Let India Not become Pakistan

A lot of hullaboo is all over the electronic, print and social media about attacks in Uri and the surgical strikes by India as retaliation. It is indeed a matter of pride for Indians that Indian Army has shown its credible strength in tackling terrorism. However, the jingoism accompanying the Indo-Pak issue dilutes the whole point.

Both India and Pakistan started their independent journey in 1947 on the same day and it is for the world to see where these two countries have reached. While India has had stable democracy all throughout except for those couple of years of emergency, Pakistan has been in and out of democracy ever since. Indian Army is brave and so is Pakistani Army and so is any other Army of the world. Armies are supposed to be composed of brave men (and now also women) who will fight bravely for their country. Yet while Army calls the shots in Pakistan, in India it is the civil government which calls the shots. And the discrepancy is more startling because both the Army and the Civil Government are British models continued by India and Pakistan with minor modifications.

Pakistan has war mongering people as well as peace advocates. India has the same mix. But while warmongers dominate Pakistani polity, peace advocates have had an upper hand in India. That is why India has never started a war on its own but other than the 1962 Indo-China war, hasn't lost any war either. (Whether Indo-China war was won or lost is a subject of another debate.)

It is great to praise our heroes. Our eyes are full of tears when a soldier dies in action and our blood boils when a terrorist attack happens. But we should be careful of what and who are we praising. We must praise the courage and bravery of the men on the LOC but not the policy of Tit for Tat. India is a much more advanced nation and polity than Pakistan and there is no need India should stoop down to the levels of Pakistan.

India is not scared that Army will overthrow the democratic government if we do not wage a war. Indian Army doesn't order the government but takes orders from them, and whatever may be the reservations on Government orders, Indian Army always follows orders. The discipline of the Indian Army and its commitment to a democratically elected Government is what makes it a better Army than a lot of other Armies.

When the issue is about the nation, emotions are bound to flow. Emotions also flow when issues of Religion arise or issues of Region arise. The violence between Tamilnadu and Karnataka for water is also driven by strong emotions and the riots that erupt here and there also have emotional overtones. A war between countries is very different from these incidents and it should be managed with that maturity.

What India did at the UN was commendable and complements the surgical strikes. That should be done more often. It is important that India ensures that Pakistan is excluded from global forums and is seen as a terrorist hub. India should also be careful that warmongers in India never become as influential as their counterparts in Pakistan. Boycotting actors, singers and players is not part of the plan and won't achieve any strategic purpose. Indian film industry is more developed than Pakistan but Pakistani music is as good as Indian. Stupid comparisons on social media only trivialize the issue.

When we used to visit jungles, we were told, Tigers and Leopards have a difference. Leopard is not sure of its strength and that is why it attacks even when no threat exists because Leopard is scared. But Tiger knows its potential and is confident about its strength so it attacks only when needed. In reality both are equally strong. But it is this difference of attitude and confidence that makes Tiger the king of the jungle.

Let not warmongers and social media soldiers decide what Indian Government or Indian Army should do. Let not the Tiger become the Leopard. Let not the confidence in our strength be overshadowed by any sense of insecurity. Anger should never be allowed to rule over a peaceful and thinking mind.
Chanakya once said to Chandragupta, "Fight well, my son. But never get angry. In a fight of two, the angry one always loses"

India is better than Pakistan in terms of political stabilty, economic growth and international standing. India is also better than Pakistan in maintaining peace between different communities and bringing about social equity. The Indian Army is also better than Pakistan Amy. So there's no need to emulate Pakistan or to play Tit for Tat.  Let's not try to convert India into Pakistan.

Politics of Religion

I have always refrained from commenting on any Hindu Muslim issues. One reason is that I am in a Government job and hence must remain impartial and secular in my approach to religious issues. The other more important reason is that no one ever reads an article on Hindu Muslim issue without judging the faith of the author. As my name makes it amply clear, I am a born Hindu and hence my views are bound to be judged by that parameter. Nevertheless, the recent events in Pakistan (killing of school children), controversy over the movie PK, avoiding a Hindu Muslim riot in my subdivision and most lately the killing of Charlie Hebdo editor and cartoonists have forced me to pause and ponder on what's going on?

