Indian muslim identity
Excerpts from a discussion:
In a recent topic, I wrote what I felt abt the muslim world having an identity crisis. I have seen dichotomous behaviour of muslims in india, and I have often wondered if they too are confused wrto their identity, and confused wrto what they want. I guess I'll explain myself best with 2 scenarios:
1. When i was studying my engg, the nearest town to the univ was ranchi(formerly in bihar, now jharkhand). In ranchi quite close to my uncle's house, is a large muslim colony. I could overlook this colony from the rooftop of my uncle's house. During India-Pak cricket matches, if India won, almost the entire colony would observe a "blackout". Shops would close & lots of houses would be dimly lit, and street lights would mysteriously go off(no idea how they managed that). If Pak won, there used to be crackers burst and all, almost like diwali.
2. In another scenario, the gujarat riots were on. I was then working in calcutta. I was staying in salt lake, and the route to the city's "downtown" so to speak was through a large stretch of muslim dominated neighborhoods. I had to take an auto through that route. I was a little scared as calcutta had had its share of communal riots(during the partition) and old wounds open up during these times. The auto driver was muslim, so were 3 of my co-passengers(yeah its a shared auto funda). At no point did i get dirty glances, or at no place in that large colony, did i see speeches(inflammatory or otherwise) being given, no loudspeakers asking the people to stay calm. It seemed to be a normal business day, though there was no denying the undercurrent of tension. Yet it was remarkable that they held their nerve, and I learnt later that the community leaders over there talked to the people on almost a household basis & ensured sentiments didnt boil over and no untoward incident happened.
Two such different images. Hence the question.
--
The responses, each response is given one single color:
"A muslim is a muslim first and then someone else" is the base of Islam.
At the personal level, muslim's religious identity is supreme,rising above race, lang., geography or political jurisdiction which however has ceased to exist in recent times amongst few islamic intelectuals. There have been numerous debates on two-nation theory headed by such intellectuals despite the supremacy of islamic conservatism but the troubling part 'the uneducated(s)' have been left completely unattended which solely is to blame for your uncomfort in situation 1 and partly in situation 2.
Situation 1 is set in a backward city block. Muslim backwardness is highly related to lack of modern education. Due to lack of this, common Muslims have thoroughly failed to develop a clear vision about the secular and democratic path of the country. Lack of understanding of the new social and political challenge post independence became a complex problem for the community as a whole. With their history of religious encounters they were not prepared to accept cultural synthesis with other religion. Even though they came across many turning points since Independence to unload their mental burden, they always remained indecisive. Hence 11 Muslims are preferred over 9 hindus and 2 muslims.
a) Situation 2 has partial relation with aboveboard aforementioned reasons.
b) Having Muslims' 'already described identity' well set in our mind, we too often misjudge. Not everyone is illiterate and alike. This is the portion which gets easily defensive while talking about their nationalistic feeling much like a bihari, if he is said/asked some bad words/questions about bihar.
However, this part is good and due to them only, we have even some muslim support for UCC.
Why we hindu can't digest situation 1?
It's simply 'coz we blindly believe in Patel's statement "For a community to think that its interests are different from that of the country in which it lives, is a great mistake"
--
A Muslim's (iqbal's) perspective on nationalism
What thing is the State? or why
Must labour and capital so bloodily disagree?
Asia's time-honoured cloak grows ragged
and wears out . . .
For whom this new ordeal, or by whose hand prepared?
This guy, named Iqbal, criticized nationalism for a twofold reason: in Europe it had led to destructive racism and imperialism, and in India it was not founded on an adequate degree of common purpose. Till his death, he kept writing against individualism. To him, the whole idea of the new state, was about a resistance against individualism.
(content frm Britannica)
Gandhi's epistemology disowned the concept of the integral individual and replaced it with a "discontinuous personhood". Critical elements of Gandhi's vision included: sarvodaya, swadeshi, satyagraha, trusteeship, panchayat raj. Among the most important forerunners of Gandhi were a group centred on Bengal that included Swami Vivekananda, Margaret Noble (sister Nivedita) and Sri Aurobindo. They shared with Gandhi a belief in the essential spiritual nature of India, opposition to modernisation and stress on an organic society.
