–Salman Khurshid-

What does it mean to be a Muslim in contemporary India?

This question undoubtedly troubles innumerable people with varying degrees of intensity. From Kashmir to Kanyakumari experiences of groups and individuals shake our senses, forcing us to reflect and introspect. Certainly, there is a right wing political project, in many ways presently successful but ultimately zeroed in on the idea of a Hindu Rashtra. Curiously, those who pursue that idea seldom elucidate what that entails in entirety, as indeed those who intuitively resist it remain confused about its foot print and whether it is temporary or lasting.

 

Ground Rules of the Debate

 

A few ground rules of the discussion must first be clearly stated. India’s population is overwhelmingly of the Hindu faith and are certainly entitled to an over all ambience that fully respects Hindu sentiments and way of life. It is far from the truth for anyone to suggest that even remotely Hindu ethos is suppressed, leave aside a conscious and deliberate national attitude.

The argument about Hindu places of worship allegedly having been converted by force during the medieval period is a stand alone matter, albeit serious and must be responded to separately. For the rest, it is not about what Hindus ought to have but more about what others ought not to have.

None of the religions that bless the beautiful land of India prescribe norms for persons other than followers of the respective religions. Religious reform, so long as it is pursued by the persons of the faith and their theological leaders is no concern of others beyond an enlightened interest in reform per se.

The trouble arises when persons of one faith seek to force people of other faiths to partake of reform because their beliefs and perceptions are thought to be superior to those of others. That is in democratic philosophy is the distinction between self referential and other referential, the former being legitimate whilst the latter is impermissible as distorting democratic choice.

 

Religion, Constitution and Courts

 

On another level, the other referential advocates might point to the real or imagined demands of constitutionalism, making a distinction between religion and secular precepts, suggesting that the latter are superior to the former and entitled to override them.

But it cannot be a matter of reductionism; the very Constitution relied upon to question religious practices makes a point to protect and preserve religious beliefs and functions.

Are we to understand that religion is protected so long as it is reasonable by generally accepted standards of conduct? The Sabrimala judgment, now before a larger Bench, makes a stark contrast between the majority of 4 judges who relied on the equality clause and the dissenting judge ( the only lady judge) who followed the beliefs of Lord Ayyappa’s followers.

Be that as it may, such differences are internal and therefore cause no further consequences. But the hijab matter was quickly turned into an ugly communal confrontation despite Justice Dhulia of the Supreme Court having sought to confine the issue to a matter of personal choice rather than personal law.

 

Uniformity versus Diversity

 

There is then a clear intent and preference of the incumbent government for uniformity versus diversity. How the former ensures unity remains an untested assumption. Forced uniformity could well lead to resistance, particularly if the uniformity shows preference for a favoured system.

Furthermore, mathematical uniformity is not to be found even within communities that share religious beliefs, such as tribals and special sects within Hinduism, or the Shia-Sunni differences.

 

Responses of Muslims in Contemporary India

 

Let us now look at the responses of the Muslims in contemporary Indian society. There are those who choose accommodation over confrontation of the mildest kind. ‘Live and Let Live’ in its most optimistic version. Abjure contestation, avoid expectation; underplay display, conform; ask not, be silent spectators.

Then there are those who choose to complain of injustice and victimhood, cautiously in the presence of other community persons, more vociferously amongst their own.

Finally, there are dialogue seekers and aspirant bridge builders, to get some immediate relevance for self advancement or in contrast, the greater good of the community. Dialogue is intrinsically good and inevitable but it must not be a camouflage for surrender.

 

Two Core Questions

 

Two themes surface inevitably in discussions on the subject: first, what do the Hindutva proponents want? Second, do the minorities, particularly, Muslims need to identify their leaders to deal with the situation?

Whilst we hear a great deal of murmurs about a lack of credible leaders, the fact is that no sincere effort is made to narrow down on promising candidates even as sundry, ambitious persons continue to assume leadership ambition.

Meanwhile the Hindutva enthusiasts continue to prolong celebrations for the Ram Temple. What might have been a living symbol of reconciliation is treated as a victory edifice for one faith.

Liberals and ordinary Muslims might be reluctant to join, at least till they are consciously made comfortable, yet the Hindu majority cannot avoid trying to include them.

