Author: Balbir K Punj
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 13, 2009
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/215363/Fanatics-to-the-fore-again.html
The face of 'change' that was seen at Deoband
when the 30th annual session of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind attracted an impressive
gathering of several thousand Islamic clerics and other religious leaders
was soon exposed to be nothing more than cosmetic. The meeting had a Hindu
religious scholar reciting from the Vedas and the very popular Baba Ramdev
preaching and demonstrating the benefits of pranayam. Apart from these welcome
gestures, the meeting was a huge disappointment for all those who expected
the Jamiat to lead the Muslim community into the 21st century.
The 25 resolutions adopted at the meeting
are a throwback to the seventh and eighth centuries. Among other things, they
espouse no cinema, no television and no reservation for women in legislatures
since these are supposed to be 'un-Islamic'. Cinema being against the tenets
of Islam is ridiculous as many of Bollywood's personalities are Muslims. From
Shah Rukh Khan to Saif Ali Khan, the Khans are the dominant actors in the
film industry. Then there are numerous Muslim writers, lyricists, music composers,
directors, etc.
The worst display of ultra-orthodoxy has come
in the form of the resolution rejecting women's representation in legislatures.
The reason given is that by bringing women into the mainstream various 'social
problems' will crop up. The clerics are simply using religion as an excuse
to reject gender equality.
While all this shameful display of orthodoxy
may be the Jamiat's interpretation of Islam, the important question is what
was Union Home Minister P Chidambaram doing at the meeting? His attendance
has given the gathering a sort of Government approval. Why did he remain silent
when the clerics were challenging and rejecting the fundamentals of Indian
democracy? What was he doing quietly listening to the antediluvian rhetoric
at the event?
True, Mr Chidambaram did speak on the liberating
influence of education and how it empowers our children. He could have clarified
that when he said children he meant both boys and girls. He could have referred
to the widespread reluctance within the Muslim community to send girls to
secular schools after the age of 10. How could a Minister of this Government
that has time and again underlined its commitment to giving 33 per cent reservation
to women in legislatures lend the prestige of the Union Home Minister's presence
to a meeting that condemns this very reservation as unacceptable?
Then there is the resolution rejecting the
singing of the National Song, Vande Mataram. The reiteration of an old fatwa
that the National Song is 'un-Islamic' has come as a snub to the Congress
which made the song the source of inspiration during the freedom struggle.
Thousands of Muslim patriots have participated in the singing of this inspiring
song, marching shoulder-to-shoulder with others against India's colonial rulers.
AR Rahman, a Muslim, has created a popular rendition of Vande Mataram.
Asked on a TV channel whether that makes the
Oscar-winning Rahman less of a Muslim, the moving spirit of the Jamiat, Maulana
Mahmood Madani, ducked the question. But can Mr Chidambaram answer as to how
could a Congressman and a Union Minister remain silent about the anti-National
Song rhetoric? And as for the clerics' objection that the song deifies the
motherland, eminent scholars have refuted this charge. It only personifies
the nation as Mother India.
The Union Home Minister has spoken at Deoband
about the majority community's duty to protect the minority community. No
one can take exception to this call. But why did he fail to point out that
this rule has not been followed where Muslims are in majority, as in the Kashmir
Valley from where all Hindu Pandits have been driven out? The selective application
of this principle of duty of the majority community to protect the minority
community is the fundamental shortcoming of our 'secularists' and their organisations.
It is this selective application of 'secularism'
that is a greater threat to our national unity. This has emboldened sectarian
leaders to push their communal agenda at the expense of nationalism. The Deoband
meeting, for instance, has called upon the Muslim youth to emphasise their
separate Muslim identity. And of all the people Mr Chidambaram should be aware
as the Union Home Minister how 'separate identities' often turn into separatism.
The Jamiat clerics have no doubt condemned
terrorism and drawn a line to separate the religious fervour of jihad from
terrorism. However, the fervour with which the Jamiat meeting has called for
local committees to enforce 'social reform and religious practices' does not
go so far as to ask them to isolate the preachers of virulent jihadi doctrine
and to identify those who recruit youth to turn them into terrorists.
The Union Home Minister was eloquent in condemning
the demolition of Babri Masjid. But he shied away from calling a spade a spade
when the clerics surrounding him were busy demolishing all symbols of national
identity while re-emphasising their separate identity not only in terms of
dress and language but even the manner in which Muslims should greet others.
Mr Chidambaram's silence is in line with the attitude of our 'secularists'
whose otherwise loud rhetoric goes mute in the face of Islamic orthodoxy.