- From the book 'Gandhian Utopia' Richard G. Fox
Are you sure everyone in India has accepted individualism, yet? Given the current 'affinity' with the US, may be they will, but the kind of environment i was brought up in India, I didn't find individualism to be anywhere near its culture.
In the US, nobody cares what you are doing in your own community, as long as you don't harm anyone else (freedom of expression, a philosophical implication of individualism) If india is to adopt that, in its full integrity, we should be absolutely fine with some people believing to be the chosen one, or the supremest of all religions or whatever as long as they don't kill anyone. Thats freedom of expression!
Right, I said, fragmentation based on religion should be OK, when regional one is. I don't think the former is any more harmful to national consciousness than the latter. We accept regional diversity (by going as far as worshippin regional state-gods) and we must respect the diversity in religion.
In a state on lines of US, nobody would care about religion or some national consciousness of the kind that was dreamt in the freedom struggle. Let people think whatever they are. After 50 yrs of independence, we know that the age of any 'spiritual struggle' is gone; its one where consumer-market interaction is supposed to handle everything, right?
But when all this is "on" (and we submit to the ideas of individualism and consumerism) why take false pride in a culture that was considered worth only of being abandoned? (hypocrisy?) Now, if one does it for the sake of identity (as in Amer. politics), then why expect Muslims to submit to the same identity? They gotta have their own identity, right?
Coming to the depleting class of non-"English educated" Indians, not just Muslims, fundies in general haven't accepted individualism very well. Their 'national ideal' can't be individualism. If all of them could accept the american style individualism and pride in brown color as nationalism, there would have been no problems at all. They might, in the future; but before that happens, all the 'fundie problems' are there to stay.
In retrospect, I know that Gandhi didn't work for such an 'invented' identity (or pride in brown color); he worked against individualism, and India was more of an idea (spiritual) than some land bound by seas to most of the struggle era writers (Aurbindo ghosh, Tagore, many others). So, the new "national identity" with individualism at its heart, does demand some explanation to bharatiyas (if it involves pride in its 'great' people too)!
All in all, if you are saying that we can embrace Indian philosophy/wayoflife and individualism both at the same time, i wanna know how?
--
but what actually does islam says
every one has given his view about this problem but none has given it in the light islam.
every one thinks that what ever muslims do represents the teachings of islam which might not be the case every time.
just like when muslims were massacred in gujrat recently that didnt represent indian secularism. rather it was a voilation of indian secularism.
any way can a muslims be an american and a muslim at the same time?
can he be a indian and a muslim at the same time?
can he be a pakistani and a muslims at the same time?
the quran answers this question in one verse
49:13. O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).
so according to the quran the existence of different tribes, races, nations etc etc is the handi work of God.
and thats why according to islam a muslim can belong from Mars and still be a muslim.
the only thing he should keep in mind is that he should be a muslim martian
and not a martian muslim.
answering the question,indian muslims should be muslim indians rather than indian muslims.
Note: Please refer to quranic orders rather than general muslim population before making a point.
also i dont understand why an indian muslim should side with pakistani cricket team. this is stupidity and ignorance.
but this is nto taught by islam. i am sorry i cant explain this behaviour of theirs'
--
@Junaid
Aren't you the same guy whose posts are against consumerism most of the times? Here in India, I bet there are even more people thinking like you do. For one moment, consider yourself in India; you won't compromise your values for economy, would you? That explains what the case is for devout Muslims, in India. Its not 'wrong' for them to consider themselves Indian, but they just don't see themselves to be in the same boat.
