In the aftermath of Mukhtar Ansari’s death on 28 March, public discourse is entangled in a web of conflicting narratives. Ansari was renowned for his political prowess and perceived Robin Hood persona, particularly among the marginalised, especially his community. He passed away due to a cardiac arrest, prompting a massive gathering for his funeral prayer. However, amid the solemnity of the occasion, a contentious debate emerges: why do certain segments of the Muslim community tend to view figures like Ansari through the lens of identity rather than through the prism of their alleged criminal activities?
Ansari’s larger-than-life image as a champion of the downtrodden juxtaposed with the shadow of criminal accusations against him ignites a conversation about the complexities of identity politics and moral accountability.
The phenomenon is not exclusive to Ansari; It extends to other figures within the Muslim community such as Atiq Ahmed and Mohammad Shahabuddin. Both Ahmed and Shahabuddin, with their backgrounds in crime, transitioned seamlessly into the realm of politics, garnering significant support from their communities. What is particularly noteworthy is the endorsement they receive from Muslim intellectuals associated with liberal and Leftist publications.
Also read: Neither Congress nor BJP responsible for Muslims’ backwardness. They have themselves to blame
Reluctance to reject
The reasons behind the community’s reluctance to reject such figures and acknowledge their transgressions are rooted in a complex interplay of socio-political dynamics and historical grievances. From the perspective of Pasmanda Muslims, who have long suffered marginalisation and oppression, individuals like Ansari, Ahmed, and Shahabuddin often represented themselves as resistance against an evil majoritarian state, regardless who is in power. Despite their tainted pasts, these figures are viewed as messiahs to whom people can go to with their grievances. The narrative of Pasmanda Muslim identity, and the elevation of these figures to positions of prominence, is seen as a way to protect the rights and interests of minority communities. In this context, their criminal backgrounds are often overshadowed by the perceived righteousness of their service to the community.
When I was younger, I recall Ansari visiting our home during his election campaign in Varansi. My father offered him a seat in our outdoor seating area and served him tea, along with assurances of our support. While many poor individuals may have viewed him as a benefactor, families like ours simply hoped to avoid being in his bad graces. For ordinary folks, refusing powerful figures like him was never an option as we bore the weight of potential repercussions. So the lack of visibility for dissenting voices shouldn’t come as a surprise. Even those who saw him as a burden found themselves enmeshed in a system where his power was normalised. Going against him was simply not an option, given the significant influence he wielded.
The assertion by certain Ashraaf intellectuals, such as Arfa Khanum Sherwari, that Mukhtar Ansari’s death may not have been natural via suggestive tweets and without substantial evidence, further perpetuates the narrative of victimisation within the Muslim community. Framing Ansari as a victim of state oppression, despite his criminal record, reinforces the notion that even powerful Muslims are not safe, thereby heightening feelings of insecurity and alienation within the community. This narrative is then exploited by politicians like Asaduddin Owaisi, who capitalise on the community’s sense of victimhood to rally support and consolidate their political power.
The irony lies in the fact that these Ashraaf intellectuals and politicians, who support some of the most criminal, communal, and detrimental elements in the community, are viewed as progressive and garner support from liberal and Leftist circles.
Also read: Stop making Atiq Ahmed a Muslim hero. He was no Robin Hood for us
Reform beyond cult personalities
The urgent need for reform within the Muslim community has never been more apparent, yet the leaders from the community have largely failed in this regard. This failure not only highlights the shortcomings within the community but also underscores the systemic inadequacies of the state and its institutions. This is evident when individuals with questionable backgrounds ascend to positions of legitimate power within the political structure. Subsequently, the system fails yet again as these individuals exploit societal gaps to portray themselves as modern-day Robin Hoods. The fact that individuals feel compelled to rely on such figures for their needs is a damning indictment about the systemic failures of governance and social welfare, which should provide the basic needs of all citizens. It is imperative that we address these systemic shortcomings and create a society where access to basic necessities is not contingent upon the whims of individuals but guaranteed by a robust and accessible system of governance.
Another significant failure lies in the lack of political will. These individuals did not rise to power on their own accord; rather, they were nurtured and supported by political parties serving their interests. Ansari enjoyed the patronage of Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party, Ahmed was affiliated with the same party, and Shahabuddin was a favourite of Lalu Prasad Yadav. While some may view these situations through the lens of identity politics, the reality is far more nuanced. These individuals ascended to prominence because there existed a system that enabled and even encouraged their rise. It’s a complex interplay of political alliances, systemic failures, and societal dynamics that facilitated their ascent to power.
However, the reliance on individuals with tainted pasts to fulfill the role of saviours highlights a fundamental flaw in our collective consciousness. True reform must go beyond the cult of personality and address the root causes of social injustice and inequality. It is only through systemic change, coupled with a commitment to accountability and ethical governance, that we can hope to break free from the cycle of victimhood and dependency and create a society where justice, equality, and dignity are not mere aspirations but lived realities for all.
Amana Begam Ansari is a columnist and TV news panelist. She runs a weekly YouTube show called ‘India This Week by Amana and Khalid’. She tweets @Amana_Ansari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)
that woman is no intellectual, she is unreasonable and irrational. She is a reactionary force, not liberal in any sense. She and Owaisi are reaping great benefits out of current religious polarisation. No body knew her before. She is very cunning, she has managed to convert the Wire portal into an anti-Modi publishing machine. No free thinking there, only Modi-hate obsession. Haters who feel important when they publish their hate for the BJP.
All these people with their fancy English and iPhones r not fit even to be called wisemen, forget about being honoured with ‘arm-chair intellectual’ designation.
I can say this as a BJP critic myself