The Failure to Condemn the Taliban Can Only Mean That the Dream of Establishing Islamic State and Implementing Sharia Is Widely Shared By Indian Muslims

Main Points:

•        There is wide sympathy for the Taliban among the Indian Ulama cutting across denominational rivalries.

•        Deobandis like Shabbir Ahmad and Ashraf Ali Thanwi were firm believers in the idea of the sharia state of Pakistan.

•        Ahmad Raza Barelwi hoped that an Islamic state would be formed after the British left.

•        Not just the Ulama, 74% Indian Muslims expressed their desire for sharia courts in a recent PEW survey.

•        Does this mean that Indian Muslims do not see themselves as part of a collective national life?

After the disastrous interview of AIMPLB’s Sajjad Nomani, who welcomed the victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan and sent out greetings on behalf of Indian Muslims, there have been no further such messages from any of the Ulama organizations. Should we think that this is so because the wider Indian Ulama did not like what Sajjad Nomani had to say or because they are ideologically opposed to the Taliban? Certainly, the Barelwis have opposed the Deobandis in every matter of faith but one is yet to see any Barelwi body issuing a statement against the Taliban. This was expected, given the context that the Taliban have been ideologically against shrine-centric religiosity in Islam. Moreover, after sections of the media and the government called out Sajjad Nomani, other Deobandis did not come out in his defence. Even the AIMPLB distanced itself from his statement and made sure not to comment on what Nomani spoke. How should we understand this silence?

Partly, this is strategic. In the context of the upcoming Uttar Pradesh elections and the high-handedness with which the government is going against anyone who is speaking even slightly in favour of the Taliban, the Ulama have chosen to remain silent. Their silence, therefore, should not be construed as not having a position on Taliban but only that under the current political regime, they deem it imprudent to voice their opinions. Truth be told: there is wide sympathy for the Taliban among the Indian Ulama cutting across denominational rivalries. The Deobandis and the Barelwis can fight ad hominem on inane issues like the second azan on Jumma, but they do not dispute each other on the necessity of proclaiming the sharia or its implementation through an Islamic state.

The Deobandis proclaim themselves as followers of composite nationalism and plume themselves as being part of the freedom movement. Certainly, a faction led by Husain Ahmad Madani was with the Congress party and fought for India’s freedom. However, even Husain Ahmad did not abjure the necessity of an Islamic state for Muslims as his belief in composite nationalism was only for a ‘limited time’: till the time all Indians do not become Muslims. He was a firm believer that eventually everyone living in India would become Muslims and there would be no need of a composite nationalism after that. In this utopia, the Muslim life would be organized within an Islamic state. There was another faction within Deoband led by Shabbir Ahmad and Ashraf Ali Thanwi who were firm believers in the idea of Pakistan, for only within an Islamic state could sharia be implemented. So Deoband is not very different from the Taliban when it comes to the idea of establishing an Islamic state after all. 

The Barelwis have declared themselves as the arch-rivals of the Deobandis. Their ideologue Ahmad Raza Khan issued of kufr against leading Deobandi scholars and by extension against anyone who is associated with Deoband. Does it mean that they will be against the Taliban? Ahmad Raza, when he was alive, had predicted the end of the British rule which was to be followed by Muslim rule. He had some kind of a shadow cabinet ready and had even thought of names for some important state positions. But this again was an Islamic state and Muslims were to be governed according to the rules of the sharia. Ahmad Raza died before he could realize this dream but, ultimately, leading Sufis and Barelwi landlords ended up supporting Pakistan because of their belief in establishing an Islamic state. So how does this make the Barelwis any different from the Taliban?

But this fascination for the sharia is not just limited to the Ulama. Through many years and various mediums, it has now been percolated down to the Muslim masses and has nearly become part of their common sense. Else, how do we understand that 74% Indian Muslims expressed their desire for sharia courts in the recent PEW survey? That explains why after the Taliban took over Afghanistan, social media pages were disturbingly full of appreciative messages from Indian Muslims.

Muslims have been living in independent India for more than seven decades now. It appears as if the institutions of democracy, secular principles and normative equality of gender have had no effect on them. Why else, after living for so many decades in a ‘nominal’ secular state, would we still pine for a system like the sharia which is blatantly discriminatory towards women and the minorities? This can only mean that Indian Muslims do not see themselves as part of a collective national life. Or that, when they speak of the Constitution, they are only concerned about safeguarding their own conservative interests. There is no other reason why Indian Muslims, who are fortunate to live in a democracy (unlike most Muslims across the world), would not condemn the Taliban and its medieval vision unequivocally.

This is not to suggest that such voices are completely absent. The statements of Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD) and Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), condemning the Taliban, are laudatory but then why are mainstream political and religious leaders silent? It is very heartening to note that low caste Muslim groups have out rightly condemned the Taliban for its regressive mindset and have expressed their faith in democracy and pluralism. But their contention that only Ashraf Muslims are fascinated by the Taliban is not true. This movement would do well to realize that Pasmanda Muslims would be an overwhelming part of the 74% Indian Muslims pining for sharia. They need to move beyond rhetoric and stop the increasing Islamization of their society; else, they might win the battle one day but will ultimately lose the war.

—-

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com 

This article was first published on https://www.newageislam.com/

The post Indian Muslims and the Allure of Sharia appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For the Rwala Bedouins of Northern Arabia, heaven was a place below the earth, with abundant rain and lush greenery. Hell was above the ground with a scorching sun, making life miserable. Heaven was reserved for the Rwala; all non-Rwalas were to be consigned to hell. The Rwala had no regard for the dominant religion of the area, Islam. Like all non-Rwala, Muslims also were destined for a ‘life of hell’ above the ground.

The peculiar Rwala belief can surprise many but it is certainly not uncommon. Most religions and faith systems have a way of announcing to the wider world that they are the chosen people of God. Especially within the Semitic traditions, this leads to the division of the world between believers and non-believers. The theology that develops consequently also divides the afterlife into heaven and hell. Heaven is where believers will rejoice and hell is where non-believers will rot. Most of us progressive Muslims tend to think that such primitive ways of thinking is characteristic of simple or tribal societies. But we are wrong. Dominant religions of the world today hold a view which is not very different from the Rwala.

