User:Scheibenzahl/1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] The bête noire
Despite having grown up listening to all the bad publicity RSS have received I think an organization of such a wide following and reach cannot be ridiculed away as a group of hate-mongering lunatics.
What RSS arose from is introspection of Hindu society fueled with a Europe-style nationalism. It is a failed movement indeed, because of incompatibility with the powers at center (Indira Gandhi in particular), yet at the same time it bears in itself the roots of two major political parties in India.
[edit] Ideal Scapegoats
In a culture of Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam it is ironic indeed that RSS and more violent organizations continue to exist. It could be attributed to the unrest in Hindu minds. Muslims become the ideal scapegoats in the Hindu revival because
1. Hatred is indeed the favorite vehicle of political agenda.
Given the conditions of a developing country spreading hatred is far more feasible than educating masses or imparting scientific temper. This is how our minds seem to work. There are indeed psychological roots to finding scapegoats (so one could argue that Muslims are important to right-wing in India the way homosexuals are to right-wing in US or immigrants are to the right-wing in Europe).
As most would agree every politician fiddles with it. If your country is on verge of disintegration you could declare an emergency, massacre all the ones in opposition and go on war with the closest foe to make people forget about it all (70's India). Also, wasn't the movement for social equality in TN fueled with hatred towards Brahmins?
2. The Muslim allegiance to Hindu India has been debatable.
It is easy to bring Muslim adherence to the nation into doubt, far easier than it is for other non-Hindu communities like Sikhs, Parsis, non-caste Hindus/tribes or Christians.
[edit] The Inherent Problem
Islam doesn't respect pagan practices of the natives of any place, be it Arab, Persia or India. So you cannot expect Muslims to be very assimilating with idol worshipers. A true Muslim or a true Christian is always supposed to inform the pagans of their false beliefs and motivate them towards the truth of one Supreme Being.
[edit] Pagan roots are implicit
That being said, even in the so called Islamic countries the discussions of culture and philosophy rely on interplays between local pagan traditions (which is where pride in one's tribe, nationality etc. emanate from) and the institutions of Islam (code of law, religious ethics). Pagan roots of traditions and culture present a compromise with true Islam, the latter being so abstract that one cannot really lay down all-inclusive doctrines. So is the case with Christianity in the West. But since a complete Islamization of India didn't occur you don't find such dialectics in the Islam of South Asia. Muslims never felt the necessity to debate their religion with the natives of the region. Indian Christianity, on the other hand, has done a better job in naturalization and thus has been far more successful. The marriage of paganism and Christianity has been celebrated to an extent that cannot be elaborated in this post.
[edit] Incompatibility of Indian paganism
It is not unislamic for instance to praise one's tribe or clan if you are an Arab. If you are a South Asian however, praising your culture might sound unislamic. Even if it is Turkey or Iran, the lands of Islamized nations have been roamed by mystics who had limited interest in Koranic disciplines and those who dared even to oppose the Islamic institutions. Most celebrated poets in the Islamic world were mystics; some of them declared themselves to be pagans, and remained popular despite strong discouragement by Islamic clerics. Prophet himself was known to have discouraged poetry. But all is acceptable in Islamic countries. Wherever Islam is main-stream, it is immersed into the culture of local people.
But it is not quite true for India. There are lower sections of society who haven't received much from the higher sections of Muslims. The divide is not just economic between uunchijaat (high-caste muslims) and ajlaf jaat (low caste Muslims). High-caste Muslims consider themselves to be closer to Arabs racially as well as culturally. The Muslims from lower sections (julahas, ansaris) are looked down upon not just because of economic reasons but because of their associations with native tribes and Hindu culture (a notion somewhat similar to Rice Christians in West). So, although Islam has a different flavor in every region (culturally Bangladeshi Muslims are as different from Pakistani Muslims, as are Bengalis from Punjabis) there is what one may consider the Arab-centricity of Islam in high-class South Asian Muslims.
It shouldn't come as a surprise therefore, if institutions like Deobandi tabligh declare expression of pride in India as a nation to be un-islamic, or if singing the pagan song of vandematram becomes officially against the command of God. It is ironic indeed that as an essential part of their regional theater, Ramayana could be read and enjoyed by Indonesian Muslims, but it would never be brought out of the "pagan literature" epithet in South Asia itself.
The point, still, is that if Islam was main-stream in India the same things could have taken a different path. In Arabia for example, a lot of songs praising pagan-gods that were popular amongst people were preserved with only removal of references to Ozza or Allat (the Arab pagan gods) and placement of addresses to Allah instead. Such accommodation didn't happen in India because Islam was never her primary religion, and she doesn't have a history like Arabs or Persians where in she had the opportunity to have used Islam to strengthen and uniform the South Asian culture. Islam took a very different path in India, due to various reasons, as I would further elaborate.
[edit] Historical roots to the problem
The reason that the integration of Islam in India didn't happen as it did in the rest of the Islamic world is that Islam couldn't dominate completely in India. It definitely transformed the culture of North India, and brought into existence what we consider the Hindustani culture today, by having ever lasting influences on language, literature and architecture. Still Islam in India having spread into lower sections primarily due to Sufi saints could not annihilate the culture of lower sections completely. Everyone except Aurangzeb who ruled India, knew that it would be hard to convert Hindus en masse even after massacring Brahmins, defeating or appeasing rajputs, razing down temples and defaming local gods (a technique that worked really well everywhere else). More importantly, by the time Islamic conquest of India got completed, there were problems in Baghdad (the seat of Caliphate) and India couldn't be further Islamized.