First of all, about the riot that didn't take place in my subdivision. It so happened that a Muslim boy shared a pic on Facebook and whatsapp in which the face of Lord Hanuman was morphed on to the bikini-clad body of some random model in a picture. The Hindu Right in this city were quick to make this a huge issue and with the apprehension that a small mistake might erupt into a big riot, the boy was swiftly arrested by the police and relevant sections of the IPC were imposed on him and he was put in custody. We thought that the issue was over. Nevertheless, the Hindus (specifically the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the local RSS body) informed us of a Bandh that they had decided to call in protest of the actions of the boy. Later in the day, some Muslims, claiming to be family members of the erring boy came to me and begged forgiveness for the act done by their boy. I called both the parties and asked them to end the matter henceforth. However, the Bandh still happened and we were on our toes the whole day fearing that the issue might grow bigger. Thanks to the show of force and the passive reaction of the Muslims, nothing unfortunate happened.

In a similar event, while removing encroachments by shops on roads, we broke 40 shops which were situated in a Kabristan. We had also by then removed about 100 shops of Hindu Shopkeepers. But since the Kabristan belonged to the Waqf board, the issue took a big turn, and our office is busy replying to complaints of using unnecessary force on innocent minorities. Amusingly, a lot of Muslims also appreciated our act of liberating the Kabristaan from shops but there is an active political segment which is sending us legal notices of all possible kinds. 

None of these two issues became violent and so non of these became a news big enough to be read outside this city. But these issues did highlight the significance of the Hindu Muslim issue to me. Recently there have been hot debates on how Aamir Khan has mocked Hindu Gods in the movie PK. This taunt totally ignore the fact that Raju Hirani and the author of the movie are both Hindus. People say that the Pakistani was shown as benign, but they miss pointing out that a bomb blast is shown in the name of protecting Allah. The attack on the schoolkids is so barbarous that even the most devout Muslim is unable to digest it as any form of Jehad. The killing of Charles Hebdo guys is equally disturbing. Then there has also been the news of reverse Conversions and Love Jehads etc.

When Hindu fundamentalists attempt to take an extremist stand, a lot of liberal Hindus protest it quite vociferously. Sadly, when an Islamic Terror attack happens, the liberal Muslims are not so vocal in protesting. Yet, I am not ready to agree that religion is the core of the problem. Once Gandhi when lamented by the RSS for being pro-Muslim replied, "I am a Hindu, and a Muslim, and a Sikh, and a Christian", Mohd Ali Jinnah quickly commented, "Only a Hindu can say that." This, I think, is the essence of Hinduism put most concisely. Hindu, by its very nature and origin, is a secular religion. Here the use of secular is not in the European sense of 'non-religious' but in the Indian sense of Communal Harmony. 

Hindu is not a united community, nor a single religion. The Tamil Dravidians do not get offended when Devi Saraswati is painted by M F Hussain, nor is the Bengali Hindu concerned about the over hyped vegetarianism by Tamil and UP Hindus. My mother does not know what the story of Vaishno Devi is, but she sure does know that Bhagwati, if displeased, can cause chickenpox. My sister, who was born in a Maithil Brahmin Family is married to a Tamil Brahmin. Neither her mother-in-law recognizes the Gauri that my sister worships, nor my Mom knows who Murugan or Balaji is. I am married to a Gurudwara going Hindu, whose grandma finds all Pandits as cheats, while my Mom doesn't have a clue what is worshipped in a Gurudwara. Diversity is the essence of India, or may be its reason to exist. Any other country with so much diversity has not been able to survive without giving birth to new nations.

So is the case with Muslims. The Arab Muslim hates the Irani Muslim. The Afghan Muslim will never marry his daughter to a Baloch Muslim. The Syed of Lucknow doesn't know the Moplah of Kerela. Shias and Sunnis in Bhopal killed each other more mercilessly than Muslims killed Hindus in any riot. The Benagli Muslim of Bangladesh did not live in harmony with the Punjabi Muslim of Pakistan, while the Bihari Muslim is living in full peace with the Bihari Hindu. 