In order that we see this clearly, we need someone like Zakir Naik to remind us that our religions, including Islam, still define themselves in opposition to others. Notion of reward and punishment, heaven and hell continue to be the most important features of religions.

 
Zakir Naik arriving during the opening ceremony of the Kuala Lumpur Summit 2019 on 19 December, 2019. (AFP Photo)

Recently, Zakir Naik was asked whether ‘good non-Muslims’ would find a place in heaven. The context of question was Ravish Kumar, the popular news presenter on Indian television and one of the few journalists who still believes in speaking truth to power. Zakir Naik showered abundant praise on the likes of Ravish Kumar who are dutiful in their profession and even acknowledged that they will be rewarded in this world, but certainly they will not find a place in heaven. Naik argued, and perhaps rightly so, that in the eyes of Allah, shirk (associating partners to Allah) was the gravest crime. So even if a person is of good character but does not believe in the oneness of Allah (Tauheed), then all his good deeds will be cancelled and he will be consigned to hellfire after death. 
 

Progressive Muslims were aghast at his statement. It was as if Zakir Naik was articulating something which was not part of Islamic theology or which contradicted the verses of the Quran. On the contrary, what he said is part of Islamic theology, taught to Muslims since generations with mild variations. In popular Muslim understanding, heaven is reserved for them while hell is for those who do not believe in Allah. Such confidence comes from the Quran itself which calls Islam as the perfection of all religions:

“This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed my favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion” (5: 3).

The implication is very clear: since Islam is chosen by God, everyone should follow this religion. Islamic supremacy derives from such clear verses of the Quran which forbid Muslims to reflect on any other path to salvation. This understanding of Islam is the reason why in another video, Zakir Naik criticises the Pakistani government’s efforts to construct a Hindu temple in Islamabad. After all, if Islam is the perfect religion, then what is the need of other religions in the world? [See the video here  

For Muslims, no one can match the character of Abu Talib, the paternal uncle of Muhammad. He loved Muhammad more than his own progeny, and protected him from the rage of Quraysh till the time he was alive. It was only after Abu Talib’s death, that the prophet migrated to Medina, completely divested of any support within Mecca. Abu Talib was a polytheist and he died as one despite Muhammad entreating him to accept Islam.

For Muslims, if there is any non-Muslim who should find a place in heaven, then it should ideally be Abu Talib. And yet the Sunni theology is completely convinced that because he did not die a Muslim, he cannot be in heaven. Even after his death, Muhamad pleaded with Allah to forgive the sins of Abu Talib only to be reprimanded by the verse:

“It is not for the prophet and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of polytheists even if they were their relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are the people of hell” (9:113).

The Shias have laboured hard to prove that Abu Talib had in fact recited the shahada but the intent behind this has been to rescue the family of Ali rather than being a search for salvation of non-Muslims within the Islamic doctrine. Certainly, there have been attempts to differentiate between non-Muslims and Kafirs; and some have argued that Kafirs refer to only those who are ungrateful of God’s mercy. Stressing that Allah is al-Rahman (the Merciful), some theologians have also argued that only God, in his divine wisdom, knows who will eventually go to heaven and who to hell. This however, remains a minority opinion within both Shia and Sunni theology. 

Theologians like Ghazali have argued that true to His nature, God will eventually rescue all of humanity, including those non-Muslims who never heard of Islam. Nearly two centuries later, Ibn Taimiyya would spend much of his life arguing for the subjugation and humiliation of non-Muslims so that they accept Islam. Towards the end of his life, locked up in a prison in Damascus, he would write that God will save everyone from hell and indeed hellfire itself will be extinguished. However, neither Ghazali nor ibn Taimiyya could ever argue against the very idea of a ‘good non-Muslim’ going to hell.  

This is certainly not a problem which is unique to Islam. Judaism and Christianity suffer from the same problem. If the Quran itself is making it abundantly clear that those who do not believe in Allah are ‘people of hell’, then why are we surprised when Zakir Naik is saying the same thing? People like him are only the reflection of a deep rot within Islamic theology. Till the time we do not understand that there can be multiple paths to the same truth and that Islam is just one of those paths, we will keep condemning ‘good non-Muslims’ like Ravish Kumar to hell. 

Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist.     

Courtesy:newageislam.com

The post Zakir Naik Showcases the Rot within Islamic Theology appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A madrasa graduate, recently complained to me that the word ‘Mullah’ is derogatory and hence its usage should be avoided. He was particularly livid that even Muslims use the word without realising that they were ‘mocking at one of the most important constituents of Muslim society’. The proper usage, he told me, should be Ulama e Deen or simply Alim (the learned one). My friend, the madrasa graduate, recounted tales of valour and sacrifice that the Ulema have made to the Muslim cause throughout history. With some force, he told me, that the very word Ulema should inspire a feeling of awe and respect, especially from the Muslim community.

This sense of self-worth is certainly not unique but is shared by most who have a religious degree. Even the most useless of such ‘religious scholars’, who sell themselves for a pittance on television debates, take offence at being called a Mullah. Certainly, Islam prescribes no clergy, and according to most readings of Islam, there is no hierarchy amongst the believers. Then why is it that the Ulama think that they are better than other Muslims? What special abilities do they possess to warrant such a respect? More importantly, since when have they started taking themselves so seriously?

The perception that Ulama are somehow special is also prevalent within Muslim society and generally as rule, Muslims think that the Ulama are worthy of respect. I have heard many Muslims remarking that it is the role of the Ulama to guide the Muslim community and that Muslims should follow their advice.

That the Ulama have been respected throughout Muslim history is a piece of fiction. As a matter of fact, they have never been. Since the Islamic state fused within the person of the caliph both sacred and secular powers, there was no need for a separate existence of a class of clergy. It is true that Muslim monarchs kept an advisory council comprising of Ulama, but the decision to accept any advice was the sole prerogative of the monarchy and almost in all cases, the acceptance or rejection of such advices were based on political considerations. Within South Asia, some Ulama tried from time to time to persuade Muslim Kings to undertake religious conversion, but the Kings never took their advice seriously. On the contrary, those who went against the diktat of the King were promptly put behind bars or exiled. Elsewhere in the Islamic world, the story of was the same: if the Sultan disapproved of something, then the particular Alim was in deep trouble.

