What explains the total absence of Muslim leadership on this occasion?” I was asked, even as the pran pratishtha ceremony at Ram Mandir in Ayodhya was underway. Indeed, what would Muslim leadership do on such an occasion? Going by their track record, they were likely to fulminate against it and lead the community into a loud sulk, if active opposition were not an option. Would the sourness caused by their churlish behaviour serve the Muslims well?
Or, the leadership might have felicitated the Hindus on this joyous occasion and led the community into joining the celebrations. But would they be able to do that without losing credibility, being branded traitors, and running the risk of getting lynched? And, for this outcome, they themselves would be responsible, for it’s they who kept the community on the warpath; feeding them the opium of victimhood, violent emotionalism, and an adversarial attitude towards the Hindus. They kept the community in an unrelenting grip of Islam-in-danger psychosis.
Muslims don’t need political leadership. Their political interests are the same as those of the Hindus. Religion-based politics would mean that they are a separate political unit, akin to the two-nation theory. Neither Muslims nor India could afford this anymore. They do, however, need Thought Leadership—an intellectual class that leads them to overcome the biggest challenge of the legacy of Muslim rule in India: how to live in mutual respect with Hindus as equal citizens, and not as the former ruling class whose entitlements are taken for granted. Most importantly, they have to revisit their religious thought to see whether it equips them to live with people of other religions on terms of equality, mutual respect, and peace. If Islam is the Only Truth, and India remains a target territory for proselytising, Hinduism will continue to be regarded as evil, and its followers misguided. The Thought Leadership of Muslims will have to resolve this question, taking inspiration from how Sir Syed tried to reformulate the Muslim understanding of Christianity.
So far, Muslims have never tried to understand the Hindus and their religion. Muslim rulers had no curiosity towards Indian people, culture, religion, and history. They were intellectually barren, lacking the faculty to appreciate India’s philosophical, scientific, and cultural achievements. They couldn’t see beyond idol worship, which they confused with the primitive paganism of their Arab ancestors. Since Al Biruni’s Kitab-al Hind, there has been no serious study of India by a Muslim in the last 1,000 years. Muslim rule has long ended, but this attitude still endures. Not only is there complete ignorance about Hinduism, but there is also a dismissive attitude towards the Hindu perception of Muslim rule. There is no remorse about the depredations and despoliations Hindus had to suffer. While Muslim victimhood is real, the injured psyche of Hindu is considered a figment. The Thought Leaders shall train Muslims to understand the Hindu point of view, without which the two communities shall remain strangers for another thousand years.
Also read: 93% Muslims view Hindus favourably, but only 65% Hindus view Muslims positively: Pew survey
Liberal Hindus, Muslim communal issues
But it’s wrong to say that Muslims don’t have leadership. They do, actually. Their leaders are the Hindu left and liberal intelligentsia—the ones who have lost their long-held power and are banking on Muslim votes to restore them to the throne. They told Muslims that the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi case was problematic, and that with the reconstruction of Ram Mandir, the Constitution was dead, secularism murdered, Muslims reduced to second-class citizens, and fascism reigned supreme in the new India. Therefore, Muslims should remain hostile to Hindus for liberal-secular reasons now, like they once were for theological ones. The left and liberal intelligentsia would craft arguments for Muslim communalism in modern, secular, and constitutional idiom. No wonder the natural allies of liberal Hindus are not liberal Muslims who would critique the Muslim community in the same manner as the former did the Hindu community. Rather, their comrade in arms are Muslim communalists who join them in castigating Hindus in lieu of liberals joining them in the defence of regressive practices in the Muslim community.
The patron-client relationship between Hindu liberals and Muslim communalists is the greatest impediment to the secularisation, mainstreaming, and progress of Muslims. This arrangement, under which Muslims follow the leadership of liberals and keep voting for them as a quid pro quo for the latter’s support on Muslim communal issues, keeps Muslims in a subordinate position to them. Unless Muslims free themselves from this tutelage, they wouldn’t be able to come of age and develop their own leadership. At present, liberals represent Muslims on “Muslim” issues. They would lose their relevance if Muslims could represent themselves.
