Bishruddin Sharqi is the President of the Students' Islamic Organization (SIO) of India, the students' wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. The SIO is the single largest Islamic students' organization in India. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he talks about the issue of terrorism and the urgent need for improving inter-community relations in India.
Q: In the wake of a chain of deadly bomb blasts across India in recent months, the media is awash with stories of Muslim youths whom it accuses of being behind these attacks. How do you look at how the media has reported this issue?
A: It is clear that in many cases perfectly innocent Muslim youths have been picked up by the police and wrongly accused by them of being behind various blasts. I am not saying that not a single Muslim has been involved in any terrorist activities. It might be possible that, due to denied justice, a few Muslims might have engaged in some such acts. All terror attacks, no matter who their perpetrators may be, must be sternly condemned and those behind them must be punished according to the law. But my point is that in a vast number of cases, totally innocent Muslims have been wrongly accused of complicity. On the other hand, as is increasingly being shown, at least some of these blasts have been the handiwork of fiercely anti-Muslim Hindutva groups. In a large number of cases of arrests of Muslims accused of being 'terrorists,' all we have are confessions given by the accused before the police, rather than statements given before magistrates, and this cannot be accepted as evidence in the courts because we know that very often such 'confessions' are forced after torture. But the media simply parrots the police version, without any proper investigation, to create the absolutely false spectre of Muslim youths being allegedly all set to detonate deadly bombs across the country. Things have become so bad that one can now even talk of 'media terrorism', with Islam and Muslims as the chosen target. The SIO has also been a victim of this sort of vicious media propaganda, along with several other Muslim organizations that have nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of terrorism. To cite one instance, some months ago a leading TV channel claimed that an advertisement had appeared in an Urdu paper published from Malegaon appealing to Muslim youths to shift their allegiance from the banned SIMI to the SIO. Actually, that advertisement was a public appeal to register for a Quranic recitation programme. We've taken this TV channel to court and the noted lawyer and human rights activist N.D Pancholi is handling our case. This is just one instance of how very influential sections of the media are making a very concerted effort to manufacture the image of Indian Muslims as 'terrorists' and demonizing them without adducing any evidence.
Q: Why do you think this is happening?
A: Some sections of the media seem to be doing this knowingly and deliberately, and this has to do with a host of factors, including deep-rooted communal biases and prejudices. This probably also has to do with their desperate drive for profit, which they think they can hike by broadcasting sensational stories, even if these lack any veracity.
Q: How do you think this sort of what you call 'media terrorism' can be countered?
A: This is not an easy task, given the communal and economic interests that are involved. Perhaps we now need to think of evolving new and alternate media that are not driven by the lust for maximizing profit and that represent the interests, voices and concerns of the marginalized—not just Muslims alone but other such communities, such as Dalits and Adivasis, as well as peoples' struggles for justice and justice-based peace that are emerging across the country today. Obviously, in this regard, the Muslim media is far behind. The Urdu media is now almost wholly a Muslim concern, and so it cannot reach out to other people to counter the demonization of Islam and Muslims. The very limited English-language media owned by Muslims also has very few non-Muslims among its readers or listeners. Muslim leaders and organizations need to give much more attention than they hitherto have to the issue of developing and using the media to voice their views and to get them across to a broader, including non-Muslim, audience. Only then can the sort of 'media terrorism' that I referred to be countered. Fortunately, this is increasingly being realised by some Muslims today.
Q: The now-banned SIMI had adopted a very hardliner position, claiming that Muslims in India and elsewhere must struggle for the establishment of what it called a Caliphate (Khilafah). How do you view this approach?
A: Raising the slogan for Khilafah is not itself a crime. Any ideological movement will naturally raise slogans closely related to its creed. Ramarajya of Gandhiji and the Marxist dream of a classless society are examples of this. But how you will articulate them is the important question. Resorting to violence or preaching hatred of other communities for this purpose cannot be allowed, and Islam also forbids this. As far as Islam is concerned, I think the approach always should be productive and positive. Theoretically itself, Islam admits pluralism. In a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society like India, groups working to create religious awareness have to recognize and respect the existing religious and cultural pluralism. But this concept of pluralism does means that you should abandon your cultural identity and ideological stance. I think the major task before Muslim groups should be to seek to communicate the message of their faith to people of other faiths peacefully. Rather than enter into controversies with them, we should seek to work together with them on issues of common concern. This is what the Qur'an instructs us to do. You have to work along with other communities, gaining their cooperation and goodwill, rather than antagonizing them. I feel that globally Islamic movements are realizing this. They are now understanding that the confrontational and violent path is futile and, indeed, counter-productive. They are now appreciating how crucial it is to work with and for people of other faiths, in the process reflecting, through their deeds, rather than just through their words or through their literature, the social message of Islam. So, now in Egypt, for instance, the leading Islamist movement Ikhwan ul-Muslimoon even has Coptic Christian Members of Parliament, and in Lebanon, Hizbullah works closely with some important Christian groups.
