Javed Anand: Liberals in majoritarian times
NB: A thoughtful contribution to an ongoing debate.Yes, everyone needs to speak responsibly, but especially those who consider themselves democrats. Terms such as 'liberalism', secularism and democracy have become so well-worn they are used loosely without any regard to what they might mean. Speaking for myself alone, there is something about the denominational prefixes 'Hindu' and 'Muslim' before 'liberal' that makes me uneasy. It reminds me that in India we cannot even be atheists - we are Muslim atheists or Hindu atheists. (Not that I wish to promote atheism). The author says: In a religion-soaked society, the liberal also needs to be clear about whether he is battling intolerance, obscurantism and communalism in the name of religion or religion itself. This is a large issue, all I will say here is that atheists and agnostics also have the right to speech, even if they wish to criticise 'religion itself'. I say this because of the many outspoken intellectuals and writers across the sub-continent who have been accused of blasphemy and hurting religious sentiment (of all hues) - some of whom have been assaulted or murdered. If we do not like religion we have the right to say so.
The terms majority and minority are also ideologically loaded, and carry their own blind spots. For example, Kashmiri Pandits were also a minority, treated outrageously and forced out of their homes in the Kashmir Valley between 1989 and 1991. (I pointed this out in my comment on the JNU crisis of February 2016). They remain a pitifully small minority in the Valley today, with little hope of returning. It would have been appropriate for all Indian democrats, of whatsoever persuasion, to have spoken up all these years for the human and citizenship rights of Pandits as well. DS
The terms majority and minority are also ideologically loaded, and carry their own blind spots. For example, Kashmiri Pandits were also a minority, treated outrageously and forced out of their homes in the Kashmir Valley between 1989 and 1991. (I pointed this out in my comment on the JNU crisis of February 2016). They remain a pitifully small minority in the Valley today, with little hope of returning. It would have been appropriate for all Indian democrats, of whatsoever persuasion, to have spoken up all these years for the human and citizenship rights of Pandits as well. DS
To individual Muslim
women who say wearing a head scarf or a head-to-toe burka is a personal choice,
I say, I respect it. To Muslim women or men who pretend that the black seas
with which the mullahs of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board have been
flooding the streets of urban India in recent weeks - demanding scrapping of
the Triple Talaq Bill and “non-interference in Shariah laws” - is simply a sum
total of the individual choices of a multitude of women, I say, you are either
ill-informed or you lie. There is no denying the fact that most women who
“choose” to invisibilise themselves in public do so because they have been
brainwashed into believing that such is Allah’s command.
Nothing could be
further from the truth. All Islam asks, of both women and men, is that they
dress modestly. So argued the Lahore-based Maulvi Syed Mumtaz Ali Khan in his
book Huqooq-e-Niswan (Rights of Women) published well over a century ago, in
1898. Even the late Sudanese Hassan Al-Turabi - a religious scholar, an
Islamist accused by some of promoting terrorism in Islam’s name - said the same
thing in 1973 in a paper. Yes, there also exists
the burka of individual choice. But there is mostly the burka which has spread
like an epidemic across the Muslim world in recent decades thanks to Saudi
petro dollars. Now, surprise, surprise, comes the ruling of the Saudi Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman: “Women in Saudi Arabia need not wear head cover or
the abaya (a burka variant), as long as their attire is ‘decent and
respectful’.”
If there is no mention
of the burka in the Quran, nor is there a word about skull caps and the beard.
Yes, there is a Hadith of the Prophet about Muslims keeping the beard and
shaving off the moustache. But Muslims would do themselves a world of good by
learning to distinguish the substantial from the superficial. For example, the
Prophet also said: “He is not a believer whose stomach is filled while the
neighbour to his side goes hungry.” In parts of rural
Maharashtra (elsewhere in the country too) even today, it is impossible to
distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims, male or female, from the way they
dress. The burka, the beard and the skull cap threaten this commonness. Does
not the ulema’s promotion of an exclusivist, monochromatic “Muslimness” wherein
culture and religion are fused together, help in caricaturing, stereotyping an entire
community?
Allah knows there is a
long journey ahead for Indian Muslims on the road to reform and modernity. Yes,
everyone has the right to question questionable practices at all times. But in
these times of virulent Hindu majoritarianism when far too many yesterday’s “liberal
Hindus” have turned into today’s “Hindu nationalists”, genuine liberal
democrats owe it to themselves to choose their words and their forum
responsibly. In a religion-soaked society, the liberal also needs to be clear
about whether he is battling intolerance, obscurantism and communalism in the
name of religion or religion itself. To the “Hindu liberal”
who sees no difference between the trishul and the burka, I say, perhaps you
can learn a lesson from a Norwegian example… read more:
See also
Arab women before and after Islam