Further back in Islamic history, we see that the Ulama were made fun of by Muslims themselves. Philosophers like Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd and even mystics like Ibn Arabi lambasted the Ulema for taking the religious text too literally. These philosophers claimed that the real essence of Islam is buried within layers of meaning and that only they (the philosophers) have access to that knowledge. They contended that the Ulama only skim the surface and boastfully proclaim that they have found the truth. We should also not forget the various Muslim poets who have lampooned the Ulama for their mindless insistence on rituals. Even a pragmatist Islamist, like Jamaluddin Afghani, was horrified to learn that despite the imminent English threat, the Indian Ulama continued to be obsessed with questions like what should be the appropriate length of the beard.

This contemporary self-praise of the Ulama therefore is a modern phenomenon and in India, at least, its architect seems to be Shah Waliullah. Sensing the imminent decline of Muslim power, he theorised that the Ulama become custodians of inner caliphate (BatiniKhilafah) as opposed to outer caliphate (Zahiri Khilafa) where they should surrender their authority to whatever form of government exists. Although they never had any influence within the outer caliphate ever, this formulation of Shah Waliullah crystallised with the establishment of Deoband madrasa. This institutionalizing of a fictitious idea gave an important role to the Ulama, something which was new in Muslim history. Deoband positioned itself neatly within the colonial binary of public and private wherein religion came to be regarded as a private matter. And the Ulema became the masters of this private realm in terms of guiding the community in religious matters and teaching them the correct Islamic behaviour in a context where Islam was no longer the master signifier. The Ulama would perhaps be very disappointed to learn that their new role as the guide and leader of Muslims is in fact a gift bestowed on them, not by Muslims, but by the Christian British.

The second important moment for the Ulama came when Gandhi hit upon the disastrous idea of drafting them within the freedom struggle through the Khilafat movement. It is during the Khilafat movement that the Ulema truly emerged as a class within Muslims. In Marxian terms, it was a class fully conscious of its role and interests within society. The Khilafat movement transformed some Ulama into household names since they were in the forefront of anti-British struggle. Without understanding the internal social structure of Muslims, the Congress, in its infantile wisdom, under the leadership of Gandhi, anointed the Ulama as leaders of Muslims. Till now, within the popular imagination of this country, the Ulama are treated as leaders of the Muslim community. Having tasted power for the first time during the Khilafat movement, the Ulama were hardly the one to give it up despite the abject failure of the movement. Out of work, the Ulama understood the power of Islam as a mobilizing force. The social and political networks forged during the Khilafat movement would eventually be used in developing a separatist consciousness amongst a section of Muslims.

My friend, the madrasa graduate, must realise that there is nothing in Islam which tells us to respect the Ulama or even follow their advice. That they have become important is a fact. But they have become so because of the coming together of certain historical contexts. Within a different context, the same category of people have also been blamed for much of the plight of Muslim community. There is definitely a reading of Islam which tells us that an Alim must be respected for his knowledge. A famous Hadis tells us that Muslims must strive to seek knowledge even if they have to go to China. But if the Ulama today are downright ignorant of even basic history and geography, then is it the Muslim community’s fault if they do not respect them?

Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist

Courtesy: NewAgeIslam.com

The post Should the Ulema Take Themselves Seriously? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Imran Khan came with the promise of creating a new Medina in Pakistan. Myths have great power, especially if it is dressed up as an answer to present day problems like inequality. Reality dawned rather quickly on the Khan government and it soon abandoned even the talk of bringing back the ‘glorious days’ of Medina. First, it were the Mullahs who held his government to ransom for weeks together. Then, his inability to stem the tide of forcible conversion of minority religious groups, especially Hindu girls, exposed his hypocritical rhetoric of Naya Pakistan. The exclusion of the Ahmadiyya community from the newly established National Commission of Minorities, is the latest example of how the Khan government has buckled under Islamist pressure.

The Ahmadiyyas arose as a distinct Muslim group during the 19th century. Most of their theology arose from their active engagement with Christian and Hindu groups who were writing disparaging commentaries on Islam. In the process, the Ahmadis charted a slightly different course in their understanding of the concept of prophetic tradition within Islam. The Ahmadis make a difference between prophets who were sent as ‘bearers of laws’ and prophets who were sent to ‘renew the law’. In this understanding, Muhammad was the last law bearing prophet and hence they consider him as the seal of prophets. However, they also sacralise their ideologue, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who they argue was sent to renew the law. This conception of prophet-hood, however, is not very different from the dominant Sunni Hanafi concept of the Mujaddid, who comes to renew the faith from time to time.

Despite this, there has been a long perception about Ahmadis that they deny the finality of Prophet Muhammad. Although theological attacks have been made against the Ahmadis since their inception, it was only after the creation of Pakistan that the movement against them became political and got intensified. The threat of Hindu dominance no longer there, the Pakistani nation-state imagined an internal enemy in the form of Ahmadiyyas. This despite the fact that the Ahmadi Muslims were at the forefront of the Pakistan movement. Soon after Pakistan was created, Shia and Sunni traditionalists, ably supported by Islamists like Maududi demanded that Ahmadis be considered non-Muslims and be removed from all positions of power.       

Violence against Ahmadis erupted in Lahore during 1953-54 in which nearly 2000 of them were killed. The government initially resisted the Mullahs and the Islamists but eventually gave up, and in 1974, under the left leaning Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the Ahmadis were declared non-Muslims. Despite this forcible exclusion, Ahmadis continued to practice their faith as Muslims. In order to further stigmatize them, the Pakistan state brought an ordinance in 1984 which forbade the Ahmadis to practice their faith as Muslims. Ahmadis could no longer preach, say their prayers, or even repair their mosques. Periodic targeted violence against the Ahmadis has resulted in their migration to other countries. Human Rights Watch and US Commission for International Religious Freedom have periodically called out the Pakistan establishment for its enabling of ‘systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom’ against the Ahmadi community. 

In India, Muslims have not been far behind their Pakistani counterparts. In the not so distant past, prominent Indian Muslims have lobbied hard to prevent any national politician from visiting any Ahmadi religious congregation. Muslims who have been projected as liberal and progressive by the mainstream media have been personally involved in vandalizing Ahmadi religious exhibitions. Mullahs and their minions have organized numerous Khatm e Nabuwwat conferences to explicitly target the minuscule Ahmadiyya community in India.

