Aurangzeb's Tomb

As I read about the Aurangzeb controversy in India, I was reminded of my trip to his tomb in January 2020, just before the Covid pandemic.

I am no fan of Aurangzeb, I think that he was a bigot and perhaps even a psychopath. However, in this post, I want to write about my visit to his tomb and to explain why I think that the idea of destroying or desecrating his tomb is wrong.

At the end, I also want to talk a little bit about India's syncretic Ganga-Jamuni culture in relation to the Aurangzeb controversy.

Visit to Aurangzeb's Grave

I was in Aurangabad and had gone to visit the Ajanta caves. Living abroad, I always feel that I am losing touch with the India of ordinary people, thus, whenever possible, instead of taking cars, I try to travel by the public transport buses.

Coming back from Ajanta, I was sitting in front in the MSRT bus and talking to the driver, when he told me that the bus will pass through Khuldabad, where Aurangzeb was buried in 1707 CE. I told the bus driver to drop me there.

Khuldabad is a little town in the Aurangabad district, a little bigger than a village. The bus dropped me in a crowded market street and when I asked about the Aurangzeb tomb, people pointed to a simple looking mosque in a side street.

I was a little surprised that the Mughal emperor had his tomb in such an insignificant mosque in such an insignificant place.

Inside the mosque, his grave was immediately after the entrance, to the left side. The grave was surrounded by a marble-lattice (sangmarmar ki jaali) enclosure. There was no makbara or a monument, and his grave was just an open strip of ground, exposed to the rain and wind. A tree was planted in it but it seemed to be having difficulties growing.

The board near the grave said that Aurangzeb had died in Ahmadnagar, but was brought here, 130 kms away, because he wanted to be buried near the tomb of the 14th century sufi saint Zainuddin Shirazi. According to his wishes, no monument was built around his grave.

The marble enclosure and floor were made two centuries later by Lord Curzon and the Nizam of Hyderabad.

The Mosque and Dargah of Zainuddin Dawood Husain Shirazi

The structure has different buildings, including the dargah of the sufi saint Zainuddin Shirazi, with his grave covered with a red chadar.

Near the sufi tomb there was a board with a list of 15-18 names starting from Prophet Mohammed  and leading to the name of Zainuddin Shirazi.

The caretaker had explained about that board and how the sufi saint of Irani origins was linked to the Prophet, but I don't remember it. At that time I had thought that I will write about it in my blog but then Covid arrived and I forgot all about it.

Near the saint's tomb, there was also a special niche made in the wall holding some relic or important Islamic symbol from Mecca.

The caretaker had also explained why that relic or symbol was considered holy, but I do not remember it now. Saint's tomb was located a proper makbara.

The mosque was located on the other side, in front of the saint's makbara (image below).

In the courtyard behind the makbara on one side, there were other religious structures, which looked like shrines of some kind. I have forgotten the details about them. You can see them in the image below.

It was a very simple and peaceful place and I could feel its sacredness and spirituality. It was wonderful to sit there and soak in its atmosphere.

How to do Namaz

As a child I grew up in front of a Muslim graveyard and not very far from the big Idgah of old Delhi. I have been to mosques in different countries around the world and I have watched persons doing the prayers (Namaz), but I was not aware of the whole process of how to do Namaz, and its different positions.

Outside this mosque in Khuldabad, I found a board (left) explaining the different positions assumed during namaz, with text in both Urdu and Hindi. I was fascinated by it.

You can see that board in the picture. It makes me think of a set of stretching exercises, somewhat similar to yoga, which means that apart from the religious significance of doing namaz, it might also be good for the body as an exercise. (You can click on the image for a bigger view)

Talks of Destroying Aurangzeb's Tomb

While not being an admirer of Aurangzeb, I do not agree with the idea of destroying or desecrating his tomb, for 2 main reasons:

(1) I think that Aurangzeb paid for his brutality and sins in his own life. He was 89 years old when he died and had been the Mughal emperor for almost fifty years. The last 25 years of his life were spent in the Deccan region of India, fighting different adversaries, especially the Marathas. Imagine spending all your old age, away from your home, fighting different wars, and dying far away from your family and children.

I think that killing other human beings extracts a price from us, it leaves a scar on our soul. The number of soldiers coming back from a war and suffering from PTSD, is one example of this negative impact of violence on ourselves. Imagine killing your brothers and sisters, and imprisoning your father - persons who had loved you and perhaps played with you when you were young. Could he just kill them all ruthlessly without paying a price for it psychologically? What lessons did his own children learn from their father? After being brutal to his father and siblings, did he become afraid of his own wives and children, that they could also kill him?

He sowed the seeds of hate and violence, he reaped the crops of those seeds. Look at his family history - after his death, his son Azam Shah became emperor for only 3 months. Then he, his brother and their children were all killed by another brother, who became the new emperor Bahadur Shah, but he lasted only for 5 years. He was succeeded by his son, who lasted one year and was killed. And their stories of killings go on.

Apart from the killings and destruction of families, Aurangzeb's reign started the decline of the Mughal dynasty and empire, from which they never recovered. Thus, I feel that Aurangzeb paid for his karma in his own life and through his descendents.

(2) I also believe that we can't think of destroying or desecrating sacred places of any religion, also because we have to remain true to ourselves and our beliefs. Personally, I believe in the message of Upanishads, Aham Brahmo Asti, that there is god in each one of us, without any exceptions. 

Aurangzeb's grave is open to the sky. After more than 300 years, I am not sure if you will find his bones. And even if you can find them and dig them out, what will you do to them? Is that going to vindicate you and give you any peace of mind?

Aurangzeb killed many persons, destroyed many temples and religious places, but then I hope that his soul made peace with what he had done and he could forgive himself. I certainly don't think that his actions gave him any happiness. He left behind an inheritance of hate and bloodshed. What would anyone else get today by destroying his grave?

On the other hand, his grave remains as a warning, a place for us to not forget him and to think about his life, about his inheritance and his impact. Hate and violence do not lead to happiness and prosperity, they can only lead to more hate and violence.

India's Syncretic Traditions of Ganga-Jamuni Culture

I grew up surrounded by ideas of living together and loving of different religions and cultures. During my extensive travels in India, I feel that among the ordinary people, those basic ideas of mutual love and respect are still alive today.

The caretaker of Aurangzeb's grave was very generous and kind in taking me around, showing me different parts of the shrines and explaining. I remember sitting with him in the courtyard, talking to him about the changing world and the future of our children and grandchildren, as old men tend to do everywhere. For me, that is the essence of Ganga-Jamuni culture - recognising, respecting and loving our essential humanity.

I feel that today this Ganga-Jamuni culture is under attack not only by the religious hardliners and bigots of the different religions, but also by persons of our civil society when they start differentiating between bigotries - they can only criticise some, and about the others, they prefer to keep quiet, or worse, try to justify, minimise or white-wash them.

 

***** 

If you have read this far, perhaps you would also like to read my ideas about blasphemy (it is in my Hindi blog).

In the picture-credits above, the name of the place has been shown as Khulnabad instead Khuldabad - I regret that. All the pictures are by me.

*****

Among the believers - Religion As Soul-Poison

The 2015 documentary film “Among the believers” by Hemal Trivedi (India) and Mohammed Ali Naqvi (Pakistan) is about a charismatic teacher and his students in a Madrassa (a traditional Islamic school) at a historic mosque, Lal Masjid (Red mosque) of

Islamabad in Pakistan.

The film explores how beliefs about a “pure and true” form of Islam and how teachings of these beliefs in traditional Islamic schools are affecting the society in Pakistan.

Film’s People

“Among the believers” focuses on three stories related to the madrassa of Red Mosque - Abdul Aziz Ghazi, referred to as Maulana Aziz, and two of his students – a 12 year old boy called Talha and a 12 year old girl Zarina.

Maulana Aziz, a kindly looking tall man who speaks smilingly and gently, is convinced about the need for following the teachings of Islam in a pure and true form. For him this means that Pakistan must have Sharia law, ban music and other un-Islamic practices, enforce veils for girls and women and wage Jihad, the sacred fight against the infidels. Thus, in his madrassa school, young children mostly from poor families, must start learning the Muslim sacred book Quran and listen to his sermons about the pious Islamic lives they all must lead.

Talha is a gentle looking boy with a shy smile. He likes cricket and Shahid Afridi and would like to watch the cricket match on TV but he knows that this is against the teachings of Islam as taught in his madrassa. He lacks confidence and during the exam about his skills in remembering and reciting the verses of Quran, he bursts in tears.

Zarina is beautiful looking girl from a poor family in a village. She explains that she was

going to a local branch of Red Mosque madrassa but she was unhappy in the school and thus, ran away and came back to home. She says that girls were kept prisoners in the school, given little to eat and forced to cover themselves in veil. “I am a young girl, why should I cover myself with veil?”, she asks. Her village headman, a man who had not been able to complete his education because of family poverty, has started a school and Zarina starts going to this school.

In contraposition to these three stories is Dr Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani nuclear scientist and activist who had taught in universities abroad and who argues about the harm caused by this kind of conservative Islamic thinking.

Issues raised in the film

The film presents the ideas of Maulana Aziz through his interviews and through observations of the madrassa life, both in Red Mosque as well as, in some branches in the countryside, and how these ideas are leading to a war against ordinary citizens of Pakistan, forcing them to accept increasing Islamisation of their society.

One of the first scenes of the film shows a 5 or 6 years old young boy, whom Maulana Aziz introduces as a child from a poor family, whose father had left them and his mother had brought him to the madrassa. Maulana Aziz asks the child, “What do you want to become when you grow up?” The child hesitates and then with a timid smile says, “Mujahid” (a jihadi fighter).

To show the lessons he has learned in the school, the child slowly stands up and then suddenly changes his expression and the tone of his voice, his hand moving up and down like a knife, cutting the air in front with precise strokes as he recites, “Look at the sacrifices of the martyrs of the Red Mosque. We will destroy you if you will attack us. You are infidel, you cannot enter here. You cannot conquer us. And if you dare to enter here, we will destroy you in the name of Jihad."

The transformation of a shy child into a hard faced fanatic mirroring the expression and voice of his teachers, is one of the most chilling scenes in the film, showing how small children can be indoctrinated till they are filled with hate, willing to destroy themselves and ready to kill all those who are perceived different.

In another scene, in a Madrassa branch school in countryside, the local cleric tells the poor family of a young boy that learning Quran will ensure that 10 members of the family who are in dojakh (hell) can go to jannat (paradise) and that Allah will put a crown full of diamonds and jewels on the heads of his parents.

Zarina’s story presents hope for the attitudes of her father and the village head, who believe in modern education for their girls. When a woman comes to ask for 14 year old Zarina’s hand in marriage with her son, her father says that the girl is too young and he would like her to continue studying for 2-4 more years. However, as Islamist militants force the closure of their village school, Zarina’s father decides to get her married. Zarina tries to say that she is too young but the decision has already been taken. The desolate expressions of young Zarina putting on make up and dressing up for her marriage are haunting. The end credits explain that Zarina is already a mother of a baby girl.

However, it is Talha’s story which despaired me most. As the film moves, the shy, cricket loving gentle boy gets converted into a believer of the pure Islam as taught by Maulana Aziz. After a terrorist attack in December 2014 in a school in Pashawar which killed 136 children, Talha’s father comes to take the boy away from the madrassa. However, Talha refuses to leave. “They call us terrorists, but we are only killing the infidels and safeguarding Islam as asked by Quran, how can we be terrorists?”, he calmly asks. The end credits explain that Talha is continuing his studies in a senior madrassa.

The film explains the origin of conservative islamism through the Mujahideen movement in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 1980s through support from USA to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The film includes some clips showing the American president Ronald Reagan talking and shaking hands with Islamist fighters and thanking them for fighting against the Soviets. After the Soviets left, Americans withdrew their direct support but the Islamists found other supporters and funders and continued their activities. One of these supporters and funders who had also visited Red Mosque was Osama Bin Laden.

The film also touches on the destruction and raid inside the Red Mosque in July 2007, when Maulana Aziz had tried to escape by hiding in a veil. He was jailed for 2 years. Since then he has been out and his groups have been linked to different suicide bombings and terrorist attacks, including the attack on the Peshawar school mentioned above. In one of the final scenes of the film, Maulana Aziz refuses to condemn the attack on the school, “They did it for their religion, how can I condemn it?”

You can watch the trailer of Among the Believers on Youtube.

Film’s team

Both Hemal Trivedi and Mohammed Ali Naqvi deserve congratulations for having succeeded in going inside Red Mosque, talking to Maulana Aziz and giving glimpses of the process used in brain-washing of young impressionable minds who will lay down their lives in suicide and terrorist attacks.

Through the story of Zarina, her parents and her village headman, the film provides a glimpse into the lives of ordinary persons who do not share these ideals. One of the co-producers of the film, Musharraf Shah, had lost four of his nephews in the massacre of the school children in Peshawar, the film is dedicated to their memory.

In an interview to Indie Wire in 2015, Trivedi had explained the genesis of the idea of making this film:

“In 2008, I lost a friend in the Mumbai terror attacks, a series of massacres carried out by Islamic militants. After the attacks, my heart was full of anger and hate for the perpetrators of the crime, who were found to be Pakistanis. To make sense of my anger, I started digging deeper into the root causes of these attacks…

I travelled to Pakistan in 2009 to document the depths of Pakistan’s ideological divide. By then, my lifelong misconceptions about Pakistan had completely unravelled. My co-director on “Among the Believers” is a talented Pakistani Muslim filmmaker, Mohammed Naqvi, and most of our incredible crew are Pakistani Muslims as well…

Protecting our crew’s physical safety was an ongoing challenge. Throughout the five and a half years of production, members of our crew narrowly escaped bomb blasts and experienced several close encounters with gunfights. We also received several death threats and were tracked by intelligence agencies.

As a woman, a Hindu and an Indian, I faced different risks during production. When we first started filming, I visited the Red Mosque several times disguised as a Muslim. A trusted contact warned me that, in doing so, I was risking my life. These realities limited my access to some of our shoots. During those times, my co-director Mohammed Naqvi stood in for the both of us. I was so fortunate to have a local Pakistani crew that was willing to risk their lives to shoot the footage for my film. This is very significant, given the historical mistrust between Indians and Pakistanis.”

"Among the Believers" has been shown in more than 50 film festivals across different continents (including the Goa Film Festival in India in 2015) and has won 12 awards. Making such films is not without its dangers. The directors of the film have received death threats.

Comments

It is a scary film since it makes you understand how difficult it can be to fight against and to the change the mentality of boys and girls who grow up surrounded by ideals of hate, suicide and killings in the name of religion. It is also important to see how the religious fundamentalism is harming the Pakistani society itself and affecting the lives of millions of young girls and boys in that country. Along with feelings of fear and disgust, I could not help feeling pity for those boys and girls in the traditional Islamist madrassas, who have no way to defend themselves against this kind of hateful teachings.

The film glosses over some of the key issues in terms of links between persons coming out of these madrassa and India. For example, the film never mentions the role of Pakistani army and ISI in maintaining and supporting the radical Islamists in Pakistan after the departure of Soviets from Afghanistan and the withdrawal of American support because they were used for waging war against India in Kashmir and elsewhere.

While different persons in the film express their anguish at the havoc wreaked by terrorists in Pakistan, the film also glosses over decades of silent acceptation and support these institutions and persons must have received as long as their targets were in other countries, especially in India.

Now that the religious conservatives nurtured to create terror in India and Afghanistan have turned inwards towards Pakistani society, as well as their spread towards ISIS and other terrorist networks affecting middle east, Europe and US, suddenly the whole world is asking about the role of traditional madrassas in Pakistan. Recent films and novels, often equate Pakistan with terrorism. Would Pakistan government, army and ISI understand the need to eradicate these structures and if yes, would they have the power to do so, are questions that do not have any answers yet.

The one hour and 22 minutes long film is definitely worth a watch, both to understand the kind of persons who come out of the radical Islamist schools, as well as to see how ordinary people in Pakistan are also being affected by it.

Most mainstream media usually try to ignore or down-play anything related to radical Islamists. This is done both, for not promoting Islamophobia and for not provoking negative stereotypes against ordinary Muslims. However, as the film shows, the spread of conservative Islamist ideology is a great danger to the ordinary Muslims themselves. Other countries and people considered infidels risk terrorism and will need to fight the terrorist attacks. However, Muslims themselves risk much more - losing their culture, their arts, their education, their professions, their daily lives and their ordinary freedoms, under the spread of radical Islamist ideology. It does not target only the non-believers, it also creates divisions among Muslims themselves and attacks all those who do not belong to the acceptable forms of Islamic beliefs.

This film has been banned in Pakistan. Please consider signing the petition on Change.org for showing this film in Pakistan. I also think that the film needs to be shown widely in India for promoting a debate about the impact of influencing young vulnerable minds and how to make sure that we do not allow spread of such ideologies, not just among Muslims, but among all the religions.

***

Qurbaan and the Muslim Reality

I am in India for some work and was determined to see at least one Hindi film in a proper cinema hall. The last film I had seen at a cinema hall was Jodha Akbar, more than a year ago. In Italy, where I live, Bollywood films are not released and I have to wait to come to India to see them in a cinema hall. Last week I was in Bangalore for work and one evening, after the work finished, I walked into the theatre and I saw Kurbaan.

Even though I had read in some newspaper that this film has flopped, at least that particular day when I went to see it, the hall in Forum mall of Bangalore, was quite full. Perhaps it was a hit in Bangalore?

Positive Thiings About the Film

Given a chance, I would not like to see Qurbaan again, even though it did have lot of plus points, especially in terms of acting from the main actors. I liked all of them, especially Kareena Kapoor. She looks good and is great overall, even more in the emotional scenes. Saif, Vivek and veterans like Om Puri and Kirron Kher, they all have given credible performances.

The plot of the film is tight, it is fast-paced, so the time does run very quickly. The music and the background score are lovely. "Shukran allah" song is my faviourite. Cinematography is wonderful and shots of the explosions and shootings are done like in Hollywood films.

I had read about some debate about the explicit sexual scenes between Saif and Kareena, and indeed there is one such sequence. I think that it is great that Kareena had the strength to do this scene, since in India, all things related to sexuality are usually shrouded in hypocrisy. With a clever use of “Rasiya” song in the background, the scene communicates an underlying sense of danger and pathos, even while stretching the limits of sexual moments shown in Indian films.

At the end of the film, from so many scenes, the images of Kareena remain with me. Like the closing image of the film with the unshed tears in her eyes!

Loops in the Screenplay 

Yet there were times, that I felt like laughing in the film, because of its screenplay - it was all a bit childish and unbelievable. Like the reporter deciding to become a part of the terrorist group or the way American policemen were so easily outsmarted by a lone terrorist or the way FBI is shown as clueless, running around in circles.

After watching scores of Hollywood dramas about the global reach of American secret services, it does seem strange to see them as bumbling idiots. The terrorist can run away from scenes of shootings, even with a bullet in his chest, without the police being able to do anything. May be, as a sign of Indo-American friendship, we can send some sniffer dogs from India to the New York Police department.

Avantika (Kareen Kapoor), the Hindu ladylove of the Muslim terrorist, wakes up night to call the reporter, but when she goes to a supermarket with her Appa, why she can’t stop a policeman or a security service person to say that the lady accompanying her is her jailor? And when the old lady is whisked away, she can run to the reporter to cry and plead to him for saving her, but can’t just walk away from that prison?

 

Or, even when she knows that men are carrying bombs (while she is unaware that her own bag has one bomb), why can’t she talk to persons in the train or to the security at the train station? If at least they had shown that Appa was carrying a gun and had threatened to kill her, her silence could have looked more believable (Appa does carry a gun but Avantika does not know about it).

So while the film looks and sounds good, if you think about the story, it does seem full of loopholes and not very credible.

Film’s message about Muslims

I had read in some reviews that the film tries to be neutral and explain both the sides, and the reasons of anger among Muslims. However, I found the film’s depiction of Muslims very problematic. I felt that the film explains the apparent reasons given by fundamentalists to justify themselves, but it ignores the point of view of the silent majority of Muslims.

