Indian Muslims : Identity, Nationalism and Religious Fundamentalism

Asghar Ali Engineer

India today has largest Muslim population, about 140 million, after Indonesia. Also, India is a secular democracy and has successfully sustained democratic processes for the last sixty years. Muslims in India have ideologically accepted secular democracy and have found no contradiction between Islam, Islamic teachings and modern day secular values within a democratic frame-work.

What is important to note is that a large number of Ulama of the Deoband school fully supported the freedom struggle under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi who insisted on non-violent struggle based on values like truth, compassion and human dignity. Though he was not a rationalist, he accepted the role of reason in human life. Some Ulama did have reservations about non-violence as a principle but they too accepted it as a useful strategy. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a great scholar of Islam and commentator on the Qur’an which was published under the title of Tarjuman al-Qur’an, not only accepted Gandhi’s leadership but was also an active member of the Indian National Congress, and even headed it twice.

However, the Indian freedom struggle was far from being a trouble free, smooth, non-violent affair. Indian Muslims were politically divided. The westernized educated elite as well as the feudal lords (jagirdars) on one hand, and the Muslim masses and sections of the Muslim middle class on the other, had different perceptions of political processes in independent India. The former (i.e. westernized elite and feudal lords) were more concerned about power sharing in independent India and questions like land reform and constitutional structure, while the latter (i.e. the Muslim masses and sections of the middle class) had faith in the promises held out by the leadership of the Indian National Congress.

The westernized elite did not trust the Congress leadership and was insisting on a larger share in power, even larger than what the Muslim population warranted. However, this question could not be sorted out satisfactorily and M.A. Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, party of the Muslim league and landlords, propounded a two nation theory which implied Muslims were a separate nation and could not share common nationhood with Hindus.

The two nation theory was completely rejected by the Ulama belonging to Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Hind, and its leader Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani argued that Islam does not believe in separate nationhood, and that both Hindus and Muslims share the same nationality. They also found the concept of secular democracy as being in conformity with Islamic teaching. These Ulama opposed the partition plan and refused to go along with Jinnah. However, Maulana Maududi, founder of the Jamat-e-Islami, did not agree with Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Hind and declared that secular politics is prohibited in Islam. He advised his followers not to take part in secular politics in India.

Thus it would be seen that Indian Muslims were divided into several ideological positions before partition. However, a large number of Muslims supported composite nationalism and they had no problems with co-sharing nationalism with Hindus, Christians and Parsis. Though partition was very painful — as on this side of the divide large number of Muslims was killed and families were divided — yet Muslims were resilient enough to adjust to new realities.

However, fresh problems emerged as democratization deepened. The nation building process in multi-religious societies poses its own challenge, especially when there are not enough resources to go around. India is not only multi-religious and multi-lingual but also a multi-ethnic nation. Western nations were mostly mono-religious, mono lingual and mono cultural and also were comparatively affluent and hence nation building was no challenge.

In multi-religious and multi-ethnic societies, religious and ethnic identities play important roles in mobilizing people to demand a greater share of power, and the Muslim elite had asserted their religious identity to do so, and the country was divided. For majority religious communities nationalism becomes coterminous with religious identity, but for religious minorities there is the problem of religious identity being different from national identity and having to cope with duel identities, and often there is a danger of religious identity clashing with national identity.

In view of this duel identity Muslims have to prove their loyalty to the nation in times of crisis, such as the war between India and Pakistan, and this poses no mean challenge for them. Since Pakistan is a Muslim country, the right wing Hindu forces often question the loyalty of Muslims to India. Since Muslims are in minority in India (about 14%) there is no question of any demand for an Islamic state.

But at times religious identity, when under pressure, does assert itself. One instance is that of the Shah Bano Movement in the mid-1980s. The 1980s was a very challenging decade for the Muslim minority in India as frequent Hindu-Muslim riots were taking place and Muslims were feeling suffocated. They were under intense pressure and in such circumstances the Supreme Court delivered a judgment upholding a Muslim woman’s right to maintenance beyond iddah (waiting after divorce) period under a secular law.

This angered the Ulama and they cried foul and gross interference in Islamic law which, according to the law of the land, it is their right to follow. They argued that in Islam a woman is entitled to maintenance only for the iddah period and pressured the Government to nullify the Supreme Court judgment by enacting a law. The Government of India yielded to the pressure from Muslims and changed the law.

Muslims enjoy equal democratic and fundamental rights under the constitution and also they enjoy rights as a religious minority in respect of their religion, culture and language. These rights have been guaranteed under Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution. However, it also poses certain problems in society. Indian Muslims are free to follow their personal law in respect of marriage, divorce, inheritance etc.

In traditional shari’ah law men can marry up to four wives and in Hanafi law triple divorce in one sitting is permissible. Thus in a way a Muslim woman is less than equal in Muslim personal law and this clashes with constitutional provisions of Articles 14 to 21, according to which men and women enjoy absolutely equal rights. Thus some secularists as well as communal Hindus argue that there should be one law for all.

Even the Supreme Court judges differ in this respect. Some judges feel that Article 25 will prevail over Articles 14 to 21 and Muslim personal law cannot be tampered with by the state as the Constitution guarantees Muslims the right to follow their religion. Muslims as a religious minority are extremely sensitive to their religious identity. While secular forces in the country do not insist on a common personal law or a uniform civil code, communal forces led by Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), a leading Hindu nationalist party, still demand the abolition of Muslim personal law and the enforcement of a common civil code.

Though Muslims are a huge number in India, most of them are poor and illiterate. The government has neglected their problems but now the UPA (United Progressive Parties Alliance) Government, under pressure from Muslims, has announced a series of measures recommended by the Sachar Committee which was appointed by the UPA Government to look into Muslim problems.

Yet there is always a gap between declaration and implementation. But one good thing in a democracy is that political parties, in order to get Muslim votes, have often to compete with each other to please them, and in this competitive political environment minorities and other weaker sections of society benefit, though not to the fullest extent.

There is one more problem which Muslims have to address themselves. Their leadership generally comes from backward sections of Muslims and is quite conservative. What Muslims need today is a dynamic futuristic leadership. There are a large number of madrasas in India. Through modernization these madrasas could be transformed into centres of learning both religious as well as secular. However, a section of conservative Ulama resist any attempt to modernize madrasas, and traditional madrasas churn out only narrow minded mullahs who resist any change.

Another problem which has emerged recently is that of terrorism. Terrorism is a complex international phenomenon and it is very difficult to ascertain what role some Indian Muslim youth are playing in terrorist violence. It is true that the Gujarat communal riots of 2002, in which more than 2000 Muslims were brutally killed, generated a lot of anger among Muslims but it is difficult to say whether some Muslim youth have taken to terrorism by way of terrorist attacks.

Muslims themselves suspect either certain international agencies like Israel’s Mosad and the CIA are playing roles to give Islam a bad name, and Muslims or some rightwing Hindu organizations are playing their own games from behind. The Indian intelligence agencies blame SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India), HuJI (Hizbul Jihad-i-Islami) of Bangladesh and Lashkar-e-Taiyyiba of Pakistan.

However, though some Muslim youth from India may be involved, it seems unlikely that banned organization like SIMI, which is quite insignificant in terms of numbers and its entire top leadership is under arrest, can play any significant role.

By and large Islam in secular democratic India tends to be more tolerant and peaceful than in other Muslim majority countries. There are no strong fundamentalist tendencies as witnessed in countries like Pakistan in South Asia. Muslim intelligentsia in India seems to be far more accommodative than in other Muslim countries.

Interview with Ashgar Ali Engineer