Imran Khan wanted to include the Ahmadis as minorities and the cabinet had even circulated a note stating its intention of doing so. However, the government buckled under pressure, the note was modified and the idea of including Ahmadis as minorities was dropped. While the state vacillates between inclusion and exclusion, the Ahmadis themselves do not want to be included as minorities. They consider themselves to be as Muslims as any other group and want to be treated as such by the larger society and the state. In the raging obsession of Pakistan with the Ahmadi question, no one wanted to know their opinion and what they thought regarding the whole issue. The back and forth on the issue has had the effect of bringing back the negative spotlight back on the already beleaguered community. If there is a fresh attack on the community, it is the Pakistan state which should squarely be blamed for it.

Islam is not a religion like Christianity having an elaborate ecclesiastical authority. This lack of centralised structure is the reason of so much internal diversity within Islam. Not just in terms of Mazahib (law schools), but also within each of them, the different Masalik (sects) attests to a certain recognition and internalization of the principle of diversity. There is therefore no standard way of being a Muslim. Problems arise when either the state or groups within Muslim society arrogate to themselves the power to define what constitutes Islam or its attendant practices. The important question to remember is this: if there is no concept of clerical establishment in Islam then no one has the right to condemn the faith orientation of any Muslim group. Anyone doing so is going against the very same Islamic principles which he/she wants to uphold. And therefore, any person who self identifies herself as a Muslim must necessarily be treated as one, without any questions asked.

One notices a strange silence within the Indian Muslim community regarding the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan. In India, Muslims are waging a valiant struggle to retain their rights and dignity against a relentless army of hate arrayed against them. It is therefore important to show solidarity with all minority groups (religious or otherwise) elsewhere, more so if that happens within South Asian countries. A selective condemnation will only hurt the present Muslim cause in India.       

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com

Courtesy: NewAgeIslam.com

The post Pakistan Abases its Ahmadi Citizens, yet Again appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On the 3^rd of May 1993, nearly 140 Muslims were massacred in Manipur by the dominant Meitei community. Muslim houses were burnt, their properties destroyed. As has been seen in other such cases where Muslims have been on the receiving end, the police were actively complicit with the dominant community in this massacre. In the ‘conscience collective’ of this nation, this gruesome incident has been relegated to the margins of historical memory. There are different ‘reasons’ given for this massacre, but what is not disputed is the fact Muslims have yet to get even an iota of justice. The state, dominated by Meiteis, has seen to it that most who perpetrated this violence got away with it. At times, state governments have announced compensation for victims, but the amount has been shockingly so meagre that it seems that the purpose of awarding such compensation was to mock Muslims rather than give any relief to them. A commission of enquiry was set up to probe the massacre, but the recommendations of Justice Sen largely remained on the shelves. At some places, the commission report appeared to blame Muslims for bringing this massacre upon themselves.

Locally called as Pangals, these Muslims are indigenous to Manipur. They settled in Manipur much before the Meiteis became Hindus and therefore Islam has a much older presence here as compared to Hinduism. And yet, over the years, they have been stereotyped by the larger community as thieves and drug peddlers. This prejudice is one of the reasons why Muslims have been at the receiving end of such targeted violence in Manipur. A certain hatred towards the Muslim community has become normal within the majority population. Muslim men were attacked in 2016 for participating in a cultural festival. In the same year, three Muslim men were accused of stealing vehicles and two of them were lynched. And in 2018, a young Muslim entrepreneur was similarly lynched after being accused of theft. The gruesome incident was filmed and circulated which showed the young man being denied water during his dying moments and uniformed men poking his body with bayonets to make sure that the person was dead. Muslims are yet to find closure with regard to any of these killings.

Muslims in Manipur constitute around 8.5% of the population. However, in terms of representation, they are hardly in positions of power despite some form of affirmative action in place. Largely relegated to the lower rungs of the government sector, they have been demanding proportional representation to no avail. As if this was not enough, the state has tried to divest them from their land in the name of development projects. Muslim voices, like student activist Chingiz Khan, who have questioned the government, have been jailed or threatened.

Part of the problem lies with the nature of the Meitei nationalism itself. In contest with dominant Hindu nationalism, it has at times ended up borrowing the rhetoric of Hindu nationalism itself. A very active reclamation of their pre-Hindu past has led to a certain revival of their tradition and culture, including their language and religion. However, certain strands of this nationalism seeks to actively exclude others. The very idea of Meitei-Meiteilon-Meitrabak (Meitei-Meitei Language-Meitie Land) is a language of exclusion, often indulged in by right wing nationalist forces. An unhealthy obsession with the ‘exploding’ population of Muslims (despite the statistics showing that it is the Christian population which has increased manifold), the threat that Muslims and others are taking away their jobs, the often open call for increasing the Meitei population by producing more children is nothing but pure imitation of the techniquesof the supposed ‘enemy’. It is not a surprise therefore that not just Muslims but even tribal communities in Manipur are deeply suspicious of this brand of Meitei nationalism.It is this very mimicry of Hindu nationalism which was partly responsible for Muslim massacre of 1993.

Meitei nationalists generally have been at the forefront of anti-AFSPA agitation. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen them mobilizing and demanding justice for Muslims killed in 1993 massacre. There might have been a few examples here and there but certainly there hasn’t been any sustained effort on their part to understand their community’s complicity in the worst anti-Muslim killings to happen in their state. The very fact that this issue was taken up by some Muslim organizations is perhaps a telling commentary on the exclusivity of Meitei platforms. One assumes that if Meitei nationalism was inclusive then Muslims would not have to create their separate platforms. Meitei nationalists have traversed the world talking about human rights violations in their state. We need to ask whether this talk of protection of human rights and upholding human dignity applies specifically to Meiteis only. What explains the relative silence of these activists over the 1993 anti-Muslim killings? Is it that the community which presents itself as a victim to the outside world, is adamant to continue as oppressors within their own state? In recent years, Manipuri Muslims have taken earnestly to higher education and have started forging broader solidarities with like-minded groups. But it is too early to say whether this will work to stem the tide of anti-Muslim bigotry. Being in a minority, they can only do so much. Ultimately, it devolves on the dominant community to question their own prejudices in order to forge a truly inclusive politics.