Besides, not all Muslims think the same over the issue of region or Islam being first, either. I mean, in India, on one hand, you find muslims like Rahi Masoom Raza (who proclaimed that its OK to say that one is a Muslim Hindu, as Hindu is a word that Persians gave to all Indians. If Muslim arab is fine, so should be Muslim Hindu) and on the other you find, deobandi tabligh people (including leaders coming from Pakistan who lecture that considering nationalism before Islam is wrong). Of course, this varies across regions in India. In most places, where muslims live in harmony, they don't give a damn to tabligh, but at other places where the economic/cultural divide is wider and/or the terrorist operations are on, things might blow up (like they have many a times). check this out!
--
Clarification
No one needs to fight the case of urbanised Muslims. They allegiance is not in doubt. The urban class of India, having got secular education, gone to graduate/degree colleges, working in government offices/software companies faces no discrimination on basis of religion. Let there be no doubt about that! If a Muslim amongst this class is asked of his peoples' contribution to human race, he would pretty well, count off the historical achievements of Islam. This however, is just a case of identity, and doesn't involve taking Islam in a more serious sense.
The class which is addressed or understood to be "confused" in the discussion, is which takes Islam more seriously, and wants Islam to be playing a bigger role in their lives, probably the most important. This class, primarily educated in madrasas (and therefore hardly getting any jobs) maintains that Islamic lifestyle is the way to go in every sphere of life. The liberals go fine, but the fundies can't of course get sharia implemented, expect hijab to imposed/encouraged or whatever. Being poor, and neglected, they are pretty far from the receiving end of globalisation, and I really don't see any reason for them to celebrate if some dude is winning F1 championships. They are more likely to make Osama as their hero against the forces that caused their decay, or join SIMI and blow up places that some big-guy asked to.
The confusion prevails in the class 'cause of the big divide India lives within. This is an Indian newspaper:
The framers and compilers of the educational syllabi have prescribed course books in all states, particularly in UP, which are replete with matters pertaining to the faiths of the majority community, mythological and other stories of Hindu gods and goddesses.
If you look at Indonesia on the other hand, Ramayana still forms the favored theme of their theatre- Muslims do it too, and there is no conflict. Its all about the big divide, again!
--
In a recent topic, I wrote what I felt abt the muslim world having an identity crisis. I have seen dichotomous behaviour of muslims in india, and I have often wondered if they too are confused wrto their identity, and confused wrto what they want. I guess I'll explain myself best with 2 scenarios:
1. When i was studying my engg, the nearest town to the univ was ranchi(formerly in bihar, now jharkhand). In ranchi quite close to my uncle's house, is a large muslim colony. I could overlook this colony from the rooftop of my uncle's house. During India-Pak cricket matches, if India won, almost the entire colony would observe a "blackout". Shops would close & lots of houses would be dimly lit, and street lights would mysteriously go off(no idea how they managed that). If Pak won, there used to be crackers burst and all, almost like diwali.
2. In another scenario, the gujarat riots were on. I was then working in calcutta. I was staying in salt lake, and the route to the city's "downtown" so to speak was through a large stretch of muslim dominated neighborhoods. I had to take an auto through that route. I was a little scared as calcutta had had its share of communal riots(during the partition) and old wounds open up during these times. The auto driver was muslim, so were 3 of my co-passengers(yeah its a shared auto funda). At no point did i get dirty glances, or at no place in that large colony, did i see speeches(inflammatory or otherwise) being given, no loudspeakers asking the people to stay calm. It seemed to be a normal business day, though there was no denying the undercurrent of tension. Yet it was remarkable that they held their nerve, and I learnt later that the community leaders over there talked to the people on almost a household basis & ensured sentiments didnt boil over and no untoward incident happened.
Two such different images. Hence the question.
--
The responses, each response is given one single color:
"A muslim is a muslim first and then someone else" is the base of Islam.
At the personal level, muslim's religious identity is supreme,rising above race, lang., geography or political jurisdiction which however has ceased to exist in recent times amongst few islamic intelectuals. There have been numerous debates on two-nation theory headed by such intellectuals despite the supremacy of islamic conservatism but the troubling part 'the uneducated(s)' have been left completely unattended which solely is to blame for your uncomfort in situation 1 and partly in situation 2.
