Author: M V Kamath
Publication: Organiser
Date: July 14, 2002
Introduction: What the good Maulana
obviously wants is for Muslims not to join mainstream Indians, least –
and that is his fear – they lose their ‘identity’.
The 16th session of the All India
Muslim Personal Law Board. meeting in Hyderabad on June 21 opened, according
to news reports, “with a call to Muslims to work stridently for the protection
of their religious identity”. The call was given by the Rector of Nadwatul
Ulema, Lucknow, Maulana Mohammad Rabey Hasani Nadwi, in his inaugural address.
According to him “if there are hurdles in the way of safeguarding the identity,
the Muslims would not remain Muslims. The term “Muslim” would just be another
meaningless word.” What, one wonders, did the Maulana mean in calling for
preservation of Muslim identity. How does one preserve one's identity?
Through dress, deportment, personal appearance, food habits, language?
There are stereotypes and stereotypes. One stereotype is that of the person
who wears a skull cap, sports a beard, dresses in pyjamas and long shirt
that goes well beneath the knees, claims Urdu as his mother tongue (though
he may have been brought up in Southern India), says namaz five times a
day, enjoys meat- specially beef-dishes, and subscribes to jihad. By that
token APJ Abdul Kalam hardly qualifies to be called a Muslim. And indeed,
if what is commented upon in the Urdu Press is any indication, few hard
line Muslims accept Kalam as a fellow-Muslim, which is very sad. Kalam
does not wear a skull cap, wears trousers and shirts like the rest of us
ordinary human beings, sports no beard either and calls himself a brahmachari.
Forget four wives, he does not want to have even one. Worse, he is a confirmed
vegetarian. He is reported as a devout Muslim who says his namaz, but what
apparently is held against him is the fact that he is also conversant with
the Bhagwad Gita and can quote from it with ease. Is that an anti-Islamic
life-style? Or way of behaviour? In a derogatory reference to Kalam's catholicity,
'the noted Islamic scholar Dr Rafiq Zakaria suggested that nobody should
describe Kalam as a “Muslim” President and take credit for electing him.
“I wish him all the best”, wrote Dr Zakaria, “may God, of whatever denomination,
Kalam believes in, be with him.” That is adding insult to injury. As a
good Muslim Kalam obviously is not supposed to read the Gita. Can he sing
a hymn in praise of Saraswati, the Goddess of Learning? Is Ustad Bismillah
Khan, born and brought up in Varanasi, who has no hesitation in invoking
Saraswati, entitled to call himself a Muslim? Not long ago, the well-known
columnist Saeed Naqvi reminded his readers of namaz saying Muslims-one
hundred and fifty of them-performing the Ramayana ballet under the shadow
of Jogjakrta’s magnificent temples for the past 27 years without a break.
Are they not acceptable as Muslims? And does one necessarily have to spout
an Arabic name to be “identified” as a Muslim? Indonesia’s current President
is Meghavati Sukarnoputri-and a more Sanskritic name it is hard to come
by. The former President Wahid’s second daughter apparently has Saraswati
as her name and according to a knowledgeable source one of his Muslim bodyguards
was named Krishnamurthy! Incidentally, Indonesia's airlines are name after
Garuda, Vishnu's vahana and stamped on its largest denomination currency
note is the seated figure of Ganesha. Does Indonesia disqualify itself
from being called a Muslim nation? The majority of Indonesians are Muslims.
But they are proud of their Hindu culture'. And nothing is going to change
their views.
Again, why should Muslims be associated
only with Urdu? Does a Muslim cease to be a Muslim if he spoke and wrote
in one or other of the sever al Indian languages like Bengali, or Marathi,
Tamil or Kannada? There are several distinguished Muslim writers in Kannada.
Kazi Nazrul Islam wrote powerful revolutionary poetry, replete with images
of Kali, in incomparable Bengali. Salbeg did likewise in. Oriya. Justice
Ismail in Chennai is known all over Tamil Nadu as a leading authority on
Khambha Ramayana. The Moplahs of, Kerala are proud of Malayalam. When Kemal
Ataturk came to power in Turkey he abolished the Fez Cap till then a sign
of Turkish nationhood. Indeed the red Fez used to be worn in parts of West,
India by Muslims till around the thirties. And if an Iraqi woman were to
walk down Fifth Avenue in New York nobody would be able to identify her
as a Muslim Iraqi women seldom wear the burqa right in Iraq itself. Time
was till some years ago, Roman Catholics whether in Goa or elsewhere carried
Hebraic names. Incidentally it is necessary to remind ourselves that there
are no “Hindu”, “Muslim” “Christian” or “Parsi” names. There are Sanskrit
names, Arabic names, Hebraic names, Persian names. Surely there was a Peter
and a Paul, a Mary and a Martha long before Jesus was born in Bethlehem?
Surely people in Arabia had names such as Ali or Mohammad long before the
Prophet (Peace be on him) preached Islam? The people of Bharat probably
never heard of the word 'Hindu' till Alexander invaded India. If the word
is interpreted correctly, all people, of whatever religion or denomination,
who live by and beyond the river Indus, are Hindus. What are we quarrelling
about? Christians are a wise people.
They are increasingly going back
to their ancient heritage, as is only right. Married women wear the mangalasutra
which is a beautiful custom. Their children are given Sanskrit names, though,
as some concession, they may not name them after “Hindu” deities like Krishna
or Vishnu. But by assuming Sanskrit names-as Indonesians do-they do not
becomes less Christian. Increasingly today Indian women are giving up the
sari for the salwar kameez-surely an Islamic import from Central Asia.
Does that make our Sitas and Savitris less Hindus? In what way do Catholics
distinguish themselves as separate from Protestants? Can anyone walking
down the street distinguish a Buddhist from a Jain? What the good Maulana
obviously wants is for Muslims not to join mainstream Indians, lest-and
that is his fear-they lose their 'identity'. One supposes that the Maulana
would not accept Mohammad Ali Jinnah as a Muslim. Jinnah did not know Urdu,
he was not averse to pork, he dressed like the pompous Britisher of his
time in a three-piece suit and would have been shocked if he was told to
sport a beard, and wear a skull cap. And yet it was Jinnah who created
Pakistan. There are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. Muslims, in
the circumstances, should not entertain fears of being subsumed under the
Indian ethos. The Maulana speaks in the language of the medieval age. APJ
Abdul Kalam is not afraid to be identified as an Indian. His mark of identity
is Science. He suffers from no 'identity crisis', as the Maulana apparently
does. Which is the reason why, one suspects, Indians have taken him to
their hearts. Can't we all be true Indians and simultaneously good Hindus,
Muslims or Christians without having to flaunt our 'identity'? Come on,
Maulana Sahib.
