In Search of the Moderate Muslim

Let us get this straight. As an Indian and a Muslim I feel no fear about the fallout of the Afghan War. Not because my government is making things wonderfully comfortable for me, but because I know that if push comes to shove the Hindu fundamentalists will vent their ire on some ‘pockets’. And these pockets will be exploited by all stripes of people.

For the past few weeks I have been sick of this ‘Muslim question’. Because invariably there is the clause: what ‘kind’ of Muslim? The frothing at the mouth Muslim? The bump on the forehead but lips sealed Muslim? The burqa as laaj-sharam Muslim or the burqa as chaudhvin ka chaand romanticised Muslim? The dum pukht Muslim or the Dom Perignon Muslim? The Holy Quran Muslim or the holy cow Muslim? The openly jihadi Muslim or the closet fundamentalist Muslim? Your sugar won’t melt in my mouth Muslim or the lohe ke channe chabanewalla Muslim? The kamsin bibi Muslim or the come sin babe Muslim? The Mahila Mandal Muslim or the Mumtaz of the navel Muslim? The chaar biwi aur sattar houri ke intezaar mein Muslim or the hijra begging at the traffic lights Muslim? Which one do you want? Haven’t I given you a veritable feast?

But, no. You have the conservative, the moderate and if you are feeling liberal the…er…hmph…liberal…unhuh…Musl im. Now this entity has to be a woman, has to wear a bindi, has to challenge a beard, because only then will she be considered a liberal, no?

Does this mean that Indian Muslims are not ready to hear a truly liberal voice? Are they essentially a rabid bunch? Should their concern not be roti, kapda aur makaan? Bully to you. Why does anyone not ask those poor sods who went hammer and tongs at the Babri Masjid to go fill their bellies, put on some fresh clothes and find a decent home instead of carrying bricks on their heads? Why can Muslims not be political, social, ideological creatures in the country of their birth?

If the WTC attack was just an act of ‘terrorism’, why is the Indian media not asking Hindus what they think about it? Why is there no panel discussion with Christians about ‘What does the meaning of a crusade hold in the contemporary context?’ I have been watching STAR Plus and I notice that the ‘balanced’ picture invariably makes a very slanted comment. Their whole exercise seems to be to convey that the Indian Muslims will (if they are not already) be key figures in this war drama. If this hype were not created in the first place, the Muslims would have gone about their lives. But we are supposed to empathise with an open-mouthed Pakistani in the streets of Karachi whose file photographs appear regularly in the press. (I feel qualified enough now to even surgically remove tonsils.) We are supposed to accept that liberals taking out anti-war rallies are right and conservatives doing so are jalaads. And now we are also being asked to choose between Imam Bukhari and Shabana Azmi – the devil and the demon. There is absolutely no difference between the two of them.

He publicly calls her a “naachne-gaanewalli” (since the word ‘tawaif’ was beeped out, who is responsible for making it public and creating a sympathy wave over it?). Now this is the way film people have often been referred to for years. And for one who fights for women’s rights, just a thought: what is so derogatory about the term? Isn’t a tawaif also a woman? Has Ms. Azmi ever questioned why Uma Bharti’s stature is always being reduced by the media referring to her as the “sexy sanyasin”?

But the dignity of this dignitary had to be maintained. The anchor of the programme apologized to the lady for this undignified reference. Has any anchor apologised to a mullah type for being called a ‘jaahil’, a ‘rabble-rouser’, and even ‘un-Islamic’ by the so-called liberals? How can Azmi ask the Imam to go to Kandahar and fight there and solve the problems only because he said this is every Muslim’s jihad? Who cares what he says? How many Indian Muslims are going to line up there? And just by the way, he really put the VHP-BJP dreams to naught when he decided against marching to the US embassy. In a democracy, that these people hold so precious, he has as much of a right to say what he wishes. Has he or any of his ilk asked her to house the slum-dwellers whose cause she espouses?

For her, as for Bukhari, every group they claim to represent is just a potential constituency -- political, social or religious. While for one the madrassa is an instrument to brainwash children, what the other does not realise is that it is possibly the only affordable avenue for many Indian Muslim children. For a liberal it is easy to lambast the madrassa culture, but I am surprised that when a Bombay based organization called the Raza Academy takes out peaceful protest rallies using children, they don’t say anything. Why? Are these young minds not being psychologically attuned to taking positions and sides? I have objected to this earlier, but there has not been a cheep of protest from our professional liberals.

They are more interested in their signature campaigns. Again, Javed Akhtar comes on a programme and talks about how he went to Behrampada post-riots, after the Shahi Imam had issued a fatwa to boycott the Republic Day function, and got 9000 signatures of Muslims saying they were not with the Imam. His grouse was that no newspaper carried this path-breaking piece of news; they only like sensational pronouncements by the fanatics, he felt.

One, I don’t think anyone has any business to go around collecting signatures from a suffering people (Behrampada was among the worst-affected areas) only to suit their narrow agenda. What did they expect? That people would refuse? Today, I too can go to such a place and manage to get any damn signature/thumb impression.