Q: Is that sort of thing happening with Islamic movements in India, too?
A: In India we have some twenty-five thousand non-Muslim associates and sympathisers who participate in and cooperate with our programs. In Kerala, where I belong, the SIO now has many non-Muslim sympathisers. The Solidarity Youth Movement, the vibrant youth wing of Jamaat in Kerala, has more than 500 non-Muslim members. In several colleges under the MG University, Kottayam, the Kerala University, Trivandrum, and the Calicut and Kannur universities, all in Kerala, the SIO has near about 20 Christian and Hindu members in students' union posts. We see ourselves not as a Muslim organization, but, rather, as an Islamic students' movement, and we regard Islam as being for the whole of humankind, not just for those who call themselves Muslim. This is why our work is not restricted to Muslims alone. I think we need to broaden our focus further so that we can associate more effectively with non-Muslim students as well. In recent years our policy and programs concentrates more on taking up issues of concern to all students, not confining ourselves to just Muslims. In this regard, Kerala is well in advance of other states, where not just the SIO but several other important Muslim organizations have for quite a while now been devoting their attention to build relations and working together with people of other faiths for common social causes, particularly for peace and communal harmony.
Q: So, do you see Kerala as an exception?
A: I think Muslim organizations in other parts of India have much to learn from the Kerala example. Unlike in much of the rest of the country, the Kerala Muslims are an integral part of the 'mainstream'. They know the art of peaceful coexistence. They have been influenced not just by various Islamic reformist movements but also by the climate created by various reformist movements in other communities as well as by progressive social and political movements. In Kerala, unlike in much of the rest of India, Muslims play an active and important part in the decision-making process. What is most striking about Kerala, as I suggested, is its legacy of close relations and interaction between the different religious communities in the state, though, unfortunately, things are beginning to change there, too. The key question is of learning how to interact in a peaceful and friendly manner while still keeping one's identity intact. I think one very effective and meaningful way of doing this is for people of different faiths to work together for common social causes—be it against immorality or against imperialism or struggling together for social justice. Let me cite a small but very meaningful example. Two years ago, the Kerala unit of the SIO organized a conference for medical college students in Trichur on the theme 'Not Medical Ethics but Life Ethics Itself'. Some 40% of the girls and boys who participated in the program were Christians and Hindus. All the boys, Muslims as well as others, stayed in the mosque, and while the Muslim boys prayed in the mosque we had arranged rooms for the Hindu and Christian boys to say their prayers also. This program was very successful, and for many of the participants it was their first experience of staying together with people of other faiths. If such experiments and efforts could be made at a larger level, they could have a significant impact in terms of promoting inter-community understanding and solidarity.
Q: So, what advice would you give Muslims to seek to counter the increasing demonization of the Muslims that is being encouraged by influential sections of the media?
A: My opinion is that rather than simply constantly repeating that they are not engaged in any sort of terrorism, Muslims must seek to give a social answer to this wrong allegation, and that is by engaging in constructive, peaceful and positive social work that benefits others as well. We need to develop and use positive energy rather than be forced to be constantly on the defensive. For that, we need to have a positive agenda as an Ummah. The concept of "Ummah" stands for a society with a clear vision and strong and imaginative leadership that can lead according to this vision. In this way, by our actions, by making a positive contribution to society, we can show and make people feel what Islam, properly interpreted and really is. This would help counter the concerted efforts that are being made to portray Islam as allegedly synonymous with terrorism. Ignorance of other communities is a major cause of communal prejudice, and so I am all for healthy and close interaction between Muslims and others. We need to communicate with each other, and religion is a grand discourse for such communication. Muslims need to come out of their ghetto complex. We must become more pro-active in promoting bridges between the different communities. We should abstain from emotionalism. Unfortunately, sometimes I feel that we react emotionally to issues when we should respond intellectually. Thus, for instance, as regards Tasleema Nasreen, I feel that the best way for us to respond is by answering her by writing, not by holding violent demonstrations. The same holds true for several other such challenges before us. That's how the Prophet spread his message— by using his wisdom and intellect, not by charging up his companions emotionally. Take, for instance, the case of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah between the Prophet and his Meccan opponents of the Qureish clan. When the treaty was being signed, the Qureish insisted that the Prophet write his name simply as 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah', instead of 'Muhammad, Prophet of Allah'. The Prophet agreed to this demand. He also agreed that if any Muslim from Medina, where the Prophet had his base, came to Mecca, which was then controlled by his opponents, the Meccans need not return him to Medina, and at the same time also agreed that any Meccan Qureish in Medina would be returned to Mecca. Several of the Prophet's close companions were upset by the terms of the treaty, thinking that they was an insult to the Muslims. Yet, the Prophet agreed to these terms. The Quran described the treaty as a 'Great Victory', for the next year the Prophet entered Mecca along with his followers peacefully. I think this single instance provides valuable lessons about how Muslims should respond to the challenges that they are faced with today.