 

Explaining Islam and Hinduism to Each Other

 

So whilst we need to know what proponents of a Hindu State consider essential attributes of such national existence and how anything about the way of life of Muslims and other minorities obstructs that, we need also to at least explain what different aspects of Islam mean and how they do not challenge or undermine Hindu tenets.

Some interesting take aways from the recent Javed Akhtar-Mufti Shamail Nadwi debate on the existence of God might be useful.

The two protagonists had in advance agreed not to debate any religion but only the existence of God, an atheist versus a believer. While the debate was at best inconclusive an important point of stalemate was why God permits genocides like Gaza to happen.

On that score contemporary India needs to answer why God ( Bhagwan ) permits coarse and cruel acts to be conducted in His name? Just as Javed Akhtar wondered how the merciful and compassionate God (Allah) countenanced the suffering of children in Gaza.

Those are questions of pre-destination and free will that have troubled us for millennia. But there is something we can all do with our free will.

 

Bhakti and Sufi Convergence

 

The Bhakti version of Hinduism can live wonderfully with Sufi ethos in Islam. What is keeping us away from that positive convergence?

 

Kabir

मोको कहां ढूँढ़े रे बन्दे
मैं तो तेरे पास में
ना तीरथ में ना मूरत में
ना एकान्त निवास में
ना मंदिर में ना मस्जिद में
ना काबे कैलास में
मैं तो तेरे पास में बन्दे
मैं तो तेरे पास में
ना मैं जप में ना मैं तप में
ना मैं बरत उपास में
ना मैं किरिया करम में रहता
नहीं जोग सन्यास में
नहीं प्राण में नहीं पिंड में
ना ब्रह्याण्ड आकाश में
ना मैं प्रकृति प्रवार गुफा में
नहीं स्वांसों की स्वांस में
खोजि होए तुरत मिल जाऊं
इक पल की तलाश में
कहत कबीर सुनो भई साधो
मैं तो हूं विश्वास में

 

Muzzafer Warsi

कोई तो है जो निज़ाम-ए-हस्ती चला रहा है वही ख़ुदा है
दिखाई भी जो न दे नज़र भी जो आ रहा है वही ख़ुदा है
तलाश उस को न कर बुतों में वो है बदलती हुई रुतों में
जो दिन को रात और रात को दिन बना रहा है वही ख़ुदा है
वही है मशरिक़ वही है मग़रिब सफ़र करें सब उसी की जानिब
हर आईने में जो ‘अक्स अपना दिखा रहा है वही ख़ुदा है
किसी को सोचों ने कब सराहा वही हुआ जो ख़ुदा ने चाहा
जो इख़्तियार-ए-बशर पे पहरे बिठा रहा है वही ख़ुदा है
नज़र भी रक्खे समाअ’तें भी वो जान लेता है नियतें भी
जो ख़ाना-ए-ला-शु’ऊर में जगमगा रहा है वही ख़ुदा है
किसी को ताज-ए-वक़ार बख़्शे किसी को ज़िल्लत के ग़ार बख़्शे
जो सब के माथे पे मोहर-ए-क़ुदरत लगा रहा है वही ख़ुदा है
सफ़ेद उस का सियाह उस का नफ़स-नफ़स है गवाह उस का
जो शो’ला-ए-जाँ जला रहा है बुझा रहा है वही ख़ुदा है

Conclusion

 

There is clearly much in common between people of different faiths and possibly no direct or indirect clash of entitlements. Ultimately it is a matter of attitude to live in harmony.

Our constitution provides complete cover for rights of individuals although the contest between individuals and society can sometimes be challenging.

The rights guarantee is twofold: first, to protect attributes of equal citizenship; and second, to provide affirmative action to bring all citizens on par in terms of participation.

We have celebrated this idea since Independence. Yet today we must take note of the inaugural of the new mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, who unselfconsciously took oath on the Holy Quran.

It is not just an event but the underscoring of a democratic idea. It is not just appeasement or compromise but an assertion of equality.

In denying true democracy, we deny humanity, indeed we deny God, by whatever name. It is time to seek God within, instead of reacting to manufactured, contrived physical attributes. The rewards will be greater.