Author: Saisuresh Sivaswamy
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: June 22, 2002
URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/22sai.htm
Stereotypes are like the Goebbelsian
lie -- repeat them so often, they come to replace the truth.
Those of us who have had the misfortune
to be at the receiving end know -- often thanks to Indian cinema's penchant
for stereotypes -- that the person propagating the lie mostly does it out
of ignorance, and sometimes out of malice.
But when a person as learned as
Dr Rafiq Zakaria -- sometimes Congressman, mostly Islamic scholar whose
erudition needs no elaboration -- willy-nilly perpetuates a popular stereotype
about Muslims in India, one is not certain if his motivation was ignorance
or malice. If neither, then what?
For those scratching their heads,
Dr Zakaria wrote in The Asian Age that presidential nominee A P J Abdul
Kalam cannot be considered a Muslim because he a) does not involve himself
in the affairs of the community and b) he does not follow Islamic tenets
like fasting during Ramzaan, saying namaaz five times a day. Worse, Dr
Zakaria wrote, Kalam's favourite scripture was the Bhagvad Gita, and favourite
deity was Krishna. But for the fact that he was born with a Muslim name,
there was nothing Muslim about Kalam, ran the tenor of the piece.
Dr Zakaria also left himself an
escape route: he wrote that Kalam will not make a Muslim President on the
lines of Dr Zakir Hussain and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed -- the latter, younger
readers will need to be told, being the same gent who signed Indira Gandhi's
Emergency proclamation in 1975 with nary a glance, some say from the comforts
of his bathtub.
Going by Dr Zakaria's enumeration
of what makes a good Muslim, the very criterion that rules out the Bharat
Ratna qualifies -- no surprises here -- the same gentlemen who, on September
11, flew fuel-laden aircraft into symbols of American might, chanting,
one presumes, Inninillahi as they went to their maker. The merchants of
violent death in Kashmir, and the perpetrators of the Mumbai serial blasts
of 1993, they all qualify as good Muslims and will, no doubt, on their
death get to galavant with houris in jannat as it is said in the holy book.
And probably, as a bonus, get to watch apostates like Dr Kalam burn in
hell.
What have you done, Dr Zakaria!
How could you even push such a line!
The tragedy with what Dr Zakaria
wrote is two-fold. One, his erudition has not prevented him from exposing
the ugly truth about his faith, a truth that has lurked in the shadows,
a truth that is bitter. That Islam brooks no deviation from what was uttered
1500 years ago, never mind if all creed, all dictates, are contextual and
should be treated as such. The world may not have much sympathy for, or
understanding of, doctrinaire isms anymore, but when scholars refuse to
take note of this, one wonders, what Islam do they know who only Islam
know.
The second tragedy is that he has
refused to see how the Indian, indeed the entire Asian experience has altered
and enriched the local cultures where Islam set root even while it was
being enriched in turn. Thus, the brand and nature of Islam being practiced
in, say, Ramanathapuram is as distinct from that practiced in Jharkhand
as the one in, say, Tajikistan. To enforce one uncompromising view on the
entire community, ummah, may have theological sanction but nothing else.
With his outline of what or who
is a Muslim, Dr Zakaria has virtually disfranchised a significant number
of those who consider themselves Muslim. Taken further, it would even excommunicate
the founder of a Muslim homeland in the subcontinent.
The stereotypical Muslim -- Ghalib
spouting, paan-chewing, biryani-loving creature -- Dr Zakaria may be surprised
to know, is not what the majority of the community is about. He himself
may feel comfortable in the environs that he has outlined, but that cannot
be the yardstick to determine who is a Muslim and who is not. And, anyway,
that task is not the bailiwick of scholars and lesser mortals.
Further, if Dr Zakaria were to poll
the nation on who its ideal Muslim is, he would be surprised to find Kalam
topping the list. And it won't be because he plays the veena, or that he
recites the Bhagvad Gita or that he loves the company of Brahmins and shares
their dietary and other habits. These are after all facts that not many
were aware of till Zakaria himself highlighted them. On the contrary, it
would be because he is seen as a Muslim who has fashioned the nation's
defense against an adversary that is seeking to dismember, destroy India
in the name of Islam.
At a time when the popular stereotypes
of Muslims still going around are those who burst crackers when Pakistan
wins, who reduce Hindus to refugees when not gunning them down, or just
criminals who fill the city pages of daily newspapers with their deeds,
India needs more Muslims like Dr Kalam, who represent the awesome synthesis
between culture and religion, who speak not as Muslims first but as Indians
first and last.
Such apostasy may not book them
a berth in the heavens above or a place at the head of the table with the
community, Dr Zakaria may demur, but these are the Muslims who need to
stand up and be counted, allow their voices to be heard.
When that happens in good numbers,
the stereotypical Muslim will hopefully be relegated to Bollywood fantasy
and scholastic thesis.
