The passing away of Professor Mushir ul Hasan in many ways signifies the passing of an era. Academician, administrator and an active member of the civil society, he was many things rolled into one. It was because of this multi-faceted personality that his funeral was attended by people from different walks of life, writers, journalists and of course academicians from all over Delhi. Muslims, non-Muslims and atheists, all participated in his funeral prayer, something which is a rarity in these troubled times. Throughout his life, Mushir Sb. laboriously wrote about the composite religious heritage of this country. In his death, he was perhaps giving us the same message.

Mushir Sb. was academically productive throughout his life. Even when he became the Vice Chancellor of Jamia University, he continued to publish books with routine regularity. While being a chronicler of partition, Mushir Sb. oeuvre included satire, fiction and contemporary political issues. His focus though remained the same throughout: to underscore that Muslims were coparcenaries in this country and that any attempt to understand them separately from the mainstream was historically incorrect. He painstakingly brought out how Muslims had fought for the independence of the country. How after partition, Muslim leaders had envisioned a life as political equals in this country. Perturbed by the right-wing shift in our political culture, he would underscore the importance of Nehruvian secularism and its relevance for our polity. He was equally concerned about the element of social and religious separatism which was creeping amongst various communities in the country and eroding the foundations of composite culture. Equally critical of Muslim fundamentalism and Hindu nationalism, Mushir Sb. never hesitated to call a spade a spade, always upholding the values of liberalism and critique which were so dear to him.

It was because of his temerity to defend these values against all odds that he became a victim of the most vicious attack on his person and character when he was the pro-VC of the Jamia University. Mushir Sb. had opposed the banning of Salman Rushdie’s book the Satanic Verses because he thought that it was not the right solution. Hell broke loose on the Jamia campus after he gave that interview. Not just conservative academicians rushed to condemn him, but some Congress politicians, who have a vested interest in keeping Muslims backward, started instigating students and faculty members against Professor Hasan. Things came to such a pass that he was physically attacked inside his chamber and could escape the campus with some help but with a great amount of luck. Professor Hasan could never forget that murderous attack on him but yet he developed no antipathy for Jamia, its students and faculty members. The only lesson that he took from the episode was that Jamia was the playground of many different kind of forces, some of whom definitely wanted to treat the university as their pocket borough.
This lesson would come handy for Mushir Sb. when he became the VC of Jamia. Acutely aware of the land sharks and the political interference of some families, he still managed to put Jamia onto the intellectual map of Delhi. It was under his vice chancellorship that Jamia saw unprecedented growth in terms of recruitment of faculty members and also of establishment of new centres of learning and research. He tirelessly worked for getting more funds for Jamia, not just from the government but also from willing donors abroad. The state of the art dental college, for example, was established with the support of Saudi government. Mushir Sb. was also instrumental in freeing Jamia land from land sharks which made him very unpopular with these forces. In terms of faculty recruitment, he tried to get the best professors to Jamia to raise the profile of the university. He was especially attentive to young faculty members and always ready to help them in case of any need. And yet this colossus of a man was so humble. Unlike many others who think that the position of vice chancellor means nothing short of being a dictator, he would just walk into any centre or department and generally indulge in conversation with faculty and students there. This accessibility was in sharp contrast to the person who succeeded him who would make sure to send dozens of his security guards to ‘sanitise’ the area before he ventured out anywhere in the university.

The Batla House ‘encounter’ was one of the major crises which Jamia faced during his tenure. One of those killed by the police was a Jamia student. There were tough questions raised over the alleged encounter. Students were restive and a section of politicians belonging to the right wing started to call Jamia as terror hub. The Congress did not cover itself in glory, with their leading lights making extremely irresponsible and contradictory statements. And then, the conservatives within Jamia and one politician in particular outside Jamia sensed that it was the right opportunity to foment trouble on the campus. As things would go out of hand, they would demand the ouster of the VC. Acutely aware of these dynamics, Mushir Sb. took the battle to them by leading the students from the front. In a sense, he assumed the political leadership of the students spoke with them on a regular basis and led a march to protest against the negative stereotyping of Jamia. The students were reassured that there was someone who was equally aggrieved by this communal profiling of the university. As faculty members we were all relieved when normalcy returned to campus. But more importantly, we were proud of Mushir Sb. who handled the situation so deftly. He became so popular that those vested interests who wanted to de-stabilise Jamia retreated in haste, never to threaten him again.