Situation 1 is set in a backward city block. Muslim backwardness is highly related to lack of modern education. Due to lack of this, common Muslims have thoroughly failed to develop a clear vision about the secular and democratic path of the country. Lack of understanding of the new social and political challenge post independence became a complex problem for the community as a whole. With their history of religious encounters they were not prepared to accept cultural synthesis with other religion. Even though they came across many turning points since Independence to unload their mental burden, they always remained indecisive. Hence 11 Muslims are preferred over 9 hindus and 2 muslims.
a) Situation 2 has partial relation with aboveboard aforementioned reasons.
b) Having Muslims' 'already described identity' well set in our mind, we too often misjudge. Not everyone is illiterate and alike. This is the portion which gets easily defensive while talking about their nationalistic feeling much like a bihari, if he is said/asked some bad words/questions about bihar.
However, this part is good and due to them only, we have even some muslim support for UCC.
Why we hindu can't digest situation 1?
It's simply 'coz we blindly believe in Patel's statement "For a community to think that its interests are different from that of the country in which it lives, is a great mistake"
--
A Muslim's (iqbal's) perspective on nationalism
What thing is the State? or why
Must labour and capital so bloodily disagree?
Asia's time-honoured cloak grows ragged
and wears out . . .
For whom this new ordeal, or by whose hand prepared?
This guy, named Iqbal, criticized nationalism for a twofold reason: in Europe it had led to destructive racism and imperialism, and in India it was not founded on an adequate degree of common purpose. Till his death, he kept writing against individualism. To him, the whole idea of the new state, was about a resistance against individualism.
(content frm Britannica)
Gandhi's epistemology disowned the concept of the integral individual and replaced it with a "discontinuous personhood". Critical elements of Gandhi's vision included: sarvodaya, swadeshi, satyagraha, trusteeship, panchayat raj. Among the most important forerunners of Gandhi were a group centred on Bengal that included Swami Vivekananda, Margaret Noble (sister Nivedita) and Sri Aurobindo. They shared with Gandhi a belief in the essential spiritual nature of India, opposition to modernisation and stress on an organic society.
- From the book 'Gandhian Utopia' Richard G. Fox
Are you sure everyone in India has accepted individualism, yet? Given the current 'affinity' with the US, may be they will, but the kind of environment i was brought up in India, I didn't find individualism to be anywhere near its culture.
In the US, nobody cares what you are doing in your own community, as long as you don't harm anyone else (freedom of expression, a philosophical implication of individualism) If india is to adopt that, in its full integrity, we should be absolutely fine with some people believing to be the chosen one, or the supremest of all religions or whatever as long as they don't kill anyone. Thats freedom of expression!
Right, I said, fragmentation based on religion should be OK, when regional one is. I don't think the former is any more harmful to national consciousness than the latter. We accept regional diversity (by going as far as worshippin regional state-gods) and we must respect the diversity in religion.
In a state on lines of US, nobody would care about religion or some national consciousness of the kind that was dreamt in the freedom struggle. Let people think whatever they are. After 50 yrs of independence, we know that the age of any 'spiritual struggle' is gone; its one where consumer-market interaction is supposed to handle everything, right?
But when all this is "on" (and we submit to the ideas of individualism and consumerism) why take false pride in a culture that was considered worth only of being abandoned? (hypocrisy?) Now, if one does it for the sake of identity (as in Amer. politics), then why expect Muslims to submit to the same identity? They gotta have their own identity, right?
Coming to the depleting class of non-"English educated" Indians, not just Muslims, fundies in general haven't accepted individualism very well. Their 'national ideal' can't be individualism. If all of them could accept the american style individualism and pride in brown color as nationalism, there would have been no problems at all. They might, in the future; but before that happens, all the 'fundie problems' are there to stay.