Almost all Muslims in this film are shown to be sympathetic towards terrorists and justify it by pointing fingers at the American and European greed and barbarism. The only “good” Muslim in the film is the reporter Riyaaz Masud (Vivek Oberoi) along with his girl friend, but even he can’t articulate into words his point of view when his father talks about the superiority of their religion. His fight seems more motivated by feelings of personal revenge because of death of his lady love in a bomb explosion, rather than from his beliefs.

Reporter’s father (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) clarifies that “for the Muslims religion comes first” and the terrorist mastermind (Om Puri) says, “No American is ready to sacrifice himself for his God, as we Muslims can do”.

It is true that the Muslim characters shown in the film are limited and the film does not really show the views of other Muslims, who do not believe in terrorism. But, in my opinion, it would have helped to show at least some Muslims in the film, who could articulate that for them their religion is not more important than their country and that no matter what, killing innocents can’t be ever justified.

Thus the film is a story of a few persons, and can’t be generalised to all Muslims. But at the same time, the film’s take-home message seems to be: you can’t really rely on Muslims. Here are some examples of how this message is given in the film:

One of the women in the house is murdered at home and her body is still lying in the basement. Her husband complains about the bad smell, but other ladies in the house can’t smell the dead body and go on with their daily dinners and teas. The message seems to be that all Muslim women are afraid and submissive or die-hard fanatics themselves.

There is a university professor, who helps to get a job as a university professor in St. Stephen’s college in Delhi to a Pakistani terrorist . This same kindly looking professor, who likes to spend hours playing chess in the teachers’ room in the college, happily goes to guard an old man in his house to help the terrorists and smilingly threatens to “take care of him”. The message is that even apparently cultured and peaceful Muslims are in reality hidden/closet terrorists.

And the Pakistani terrorist, is himself shown talking about the peace messages in the holy Quran and about promoting a dialogue among university students about Islam. At the same time, he happily shoots American Policemen and unarmed civilians in his free time. He doesn’t feel bodily pain and can stitch the wound on his chest without fainting. But The brutal assassin has a saving grace, in spite of himself, he is in love with his Hindu wife and in the end, he forgets his bombing mission and qurbaans (sacrifices) himself for his love because she is carrying his child in her womb.

There is the elderly woman (Kiran Kher), wife of the terrorist mastermind. She does not have any qualms in putting a gun on the head of pregnant woman who calls her Appa (elder sister) and who has been living in her care for some days, because “no one is really innocent” and “it is all justified by the American bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq”. Why couldn’t she carry the purse with the bomb herself, you may ask, it would have achieved the same end, without risking to have it on a person who is likely to run if she gets a chance?

When it finished, I felt that this film's over-riding message was that no Muslim is really against terrorism, that you can’t even believe those Muslims who talk about peace and seem to be against terrorism. It is great pity that the film gives such a message. 

Conclusions 

The unrepresented Muslim: On yesterday’s International Herald Tribune, there was an article of Tariq Ahmed, a doctor of Pakistani origin, working in Brigham (USA) titled “The price of being born a Muslim”, where he has written:

"The reality is that the vast majority of Muslims are secular. We do not pray five times a day, do not read Quran and have not spent much time inside a mosque. We only turn to Islam when a child is born, someone gets married or someone dies. ... We certainly have no interest in participating in civilizational battles. We are in fact loathed by religious minority. And yet we have no clear voice, no representation and no one in the Western world appears to be aware of our existence. Every time a terrorist attack occurs, we suffer the most."

Tariq feels that he is part of a majority. The film Qurban, does not show this majority. I feel that there is need to represent these persons in film and to help express their point of view.

For majority of people in the world, it does not matter if they are Hindus, Christians, Jews or Muslims, religions and religious books are important in certain moments of their lives, but their lives are not limited by what these books say or do not say. They do not follow everything said by those who claim to be their religious leaders. Qurbaan does not say much on behalf of these persons among the Muslims.

 

*** 

Islam in India

I liked Obama's speech to the Muslim world from Cairo. I can't understand why so many Indian commentators are only concerned about "he did not mention India though ...". I think that Obama was very clearly saying that he was talking about "countries with Muslim-majority" in the Arab world, since the issues related to Islam in those countries are very different from those regarding a country like India.