And yet it was his popularity amongst the students and faculty which became the reason why he was targeted after he demitted office. The person who succeeded him and the useless rump around him, made life hell for Professor Hasan. He was literally banished from the campus. No one would call him to seminars or special lectures any more perhaps under the impression that the new VC would not like it. What upset Mushir Sb. the most was that some of those, whom he had personally helped when he was the VC, turned against him. Efforts were made to undo what Mushir Sb. had painstakingly achieved. The new VC, who thought of himself as Akbar, made all the effort to humiliate most of the teachers who had been appointed by Mushir Sb. Extremely shoddy professors, who hadn’t ever published a decent research paper were made in-charge of evaluating the academic performance of teachers recruited under Mushir Sb. Progressives and famed liberals, both young and old, fell silent even without a whimper of protest. Worse still, some of them would even cut a deal with the new VC and become his yes men.

All those who came for Professor Hasan’s funeral and many more who could not attend must ask this question: Why was he humiliated in this fashion when he was alive? For all the good that Mushir Sb. did to Jamia, was he not even fit to be appointed as Professor Emeritus?

You will be missed Mushir Sb. Not just for your academic brilliance and institution building but also for your capacity to combine grace and humility with grit and determination.

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post You will be Missed Mushirul Hasan Sb. appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo: flicker
 

Besides eminent scholars and intellectuals, senior journalists have shared their thoughts and personal experiences with respect to Prof. Hasan life, academic writings and contributions as a various capacities like institutions builder, good administrator, and mange to do things very efficiently. In this respect, eminent personalities like Hamid Ansari, Prof.Parabhat Patnaik, Prof.Jayati Ghosh, Prof. Naryani Gupta, journalists like Saeed Naqvi, Seema Chisti, Seema Mustufa, scholar like Javed Laique, Kamal Mitra Chenoy and others have spoken and shared their thoughts in the Mushir’s memorial lecture. While speaking on said occasion, former V.P Hamid Ansari said that Prof. Hasan was a responsive academician and the great institutions builder, and above all championed the great legacy and epitomized secular, human and liberal values in his life and works.

Prof. Hasan cherished the ‘Awadh culture’ locally termed as Qasbati Culture in his academic writings. Ansari end his talk with the beautiful couplets- Kaya Khub Admi Tha Khuda Maghpherat Kre ! Similarly, a senior journalist Saeed Naqvi shared his personal experiences in India and
abroad (Riyad). Mushir was very dear younger brother to me and his nature was laughing, mischievous too. While highlighting the hospitality given by Prof. Zoya Hasan, Naqvi also underlined that Prof. Hasan was fond of ‘Urdu poetry’ particularly Faiz Ahmad Faiz. Prominent historian and his colleague at the Department of history JMI, Prof. Narayani Gupta highlighted the work of Hasan in the historical context of 19 th century with respect to Muslims intellectuals like Abu Talib and Zakaullaha and others. She said that he championed liberalism, secular values and nationalist thoughts in his writings and as a capacity of VC of JMI including while when he was the Director of National Archive of India. Besides, all these involvement and public responsibilities, Hasan gave importance to family and his relatives too, added Prof, Gupta.
The scholar like Javed Laique observes that Prof. Hasan and his beloved Zoya are in- fact heroic figures. While citing the case of Salman Rushdie, controversial affairs (Around his book, ‘Satanic verses’) and the infamous Batla House encounter (2008), he said that Prof. Hasan had taken firm stand on these issues. Moreover, Prof. Hasan was also a brilliant administrator and managed to build up high quality Jamia academic environment at large said Laique.

Prominent economist Prof. Jayati Ghosh underlined that for me, both Zoya and Mushir academic journey represents the best for India and we should be proud of it. Hasan was deeply humanist, secular and cherished composite culture and civilizations of India. To note that when Prof. C.A Bally had invited him to join the University of Cambridge, Mushir had rejected the offer and prefer to stay at India, she adds. While speaking in memorial meeting, a noted Marxist-economist Prof. Prabhat Ptanaik shared his experiences at the University of Cambridge and said that we generally met while watching cricket match. Further, Prof.Patanik underlined that his personality was deeply oriented towards academic works and one can’t deny that he was the great institutions builder. Finally, he said that after the critical accident, Mushir’s remaining four-year life were crucial for him and Zoya, however, their life were very closely intertwined.

Renowned journalist Seema Chisti appreciated Hasan’s works, while he was the Director of National Achieve of India. Further she said that Prof. Hasan scholarship and his progressive ideas are rare to find elsewhere. While highlighting the contributions regarding the Jamia Millia Islamia, she pointed out that during his tenure as Vice- Chancellor ( 2004-2009), Castro Café, Noam Chomsky (He is well known for his critical thinking.) building, Edward Said (author of well-known book ‘Orientalism’)Hall and others academic centers were constructed and established. Apart from this, rich heritage of Jamia including history related to Jamia founders were preserved and widely disseminated by Mushir. While toeing the line of others, Chisti also noted that Prof. Hasan can be regarded as ‘Man of Renaissance’. While citing the case of Babri Masjid demolitions, Prof. Kamal Mitra Chenoy pointed out that Mushir in his work ‘Legacy of Divided Nation: India’s Muslims since Independence (Oxford Delhi: Monohar, 1991) has underlined that controversy around Babri could be traced when first time Govind Ballabh Pant had placed statue inside the Masque.