Q: To come back to the issue of SIMI, what do you feel about the approach of radical Islamist groups, including SIMI, that condemn secularism and democracy outright as 'anti-Islamic'? In this connection, what do you feel about the views of Syed Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, who had similar views?
A: The point is that Maududi Sahib, or any writer for that matter, needs to be studied and understood in his own social and temporal location and context. The sort of secularism that Maududi Sahib was confronted with when he fiercely opposed it was one that was vehemently opposed to religion, the sort that we can see in Turkey even now, but today there are other forms of secularism that are not so, that respect religion and religious freedom. Obviously, the way we view these forms of secularism must be different. The same is true for nationalism, which, in Maududi Sahib's time, was often equated with national chauvinism or even the deification of the nation. But today, in the age of so-called 'globalisation', the very notion and meaning of the nation-state have changed and are vastly different, so obviously the fiercely antagonistic posture adopted with regard to it by certain radical groups is not appropriate or realistic. Most of these so-called Maududian views and comments were formed when India was still under the British. Maulana Maududi himself revisited and changed some of his own ideas after that. His advice to the Indian Jamaat after Partition was also to work peacefully and lawfully in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society. As I said, today, at the global level, Islamic movements are increasingly coming to realize that they need to revise the ways they have traditionally looked at issues such as secularism, democracy, religious pluralism and politics. The Jamaat-e-Islami of India is no exception to this trend. No movement, if it wants to stay alive, can remain obsessed with its founding individual and refuse to change. That's why, for instance, there are forms of neo-Marxism that have sought to move beyond Marx. Likewise, we need to re-define our approach. This the Jamaat-e Islami has itself been practically doing. So, while Maulana Maududi forbade voting for or participating in elections held under a secular Constitution, the Indian Jamaat shifted its position on this decade ago. It first allowed for its members to vote, and then for them to support certain parties. And now, in this age of neo-liberal economics, which is playing such havoc with the lives of the poor, we are taking an active role in working with non-Muslim human rights groups and popular movements. All of this naturally constitutes a major shift from the earlier approach of the Jamaat and Maududi himself.
Q: Has this global shift in the policies of various Islamic movements that you mentioned also impacted on the ways in which these movements conceive of what they call 'Islamic politics', particularly the notion of the 'Islamic state'?
A: Actually, the concept of Islamic State is highly misunderstood. It does not indicate a dictatorship where no other opinions and expressions will be allowed. The focal point of Maulana Maududi's views is the Qur'anic concept of Inil Hukmu illa lillah, that the real and ultimate source of power belongs to God, rather than to the state. When nation-states were the centres of power he talked about the state in connection with power. The need of the hour is to recognize the new non-state power centers of today and to realize Islamic ideas accordingly. There is a growing feeling among various Islamic movements that what is of central importance now is to work at the social, economic and cultural planes, to provide services and solutions to people in these spheres, and that this sort of work might later help strengthen them politically. Because today no longer is the state as an institution that powerful, for power is increasingly shifting to other spheres—to the economy, the media, knowledge and so on. And so it is in these arenas that constructive work needs to be done. In this regard I would like to cite the leading Tunisian 'Islamist' ideologue, Rashid Ghanouchi, who now argues that Islamic groups must desist from militant confrontation with the state, and, instead, must seek to cultivate or acquire social acceptance by providing concrete services to people. If people then accept them and themselves choose to be governed by an Islamic state then can such a state come into being. So, in other words, I see that, increasingly, several Islamic movements are beginning to become more attuned to social realities and possibilities, and are also now increasingly realizing the importance of promoting inter-community solidarity, which I consider as a major issue today the world over. ========================================
Bishruddin Sharqi can be contacted on sendbishru@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment