Democracy and the Muslim Minority Predicament: The Contributions of Sayyed Abul Hasan ‘Ali Nadwi
The late Sayyed Abul Hasan ‘Ali Nadwi was one of the leading Indian ‘ulama of modern times, recognized in Muslim circles worldwide for his scholarship and his dedication to the cause of Islamic revival. He was born in 1913 at Takiya Kalan, also known as Daira-i Shah ‘Alimullah, a village near the town of Rai Bareilly, in the present-day Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. In order to train as an ‘alim he was sent to the renowned Nadwat ul-‘Ulama madrasa in Lucknow for higher Islamic studies. Established in 1898, the Nadwa saw itself as a leading centre for the training of reformist ‘ulama. A major turning point in Nadwi’s life came in 1934, when he was appointed to teach Arabic and Qur’anic commentary at the Nadwat ul-‘Ulama. He carried on with teaching at the madrasa even after he was appointed its rector in 1961 after the death of his brother, a post that he occupied till his death in 1999.
It was at the Nadwa that Nadwi’s great skills as a writer and orator were able to develop and flourish. He is credited with having written almost 180 books, mostly in Arabic and some in Urdu. Nadwi’s writings were concerned to present Islam as a comprehensive world-view, as laying down guidelines and laws governing all aspects of personal as well as collective life. As such, therefore, he passionately echoed the argument of the Islamists that an Islamic state was essential for the laws of the shariah to be implemented in their entirety. However, he was, at the same time, a realist, aware that this was out of the realm of human possibility in the contemporary Indian context, characterized by a situation of Muslim minority-ness and the existence of a formally secular and democratic state. In contrast to Muslim liberals, and echoing the views of the Islamists, he insisted on the need for an Islamic order in order to implement the laws of God. However, he stood apart from most Islamists by arguing that the Islamic political order could come about in India only in some remotely distant future. Rather than directly struggling for it at the present, he believed that the Muslims of the country should accept the secular and democratic Indian state as it was and focus their energies in trying to build what he saw as a truly Islamic society, on the basis of which alone could an ideal Islamic political order come into being.
Muslims As A Minority: Between Faith and Democratic Citizenship
Muslim leaders in post-1947 India have had to deal with the question how they could adjust to living in a theoretically secular and democratic state. Opposed to the demand for Partition, principally because he felt that only in a united India would Muslims be able to carry on with their religious duty of missionary work, Nadwi insisted that Muslims could live along with others in a common homeland in peace and harmony, among the essentials of true democracy, and yet remain true to their religious commitments.[1]
Some years before 1947 Nadwi had joined the Jama’at-e Islami and was a close associate of its founder, Syed Abul Ala Maududi. However, soon after he left it. It is likely that the Jama’at’s own understanding of the Islamic mission in the Indian context, based as it was on the primacy of the political struggle to establish an Islamic state, was also a crucial factor for Nadwi’s parting of ways with Maududi. It appears that while Nadwi shared much the same understanding of Islam as an all-comprehensive way of life, with the Islamic political order a necessary and indispensable pillar, he differed from the Jama’at on the crucial question of strategy, seeing the Jama’at’s approach as unrealistic in the Indian context, where, in a theoretically democratic and secular state, Muslims were a relatively small minority.
Nadwi’s opposition to the Jama’at comes out clearly in his book ‘Asr-i Hazir Mai Din Ki Tahfim-o-Tashrih (‘Understanding and Explaining Religion in the Contemporary Age’) which he penned in 1978, which won him, so he says in his introduction to its second edition published in 1980, fierce condemnation from leading members of the Jama’at. Here, Nadwi takes Maududi to task for having allegedly misinterpreted central Islamic beliefs in order to suit his own political agenda, presenting Islam, he says, as little more than a political programme. Thus, he accuses Maududi of equating the Islamic duty of ‘establishing religion’ (iqamat-i din) with the setting up of an Islamic state with God as Sovereign and Law Maker. At Maududi’s hands, he says, ‘God’ (ilah), ‘The Sustainer’ (rabb), ‘Religion’ (din) and ‘Worship’ (‘ibadat) have all been reduced to political concepts, suggesting that Islam is simply about political power and that the relationship between God and human beings is only that between an All-Powerful King and His subjects. However, Nadwi says, this relationship is also one of ‘love’ and ‘realisation of the Truth’, which is far more comprehensive than what Maududi envisages.[2]
Linked to Nadwi’s critique of Maududi for having allegedly reduced Islam to a mere political project was his concern that not only was such an approach a distortion of the actual import of the Qu’ran but also that it was impractical, if not dangerous, in the Indian context. Thus, he argued, Maududi’s insistence, in the context of Maududi’s critique of democracy, that to accept the commands of anyone other than God was tantamount to shirk, the crime of associating others with God, as this was allegedly akin to ‘worship’ (‘ibadat), was not in keeping with the teachings of Islam. God, Nadwi wrote, had, in His wisdom, had indeed provided adequate room for democratic choice and had left several areas of life free for people to decide how they could govern them, within the broad limits set by the shariah, and guided by a concern for social welfare. Further, Nadwi wrote that Maududi’s argument that God had sent prophets to the world charged with the mission of establishing an Islamic state was a misreading of the Islamic concept of prophethood. The principal work of the prophets, Nadwi argued, was to preach the worship of the one God and to exhort others to do good deeds. Not all prophets were rulers. In fact, only a few of them were granted that status. Nadwi faulted Maududi for ‘debasing’ the ‘lofty’ Islamic understanding of worship to mean simply ‘training’ people as willing subjects of the Islamic state.[3]
If the Islamic state is then simply a means for the ‘establishment of religion’ and not the ‘total religion (kul din)’ or the ‘primary objective (maqsad-i avvalin)’ of Islam, Nadwi suggested, it opens up the possibility of pursuing the same goals through other means in a contexts where setting up an Islamic state is not an immediate possibility, as is the case of theoretically democratic states which guarantee, at least in their Constitutions and laws, equal rights for minorities, as in contemporary India. Nadwi refers to this when he says that the objective of iqamat-i din needs to be pursued along with hikmat-i din (‘wisdom of the faith’), using constructive, as opposed to destructive, means. Eschewing ‘total opposition’ (kulli mukhalifat), Muslims striving for the ‘establishment of the faith’ should, he wrote, unhesitatingly adopt peaceful means such as ‘understanding and reform’ (tahfim-o-islah), ‘consultation’ (mashwara) and ‘wisdom’ (hikmat). Critiquing the use of uncalled for violence by some fiercely anti-democratic groups calling themselves ‘Islamic’, Nadwi stressed the need for ‘obedience’, ‘love’ and ‘faith’ and struggle against the ‘base self’ (nafs). Muslims should, he wrote, make use of all available legitimate spaces guaranteed by democratic states to pursue the cause of the ‘establishment of religion’, such as propagating their message through literature, public discussions, training volunteers, winning others over with the force of one’s own personality and establishing contacts with governments, exhorting them to abide by the shari’ah, seeking to convince them of the superiority of the solutions to worldly problems that Islam provides. It is clear that such spaces are available even in Muslim minority contexts, and Nadwi suggests that Muslims in India, too, should seek to take advantage of these to carry on with the mission of the ‘establishment of the faith’, even in the absence of realistic possibilities for the immediate setting up of an Islamic political order in the country. In sort, this was Nadwi’s advice to the Indian Muslims seeking to balance the demands of their faith with the fact of their living in a theoretically democratic state. In this way, he developed a theological argument for an Islamic approach to democracy.[4]
Although Nadwi agreed with Maududi in arguing for the necessity of an Islamic state, he insisted that ‘wisdom’ demanded that the strategies for attaining the goal be formulated in accordance with existing social conditions, particularly in the context of democratic states that, theoretically at least, provided equal rights to all communities. Thus, he noted, it was not necessary for a political party to directly launch a movement for the cause, especially if the odds were heavily weighed against it. A more realistic approach would be, he said, to ‘prepare people’s minds’ for Islamic government through a ‘silent revolution’ (khamosh inqilab), that is, through recourse to peaceful and democratic means without coming into conflict with the state. In a sense, then, Nadwi’s approach to democracy was pragmatic, and rather than actually endorsing it as an ideology he accepted it as a matter of fact that Muslims, too, must accept, yet one which they must gradually work to overcome, albeit through using democratic means.
