslim identity in a collective sense, is deeply problematic. This question follows from an understanding that Muslim community is primarily a monolithic community, despite its diverse reality.
His metaphor of ‘little boy syndrome’ follows from the same understanding; however metaphor does not capture the reaction of the community. The community, out of frustration, is not saying that ‘yes we did that, what will you do’, on the contrary the community is suffering from ‘denial syndrome’.
Ashu proposes a simple, sharp and commonsensical question: A police encounter is encounter (fake, alleged, true something that happens everyday basis), hence why Muslims rose up to defend when a person bearing a Muslim name is killed and not vica-versa. In other words why killing of Ateef Amin evokes a response from Muslim community and why killing of keval Nandu does not evoke a similar response from Jamia or the community that he belongs or from any group?
Though he did not pose the question in these words but this is what he intended to ask. First, what makes him to classify the reaction of an individual/section/group living in that area first as ‘Muslim’ and then ‘community’ reaction? Were these individuals/groups representative (in any sense---legal or social) of the Muslim community living in that area or outside? Is Shahi Imam a representative of Muslim community?
Politics of representation of community (that is mostly self-claimed) is one thing, something which is carried out in every religious community, but its dejure recognition is another thing. If the state for its own reasons considers certain individuals/ organizations as representative of community that does not make these privileged individuals/organizations as legitimate representative in the eyes of masses. Further, did any Muslim take the position that Jamia encounter was deliberately aimed at defaming/maligning Islam?
In fact a majority of Muslim feels sad that a tiny minority within the community with their violent activities is bringing a bad name to Islam. The problem not only lies in representing the ‘citizen individual’ belonging to minority religious community with, first and foremost, his/her religious identity but also making Muslim and Islam synonymous. The assumption underlying the question, that sees response of individual with Muslim identity in a collective sense, is deeply problematic.
This question follows from an understanding that Muslim community is primarily a monolithic community, despite its diverse reality. His metaphor of ‘little boy syndrome’ follows from the same understanding; however metaphor does not capture the reaction of the community. The community, out of frustration, is not saying that ‘yes we did that, what will you do’, on the contrary the community is suffering from ‘denial syndrome’.
Second, in the history of police encounter there are many Muslim criminals/terrorists that have been killed, how many times Muslim as community defended such criminals/terrorists? Today Sahabuddin, an RJD MP and a notorious criminal, is behind bar, do you think that Muslim as community stands by him if he was to be killed in encounter? Like him there are many criminals with Hindu identity that have won the elections. No community including Muslim community will defend the killing of person with credible, proven criminal/terrorist record. Problem arises when circumstantial and other evidences does not support the police’s claim that person - whether Atif Ameen or else---- killed was terrorist or die hard criminal. Further, police record in this matter does not evoke any confidence within the community. Indiscriminate arrest of good number of Muslims under TADA has taken place but a majority was released in the absence of evidence. Equally important here is to note about the ‘communal profiling’ of arrested/killed Muslims (whether criminals/terrorists) by state, media and other dominant agencies in the society, which is so badly missing in the case of non- Muslim criminals/terrorists. What makes these dominant agencies to escape the communal profiling of Bajrang Dal activists or VHP activists in case of their arrest? Is it because they happen to belong to majority community of the nation, operating in the name of ‘defending Hindu national tradition’ or their action can not be demonstrated as coming from the reading of particular Hindu text? The difference lies in the way the case of those arrested/killed are portrayed/ represented by the dominant agencies of state system. Imagine electronic media caption: Azamgarh or Attankgarh!!!! One can understand the political compulsion of Mulayan Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad Yadav (given the fact that Muslims constitute their support base) to demand the lifting of ban on SIMI, but what about central government’s own commission that found no basis for renewing the ban on SIMI and government had to approach the Supreme Court for the extension of ban?
A history of communal riots, institutionalized pogrom, lack of access to developmental process, ghettoized pattern of life along with the increasing global demonization of Islam and its traditions and in national context where Muslim has emerged as ‘the other’ in ‘national collective mind’---- all these process have seriously jolted the confidence of the Muslim community in the prevailing state security structure, making them more insecure, vulnerable, hyper sensitive about the identity and is caught between the vicious cycle of defensive outlook.
Further the occurrence and non-occurrence of violence does not correspond to the principle of fusion of religion and politics (as found mostly in Muslim societies) and the principle separation of religion and politics (as to be found mostly in Western societies) respectively.
The modern West including the ‘secular America’, that claims to banish religion to the private sphere, has committed more genocide, holocaust, attacks other nations and brutalized a sea of humanity in the name of progress and democracy. The connection between modernity and violence is much sharp than the connection between tradition and violence.
The clerical Iran during more than 25 years of its rule has no history of attacking other nations or dehumanising the religious minority. Gandhi mixed up religion and politics but remained the apostle of peace and non- violence. Each religion has specific values and tradition and therefore the English term ‘religion’ is incapable of comprehending the differential dimensions of non- Christian religions.
For this reason there will be no Maudidi or Syed Qutub in non-Islamic religious traditions. But why is this a problem, I can not understand? Political Islam is not terrorism as you would like to maintain. Though I do not share the vision of Political Islam but in many Muslim countries it champions the democratic aspiration of Muslim masses against the brutal, authoritarian secular military regime. The representation of what is called ‘Jihadi Islam’, a fringe ideological trend within the otherwise a vast majority of Muslims continue to practice various forms of political and Muslim community, as ‘the face of Islam’ thrives in media and state establishment, social Islam.
Bernard Lewis, the late celebrated rightwing American historian, ask the same question and found the answer of current spate of violence committed by radical Islamic organisations in the ideological structure of Islam without taking into consideration of the context.
Many share Bernard Lewish prescription and pose a question: why there is no Gandhi or Martin Luther King in Islamic traditions? Or why Salman Rusdie and Taslima Nasreen can not afford their living in a Muslim society, as you ask? Such questions are often posed to contrast the violent, illiberal legacy of Islamic tradition with the peaceful, liberal legacy of non-Islamic religious traditions.
It is not that the apostle of peace does not exist in Islamic historiography; there are many. The Islamic world during its hey day did not witness the persecution of Jews; the renaissance of Jewish community took place in the Islamic empire of Andalusia. The systematic historical persecution of Jews in Europe including Holocaust was not without the support of Church and Christian religious justification. For centuries Europe witnessed the worst kind of religious war.
One can easily demonstrate how the systematic persecution of Palestinians by the Israeli state has location in the religious imagery of Old Testament. To be fair, all religious traditions have shared history of peace, degree of liberalism and violence. Every society including Muslim lives by its certain collective sacred symbols and codes through which community derives its identity and relate themselves. Any attempt to vilify or ridicule them will bound to evoke a protest from a section of society. For this reason every state regulates the boundary of principle of freedom of expression.
The Law of Blasphemy continues to impinge on the freedom of expression in UK. And in many parts of Europe questioning the authenticity of holocaust is punishable by law. Salman Rushdie was living peacefully till he wrote Satanic Verses. In nutshell, In order to confront the challenges of terrorism one has to go beyond textual understanding of the things.
I do recognize the connection between radicalization of ideology and violence. But this is not confined to Muslim society alone. The process of ideologisation of fuzzy religious tradition is not unique to Muslim society. All societies including ours have witnessed such trends.
The difference lies in the degree. And where community in question happens to minority religious community, they felt the pressure from outside (nation) more acute and steeped out in the ritualistic business of ‘condemnation’ of such ghastly acts without undertaking the necessary democratic and social reform measures required to fight the forces of fundamentalism within the community. Recently the dominant Muslim/Islamic organisations/leaders including Deoband and Jamait ulema Hind- hold a public rally and condemned the current spate of terrorism.
It is absurd that to think that Muslims find themselves constrained in condemning incidents like this. One may ask which and how many Hindu organisations-whether liberal or else - are condemning the mayhem and violence caused by the forces of Hindutava----- particularly VHP and Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena ?
