Totalising ‘critical, realistic’ assertions tend to conceal the nuances of a complicated issue. No amount of linguistic sophistication can disguise Muslim victim-blaming as a concern for their welfare. It’s rather simple—any piece of writing that starts with “Muslims must” needs to be taken with a spoonful of salt.
In a recent opinion article in ThePrint, Shehla Rashid takes a reductionist stand by stating that Indian Muslims must take cautionary notes from Gazans. Primarily, the article suggests that Muslims in India must be grateful for the ‘equal’ opportunities offered by the Narendra Modi government. Listing a few schemes without providing any data to substantiate ‘equality for Muslims’ does nothing except seemingly validate the assumption that the vocally pro-Hindu government cares for Muslims and minorities as well. A validation that this government doesn’t even care about.
What the author overlooks is that a country where leadership is determined by the aggressiveness of hate toward Muslims clearly couldn’t care less about ‘equality of opportunity’. What must never be forgotten is that in 2002, Modi, then chief minister of Gujarat, silently watched while Muslims were slaughtered in the communal riots. Reminding Rashid of this now might seem redundant after two decades, but it is important to prevent any attempts to saffronwash history.
Even today, India is no paradise for Muslims. If Rashid wants to boast about reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) benefiting Muslims, then she only needs to look at Home Minister Amit Shah promising to remove the 4 per cent reservation for the minority community if the BJP came to power in Telangana. Not to forget that over the past few years, hate crimes against Muslims have only gone up — mob lynchings, discrimination, and violence against the community have become the norm.
Also read: China’s erasure of mosques shows Muslims can only thrive in nations like India
Muslims’ realities aren’t subtle
Under the guise of proposing critical and realistic perspectives, Rashid cautions Indian Muslims that merely claiming political rights is not enough. An assistant professor in sociology, she surprisingly overlooks the systemic and sinister nature of violence against the community. Any critical analysis of violence is incomplete without questioning the structures of power that hinder the growth and progress of a community. The author’s oversight extends to the basic understanding of how violence permeates, deepens, and multiplies not only through direct and implicit forms of violence but also seemingly minor incidents.
What Muslims have witnessed, experienced, and tolerated in contemporary India is by no means subtle. This is a country where a person can face brutal consequences merely over suspicions—of carrying beef, for example.
Progress doesn’t happen in silos. When Rashid paints Muslims as monoliths who are choosing to lag in India’s leap to progress, she conveniently ignores the reality. Her argument would have been relevant in an India where Muslim children in classrooms were not subjected to beatings and humiliation by their peers, and that too on the command and guidance of teachers; where Muslims weren’t unfairly accused of being super-spreaders of viruses; where their businesses were not targeted and disrupted solely because of their identity; and where they weren’t being randomly identified by their beard and skull cap and then publicly shot dead.
What good is a six-digit salary for a Muslim when they are denied simple life choices such as having halal meat or renting homes in preferred neighbourhoods? And what good is ‘civilisational secularism’ when it not only frowns at but actively restricts Muslims from offering prayers in public spaces while simultaneously allowing puja and havans in Parliament?
Also read: Peace between Jews and Muslims is only possible in Hindu-majority India
Victimhood is only natural
While Western secularism relies on a separation of the Church and State, Indian secularism relies on the invisibilisation of minorities and the gradual annihilation of their identity. A romantic view of the Indian civilisation having evolved into a ‘secular’ entity wouldn’t appeal to a generation that witnessed brutal violence against Muslims in the national capital, with young men lynched to death for refusing to chant certain slogans that have nothing to do with ‘secular’ nature of the country. Rashid’s article reinforces that Indian Muslims need to continuously introspect and work on themselves even as the state’s unrestrained assault on rights, livelihood, and identity continues.
Perpetual victimhood is not a liveable condition. But when a community is routinely subjected to violence, victimhood subjectivity as an individual’s social and political reality comes naturally. Urging members of such a community to shed such a sentiment, while the conditions that give rise to it persist, is superficial and inauthentic. And that’s a cover-up that the BJP has mastered over the years. Hindutva Watch documented at least 255 instances of hate speeches against Muslims in just the first six months of 2023, of which 33 per cent openly called for violence against Muslims and 4 per cent were sexist and hateful speeches targeting Muslim women. Clearly, instances of hate toward the community are not episodic; instead, they appear to be systemic, deep-rooted, and significant in scale.
Rashid’s analysis of the West and its value systems goes further in proposing that the apparent shortcomings in Western democracy necessitate an acceptance of the Indian vision of a democratic and secular setup. But are the two setups really comparable? If at all a quantifiable comparison is to be made, it could be a global ranking of countries on the basis of violence toward minorities. An example is the Early Warning Project that ranks India 8th out of 162 countries (just after Afghanistan) for being at high risk of mass killings. Another is the Rule of Law index, on which India ranks 111th on the freedom of religion scale and 116th on the absence of discrimination. From 2015 to 2023, India’s score on fundamental rights indicators has been falling.
To overlook these measures and believe in mere rhetoric is not only ignorant but also malicious. There’s a pattern to public debate every time the rights of minorities are infringed upon. The media and government opinion-makers rely on two arguments while responding to scrutiny by international actors: Either they point out the flaws in the surveys or contend that since the international community has failed to uphold democracy at home, they should refrain from commenting on India’s treatment of its minorities. Such a position suggests that countries can engage in brutalising their own people without being held mutually accountable.
If there’s anything that one should learn from the war on Gaza and the international community’s response, it is the importance of aligning oneself with the right side of history, regardless of the timeframe or the perceived strength of those violating humanitarian laws.
The author is a research scholar at Jamia Millia Islamia. She tweets @ArshieQureshi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)