The point that I am trying to make is that people are bound to form groups, get emotional about it and get in violent conflict in the name of those groups. Hence the issue is not whether the conflict is religious, political or ethnic. The issue is also not of never letting a conflict happen as that is plain impossible. The issue is of tolerance. I saw the picture of Lord Hanuman on a bikini clad movie, and honestly I laughed. I saw PK and so did my religiously devout mom and we both laughed. Point is did some Muslims too did not just laugh at the Charles Hebdo cartoon? I find conversions as well as 'Ghar Wapasi' as worthless and pointless and I laugh at both. The Oraon of Chotanagpur remains an Oraon, whether baptised or wearing a janeu around him. 

Whatever may be the cause of all the terrorism and fundametalism all around, it is not religion for sure. It is politics and like always reliogion is being used to justify politics? Why so? Because Politics can be questioned by logic and reason while Religion can't be challenged by reason or logic. When the Spartans defended against the Persians, they said, 'May the Gods be with us.' When Troy was attacked, Achilles destroyed the temple of Apollo. When armies of Gangetic plain attacked the dravidians, they saw their own Gods as Gods and the Gods of Dravidians as Demons. When Jinnah wanted a Pakistan, he invoked religion. When Dara Shikoh was killed by Aurangzeb, his real brother, it was justified in the name of protecting Islam. When Kashmir burnt, it was in the name of Islam and when Punjab burned, it was in the name of the Akal Takht and Khalistan.

Religion has always been used to legitimize political violence, whether it is the loot of Somnath temple by Mahmud of Ghazni or the fight of territory between Shivaji and Aurangzeb. Same is true for ISIS in Iraq and for the US attacks on Islamic countries Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Hindi author Kamleshwar, in his classic book 'Kitne Pakistan' beautifully shows how personal political ambitions were justified in the name of religion. The killers of the Charles Hebdo journalists shouted they were avenging the Mohammed. Laughable it is to see men, who claim to protect the Gods, for is it not the God who created them? 

The acts of violence of some people against some other people has always happened in human society and will always happen. And with my little exposure of the field that I have had, I realized that hardly a bunch of few 'religious contractors' are worried about the religion. The guys who protested against the Hanuman obscene cartoon are also the ones who wanted to sabotage the Dussehra festival bacause they were not being given prominence. The people who are protesting the removal of shops from Waqf land are also the same people whose source of personal income was from setting up illegal shops on the 'Pak Kabra' of their ancestors. When I deal with these 'goons' as an officer, I try telling myself that this guy here is a goon, and not a Hindu or a Muslim. His aims are political and not religious. And when I beat up such a guy, neither the Hindu Gods nor Allah gets offended. 

These goons thrive on the innocence with which people adhere to any instruction latched in the garb of religion. The sad part is that while the Hindus in India are not ready to be fooled by these goons, Muslims across the world are not putting up a strong campaign against such goons. If it is said that Although all Muslims are not Terrorists but all Terrorists are Muslims, it is because the liberal Muslims have given up on their extremist brethren. The reason why Hindu fundamentalist have still not been able to totally create a Hindu Terror is that because the liberal Hindus always outnumber and outspeak the extremist Hindus. The ills of polytheism, no-single-book and diversity of language and rituals have been the blessings in disguise for Hinduism as a religion. Somehow the Sufi, Urdu loving poetic Muslim is not speaking up enough against that terrorist holding the gun and submitting to it as if it is holier than Quran. It is high time the Islamic Liberals speak up and show that they can protect their religion from this implosion of terrorism.

In the name of Allah: Understanding Islam and Indian History

Raziuddin Aquil, a young writer and a historian by education and profession, has written some critical books on Islam, especially focusing on Sufism, and Muslim culture and politics in medieval as well as modern India. Presently a Fellow in History at the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta, Aquil holds a PhD from JNU and has authored books like “Sufism, Culture and Politics” in 2007 and co-edited (with historian Partha Chatterjee) “History in the Vernacular” in 2008.

The present book under review, “In the name of Allah: Understanding Islam and Indian History” is the most recent publication of Aquil, published by the Penguin Books in 2009. The book is a unique attempt at rewriting the history of Indian Islam by decoupling real history from the modern ideologies of secularism, communalism and separatism, which have influenced the hitherto written accounts of history of Indian Islam.