The defeat or success of BJP in electoral term has different political trajectory and therefore should not be construed in terms of conflict between liberal Hindus and conservative-fundamentalist Hindus or secularism vs communalism. Ashu rightly identifies the media (but not all media) as one of most important institution that is fighting against the majoritarian communalism.
But should media be considered as an institution of liberal Hindu as he would like to identify and then assert that it is the liberal Hindus that is fighting the Hindutava?
Will he also identify the root of Hindutava and its associated violence into the so called ‘Hindu mindset’, as he preferred the ‘Muslim mindset’ to denote the spate of global terrorism?
For Ashu it is ‘religious mindset’ that needs to be decoded, for me it is the ‘structure of modernity’ that needs to be critically decoded; for whether be it a Muslim fanatic or a Hindu fanatic or Christian fanatic - they are unquestionably a modern mind.
Read More Comments
All the content posted in the 'IBN Blogs' section, unless specified otherwise, are made by CNN-IBN employees. The content posted in 'IBN Blogs' does not follow routine internal CNN-IBN reviews and editorial processes and should be considered only as the views and opinions of the employees and not of CNN-IBN.
(....Time has come to make sane majority voice powerful and loud enough to frighten tiny minority... Editor-in-Chief IBN-7, Ashutosh, wrote this blog on September 28 after the Jamia encounter. Following is a response from Aalam Anwar, Professor at Jamia Millia Islamia)
I am sad to see a piece by my friend, Ashutosh, on ‘Jamia Encounter’. Sad more, because when a person is a ‘public person’, his opinion matters and influences other minds.
Therefore I have to reply to his provocative journalistic piece. Certainly we have grown up together and it is also true that despite our differences in understanding the social phenomenon, we remain friend. The conflict of approach has not marred our close relationship. My response to your piece will not be based merely on what you have stated in your blog but also informal discussion that you had with me in the context of Jamia episode.
What you wrote smacks a kind of public sobriety posture that does not allow you to retain the same content, structure of languages, metaphor and rhetoric in the public domain that you articulated internally. A part of the problem of your piece lies in this dualism.
I share your anguish, frustration and helplessness that result from our failure to fight back the menace of terrorism. It is sad that you see our reaction to Jamia episode as ‘Muslim’ and not as ‘citizen’ and very quickly put me along with M J Akbar in the company of Maududi and Osama Bin Laden.
This is nothing but a worst kind of generalisation that does not hold any ground. I would not go as far as putting you and Togadia in the same box because I recognise the subtle differences between the two even while both share the broad spectrum of same discourse.
I do not claim myself as liberal Muslim, it is others that choose this label to brand a person like me. I was born in a Muslim family and hence having a Muslim identity. Beyond this there is nothing.
Ashu knows this well. Interestingly he also retains the right to decide when I act as Muslim and when I act as citizen. Since he happens to born with Hindu identity he never bothered to know whether his action amounts to ‘Hindu action’ or ‘Indian’ or ‘citizen’ action. Hindu, India and citizen are all synonymous for him. After all, religious minority in any society has to shoulder the burden of proving loyalty to the ‘majoritarian’ nation. It is this problematic that forces Ashu to consider Jamia Millia Islamia as ‘Muslim university’ and then classified the reaction of a group of Jamia teachers as ‘Muslim’, despite the fact a good number of teachers at JMI has ‘Hindu Identity’ and was at the forefront in articulating the response of a group of Jamia teachers.
Should Ashu then consider Banaras Hindu University as primarily a ‘Hindu University’ and would classify the response of a group of BHU teachers as ‘Hindu reaction’ if something similar happens in that university or its neighbourhood? Probably not.
Ashu has a priori understanding of ‘Indian citizen’ and anybody failing to adhere to his understanding of ‘citizen’ can simply be castigated as ‘community centered’. If he means by citizen as ‘law abiding citizen’ that in essence means internalizing the discourse of state, then I beg to differ. I think he was writing from this perspective.