Courtesy: https://www.karvaanindia.com/

The post Meitei Nationalist Dystopia And The Perils Of Anti-Muslim Prejudice In Manipur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The controversy over the use of loudspeakers with the onset of the month of Ramadhan has caused anxiety among the Muslims of India. It began one day before the month of Ramadhan with video of two men in uniform reportedly from Kirari area in New Delhi telling a maulvi not to call the azan during the Ramadhan as it was the order of the LG of Delhi. Later higher officials of Delhi police denied any such order. But the next day. the district officials of Farrukhabad, UP reportedly banned azan in mosques. Then reports of ban on azan came from Ghazipur, Gorakhpur, and Qannauj in UP and Sonepat and Faridabad in Haryana. Afzal Ansari, the BSP MP of UP has even moved the court challenging the ban. In Itawah, UP the ban was revoked the next day with the condition that the volume of the loudspeakers should be kept low and that the message of social distancing will also be given on the loudspeakers. Generally, in all the places, the problem was not azan but azan on the loudspeakers. This hints at the real problem and this problem should be sorted out by the Muslim community.

No one can deny that the use of loudspeakers in the month of Ramadhan becomes rampant. Apart from usual azan on the mike, the loudspeakers are used also for collecting donations for mosques and madrasas. People appeal for donations for madrasas on autorickshaws or other small vehicles on the loudspeakers from morning till evening in the Muslim majority areas causing nuisance to not only to non-Muslims of the area but also to the general Muslims who want peace for prayers, Quran recitations or for their ailing family members. No one can object to the high volume of the loudspeakers because it will be considered anti-Muslim objecting to a noble cause in the month of Ramadhan.

In mosques now it has become imperative to use the loudspeakers for calling the azan. In most of the mosques, two or three big mikes are tied to the minar facing different directions so that the Muslims of the entire town could hear the azan oblivious of the fact that this high volume of azan disturbs the sleep or the peace of mind of non-Muslims who have nothing to do with Azan. They cannot object to this because if they do they will be branded communal or a person with an RSS-affiliation. This has continued for decades but Muslims did not pay heed to their feelings and inconveniences. During the month of Ramadhan, the loudspeakers are also used for announcing the time for Sehri and Iftar. During the Sehri, the muezzin makes the announcement every 15 minutes giving the countdown to Sehri causing nuisance to the non-Muslims in the area. In some places Naat (poems in praise of Prophet Muhammad pbuh) is also recited between the announcements not allowing the Muslims of the area the tranquillity and peace needed for prayers, namaz or recitation of the Quran. These issues have never been discussed by the Muslims from an introspective point of view and from the point of view of the non-Muslims though the Quran asks Muslims to care for the comfort of the neighbours, both Muslims and non-Muslims. The hadith is also tough on giving trouble to the neighbour.

 If a Muslim scholar or activist raises this issue, he is branded an atheist or an enemy of Muslims. But this rigidity in the attitude of Muslims is now causing bigger problems to Muslims in a multicultural society.

But the scenario has changed in the last few years. It cannot be totally blamed on growing Islamophobia and communalism. Non-Muslims have become vocal about the inconvenience azan on the loudspeakers causes to them. Therefore, Muslims should also change their attitude towards the use of loudspeakers. Our ulema had once said that the loudspeaker is the voice of Satan but now the loudspeakers have become a quintessential part of Islamic activities that we are not ready to sacrifice this non-essential tool for the sake of the non-Muslim neighbours. In most cases, the objection was raised on the loudspeakers not on the Azan.

Ramadhan requires Muslims to be introspective: they should stress more on inner purification than on outer show of piety and reverence. Let Muslims minimize the use of loudspeakers, rather ban the use of loudspeakers for religious purposes. Loudspeakers are also used to spread sectarian hatred among Muslims.  In this age of scientific and technological progress, loudspeakers are not even necessary for the few who care for five-time prayers. They keep themselves aware of the times of namaz. The mobile phone is a multipurpose tool which can also be used for keeping a tab on the times of Namaz, Sehri and Iftar. Why should especial arrangements be made for those who do not offer five-time prayers through the whole year and become overzealous during the month of Ramadhan? These people think that they can commit all kinds of sins and crimes and spread mischief on earth during the whole year but all their sins will be washed away if they fast for one month and offer five-time prayers and Tarawih only in the month of Ramadhan. The pious and true Muslims are taking all the trouble for these ‘one-month migratory birds’ among Muslims who will fill the mosques and create all the fuss during the holy month and then disappear.

S. Arshad is a regular columnist for NewAgeIslam.com

Courtesy: https://www.newageislam.com/

The post Muslims must give up use of loudspeakers for religious purposes appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There seems to be a new wave of empathy amongst Arab Muslims towards Indian Muslims. Intellectuals, primarily in the various emirates have woken up to the acute discrimination faced by Indian Muslims. As if not to be left behind, some members of royal families have condemned the current wave of Muslim phobia orchestrated by the Hindu right wing. Some Arab lawyers have said that Muslim persecution in India is a fit case to be presented before the International Court of Justice and that they are collating evidence to do so. At least one Arab country, Kuwait, has already taken public position against India’s treatment of its Muslim minority. Earlier the OIC had passed a resolution to same effect. To be sure, most Arab countries have not taken any official position on the issue, neither have they lodged any displeasure with the various Indian consulates. However, the very fact that India had to publicly assure the world of its ‘hallowed’ secularism and ‘equal protection of all its citizens’, is sign enough that such sentiments amongst Arab Muslims have made the present government concerned. 

After all, the government cannot be oblivious of the fact that tens of thousands of Indians, mostly Hindus work in the Gulf. It is also a fact that as compared to Muslims, Hindus in these countries occupy higher strata of occupational structure. If there is any negative feeling about Hindus, then their position will be become insecure and as a result the remittances to India will suffer a major blow. The Arabs have no love for democracy or freedom of speech. Citizens and especially non-citizens living in these parts know fully well the implications of angering their Arab masters. And yet, over the years, we have seen a certain section of right-wing Hindus getting emboldened and brazenly posting stuff on social media considered offensive and derogatory to Islam. In the last six years, this government has worked hard on fostering a strategic partnership between India and the gulf. It seems that for some supporters of this government, this has translated into a triumphalist war cry against an imagined enemy. In the process, they have frittered away years of hard work which Indians of all faiths have put together to earn goodwill amongst the Arabs.