Muslims in Post-1947 India: The Tasks Before the Community
Nadwi clearly saw this pragmatic approach as the only feasible way to carry on with the mission of ‘establishing the faith’ in the Indian context. Nadwi’s multifarious public activities and missionary efforts in post-1947 India were directed towards this one overarching goal. Nadwi seems to have felt that the Islamic imperative of struggling for the ‘establishment of the faith’ need not necessarily take the form of political activism alone. Nadwi was pragmatic enough to realise that efforts to establish an Islamic state in India without building up an Islamic society that would encompass a majority of the people of the country was utopian. Hence his insistent appeal to the Muslims to focus their energies on strengthening their commitment to their faith as well as engaging in missionary work among others. By slowly building up from below, Nadwi hoped that the field would be prepared for what he saw as the complete ‘establishment of the faith’. In this way, the democratic, secular state could indeed be accepted by the Indian Muslims, at least in the foreseeable future, for it provided them the spaces they could use for working towards ‘establishing’ Islam in its entirety in the long run, that is if God willed so.
An indication of this growing pragmatism was Nadwi’s wholehearted participation in the work of the Tablighi Jama’at, which he first came in touch with in 1943. In contrast to the Muslim League, the Tablighi Jama’at consciously eschewed political activity, refraining from communal controversy and conflict. The Tablighi Jama’at probably suggested itself to Nadwi as the most pragmatic strategy for Muslims in India, living as a marginalised and threatened minority, to adopt. The movement solved the dilemma of democracy by simply by-passing it, for it insisted that Islam should first be ‘established’ within oneself, and that till then the pursuit of an ‘Islamic state’ to take the place of the theoretically democratic state in India was simply utopian.
Faced as the Muslim community was with numerous problems that demanded a political solution, Nadwi was forced against his will to enter the field of politics. A sudden spurt in violent attacks against Muslims instigated by Hindu chauvinists, in which scores of Muslims lost their lives, as well as the continuing indifference of the government to Muslim problems, forced him to turn his attention to politics. But here too he exhorted Muslims to adopt the democratic path, seeking to sue available democratic spaces for having Muslim voices and demands heard. Accordingly, in 1964 Nadwi, along with other leading Muslim social, political and religious figures, set up the All-India Muslim Majlis-i Mushawarat (‘The Muslim Consultative Assembly’), an umbrella body of several Muslim organisations, to chalk out a coordinated political strategy for the Muslim community. Nadwi saw the Majlis as playing a central role in politically awakening, mobilising and uniting Muslim voters scattered all over the country in order to make them a powerful, consolidated political force operating within the existing democratic system. The Majlis was intended to dialogue with established political parties in order to convince them of the need to pay attention to the problems and concerns of the Muslims, as well as to promote inter-communal amity in the country, which it saw as indispensable for Muslims as well as others to prosper.[5] It sought to actively promote communal harmony while at the same time promoting Muslim rights and interests, the two being seen as inseparable from, rather than antagonistic to, each other. By thereby seeking to politically integrate the Muslims into the ‘mainstream’ of social and political life in India and to use existing democratic spaces and make democratic demands, the Majlis, as Nadwi saw it, was also intended to enable Muslims to prove to others their Qur’anic status of khair ummat (‘the best community’). It was only in a climate of peace, Nadwi wrote, that non-Muslims would be willing to seriously listen to the Islamic ‘invitation’.[6]