But, such has been the intellectual barrenness of Muslims that even on “Muslim issues” like personal law, hijab, triple talaq, and Article 370, etc., most interventions come from non-Muslim writers. In the Supreme Court, such “Muslim cases” are fought by advocates like Rajeev Dhavan and Kapil Sibal. Muslims may have a few entertaining speakers but hardly any intellectual worth the name.
For Muslims to be free from left-liberal-secular bondage, they have to develop their own intellectualism, which is not possible unless they develop critical culture—the temper of self-criticism and reform. Hindus have been doing this for 200 years since the Bengal Renaissance.
Also read: The Gita is universal and still endorses caste inequality. But story of Ekalavya stands out
Self-serving class that prohibits reform
Muslim culture has been shaped by the vested interests of the Muslim ruling class, the Ashraaf. This stagnant, decadent, and self-serving class can’t think beyond preserving its eroding privileges. In the culture curated around preserving vested interests, there is no room for a difference of opinion. Diversity of thought is an anathema. Everything is judged on the criteria of religious right and wrong. Conformism (taqleed) is the norm, and innovation (bid’at) is considered a distortion of religion. Dissent is regarded as treason against the Qaum, and the dissenter is “cancelled” by excommunication as kafir. An unpopular opinion invites the worst verbal assaults and, where possible, physical violence too.
Intellectualism, being a product of critical culture, comes from a conscientious questioning of what’s wrong with society, and to trace its roots in the structures of thought. If it led to religion, then to evaluate religion and its interpretations. For Hindus, it started with questioning social injustice in the name of caste and gender. Reformers delved deep into the scriptures. Mahatma Gandhi said that untouchability wasn’t a part of Hindu religion, but if it was shown that it was, he would renounce Hinduism. Muslims couldn’t produce a Gandhi or an Ambedkar who would question their idea of justice and morality, and the religious thought underlying them.
Going by the gap in the age of Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, it’s generally said that there is a time lag of about 50 years between the evolution of Hindu and Muslim societies. The fact, however, is that Muslims are yet to have their Ram Mohan Roy. Sir Syed did undertake some radical reinterpretation of the Quran, but he didn’t raise the same questions of gender and caste inequity that Ram Mohan and other reformers did. In fact, Sir Syed’s entire effort was focused on restoring the power and position of his small class.
Such selfishness has been the eternal bane of Muslim society. Their “leaders” have been striving for furthering their personal and sectional interests. With narrow vision and elastic morality, they have been little more than lobbyists. They lack both intellectual ability and nobility of spirit to think of the welfare of the entire Muslim community. As for the welfare of India, they are ideologically paralysed against it. Their relation with India is purely political and devoid of the sacred sense of belonging. Any wonder that their entire victimhood narrative is summarised in the grievance that some political parties don’t make them MPs and MLAs? They would do better to look into the reasons for their irrelevance. Relevance comes from connection and commitment, and not from exceptionalism and entitlement. They have been exploitative to both the country and the community. Their inevitable irrelevance is reflected in the new genre of elegiac literature, the Muslim sob-stories, with books like The Muslim Vanishes, Being The Other, Born A Muslim, and Being Muslim In Hindu India, etc., while completely ignoring a book like Being Hindu in Bangladesh.
It’s good that the traditional Muslim leadership has become irrelevant. Muslims don’t need narrative makers of power-politics. They need Thought Leaders who would save them from the stagnancy, which hasn’t let a progressive idea germinate in centuries.
Ibn Khaldun Bharati is a student of Islam, and looks at Islamic history from an Indian perspective. He tweets @IbnKhaldunIndic. Views are personal.
Editor’s note: We know the writer well and only allow pseudonyms when we do so.
(Edited by Prashant)
This article is the second part of a series called ‘Where is the Muslim leadership question’.
Indonesaian Muslims have no problem with Ram, because they have changed their religion but not their ancestors. But Indian muslims look for their ancestors among arab and turk invaders and clouts.
