It was a normal (haha) Saturday morning, when I woke
up and went outside the house to get hold of my daily Indian Express. The front
page said that today’s was an editorial written by Harsh Mander. As I had the
chance of meeting and knowing Mander, I was excited at first to see what the
man had to say.
The editorial was about the marginalization of
Muslims in India and how the Muslims in India have become politically crippled
post-2014. I was sitting in my house in Sukhdev Vihar and reading about the
lynching of Muslims in India. Sukhdev Vihar is less than two kilometers away from
a Muslim ghetto named Jamia Nagar. A place about which the people of Sukhdev
Vihar are absolutely ignorant. Little do they know about what is happening in
their neighborhood.
Coming back to the editorial, as Mander argues about
his point of Muslims being cornered. His arguments are largely generalized,
popular and without giving ample substance to what he speaks. He tries to fit
the whole of a community into just one bracket that of being a Muslim. When will
the people of this country realize that the problems of Muslims in UP are not
at all similar to the problems of Mulsims in Maharashtra, Kerala or say, West
Bengal.
While all the other issues in the country are given credit
based on their merit, issues relating the Muslims (be it non communal) are
always seen just as ‘minority’ issues, especially by the main-stream media.
Mander, by his style or way of writing again sees Muslims in India as a single
entity. This, according to me is very problematic. “You don’t look like a
Muslim.” is a statement I get very frequently from my ‘urban’ friends. Little
do they know about how the Muslims in Konkan (my native place) are different
from that of Muslims in Delhi or Mumbai. The editorial subconsciously follows
the same rhetoric. It solidifies the typical ‘Indian Muslim’ image in the minds
of an average city-based reader.
He says that
Sonia Gandhi always followed the ‘secular’ values in her 19-year old political
career. This statement itself is a contradiction. The mismanagement of the
Gujarat riots case, even after coming back to power in 2004 is one of the major
examples. He also talks about the BJP not having a single Muslim MP in the Lok
Sabha currently. It is not just about having political leaders at the center of
decision-making. What better is a Muslim MP who does no good for the people of
his constituency from a Hindu or Christian MP?
Guha’s
pretentiousness?
Who better to put forward a ‘liberal’ reply to Mander
than Ramchandra Guha? Except for the fact that the point of view was an overuse
of the words, ‘secularism’ and ‘liberal’, without really asserting the liberal
values of respecting ones choices of life and his/her way of controlling it.
I would admit in saying that I liked the article at
first. But later on while I introspected it and gave it a thought, it felt like
Guha had just blatantly stated things just to counter the argument of Mander. The
article lacked research, and had one of the similar problems that were found in
the article of Mander. It was overtly generalized, and felt as if the writer
was anyone but Ramchandra Guha.
I would have never imagined Guha drawing comparison
between a burkha and a trishul. He appeared as just another branch of this huge
tree of anti-intellectualism creeping in our society. The fancy words of the
academia coupling with quotes of previous Muslim reformers like Hamid Dalwai,
were the meat of the whole article. It looked like a forceful attempt by a
famous historian to fit in the bracket of ‘liberals’ defined by the society.
It was actually sad, (as the title of both the
articles suggest) to see someone like Ramchandra Guha speaking in the defense
of the liberal population by giving definition and examples only known to them.
In a way, he genuflected to the majoritarianist narrative by saying that the
Muslims should let go off their identity if they have to survive in a
multi-cultural society. I differ with this opinion of Guha. I think India has
for long survived peacefully over the years because of its ability to accept
and incorporate different cultures and traditions. We cannot be like one of
those Western democracies, religion and faith has a huge role to play in the
policy making of our country. I feel a certain pride while saying that no
country with such huge diversity has been successful to the extent that India
has been. Guha is a staunch follower of the ideas of India’s first Prime
Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru would have never settled for the kind of
liberalism and secularism that Guha is advocating.
He also talked about how Sadiq Khan would not have become
the London mayor if he would have worn a skull cap, or his wife would have worn
a burkha. This statement from Guha shows the increasing Islamaphobia in the
society. Can we imagine in 2018 anyone questioning the practice of Sikhs of
wearing a turban? We had a PM for ten years who carried his Sikh identity with
him wherever he went, and not once was he questioned for wearing a turban.
(Which was the ideal thing) But could we even imagine an Indian leader going
everywhere wearing a skull cap and going un-noticed?
Then the next talking point in the article is Hamid
Dalwai and his quotes translated in English from Marathi. Hamid Dalwai belongs to
Chiplun, which is my hometown. He was a great social reformer and one of the
earliest persons to speak up against the infamous triple-talaq. Now, Dalwai
worked amongst people and wrote about the problems faced by the Muslims,
especially of Konkan and of the western coast. His writings cannot be set as a
bench mark for introducing social reforms amongst Indian Muslims, as the
problems of every place are distinct and need a separate solution. Guha’s
article fails to see this.
Irena Akbar’s ‘refusal’
A former journalist brought yet another perspective
to the debate where she says she won’t let the ‘Hindu liberals’ patronize the ‘Muslim
liberals’. Even here she speaks as a victim who has done it all, right from
watching BBC, to dining at restaurants and working in ‘mainstream’ media
organisations, but even then that’s not being termed as enough.
She gives Emran Hashmi’s example to put forth an
argument where he was denied an apartment for being a Muslim. She isn’t completely
wrong in stating that. Even I was denied a place to stay, first in Hindu
Colony, Mumbai and then at Sukhdev Vihar, Delhi, for being a Muslim. But that
doesn’t justify the formation of ghettos, as I later on got an apartment in the
same neighborhood in both the cities. The Muslims areas in North-India,
especially of Western UP and Delhi (areas which have seen large Muslim
mobilisations) are seen as an example for determining the policies of Muslims
all over the country. Partly because these places are very close to the Center.
I personally am against the idea of ghettos as they
create closed spaces, where the mindset and the ideas cannot flourish. One gets
stuck in the monotonous and a very linear world.
After reading all these three articles and the
readings related to those on social media and elsewhere, I couldn’t draw any
conclusion except that the writers and the gate-keepers of our country are
forming opinions based on generalizations, than by research. This is causing
more and more dilemma for people, especially young people like me who are
already confused about their political ideologies in this world of mixed
economy and polity.