Moreover, while sharing his views with respect to Mushir’s intellectual rigor, Chenoy accepted that I learn a lot from him mainly how can know real history. Another well-known journalist, Seema Mustafa shared her public and personal experiences with family and relatives of Prof. Hasan. For her, Hasan really represents himself as a ‘Secular Muslim’. For taking uncompromising stand on various issues as said earlier, Hasan was equally attacked and faced sever backlash by both Hindu communal forces (who is currently ruling this country) and Muslim fundamentalist
forces.
 

The post Modern Builder of Jamia: Prof. Mushirul Hasan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“People are always shouting they want to create a better future. It’s not true. The future is an apathetic void of no interest to anyone. The past is full of life, eager to irritate us, provoke and insult us, tempt us to destroy or repaint it. The only reason people want to be masters of the future is to change the past.” 

― Milan Kundera

On Monday, December 10, 2018, we lost the man who changed how society looked at Indian Muslims. Eminent historian, intellectual and academic Mushirul Hasan, passed away in the wee hours of December 10, a day also marked as international Human Rights Day.This is a loss of mammoth proportions for intelligentsia, especially looking to reconstruct secularism in a society increasingly marred with communal conflicts with each passing day. Born merely two years after India’s independence, Mushirul Hasan was the thread that wove together the losses of Partition, the concerns surrounding the essentialist image of Indian Muslims, and the hopes of a truly secular future despite the dark present.
 

Background

Hasan was 71 years old, and is survived by his wife Zoya Hasan, a political scientist and academician. Hasan’s health started declining after he was critically injured in a road accident on his way to Mewat from Delhi in 2014. He was admitted to the hospital on Sunday night. He breathed his last at 4 am on December 10. “He met with a road accident about two years ago and was mostly bed-ridden after that. He was also undergoing dialysis for kidney problems,” former secretary to Jamia Vice chancellor, Zafar Nawaz Hashmi, said in a report by NDTV. His namaz-e-Janaza was performed at 1.00 pm on Monday at Babul Ilm and 2.00 pm at Jamia Mosque, and the burial took place at the Jamia graveyard, according to sources.

The son of noted historian Mohibbul Hasan, Hasan completed his masters from the Aligarh Muslim University in 1969 and doctorate (PhD) from the University of Cambridge in 1977. He was associated with Jamia Millia Islamia for over two decades and served at various positions, including:
Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia from 1992 to 1996
Director of Academy of Third World Studies in Jamia Millia Islamia from July 2000 to January 2010
Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia from 2004 to 2009 
He also served as the Director-General of the National Archives of India in May 2010 and as the President of the Indian History Congress in 2002.

Re-imagining notions and recreating history
In his paper, titled Muslim Intellectuals, Institutions and the Post-Colonial predicament,*Hasan criticised the discourse that shaped how Muslims were treated as subjects in academic work and otherwise. He said, “Much research on the Muslims since Independence is still conducted within the framework bequeathed by the British and some nationalist writers. The categories used to define them have been questioned but not changed. There is still talk of a ‘Muslim mind’, a ‘Muslim outlook’, and an inclination to construct a ‘Muslim identity’ around Islam. A sense of Otherness is conveyed in such images. Muslims are made to appear different in the print media, in some literary works, and in the world cinema.”

Hasan, probably for the first time in contemporary Indian history, elucidated how both supposedly secular and communal perspectives to view citizens with a Muslim identity converged, and in that sense brought to the fore, an approach necessary to re-scrutinise and re-imagine the Muslim identity not merely borne of religion, but by the ways of existing, being, working and more.

He highlighted how “it is also assumed that orthodoxy represents true Islam and the interests of its adherents; and that liberal and modernist currents are secondary or peripheral to the more dominant separatist, communal and neo-fundamentalist paradigms,” and said that it was time to underline along with dominant orthodox paradigms, the heterodox trends that contest the definition of Muslim identity in purely religious terms, and to refute the popular motions that Islamic values and symbols provide a key to the understanding of a so-called ‘Muslim world view’.
His book, ‘India Partition: The Other Face of Freedom’, documents how Partition displaced millions and left behind a legacy of hostility and bitterness between the governments as well as the people from India and Pakistan.

As per Mukul Kesavan, who teaches History at Jamia Milia Islamia, Hasan’s most important contribution was the “way in which he transformed the history of the republic and its most important minority.”