Well written sir. You have given it a thought and looked at it from a progressive angle and not from a defensive or offensive angle as is often the case. It is the need of the hour to have progressive and open minded leadership to propagate a better understanding and acceptance of the two cultures. It would be invaluable to our country’s future even if we could eliminate the fundamental distrust and dislike (if I may) that exists between many of the two faiths. Religious and thought leaders can do immense positive work towards this end. The destructive and short term benefits of inflaming passions to meet political goals wins most times over the long term benefits of creating an educated trust and brotherhood, created out of matured thinking, openness, pragmatism and a progressive “nation first” approach.
Well written sir. I hope your article gets more traction and reaches more people, specially to the followers of these patron-clients belonging to both the communities.
A serious introspection is definitely needed here which can only be done when one considers questioning their beliefs. After all, it is the fundamental difference between both communities, one thinks it knows everything while the other treats nothing as an absolute truth giving it room for improvisation. It is inadequate to term hindu as “Tolerant”, as to tolerate something is to believe that it is not welcomed and utterly painful to live with. “Acceptance” (towards reasonable idea) is the right characteristic that which is practiced and has been reflected in the examples of the article.
I believe even right now we have Muslim intellectual whom their community can look up to for right guidance but for that they must make an effort to let go the mind set they currently exhibit.
Peaceful and harmonious coexistence is something we all desire.
Firstly, Why need only Rammohan & Ambedkar… Muslims also need their own savarkar, Godse & Hedgewar …
Is not??
Secondly, If by fate of accident , hindu left & Muslim communalists has some convergence , that can not be resisted by another patron-client relation between I.K. Bharati & BJP… plain & Simple…
Thirdly, Hindu liberals or lefts never support Muslim orthodox’s intransigence regarding Same-sex relation ..
This proves that Hindu left support Musim on case-bycase basis, not in toto..
1. Don’t they need Savarkar, Godse or Hedgewar? No, they should not. Savarkar and Hedgewar epitomises the appreciation of political Hinduism, or Hindutva as an imperative for the nation. If you are asking for Muslim counterparts of these personalities, you can observe that they had it before. That’s why we have this our “friendly” western neighbour- Pakistan. If you are again looking for such figures fpr Muslims, you are looking for that i wrong place, not in India please, sir.
2. Your terminology of “commumalist” is inherently biased and fallacious. Muslim communalists are those who identified Islam as a seperate nation in themselves “exclusively from Hindus, representing a part of pan-Islamic identity”(this part is very important). Its’s ideological and theological formulations date back to ealy 18th century or even before, in the form of dar-ul-harb vs dar ul Islam concepts put forth in Indian context by people like Shah Waliyullah. Later it was expounded in a political spehere, initially by Sir Syed and later by Muhammed Iqbal, Jinnah and others.
The so-called Hindu “communalism” as we discern w.r.t. Muslim-Hindu dynamics of Savarkar or Hedgewar only emerged as an stream of thought which unapologetically underscored the “Hindu civilisational nature” of India uncompromisingly. But mind it, its concetion was never exclusivist like dar-ul-Islam idea, but assimilationist to the extent of expecting Muslims to respect, appreciate and be a part of Hindu civilisation if they are to be here (as opposed to Sir Syed and others’s Muslims as successors of Mughals are destined-to-rule complex). How on earth are these two the same?
3. Hindu liberals don’t support Islamic orthadoxy’s position on same sex relations, seriously? Get real, we are living at a time when global-left sponsered LGBTQ groups conduct pro-Hamas rallies. You need Indian example? Just go back and read how centre-left UPA govt. was lukewarm in supporting decreminalisation of homosexuality in court. And recent example, how Communist govt. in Kerala was reluctant in supporting legalisation of same sex marriage. Face it, prospective dividends from the left-Islamic alliance is fruitful to these idealogical disparities.
Truth hurts, right sir. Your whole reaction is classic example of ‘admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations’. Because you don’t want reconciliation. Why don’t you preach your liberalism in Middle East? And go to your masters to tell that it would be better for them to understand this article wholly or face irrelevance. No more Left Islamic liberalism at the expense of Hindus.
Muslims vote in one unit for one particular party in the name of religion so they always got their demands fulfilled, but the party is over now for these kattar jihadis