He first identifies the root of global terrorism in the ‘Muslim mindset’, then felt very uncomfortable that there is hardly any Muslim including the liberal section within the community that is openly condemning this menace of terrorism or openly coming out to fight out this mayhem.
He further felt deeply hurt when he saw the ‘alternative version’ to ‘Jamia encounter’ and demand for impartial judicial inquiry and considered this as nothing but a defense of community.
In other words he came to the conclusion that even the Muslim liberal intelligentsia is not acting in the ‘national interest’.
He expected the community to remain in silent over the incident and endorse the police action as a ‘good citizen’. Questioning state action in this context is a bad strategy, according to him, that will help terrorist to consolidate his position. Little he realized that he has moved to far right fascist position while taking this position. After all, the domain of civil liberty becomes the first causality at the hand of state in the context of fighting terrorism.
It is for this reason that I totally endorse Prof Mushirul Hasan’s bold, courageous and imaginative position of providing a legal aid to those arrested students of JMI till they are proven guilty in the court of law, which my friend, Ashu, sees as nothing but a ‘politics of community’ to achieve a higher political gain.
Had it been not for the initiative of Prof. Musirul Hasan and a group of Jamia teachers, the field would been remained open for the fundamentalist forces within community to give a communal and radical colour to the entire episode. Keeping a balance between civil liberty and tough law that is required to tackle terrorism is indeed a difficult terrain for any democratic state to maintain.
However this does not mean that one should accept the state actions/version as matter of truth. The job of media is to promote multiple points of view and should avoid stepping into the shoes of policing. They must also avoid the role of “serving the national interest”, because it is the sectarian interest that is often served in the name of national interest.
Ashu proposes a simple, sharp and commonsensical question: A police encounter is encounter (fake, alleged, true something that happens everyday basis), hence why Muslims rose up to defend when a person bearing a Muslim name is killed and not vica-versa.
In other words why killing of Ateef Amin evokes a response from Muslim community and why killing of keval Nandu does not evoke a similar response from Jamia or the community that he belongs or from any group? Though he did not pose the question in these words but this is what he intended to ask.
First, what makes him to classify the reaction of an individual/section/group living in that area first as ‘Muslim’ and then ‘community’ reaction? Were these individuals/groups representative (in any sense---legal or social) of the Muslim community living in that area or outside? Is Shahi Imam a representative of Muslim community? Politics of representation of community (that is mostly self-claimed) is one thing, something which is carried out in every religious community, but its dejure recognition is another thing.
If the state for its own reasons considers certain individuals/ organizations as representative of community that does not make these privileged individuals/organizations as legitimate representative in the eyes of masses. Further, did any Muslim take the position that Jamia encounter was deliberately aimed at defaming/maligning Islam?
In fact a majority of Muslim feels sad that a tiny minority within the community with their violent activities is bringing a bad name to Islam. The problem not only lies in representing the ‘citizen individual’ belonging to minority religious community with, first and foremost, his/her religious identity but also making Muslim and Islam synonymous. The assumption underlying the question, that sees response of individual with Muslim identity in a collective sense, is deeply problematic. This question follows from an understanding that Muslim community is primarily a monolithic community, despite its diverse reality.
His metaphor of ‘little boy syndrome’ follows from the same understanding; however metaphor does not capture the reaction of the community. The community, out of frustration, is not saying that ‘yes we did that, what will you do’, on the contrary the community is suffering from ‘denial syndrome’.
Ashu proposes a simple, sharp and commonsensical question: A police encounter is encounter (fake, alleged, true something that happens everyday basis), hence why Muslims rose up to defend when a person bearing a Muslim name is killed and not vica-versa. In other words why killing of Ateef Amin evokes a response from Muslim community and why killing of keval Nandu does not evoke a similar response from Jamia or the community that he belongs or from any group?