It is too early to say what caused this sudden feeling of solidarity amongst the Arabs. After all, the Arabs have hardly bothered about Muslims in other parts of the world, including the Palestinians, Rohingyas and the Uighurs, who have been facing persecution since decades. Barring the ritual condemnation through OIC, respective Arab governments have largely treated such problems as internal to respective countries. The Arab racial superiority has been satisfied by giving alms rather than taking active position against Muslim persecution. Perhaps for the first time in the Arab world, a civic engagement has emerged regarding the treatment of Indian Muslims.

Prejudice against Muslims in India is not new. They have been routinely killed through organized violence and even by institutions of the state, notably the police. However, these pogroms were followed by periods of relative calm, wherein Muslims were ‘allowed’ to get back to their business of life. What Muslims are witnessing now is something entirely different. In the last five years, attacks on Muslims have become relentless. This attack is not just physical but also psychological with the express intention of making Muslims insecure in their own surroundings. Muslims have been lynched, they have been made insecure regarding their citizenship status, they have also been accused of spreading the pandemic, and their businesses closed or boycotted. When the whole world is concentrating their energies on fighting the ongoing pandemic, Indian police are busy arresting Muslim students on flimsy grounds. And all this has been happening without any respite. Earlier, the world took notice of Muslim killings but was also appreciative of India’s management of diversity during the relatively peaceful interlude. In the recent years, the world has kept seeing images of India’s Muslim persecution and has also noticed the silence and abetment of its government. Social media has flattened boundaries. Painful images of Indian Muslims have singed the world, the Arab world being no exception.

Social opinion and its public expression is largely controlled in the Arab world. That’s why the media is closely monitored. It is next to impossible to criticise the ruling establishment. It is difficult even to criticise friendly countries. Arab media watchers, however, have observed that over some years, there have been a flurry of negative reportage on India, especially with regard to its treatment of Muslims. The very fact that such reports were allowed to appear can only mean that there exists a torrent of adverse domestic opinion on the issue. Those who think monarchies do not care about public opinion are wrong. Precisely because they are not democracies, they are more sensitive towards public opinions. The very fact that such opinions were allowed to be published can only mean that the monarchies are aware of their subjects’ anger against India. They must also be realising that people’s anger against India is also simultaneously directed against their own monarchies for being too close to the Indian government. 

The Arabs should not judge all Hindus through the actions of some bigoted ones. Therefore their criticism of right wingers should not extend to a general condemnation of all Hindus or of Hinduism as a faith system. This has been a worrying undertone as some Arabs have made veiled threats to expel Hindus from their countries. They must remember that most of these Hindus have been law abiding migrants and their hard work has contributed immensely in changing the fortunes of Arabs. To blame all Hindus for the fault of a few will be a travesty of justice.

It also needs to be underlined that not all criticism of Islamic practice should be treated as Islamophobia. The allegation against the noted singer, Sonu Nigam, is a case in point. An old tweet of his has resurfaced wherein he had expressed annoyance at being forced to get up early in the morning due to azan from a loudspeaker. His views on azan may not be palatable to many but certainly it cannot be equated with rabid Islamophobic opinions that are calling for the wholesale expulsion of Muslims from India. Indeed, there are many Muslims who have similarly called for ending loudspeaker azan due to various reasons. Muslims are in a precarious situation today and therefore it is all the more important that they pick their fights sagaciously.

Indian Muslims have charted out their own political course after independence. Despite the odds, they have always been faithful to the constitution and firm believers in India’s democracy. They have never looked for any kind of foreign help. Today, the situation has become so helpless that Muslims are both relived and jubilant at the support they are receiving from Arab Muslims. Within Muslims there is a section which now wants to relook at our earlier principle to remain autonomous from the larger Muslim world. They are calling this as a grand conspiracy against Indian Muslims to keep them away from the ummah. These Muslims must realise that while the support of Arab Muslims may be important at this juncture, ultimately this fight against bigotry has to be led by Indian Muslims themselves.

—

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com

Courtesy:newageislam.com

The post Arab Solidarity is Welcome, But Indian Muslims Must Remain the Vanguard appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delhi election results should come as no surprise at all. Right from the very start, it became apparent that Arvind Kejriwal and his party (AAP) will be comfortably returning to power. Their campaigns were about basic civic issues like education and health and it is true that their work was beginning to show real effects on the lives of people, especially the poor. It is extremely heartening to see that some of their best minds have won the elections which shows that given a genuine option, the electorate is wise enough to choose the smartest people. 

However, in many ways, this election was fought over an imaginary Muslim fear. It was stated that Muslims were conspiring to cut Delhi off from the rest of the country; the protests that they were doing was about de-stabilizing India rather than being an outcome of a genuine grievance; and Muslims were conspiring to rape Hindu women if the BJP got defeated in these elections. Words will not be enough to condemn this kind of vitriol against the Muslim community, but then, it appears that even such hate and vitriol did not rouse all the ‘Hindus’ to vote in favour of a particular party. 

Should this victory of AAP give comfort to Muslims? This question is complicated and has no clear-cut answers. Certainly, the BJP did not win in Delhi, but does it mean that their ideology has been defeated? Let us look more closely at the response of AAP to the Muslim protests in the city. Kejriwal’s party maintained a stony silence on the issue of Shaheen Bagh and many other similar protests within Delhi. Forget about going to these sites and showing solidarity with Muslim protestors, he in fact said that left to him, he would clear the protest site within two hours. Throughout his campaign, he refused to utter even a single word on the issue of Citizenship Amendment Act or the proposed National Register of Citizens, both issues which have created considerable anxiety and fear within Muslims. Worse still, he hardly campaigned in Muslim areas. 

By not confronting the BJP upfront over their communal politics, the AAP certainly played soft communalism. Many have argued that this soft communalism is good as it helped to keep the hard communalism of BJP out. Certainly, it did. But at what cost? In choosing to remain silent over Muslim demonization, AAP may have won the battle but perhaps it is in the process of losing the war. Only time will tell whether for Kejriwal and his party, this was a strategic silence or he also thinks about Muslims the way many parties think of them. 