In retrospect, I know that Gandhi didn't work for such an 'invented' identity (or pride in brown color); he worked against individualism, and India was more of an idea (spiritual) than some land bound by seas to most of the struggle era writers (Aurbindo ghosh, Tagore, many others). So, the new "national identity" with individualism at its heart, does demand some explanation to bharatiyas (if it involves pride in its 'great' people too)!
All in all, if you are saying that we can embrace Indian philosophy/wayoflife and individualism both at the same time, i wanna know how?
--
but what actually does islam says
every one has given his view about this problem but none has given it in the light islam.
every one thinks that what ever muslims do represents the teachings of islam which might not be the case every time.
just like when muslims were massacred in gujrat recently that didnt represent indian secularism. rather it was a voilation of indian secularism.
any way can a muslims be an american and a muslim at the same time?
can he be a indian and a muslim at the same time?
can he be a pakistani and a muslims at the same time?
the quran answers this question in one verse
49:13. O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).
so according to the quran the existence of different tribes, races, nations etc etc is the handi work of God.
and thats why according to islam a muslim can belong from Mars and still be a muslim.
the only thing he should keep in mind is that he should be a muslim martian
and not a martian muslim.
answering the question,indian muslims should be muslim indians rather than indian muslims.
Note: Please refer to quranic orders rather than general muslim population before making a point.
also i dont understand why an indian muslim should side with pakistani cricket team. this is stupidity and ignorance.
but this is nto taught by islam. i am sorry i cant explain this behaviour of theirs'
--
@Junaid
Aren't you the same guy whose posts are against consumerism most of the times? Here in India, I bet there are even more people thinking like you do. For one moment, consider yourself in India; you won't compromise your values for economy, would you? That explains what the case is for devout Muslims, in India. Its not 'wrong' for them to consider themselves Indian, but they just don't see themselves to be in the same boat.
Besides, not all Muslims think the same over the issue of region or Islam being first, either. I mean, in India, on one hand, you find muslims like Rahi Masoom Raza (who proclaimed that its OK to say that one is a Muslim Hindu, as Hindu is a word that Persians gave to all Indians. If Muslim arab is fine, so should be Muslim Hindu) and on the other you find, deobandi tabligh people (including leaders coming from Pakistan who lecture that considering nationalism before Islam is wrong). Of course, this varies across regions in India. In most places, where muslims live in harmony, they don't give a damn to tabligh, but at other places where the economic/cultural divide is wider and/or the terrorist operations are on, things might blow up (like they have many a times). check this out!
--
Clarification
No one needs to fight the case of urbanised Muslims. They allegiance is not in doubt. The urban class of India, having got secular education, gone to graduate/degree colleges, working in government offices/software companies faces no discrimination on basis of religion. Let there be no doubt about that! If a Muslim amongst this class is asked of his peoples' contribution to human race, he would pretty well, count off the historical achievements of Islam. This however, is just a case of identity, and doesn't involve taking Islam in a more serious sense.
The class which is addressed or understood to be "confused" in the discussion, is which takes Islam more seriously, and wants Islam to be playing a bigger role in their lives, probably the most important. This class, primarily educated in madrasas (and therefore hardly getting any jobs) maintains that Islamic lifestyle is the way to go in every sphere of life. The liberals go fine, but the fundies can't of course get sharia implemented, expect hijab to imposed/encouraged or whatever. Being poor, and neglected, they are pretty far from the receiving end of globalisation, and I really don't see any reason for them to celebrate if some dude is winning F1 championships. They are more likely to make Osama as their hero against the forces that caused their decay, or join SIMI and blow up places that some big-guy asked to.
The confusion prevails in the class 'cause of the big divide India lives within. This is an Indian newspaper:
The framers and compilers of the educational syllabi have prescribed course books in all states, particularly in UP, which are replete with matters pertaining to the faiths of the majority community, mythological and other stories of Hindu gods and goddesses.
If you look at Indonesia on the other hand, Ramayana still forms the favored theme of their theatre- Muslims do it too, and there is no conflict. Its all about the big divide, again!
--
posted by Vasishtha | 8:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home