The result was a miscellany of half-converted Muslims in India. It is only in South Asia for example, that caste is of importance even among devout Muslims, a concept that, technically speaking, is more anti-Islamic than pride in nationality. There is indeed a confusion among Muslims of South Asia which has been of far more serious consequences.
[edit] Pakistani equivalence
One can't really view the problem with complete isolation of Pakistan - a country that tried to perpetuate the disconnection of South Asian Muslims from native culture. Although (in my personal opinion) Pakistan started with better national establishments than India. It was completely Islamic, yet liberal enough for a democratic set-up at its birth. Pakistan could indeed have been a place where local culture might have sought expression in Islam, just according to what Iqbal dreamed of. But it did not materialize. Pakistan is a country where most of the native people (Pakhtuns, Punjabis, Balochis, Sindhis) live under the make-believe that their ancestors were Arabs and feel proud about it. Pakistani Muslims express the same problem when saying that Islam is not adopted completely among its people. The reason behind such a national feeling is only that they have problems in completely denying their roots in native history. This feeling facilitates the disrespect towards native traditions and culture, or in other words, all what exists in the country they live in with the half-converts doesn't find expression in the Islam that everyone is supposed to follow. Fundamentalist Islam is the only choice that an average Muslim is left with, thus not giving way to free discussions of culture.
As a culture that struggles to find it roots, Pakistani Muslims are always directed to India, something that they not only fail to understand but were created as an opposition to. This is a disconnection similar to that of Muslims in India, where they fail to be proud of their history and culture (and hence of pagan practices of dances to goddesses, Sanskrit linguistics or architecture of ancient temples) without compromising with the duties of Islam.
[edit] Potential Solutions
It won't be an overstatement to say that no one since Akbar has attempted to correct this disconnection. In those times, he established a kingdom that respected both the religions, and thus forged a culture where both the religions could co-exist, debate, exchange ideas and flourish. He did connect Hindu culture with Islam, and facilitated the Hindustani identity.
Beginning of the colonial times, British were new rulers and had to let the people appointed by them, have all the power. In the famous trial of Badshah Zafar they had discovered that posing Muslims as the reason behind India's paradise lost is the best way to dissolve Mughal national identity. For centuries, the Hindu educated elite were told that Muslims have plundered the glorious country that India was, molding the Orientalist perspective in Indian elite that still persists. Congress has actually facilitated it while RSS might only be re-utilizing this fabrication.
[edit] Fallacies of appeasement
Perpetuating the British style appeasement would not solve the dilemma of Indian Islam. If it could have, then unrest should have decreased among Indian Muslims. On the contrary, Muslim identity is even more so unconnected with the new globalized India, where religious adherences are even harder to maintain.
The only solution I think is the facilitation of the debate of culture and religion among Muslims, which no-one remotely seems to be attempting. The liberals whose actual goal is to shun all religions, use the same old colonial ways of appeasing one religion against the other for near sighted political needs. Disconnection with local culture, along with the disjunct of tradition and modernity in the globalization era, Indian Muslims are left to choose only the fundamentalist way.
[edit] Misunderstandings with right-wing
I don't agree with what RSS propagates about Islam. But there is much more weight and justification to much of what they have suggested as a solution, than the British style appeasement that liberals or Congress want to perpetuate. I don't consider it militarily fundamentalist for example, if Savarkar says that Hinduism is a culture and not a religion. Something that liberals reject as extreme fundamentalism is the moderate admittance that you could be a Hindu Muslim, or a Hindu Christian, which sometimes seems to be all what RSS demands. Using religion for political gains against India is what colonial powers had perpetrated for centuries (both in instances of Islam and Christianity), and if somebody tries to correct that by taking religion out of such colonial pursuits, he automatically becomes a fundamentalist in the eyes of our educated elite.
Many a times RSS have appealed Muslims to follow the Parsis. Parsis do follow their religion which is quite different from that of Hindus, but their traditions are immersed in Hindu traditions instead, and they don't consider themselves to be living in a jahilia of Hindu gods. In propagating "hindutva" as cultural nationalism, the central core of Islam was not under attack by RSS; even the most rabid of Hindu fundamentalists only expect a South Asian Muslim to be as connected to India as the average Sunni Muslim is to Arab, or a Shiaite Muslim is to Iran. Although some Muslims could accept that, it is not acceptable to liberals somehow.
[edit] A minimalist approach
Instead of approaching to a solution much of what liberals have done in India has aggravated the problems by polarizing the two factions. To create more confusion we have things as preposterous as imposition of Urdu (a language of poetry) as the Islamic language all over India, something that most Islamic intellectuals would have problems with. To give an example of the ridiculousness of such policies, in a call for applications to extra Urdu teachers introduced in schools of UP solely for the appeasement of Muslims, Mulayam Singh was puzzled to have found more than 70% of applicants to be Hindus.
[edit] Conclusion
So even if one doesn't agree with the view of Islam that is presented by the Sangh, there is no better alternative towards assimilation of Islamists. It becomes indeed then, about choosing a better poison. Rather than appeasement of Muslims or leftist endorsements of conversions to Christianity, most Hindus tend to support organizations with hatred for Muslims, the good old enemies of the paradise lost.
[edit] Further Reading
http://www.saag.org/papers6/paper569.html
The editor of this article released this text under GNU GFDL license. Here is a copy of the license: [1]