Nadwi saw secularism, understood both as state neutrality towards all religions as well as harmony between followers of different faiths, as indispensable for a plural society like India and for protecting Muslim interests. Even at the height of the Babri mosque controversy, in the early 1990s, when Hindu zealots, targetting a mosque in the town of Ayodhya which they alleged had been built on the ruins of a temple dedicated to the god-king Ram, unleashed a wave of attacks against Muslims, Nadwi counselled dialogue and restraint, rather than retaliation and conflict. Warning Muslims not to take to the path of violence in the face of militant Hindu attacks, he sought to present a solution to the dispute that might satisfy both sides. He met with several Hindu religious leaders to help evolve a mutually acceptable solution, believing that the matter should not be left to professional politicians who had a vested interest in instigating and prolonging communal conflict. When Hindu militants began a mass, India-wide campaign to destroy the mosque, fanning anti-Muslim passions and violence, Nadwi reacted by issuing a pubic statement calling for peace and tolerance, pleading that the matter be resolved through constitutional means. At a peace rally at Lucknow in 1990, he declared that in the face of mounting Hindu militancy, Muslims must respond by ‘turning to God, refraining from sin, inviting non-Muslims to Islam and adopting the path of steadfastness, tolerance and bravery’.
Islam, Democracy and Inter-Faith Dialogue
Nadwi called for inter-religious dialogue between Muslims and others, particularly Hindus, envisaging this as going beyond mere theological exchange to take the form of joint efforts for building a more harmonious and just society, using Islamic arguments for what is also a democratic demand. In his introduction to a general survey of Muslim contributions to Indian culture, he wrote that for people of different faiths to live together in peace and co-operation, it was necessary that they should understand each other’s religion, culture and traditions, regarding whatever they found good therein as ‘precious and worthy of encouragement and preservation’.[7] When two civilisations meet, he remarked, there is always a two-way process of interaction between them, both being influenced and moulded by each other. Such interaction must not be seen as necessarily negative, because ‘human existence is based on the noble principle of give and take’. In this, he wrote, ‘lies its strength and glory’.[8]
While not advocating a form of inter-faith dialogue that might lead Muslims to compromise in any way on their faith, being convinced that Islam was indeed the only perfect religion, Nadwi advocated what could be called a ‘dialogue of life’, appealing for people of different religions to work together for common purposes. This was yet another aspect of his pragmatic approach to the question of democratic politics. He saw the struggle against violence as the single most urgent need of the times, and here Muslims could work together with others to establish a more peaceful and just society. He often spoke out against extremism of all sorts, insisting that what was required was a band of missionaries who could ‘douse the flames of hatred and enmity’. He insisted that rather than being a ‘barrier’ in the path of Islamic missionary work, such a stance was actually a ‘facilitator’.[9]
The Payam-i Insaniyat (‘The Message of Humanity’) was Nadwi’s principal vehicle for the promotion of better relations between Muslims and people of other faiths. As its name suggests, it was intended to be a forum where people of different faiths could come together on the basis of their common humanity and belief in common values and principles of brotherhood, communal harmony, tolerance, mutual respect and love for the country. It aimed at promoting peaceful relations between Muslims and others and preventing moral decline. The Muslims had a special role to play in this regard for, as Nadwi saw it, it was they who had first ‘gifted the message of humanism, love, tolerance and concern for social welfare to the people of the country’. [10] Further, it was the religious duty of the Muslims to do so, for their status as the ‘best community’ in the Qur’an was bestowed upon them precisely because they ‘enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil’.[11] As such, as one of Nadwi’s admirers writes, it was also geared towards bringing Muslims to interact with others for addressing issues and problems of common concern, thus trying to reverse the trend towards ‘separatism’ that had made them ‘indifferent’ to these issues.[12] Nadwi insisted that Muslim community could no longer ‘live in its on imaginary world […] cut off from the mainstream of national life’. Rather, they needed to join hands with others in building the country,[13] for their lives were ‘inextricably linked to each other’s. The Payam-i Insaniyat, as he saw it, pointed to the most appropriate way in which Muslims could play a leading role in building a new India.