Two, what does boycotting Republic Day celebrations mean anyway? Besides the floats representing different states parading in Delhi, no one ‘celebrates’ it. So what was the idea, if not a devious way to garner some mileage? What did those liberals do there – go to the jhuggis, dirty their feet and say, ‘Bhaiyon aur behenon, aap bade maze se January 26 ka jashn manaiye, woh Shahi saab sathiyaa gaye hai” (“Celebrate Republic Day, the Imam has gone senile”)? Are you trying to say that beleaguered widows, homes without any earning member left, were going to hoist the tricolour only to prove that they could be called moderate Muslims? Just let me state here that the majority of the Muslim women in these slums do not wear burqas, the men do not have the time or space to say their namaaz regularly and many do not even know what the shariat is and perhaps not even what a jihad is. And many more people there will recognise Shabana Azmi rather than a G.M.Banatwalla or Syed Shahabuddin, who are the ‘ugly face’ of Islam. These people in the jhopdis watch films, listen to music.

True, in the past few years, they have begun to feel persecuted. They are trapped between wanting to assert their identity and yet having to deny it. The beard is not just any old beard anymore. It is a symbol of belonging AND alienation. So where is the question of bringing up the issue of a conservative or moderate Muslim in a multi-cultural society, when they are forced to fight not for their religion but against another? The Blacks and the Hispanics are just that in American society – you do not talk in terms of moderate or liberal communities there.

The problem is that the Bukharis and the Azmis feed each other. For all her whining about how the ‘sane’ voices do not get heard, she is loud enough, thank you. And if we come round to talking about ethics, then both have displayed their lack of it. He shamelessly uses his titular position to garner political (not popular, mind you) clout, and she uses her position to promote a secular agenda that is unique, for the irony is that Shabana Azmi is in the Rajya Sabha today simply because she is a Muslim. And she had no qualms at all trying to wrest a bungalow for herself, which a first time nominated MP is not entitled to. She does not project herself as just another ambitious person, but makes everything she does look like a belief she has to uphold and be in charge of. Despite her idealistic causes, she is a complete realist. Now how different is that from the Imam?

I don’t think Indian Muslims are looking for someone to represent their case. It is the others who are constantly on the lookout for the right sound-bytes. The further argument to this is: How religious can a moderate be? It is a tough question. I have often been blasted because while I am not religious I claim to be a Muslim. Why do I do that? Because I have little choice. Because I am culturally a Muslim. Because I am the Other, and instead of mouthing sweet nothings, I decide to speak from that position of ‘non authority’. Which means that since I do not toe the majoritarian line, whatever I say amounts to speaking out. But I am not classified a liberal, even though liberalism is all about expressing what you feel is wrong. It beats me then why the liberals are liberal? What do they do? Push the right buttons, say the right things? Funny how they use the Quran to justify their acts, quoting para and verse, but if a mullah does it, god help him. They want to culturally remove themselves from the community and yet speak for that community. And the conservatives who are so caught up in their frayed books and have no inkling about the culture become custodians to ‘liberate’ the community. It is all very circuitous.

When Muslims abroad express fear over their names, they are said to be right regarding their concern; Muslims in India doing so will be called paranoid. When expatriate Muslims point out problem areas about their adopted countries, it reveals their ‘larger concerns’; Indian Muslims doing so in the country of their birth are termed traitors. American Muslims holding forth on the current political scenario with a critical eye are said to understand the virtues of a throbbing democracy; Indian Muslims are ‘tolerated for creating a noise’. Get this clear. We are not immigrants that we have to melt in some goddamn pot. We have lived in India for centuries, and we have to prove nothing.

If we want to take to the streets, we can.

If we want to express political, social, economic concerns, we can.

If we want to wear burqas and grow beards, it is entirely our prerogative.

If we want to wear bindis and grow nothing, again it is our business.

If we want to declare a jihad, we can.

If we prefer to sit quiet, we can.

If we want to read blasphemous books, who is to stop us?

If we want to burn them, fine.

If we want to be exploited as a vote bank, it is our problem.

If we wish to raise a dissenting voice, good luck to us.

If we think our religion is the best, we have every right to believe so.

If we think all religions are equal, we must lead our lives in keeping with this cliché.

But whatever we do, it must be with the knowledge that while our acts may not be condemnable; they need not be condoned by others. Whatever we do is OUR choice, granted to us by the Indian Constitution. It is our right, not something we have to be apologetic about. Our liberalism cannot be held to ransom by the ‘donated’ liberalism of others.

And for those who are singing hosannas to the news kids on the block, let me tell you about a small meeting I had with their scholar-father, Dr. Rafiq Zakaria. He had invited me for tea and talk. In the course of the conversation he told me how misguided I was about Islam and according to the shariat I could be sent straight to hell. I was at that time mighty pleased. Imagine not having to plan a tour itinerary! But think about it: The ‘moderate’ Muslim virtually branding me a sinner. What does that make me then?