Though he did not pose the question in these words but this is what he intended to ask. First, what makes him to classify the reaction of an individual/section/group living in that area first as ‘Muslim’ and then ‘community’ reaction? Were these individuals/groups representative (in any sense---legal or social) of the Muslim community living in that area or outside? Is Shahi Imam a representative of Muslim community?
Politics of representation of community (that is mostly self-claimed) is one thing, something which is carried out in every religious community, but its dejure recognition is another thing. If the state for its own reasons considers certain individuals/ organizations as representative of community that does not make these privileged individuals/organizations as legitimate representative in the eyes of masses. Further, did any Muslim take the position that Jamia encounter was deliberately aimed at defaming/maligning Islam?
In fact a majority of Muslim feels sad that a tiny minority within the community with their violent activities is bringing a bad name to Islam. The problem not only lies in representing the ‘citizen individual’ belonging to minority religious community with, first and foremost, his/her religious identity but also making Muslim and Islam synonymous. The assumption underlying the question, that sees response of individual with Muslim identity in a collective sense, is deeply problematic.
This question follows from an understanding that Muslim community is primarily a monolithic community, despite its diverse reality. His metaphor of ‘little boy syndrome’ follows from the same understanding; however metaphor does not capture the reaction of the community. The community, out of frustration, is not saying that ‘yes we did that, what will you do’, on the contrary the community is suffering from ‘denial syndrome’.
Second, in the history of police encounter there are many Muslim criminals/terrorists that have been killed, how many times Muslim as community defended such criminals/terrorists? Today Sahabuddin, an RJD MP and a notorious criminal, is behind bar, do you think that Muslim as community stands by him if he was to be killed in encounter? Like him there are many criminals with Hindu identity that have won the elections. No community including Muslim community will defend the killing of person with credible, proven criminal/terrorist record. Problem arises when circumstantial and other evidences does not support the police’s claim that person - whether Atif Ameen or else---- killed was terrorist or die hard criminal. Further, police record in this matter does not evoke any confidence within the community. Indiscriminate arrest of good number of Muslims under TADA has taken place but a majority was released in the absence of evidence. Equally important here is to note about the ‘communal profiling’ of arrested/killed Muslims (whether criminals/terrorists) by state, media and other dominant agencies in the society, which is so badly missing in the case of non- Muslim criminals/terrorists. What makes these dominant agencies to escape the communal profiling of Bajrang Dal activists or VHP activists in case of their arrest? Is it because they happen to belong to majority community of the nation, operating in the name of ‘defending Hindu national tradition’ or their action can not be demonstrated as coming from the reading of particular Hindu text? The difference lies in the way the case of those arrested/killed are portrayed/ represented by the dominant agencies of state system. Imagine electronic media caption: Azamgarh or Attankgarh!!!! One can understand the political compulsion of Mulayan Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad Yadav (given the fact that Muslims constitute their support base) to demand the lifting of ban on SIMI, but what about central government’s own commission that found no basis for renewing the ban on SIMI and government had to approach the Supreme Court for the extension of ban?
A history of communal riots, institutionalized pogrom, lack of access to developmental process, ghettoized pattern of life along with the increasing global demonization of Islam and its traditions and in national context where Muslim has emerged as ‘the other’ in ‘national collective mind’---- all these process have seriously jolted the confidence of the Muslim community in the prevailing state security structure, making them more insecure, vulnerable, hyper sensitive about the identity and is caught between the vicious cycle of defensive outlook.
Further the occurrence and non-occurrence of violence does not correspond to the principle of fusion of religion and politics (as found mostly in Muslim societies) and the principle separation of religion and politics (as to be found mostly in Western societies) respectively.
The modern West including the ‘secular America’, that claims to banish religion to the private sphere, has committed more genocide, holocaust, attacks other nations and brutalized a sea of humanity in the name of progress and democracy. The connection between modernity and violence is much sharp than the connection between tradition and violence.
The clerical Iran during more than 25 years of its rule has no history of attacking other nations or dehumanising the religious minority. Gandhi mixed up religion and politics but remained the apostle of peace and non- violence. Each religion has specific values and tradition and therefore the English term ‘religion’ is incapable of comprehending the differential dimensions of non- Christian religions.
For this reason there will be no Maudidi or Syed Qutub in non-Islamic religious traditions. But why is this a problem, I can not understand? Political Islam is not terrorism as you would like to maintain. Though I do not share the vision of Political Islam but in many Muslim countries it champions the democratic aspiration of Muslim masses against the brutal, authoritarian secular military regime. The representation of what is called ‘Jihadi Islam’, a fringe ideological trend within the otherwise a vast majority of Muslims continue to practice various forms of political and Muslim community, as ‘the face of Islam’ thrives in media and state establishment, social Islam.
Bernard Lewis, the late celebrated rightwing American historian, ask the same question and found the answer of current spate of violence committed by radical Islamic organisations in the ideological structure of Islam without taking into consideration of the context.
Many share Bernard Lewish prescription and pose a question: why there is no Gandhi or Martin Luther King in Islamic traditions? Or why Salman Rusdie and Taslima Nasreen can not afford their living in a Muslim society, as you ask? Such questions are often posed to contrast the violent, illiberal legacy of Islamic tradition with the peaceful, liberal legacy of non-Islamic religious traditions.
It is not that the apostle of peace does not exist in Islamic historiography; there are many. The Islamic world during its hey day did not witness the persecution of Jews; the renaissance of Jewish community took place in the Islamic empire of Andalusia. The systematic historical persecution of Jews in Europe including Holocaust was not without the support of Church and Christian religious justification. For centuries Europe witnessed the worst kind of religious war.
One can easily demonstrate how the systematic persecution of Palestinians by the Israeli state has location in the religious imagery of Old Testament. To be fair, all religious traditions have shared history of peace, degree of liberalism and violence. Every society including Muslim lives by its certain collective sacred symbols and codes through which community derives its identity and relate themselves. Any attempt to vilify or ridicule them will bound to evoke a protest from a section of society. For this reason every state regulates the boundary of principle of freedom of expression.
The Law of Blasphemy continues to impinge on the freedom of expression in UK. And in many parts of Europe questioning the authenticity of holocaust is punishable by law. Salman Rushdie was living peacefully till he wrote Satanic Verses. In nutshell, In order to confront the challenges of terrorism one has to go beyond textual understanding of the things.
I do recognize the connection between radicalization of ideology and violence. But this is not confined to Muslim society alone. The process of ideologisation of fuzzy religious tradition is not unique to Muslim society. All societies including ours have witnessed such trends.
The difference lies in the degree. And where community in question happens to minority religious community, they felt the pressure from outside (nation) more acute and steeped out in the ritualistic business of ‘condemnation’ of such ghastly acts without undertaking the necessary democratic and social reform measures required to fight the forces of fundamentalism within the community. Recently the dominant Muslim/Islamic organisations/leaders including Deoband and Jamait ulema Hind- hold a public rally and condemned the current spate of terrorism.
It is absurd that to think that Muslims find themselves constrained in condemning incidents like this. One may ask which and how many Hindu organisations-whether liberal or else - are condemning the mayhem and violence caused by the forces of Hindutava----- particularly VHP and Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena ?
The defeat or success of BJP in electoral term has different political trajectory and therefore should not be construed in terms of conflict between liberal Hindus and conservative-fundamentalist Hindus or secularism vs communalism. Ashu rightly identifies the media (but not all media) as one of most important institution that is fighting against the majoritarian communalism.
But should media be considered as an institution of liberal Hindu as he would like to identify and then assert that it is the liberal Hindus that is fighting the Hindutava?
Will he also identify the root of Hindutava and its associated violence into the so called ‘Hindu mindset’, as he preferred the ‘Muslim mindset’ to denote the spate of global terrorism?
For Ashu it is ‘religious mindset’ that needs to be decoded, for me it is the ‘structure of modernity’ that needs to be critically decoded; for whether be it a Muslim fanatic or a Hindu fanatic or Christian fanatic - they are unquestionably a modern mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