Insisting that Islam positively enjoined peace between people of different faiths, Nadwi argued that Muslims had a special role to play in the work of the Payam-i Insaniyat. Not only was this their religious duty, it was, he said, also indispensable if they were to live in security and peace and able to progress as a minority. He likened the movement to the half-i fuzul, a group headed by Muhammad in Mecca before he was appointed as a prophet, and consisting entirely of non-Muslims, mainly pagan Arabs. Just as the half-i fuzul aimed at helping the poor and the oppressed, irrespective of religion, and ‘enjoining the good and forbidding the evil’, so, too, Nadwi said, must Muslims in India today work along with people of other communities for spreading ‘true’ religion, peace, love and justice, and crusading against oppression, strife and violations of human rights, for Muslims, he insisted, have been appointed by God for that very purpose. These values and demands coincided with those espoused by democratic forces in the country, and thus pointed to the possibilities of these forces working together with Muslim groups for common aims.[14]
Nadwi envisaged the Payam-i Insaniyat as a means for Muslims to establish friendly relations with people of other religions, so that in this way they could impress them with the teachings of Islam and clear their misunderstandings about the religion. By bringing Muslims and others to work together for solving common problems, the Payam-i Insaniyat, Nadwi believed, would provide a means for Muslims to carry on with the Islamic duty of tabligh or missionary work. Thus, at a speech delivered at a Payam-i Insaniyat rally in the aftermath of the bloody riots at Bhiwandi in 1984, in which dozens of Muslims were killed, Nadwi remarked that although the Muslims had been living in the country for well over a thousand years they had failed in their duty of explaining the teachings of their faith and their moral virtues to the Hindus and impressing them with the same. Instead of befriending them, Muslims had alienated them, turning them into enemies. The time had now come, he said, that through efforts like that of the Payam-i Insaniyat, Muslims must show others what ‘jewels they hide in their hearts’, how deeply inspired they were by their religion to ‘show love and human concern’ for others, and how ‘useful’ they actually were for the country as a whole. Islam, he insisted, was actually a religion of peace (aman) and ‘security’ (salamati), and its true followers had ‘love, not hatred, for all humanity’, for all human beings, irrespective of religion, were God’s creatures and, hence, brothers to each other. Muslims, he said, should seek to convince others of this through their actions, and one way to do this was to work along with them for a more peaceful and just Indian society. This, he said, would be a great service that they could render to both India as well as Islam. Addressing the Muslims, Nadwi commented that God had chosen India to be their country, and this being their home they should exhibit ‘love’ for it. Islam, he said, positively encouraged them to have ‘love for their land’ (hubb al-watani) and the best way in which they could express their patriotism (watan dosti) was to work against oppression of all kinds, joining hands with others for this cause, while also carrying on with the mission of spreading the message of Islam that God had entrusted them with.
In advocating peace with others and working together within the democratic system for their goals, Muslims, Nadwi insisted, would not be betraying their religion. Rather, he pointed out, Islam is clear that human beings, irrespective of religion, race, caste and class, are ‘the most precious’ of God’s creation, and an ‘expression of Divine mercy’. This being the case, Muslims should strive for peace and must also raise their voices against all forms of oppression, something that advocates of genuine democracy would assert with equal passion. In this way, they would show others that they are ‘indispensable’ for the country, rather than a burden. But peace, he pointed out, could not be had if one community sought to impose its beliefs or culture on the others. Religious freedom was a must in a religiously plural society, and for this, Nadwi argued, true secularism (na mazhabiyat)—state neutrality vis-à-vis all religions—and democracy were indispensable, or else nothing could save India from the grave threat of a fascist take-over.[15] His words are proving to be truly prophetic, as recent events so tragically illustrate.
-taken from a paper by Yoginder Sikand
No comments:
Post a Comment