It should also be pointed out that it is definitely not a problem when Mr. Kejriwal goes to pay his obeisance to a temple right after this victory or whether or not he should have recited the Hanuman Chalisa during the elections. He has never claimed that he is not a believing Hindu and therefor has every right to exhibit this religiosity as when he feels like. Especially in a situation wherein, the BJP was trying to portray him as a closet Muslim, it made much sense to assert his Hindu self. Those Muslims and secularists who have a problem with his ‘new found’ religiosity must make a difference between cultural Hinduism and political Hinduism. We should never have a problem with cultural Hinduism especially when we are arguing that Muslim religious identity is under considerable stress today. Cultural Hinduism is as much of a positive identity as is Islam or Christianity. It is Hindutva (political Hinduism) which we need to worry about because of its innate desire to create an enemy other without which it cannot survive as an ideology. No wonder, Hindutva is not just a threat to other religious identities, but also to the pluralistic tenets of Hinduism. 

So, no one should have an issue when political personalities partake in the rituals of their own religious traditions. After all, Gandhi was much immersed in his own brand of Hinduism but it did not ever stop him from relentlessly criticizing the failings of his own religious tradition. However, with regards to Kejriwal and his party, things do not stop at just cultural Hinduism rather it goes way beyond. His silence over the hounding of Muslims is a cynical attempt to signal those Hindu voters whose hatred towards Muslims has created this crisis in the first place. The question is whether this kind of a politics will ultimately be successful in stemming the tide of Hindu radicalism? Perhaps not. Despite his silence on core issues affecting the Muslim community, how should we explain that the other side managed to increase its vote share to over 40 percent? The choice between avoiding the evil and confronting it may be a tricky one, but history has always shown that it is the latter which eventually defeats it.   

Yet Muslims have voted overwhelmingly for his party. Kejriwal certainly knew and tapped the insecurity gripping the Muslims. It was as if he did not need their votes, but Muslims needed to vote for him. Like other parties, he also took them for granted because Muslims have not been able to create an alternative political imagination for themselves in this country. Muslims did not have any other option. Even die-hard Congress loyalist voted for the AAP this time because they correctly thought that only AAP could defeat the BJP. This certainly is not new for Muslims; they have voted for the Congress and other regional parties by the same logic. But this is also a reminder that Muslim political representation needs to chart out a new course. A course in which they are able to decide whom to vote for based on some concrete agenda which helps the community. Although many Muslims are opposed to this idea, but many also think that this is an idea whose time has come. 

Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist

Courtesy: NewAgeIslam.com

The post Why Muslims Need to Look Beyond the Victory of AAP in Delhi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It began as a trickle, with some twenty men deciding to sit on a busy road to protest against the recent enactment of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the intended National Register of Citizens (NRC).Joined by many others, especially women, this group swelled to hundreds within no time. Nearly a month later, the numbers of protestors at Shaheen Bagh has ebbed and flowed, but the central message of these protests has remained the same: that Muslims are severely hurt by the proclamation of this Act and that coupled with NRC, this will make Indian Muslims stateless in their own country.

At Shaheen Bagh, 12-Year-Old Talks About Meaning Of Democracy

——

Tucked in a blighted neighbourhood, Muslims here are making bold statements that they will not tolerate their humiliation anymore. Defying the stereotypical image of Muslim neighbourhoods, Shaheen Bagh today is the epitome of an egalitarian defiance; where men and women, young and old, all are making an effort to be heard by this tone deaf government. History must remember that when it became nearly impossible to say anything against this government, these brave women and men of Shaheen Bagh raised their fists which eventually ruptured that ominous silence.

The Muslim-ness of this protest therefore cannot be denied. Just as Indian and Hindu are not exclusive categories; similarly Indians and Muslims are also not mutually exclusive categories. This tearing hurry to reclaim the protest as ‘Indian’ needs to be called out. This is nothing but casuistry wherein the whole attempt is to deny agency to Muslim protestors. Certainly, there has been a lot that has happened in the last many years. Institutions have been compromised; universities have been attacked and any form of dissent is in danger of potential criminalization. However, no one should overlook the fact that the primary target of this regime has been Muslims. Left liberals are free to protest the curbing of dissent and free speech but they are no one to tell Muslims how to protest, what slogans to raise and what to avoid. For a very long time, Muslims in this country have been represented by liberal voices but Shaheeh Bagh and myriad other such protests have meant that Muslims have now found their own voice. This voice is largely of young people and therefore must necessarily be celebrated.

Largely, the protests have been secular and the protestors have only been demanding the restitution of their constitutional rights. It is the bravery and the far-sightedness of these protests that they have not allowed any religious cleric to come near them. What also needs to be underlined is that the established Muslim leaders of different political parties have not been allowed to make political speeches. The beauty of the movement is that it is acephalous wherein young people are refusing to be cowed down despite brutal repression at some places. To tell them to ‘behave’ in a certain way, as Shashi Tharoor did, amounts to policing this protest and certainly needs to be condemned. Let me add a caveat here: I am not saying that certain slogans were not problematic. However, whether it was problematic or not should be a matter of debate internal to the community. By no measure, Congress leaders should teach these Muslim protestors what slogans to raise, especially when the party has done too little to support Muslims on this issue.

The colourful dissent: When Shaheen Bagh, Jamia become a canvas for protest

—–

While students and civil society members have joined these protests in large numbers, it is fair to say that in North India, anti CAA-NRC protests have largely been Muslim. Those wanting to see the down fall of the present regime should not be too happy because minorities are never instrumental in regime change unless they are joined by the majority. That certainly is not what is happening. Despite liberal pretentions, the majority community is not joining in, barring young students from some universities. On the contrary, there is considerable silent support amongst the majority community for this Act. Through a very sophisticated communication strategy, they are supremely confident that the NRC will not apply to them and that they will not even have to show their papers. They are resenting Muslims protesting on the street and the brutal police response in many places was partly a result of this feeling. Till the time the Hindu majority of the country does not protest against this Act, the government will be under no pressure to roll it back or at least start a genuine discussion about the need for such an Act and the upcoming NRC. Make no mistake: those protesting are any way not voters of the present government; their presence on the streets do not affect this government. On the contrary, the government seems to be using these protests for its own ends.

