Explained : Muslims and the Politics of Belonging in Contemporary India and Its Impact

What does it mean to be a Muslim in contemporary India? This question undoubtedly troubles innumerable people with varying degrees of intensity. From Kashmir to Kanyakumari experiences of groups and individuals shake our senses, forcing us to reflect and introspect. Certainly, there is a right wing political project, in many ways presently successful but ultimately zeroed in on the idea of a Hindu Rashtra. Curiously, those who pursue that idea seldom elucidate what that entails in entirety, as indeed those who intuitively resist it remain confused about its foot print and whether it is temporary or lasting. 

A few ground rules of the discussion must first be clearly stated. India’s population is overwhelmingly of the Hindu faith and are certainly entitled to an overall ambience that fully respects Hindu sentiments and way of life. It is far from the truth for anyone to suggest that even remotely Hindu ethos is suppressed, leave aside a conscious and deliberate national attitude. The argument about Hindu places of worship allegedly having been converted by force during the medieval period is a stand alone matter, albeit serious and must be responded to separately. For the rest, it is not about what Hindus ought to have but more about what others ought not to have.

None of the religions that bless the beautiful land of India prescribe norms for persons other than followers of the respective religions. Religious reform, so long as it is pursued by the persons of the faith and their theological leaders is no concern of others beyond an enlightened interest in reform per se. The trouble arises when persons of one faith seek to force people of other faiths to partake of reform because their beliefs and perceptions are thought to be superior to those of others. That is in democratic philosophy is the distinction between self referential and other referential, the former being legitimate whilst the latter is impermissible as distorting democratic choice.

On another level, the other referential advocates might point to the real or imagined demands of constitutionalism, making a distinction between religion and secular precepts, suggesting that the latter are superior to the former and entitled to override them. But it cannot be a matter of reductionism; the very constitution relied upon to question religious practices makes a point to protect and preserve religious beliefs and functions. Are we to understand that religion is protected so long as it is reasonable by generally accepted standards of conduct?

Also read: What Indian Cities Owe to Islam

The Sabrimala judgment, now before a larger bench, makes a stark contrast between the majority of four judges who relied on the equality clause and the dissenting judge (the only lady judge) who followed the beliefs of Lord Ayyappa’s followers. Be that as it may, such differences are internal and therefore cause no further consequences. But the hijab matter was quickly turned into an ugly communal confrontation despite Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia of the Supreme Court having sought to confine the issue to a matter of personal choice rather than personal law.

There is then a clear intent and preference of the incumbent government for uniformity versus diversity. How the former ensures unity remains an untested assumption. Forced uniformity could well lead to resistance, particularly if the uniformity shows preference for a favoured system. Furthermore, mathematical uniformity is not to be found even within communities that share religious beliefs, such as tribals and special sects within Hinduism, or the Shia-Sunni differences.

Let us now look at the responses of the Muslims in contemporary Indian society. There are those who choose accommodation over confrontation of the mildest kind. ‘Live and Let Live’ in its most optimistic version. Abjure contestation, avoid expectation; underplay display, conform; ask not, be silent spectators. Then there are those who choose to complain of injustice and victimhood, cautiously in the presence of other community persons, more vociferously amongst their own. Finally, there are dialogue seekers and aspirant bridge builders, to get some immediate relevance for self advancement or in contrast, the greater good of the community. Dialogue is intrinsically good and inevitable but it must not be a camouflage for surrender.

Two themes surface inevitably in discussions on the subject: first, what do the Hindutva proponents want? Second, do the minorities, particularly, Muslims need to identify their leaders to deal with the situation? Whilst we hear a great deal of murmurs about a lack of credible leaders, the fact is that no sincere effort is made to narrow down on promising candidates even as sundry, ambitious persons continue to assume leadership ambition. Meanwhile the Hindutva enthusiasts continue to prolong celebrations for the Ram Temple. What might have been a living symbol of reconciliation is treated as a victory edifice for one faith. Liberals and ordinary Muslims might be reluctant to join, at least till they are consciously made comfortable, yet the Hindu majority cannot avoid trying to include them.

Also read: How December 6 Continues to Shape India’s Violence and Memory

So whilst we need to know what proponents of a Hindu State consider essential attributes of such national existence and how anything about the way of life of Muslims and other minorities obstructs that, we need also to at least explain what different aspects of Islam mean and how they do not challenge or undermine Hindu tenets. Some interesting take aways from the recent Javed Akhtar-Mufti Shamail Nadwi debate on the existence of God might be useful. The two protagonists had in advance agreed not to debate any religion but only the existence of God, an atheist versus a believer.

While the debate was at best inconclusive, an important point of stalemate was why God permits genocides like Gaza to happen. On that score contemporary India needs to answer why God (Bhagwan) permits coarse and cruel acts to be conducted in His name? Just as Javed Akhtar wondered how the merciful and compassionate God (Allah) countenanced the suffering of children in Gaza. Those are questions of pre-destination and free will that have troubled us for millennia. But there is something we can all do with our free will.