 

I can understand Tavleen Singh's point in Indian Express that Obama's dialogue is one-sided and similar dialogue from Islam's side is needed. She writes:

"The Jihad did not appear one morning out of clear blue sky. It happened because of a system of education in most Islamic countries that perpetuates the idea that Islam is the best thing that happened to mankind and that pluralism is wrong in Allah's eyes. As for us happy idol-worshipping types, we are doomed to damnation. This idea is in direct conflict with the Indian idea of Sarvadharma sambhaava. But it is more than just religion that is the problem. ... President Obama seems not to know that there are more Muslims in the Indian sub-continent than any where and that we lived in relative harmony till Saudi money started to fund Wahabi Islam."

While Tavleen Singh is known for her position on Islam, I have been a little surprised by relatively open criticism of traditional Islamists in the mainstream Indian media that used to avoid any mention of these subjects - perhaps they are coming to the realisation that radical Islam is not going away anywhere and needs to be tackled!

Like the report in The Week (June 7, 2009 issue) called "Sheikhen Shibboleths - are Indian Muslims getting Arabised?" In an interview in this article, Dr Ghoshal from Jamia Milia university said:

"The transformation of Pakistan under Zia-Ul-Haq and the Islamization of the society had an effect on Indian Muslims, creating an assertiveness on their part, which produced Hindu extremism, and in turn produced a sense of insecurity among Indian Muslims."

I am not so sure if I entirely agree with Ghoshal here. It is convenient to show Hindu extremism "a result" of Muslim assertiveness. I think that Hindu extremism, like all other extremisms, has much more complex roots.

In May 2009 issue of the Hindi magazine Hans, there are two interesting articles about Muslim identity and related issues. In her article, Sanvidhan aur Kabeela (Constitution and Clan), Sheeba Aslam Fehmi feels that while Indian constitution gives equal rights to Muslim women, these are not really accessible to them due to religious orthodoxy and wonders if this is because Muslim women in India got these rights through default at the time of independence without really fighting for them.

In the same magazine, Rajendra Yadav, one of the leading veteran Hindi writers, raises up other issues about Muslim identity in India, in a surprisingly direct way, and asks why every thing related to Islam must look for answers from Kuran?

"What kind of rule is that we can't raise any questions about Kuran or about prophet Mohammed .. why they are above all questions? Tell me what kind of eternal truths are there that are beyond questions? Can there be rules given fourteen hundred years ago that are unchangeable truths even in todays scientific and rational era, that can not be questioned? ... Can't you be free of Kuran, Shariyat and Hadis? If you will not be free then how will this production of Talibans will stop, who kill a girl only because she did not want to leave her studies. .... I was very surprised when you said that many Muslim women wear Hijab or Burqa out of their free will without pressure or order from others. Don't you really accept that every religion conditions the women in a way? What ever they do out of "free will" is a result of unnamed orders from deep inside. A bird freed of its cage, comes back to the cage out of its "free will". In "Guest" the story by Camus, the prisoner who had run away from the prison, doesn't he come back to the prison by himself? Please don't call psychological conditioning as "free will".

In the June 2009 issue of Hans, Rajendra Yadav went back to this subject and the responses he has received about his first article:

"Against my editorial of May 2009, many Muslim friends have advised me that first I should seriouosly study Islam, only then my words will carry some weight. The same advise I get from Hindu religious leaders. Christians also say the same thing. ... For me "what I can see" of a religion is more important in deciding man's thinking and behaviour. Certainly Islam gives all the rights and equalities to women that are not available in any other religion. But around us and in far away places, the "religious torture" supported by Muslim women is in no way less than Hindu torture. Here I don't see Shariat, I see only injustices that crush women's cries with cruelty."

History of Islam in India, the way it linked with other Indian religions, the way it created syncretic thoughts and traditions such as Sufi thoughts, is too precious and needs to be safeguarded by everyone.

 

Also I feel that all the religions, including Islam, need progressive reforms in line with concepts of human rights, so an honest debate on different critical aspects is needed. This means that sacred texts must also be reviewed critically. I believe that future of India and the world depends upon it.

 

***