Shaheen Bagh seems to exemplify this problem. Many from the Left and Liberal establishment have joined the protests there. This largely amorphous group of people are lending their voice to Muslims which should be appreciated. However, this appreciation of solidarity should not blind us to the fact of what is not happening. For one, it would have been much better if those supporting Shaheen Bagh by coming to this place would have pitched their tents in their own localities. We do not need just one Shaheen Bagh but many protests like this in different parts of Delhi. Why is it that those keen on coming to Shaheen Bagh do not organise small protests in Hindu majority areas of the city? By coming to this largely Muslim area, the Liberals are only strengthening the government claim that only Muslims are protesting against this Act. This is not the time for these liberals to feel guilty and start romanticizing Muslims; it is time for them to act, to start a protest of their own.

Muslims also need to think what they have achieved in this nearly one month of protests in order to further strategize. They need to think really hard how to bring other communities into their struggle, how to explain to them that the impending NRC is disastrous for the whole country and not just for them. It has nearly been a month that Shaheen Bagh protestors have blocked the road which in leading to huge jams in the nearby areas. Within the adjoining areas, this protest is already polarising people on religious grounds. Within any struggle, there is always the option of strategic retreat which is not equivalent to defeat.

The protest in Shaheen Bagh has achieved a lot. They have the whole city and elsewhere talking about the indomitable strength of the protestors, especially women who are participating in these protests. There has been both domestic and international coverage of the protest which has supremely embarrassed the government in question. The world has started taking notice of what Indian Muslims are going through and in all of this Shaheen Bagh has contributed immensely. But now they need to think whether the protest is becoming all too repetitive and is no longer required. They need to think about the next stage of the protest which should ideally be how to take the meaning of this protest to other parts of the city and country. It is highly unfortunate that local politicians of the Congress party have developed vested interest there and they are adamant to keep blocking the road, thus building up an eventual showdown between the protestors and the police. The average Shaheen Bagh protestors must realise this and chart out a new course of struggle, one which is independent of political parties and one in which they have the agency to decide the course of action.

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com

First published on NewAgeIslam.com

The post The Many Meanings of Shaheen Bagh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Najeeb Ahmad’s mother with members of SDPI stages a protest to demand justice for her son

It is over two years since Najeeb Ahmad, a PhD student at JNU, disappeared from the campus. The night before, he was allegedly brutally assaulted by a mob of students claiming allegiance to the Vidyarthi Parishad. It is also alleged that he spoke derisively against Hindu religion which infuriated a section of students. As news of his disappearance spread, his family members and students of the university protested against the insensitive handling of the affair by the JNU administration. They also blamed the Delhi police for being lackadaisical in their efforts to trace the whereabouts of Najeeb and their failure to even question students who were part of the mob which had assaulted Najeeb. From the very beginning, the police and the JNU administration has tried to sell the whole episode as a fight between two student groups.

This however is not true. Even if we concede that Najeeb might have offended the religious sensibilities of some students, that is not a licence to nearly lynch him. The mater should have been reported to the concerned office within JNU and even a police complaint could have been lodged against him.

But then Najeeb became the precursor of what was to come later: the system of instant justice; where mobs lynch Muslims merely on the basis of suspicion, without any regret or remorse. In most cases, the police are more than willing to dilute cases against the accused and are reluctant to bring the culprits to book. Something similar happened in Najeeb’s case. The only time they started having some semblance of seriousness was when the courts told them to double their efforts to find the missing student. Random searches were made here and there just for appearance sake. But by then almost a year had elapsed and crucial evidence which might have given some clues about his whereabouts were lost. What was worse: malicious leaks were fed to a pliant media which started debating how Najeeb had joined the ISIS.

Two years later, the CBI has now filed a closure report in the case. Alarmingly, the High Court allowed the CBI to do so despite the protestations of the family concerned. One cannot even fathom what would be crossing the minds and hearts of Najeeb’s mother, who has been running from pillar to post to seek justice for her son. Her only consolation if at all it is one: there are many Najeebs who have been failed by the system.

But then, this story is not complete without calling out the system. And the system in this case did not just consist of those who assaulted Najeeb but also by those who claim to be his greatest benefactors. It is certainly true that Najeeb was assaulted by right wing hoodlums but then what of the other kind of violence which this fellow endured, something which perhaps was decisive in his decision to leave the campus. On the night of the assault, Najeeb was not offered any counselling although there is an on-campus medical facility. What is astounding is that the same night, he was humiliated and asked to leave the hostel, not just in presence of the wardens but also the president of the leftist student union.

 As a fresher on campus, Najeeb must have heard that the Left student union would be sensitive and considerate, given his religious identity. This is not hard to believe: the left actually sells itself as the champion of minorities on campus. Imagine the mental agony of this student when he would have realised that no just the administration and the right wingers but also the leftists had turned against him.

Here was a boy, who had freshly got admission in one of the hostels in JNU and probably had heard much about the progressive and leftist traditions of JNU, was witnessing in front of him that the same left, in cahoots with the administration, was asking him to leave the hostel as a form of punishment.  It was perhaps this realisation that made him leave the campus the following morning and left must be called out for its complicity in his disappearance. Who is to blame for his disappearance? Of course, the right-wing hoodlums who beat him up that night but then what about the glorious left which failed to protect him. And not just failed to protect him but in a way facilitated his forced exit from the campus.

It is rather hypocritical that the left has now Najeeb’s disappearance into an annual ritual and another occasion to hold candle light marches for him. This is nothing but pure and callous politics at its best. First you allow a person to get nearly lynched and then you do politics over his disappearance. It must be remembered that unlike many others who have been targeted by the system, Najeeb came from a very humble background. Lacking in social network, the family had no one but JNU students to bank upon in order to seek even a semblance of justice. But then, whether it is the left or the right, only those embedded in power networks have any hope of getting justice.

It is utterly shameful that a campus which prides itself over it sensitive and progressive character failed to even give a call for a day long strike to protest against Najeeb’s disappearance. The reluctance to take up the issue was visible right from the very beginning. It was actually the pressure of common students which forced the administration and leftists to join the struggle; otherwise they were mostly interested in burying the issue. The so-called progressive teachers of this campus acted as if nothing had happened. The very radical teacher’s union just sat quietly through the entire episode and did not even have the courage to protest against the administration. More importantly they refused to see the incident as one which involved the targeting of Muslim identity.

When we remember Najeeb year after year, let us not forget the dubious role that the left played in the entire incident.      

Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Why the Left Needs to Be Called out for Its Role in Najeeb’s Disappearance appeared first on SabrangIndia.