The Bhakti version of Hinduism can live wonderfully with Sufi ethos in Islam. What is keeping us away from that positive convergence?

मोको कहां ढूँढ़े रे बन्दे

मैं तो तेरे पास में

ना तीरथ में ना मूरत में

ना एकान्त निवास में

ना मंदिर में ना मस्जिद में

ना काबे कैलास में

मैं तो तेरे पास में बन्दे

मैं तो तेरे पास में

ना मैं जप में ना मैं तप में

ना मैं बरत उपास में

ना मैं किरिया करम में रहता

नहीं जोग सन्यास में

नहीं प्राण में नहीं पिंड में

ना ब्रह्याण्ड आकाश में

ना मैं प्रकृति प्रवार गुफा में

नहीं स्वांसों की स्वांस में

खोजि होए तुरत मिल जाऊं

इक पल की तलाश में

कहत कबीर सुनो भई साधो

मैं तो हूं विश्वास में

(Where do you look for me, O devotee?

I am near you.

Not at a pilgrimage site, not at an idol,

Not in a solitary abode,

Not in a temple, not at a mosque,

Not in the Kaaba or Kailash,

I am near you, O devotee.

I am near you.

I am not engaged in chanting, nor in austerities.

I am not engaged in religious rituals, nor in religious ceremonies.

I am not engaged in yoga, renunciation,

I am not engaged in life, nor in the body.

I am not engaged in the universe, nor in the sky.

I am not in the cave of nature,

Not in the breath of every breath,

If you search for me, I will be found immediately,

In search of a moment,

Kabir says, listen, brother saints,

I am in faith.)

Ask any Indian, Hindu or Muslim if they have an issue with Kabir’s description of man’s relationship with God. Or for that matter with Muzzafer Warsi’s attempt to describe God:

कोई तो है जो निज़ाम-ए-हस्ती चला रहा है वही ख़ुदा है

दिखाई भी जो न दे नज़र भी जो आ रहा है वही ख़ुदा है

तलाश उस को न कर बुतों में वो है बदलती हुई रुतों में

जो दिन को रात और रात को दिन बना रहा है वही ख़ुदा है

वही है मशरिक़ वही है मग़रिब सफ़र करें सब उसी की जानिब

हर आईने में जो ‘अक्स अपना दिखा रहा है वही ख़ुदा है

किसी को सोचों ने कब सराहा वही हुआ जो ख़ुदा ने चाहा

जो इख़्तियार-ए-बशर पे पहरे बिठा रहा है वही ख़ुदा है

नज़र भी रक्खे समाअ’तें भी वो जान लेता है नियतें भी

जो ख़ाना-ए-ला-शु’ऊर में जगमगा रहा है वही ख़ुदा है

किसी को ताज-ए-वक़ार बख़्शे किसी को ज़िल्लत के ग़ार बख़्शे

जो सब के माथे पे मोहर-ए-क़ुदरत लगा रहा है वही ख़ुदा है

सफ़ेद उस का सियाह उस का नफ़स-नफ़स है गवाह उस का

जो शो’ला-ए-जाँ जला रहा है बुझा रहा है वही ख़ुदा है

(There is someone who is running the system of existence; that is God.

What is invisible, what is visible, that is visible.

Don’t look for Him in idols; He is in the changing seasons.

What turns day into night and night into day is God.

He is the East, He is the West, everyone should journey towards Him.

The one who reflects his own reflection in every mirror is God.

When did anyone ever appreciate what God wanted?

The one who keeps watch over the authority of man is God.

He observes the moments and understands the intentions.

He who shines in the House of Glory is God.

He who bestows the crown of honor on some and the pit of humiliation on others.

He who places the seal of power on everyone’s forehead is God.

His white is black, his very soul bears witness to it.

The one who ignites and extinguishes the flames of life is God.)

There is clearly much in common between people of different faiths and possibly no direct or indirect clash of entitlements. Ultimately it is a matter of attitude to live in harmony. Our constitution provides complete cover for rights of individuals although the contest between individuals and society can sometimes be challenging. The implications though are equally applicable to all irrespective of the group they belong to.

The rights guarantee is twofold: first, to protect attributes of equal citizenship; and second, to provide affirmative action to bring all citizens on par in terms of participation. We have celebrated this idea since Independence. Yet today we must take note of the inaugural of the new mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, who unselfconsciously took oath on the Holy Quran. It is not just an event but the underscoring of a democratic idea. It is not just appeasement or compromise but an assertion of equality. We have had similar moments in our own nation but sadly some people today believe that to be a mistake. In denying true democracy, we deny humanity, indeed we deny God, by whatever name. It is time to seek God within, instead of reacting to manufactured, contrived physical attributes. The rewards will be greater.

Salman Khurshid is a former foreign minister and law minister. 

This article went live on January tenth, two thousand twenty six, at eight minutes past five in the evening.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.