Aquil points out how secular historians have selectively targeted some elements of history, while ignoring others. They over-emphasized Akbar’s Sulh-i-kul and din-i-ilahi as well as Aurangzeb’s imposition of jizya, thus passing value judgments on both the rulers. Also, the separatist historians have over-glorified Islamic rule and deliberately concealed the violations of norms of conduct during the Mughal period. The communal historians, on the other hand, have painted the Islamic rule as a dark period contrasting it with the glorious past of Hindu Rule. Aquil finds all these accounts of history inappropriate and tries to correct their shortcomings.

What is most striking in Aquil’s approach is that he has completely turned the tables when it comes to referring to sources of information about the medieval society. Rather than citing from the conventional accounts, he refers to texts like Sufi literature, Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firozshahi, Badauni’s Muntakhab-ul-Tawarikh, Haqq’s Adab-us-Salihin, Jafar Zatalli’s scandalous spoof Gandu-nama etc., all of which were either controversial or at least were written in defiance of the political rule of that time. He specifically shows how these texts were deliberately ignored and underrated by historians to justify their respective ideological leanings. The use of Sufi literature to take a sub-altern view of the times rather than taking the ruler’s account provides a fresh lease of life to the study of Indian Islam’s history.

This is obviously not the first book on Indian Islam or its history and hence attempts to establish its own space amongst the plethora of books written on the same topic. Being an Indian Muslim, Aquil is aware of the biases that shall be levied against him while reading his book and has been extremely cautious and balanced in his approach, moving from a pro-Islamic view to an anti-Islamic view with equal ease. Not only he criticizes Akbar for trying to portray himself more significant than the religion, he also laments the liberal Muslim scholars for being too narrow and biased in their view.

What stands out in Aquil’s work is his frank use of controversial texts, which could have, otherwise, attracted undue reactions to the book. It is either Aquil’s brilliant writing or the sheer neglect of the fanatics that the book has not invited harsh fatwas from any Muslim body. The manner in which Aquil has freely used the couplets and phrases from Zatalli’s Gandu-nama can, at times, repel the reader. But, at the same time, Aquil ensures that he does not superimpose his own judgments on readers and only conveys what actual texts of those times intended to say. More than quoting the vulgar language used by Zatalli, Aquil has tried to use the text to prove how norms of Islam were being heavily violated during the later Mughal period, contrary to what separatist and fundamentalist scholars claim.

The book also creates an interesting analogy between Sikhism and Islam and convincingly attempts to show how Islam influenced Guru Nanak as well as the Panth that followed. He points out that the struggle between Islam and Sikhism since Aurangzeb’s time was more political than religious. Here too, Aquil tries to break the existing notions in contemporary literature about Sikhism and its conflict with Islam.

The central theme which one finds running throughout the book is to show how the various elements of Islam were constantly involved in a conflict for power right from the ninth century onwards. Ulama on the one hand, Sufis on the other along with Muslim rulers and philosophers were all involved in interpreting the Islamic rules according to their own convictions. This resulted in various political conflicts within Islam in the name of being called the ‘true’ bearers of the ‘real’ Islam. Moreover, the inability of Islam to cope with the changing times, unlike Western religions like Christianity has also been pointed out by Aquil as a failure of Indian Islam.

Overall, Aquil provides very striking and unique inferences about the various elements of Indian Islam and has been successful in breaking the established notions about Medieval Indian History and providing a fresh outlook towards the same. This book comes out as a purely scholarly research  output devoid of any modern ideologies like secularism, communalism or separatism, thus giving a ‘true’ history of Indian Islam than giving a ‘construed’ history.

That would not mean that the book has no shortcomings. The author is equally guilty of the charges that he accuses on classical historians. In quoting a controversial text like Badauni’s Muntakhab-ul-Tawarikh, or Jafar Zatalli’s Gandu-nama, Aquil completely undermines the version of history that conventional texts like Abul Fazl’s Ain-i-Akbari already have revealed. In a pursuit of trying to be different, the book goes a little beyond its mandate on disregarding some of the established notions quite blatantly. While substantial references are cited to back the conclusions, the same could have been done without discrediting the existing knowledge.

Nevertheless, it might have been this radically fresh outlook towards medieval history that makes this book different from the rest and helps it to carve its own niche in the overcrowded repertoire of books on Indian Islamic history.

CMT's rating 3.5/5