Historian of historians
An Outlook report called Hasan a historian of historians. Not only was he a chronicler of history through extensive access to the Urdu language, he was fascinated by it. Reminiscing on his love for history, Hasan once said in an interview with Syed Mohd Irfan on the show Guftagoo, “My home used to be filled with books. Most among these were History books since my father was a big historian. He had written quite a bit, on Kashmir, Tipu Sultan, Babur”. Hasan also acknowledged the role of Aligarh Muslim University and its scientific temperament in igniting his passion for history.

But Mushirul Hasan was not merely an intellectual and academic of unique sensibilities. He was also a visionary. His initiatives during his tenure at Jamia Milia Islamia helped give it a truly multi-cultural, multi-dimensional and worldly outlook, making it a hub for several new ideas and thought processes.

During Hasan’s term at Jamia, several new departments such as Dalit Studies, Comparative Religion, and the Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace & Conflict Resolution were founded. It is even said that he outsmarted the University Grants Commission (UGC) as he opened these centres because he “realised a dramatic expansion cannot take place by following conventional UGC rules.”

During the Balta House encounters, his role was especially memorable as a person who supported the students and criticised the extra-judicial killing of students.

Hasn was a passionate and fierce advocate of the freedom of expression, evident by the fact that he defended Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” despite the fact that he did not like it very much, at the cost of getting attacked physically.
 
Awards:
Received the highest French Civilian Award – ‘Officer dans I’Ordre des Palmes Academiques’ (Officer of the Order of Academic Palms) by the Prime Minister of France
Awarded Padma Shri by the Hon’ble President of India, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, 2007
Awarded DLit (Honoris Causa) by Uttar Pradesh Rajarshi Tandon Open University (UPRTOU), Allahabad, 2006
Awarded Professor Sukumar Sen Memorial Gold Medal by The Asiatic Society, Kolkata, 2006
Awarded the Ford Foundation (SARC) Fellowship by the Institute of Islamic Studies, University of Oxford, 2002-3
Awarded DP Singhal Scholarship, University of Queensland, Brisbane, 2003
Awarded the Ramkrishna Jaidayal Harmony Award for English writing in 1999.
 
Books published
Wit and Humour in Colonial North India, 2007
Partners in Freedom: Jamia Millia Islamia, 2006
The Nehrus: Personal Histories, 2006
A Moral Reckoning: Muslim Intellectuals in Nineteenth-Century Delhi, 2005
From Pluralism to Separatism: Qasbas in Colonial Awadh, 2004
John Company to the Republic: A Story of Modern India, 2001
Islam in the Subcontinent: Muslims in a Plural Society 2002
Making Sense of History: Society, Culture and Politics, 2003
The Legacy of A Divided Nation: India’s Muslims since Independence, 2002
Nationalism and Communal Politics in India, 1885-1930 (Delhi: Manohar, 1991). Paperback edn. published in 1994. Reprinted in 2000.
A Nationalist Conscience: M.A. Ansari, the Congress and the Raj, (Delhi: Manohar, 1987)
Apart from writing, Mushirul Hasan had also edited a number of books on the subject of Islam in India and communal problems in India post-independence.
 
 
*Muslim Intellectuals, Institutions and the Post-Colonial Predicament
 

The post Mourning the Chronicler of History and passionate advocate of Freedom of Expression: Mushirul Hasan, We will miss You appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

Congressman and Rajya Sabha member of parliament (MP), PC Chidambaram raised the issue of the ban on Satanic Verses  imposed by the then Congress government under prime minister Rajiv Gandhi on the first day of the Times Literary festival in New Delhi, being held in November 2015. Chidambaram was, in 1989, the minister of state for home and coming from him, albeit 27 years later, marks an interesting re-think. Looking at the issue of this ban in 1994 when Bangladeshi writer, Taslima Nasreen faced similar targeting in neighbouring Bangladesh, Communalism Combati in its tabloid edition of June 1994 had carried this cover story. We bring it to our viewers to better and completely understand the issue.

 
In any secular democracy, the right to equality, the freedom to practice one’s faith and the right to life with dignity go hand in hand with the freedom of expression which includes the right to dissent. If minority rights are inconceivable except in a democracy, democracy itself is unimaginable without the freedom of expression. The freedom of expression in turn is meaningless without the right to dissent. Both as a matter of principle and from the very practical question of co-existence in multi-cultural, multi-religious societies like India, there is little to choose between the frenzy of the kar sevaks in Ayodhya and the murderous fatwas of mullahs or Ayatollahs for the head of Salman Rushdie or Taslima. No one can deny to Muslims, or any other group for that matter, the right to peaceful, non-violent protest against whatever, or whoever, offends their religious or other sensibilities. But if democracy is to survive, the call to kill Rushdie or Taslima must be unequivocally condemned.
 
“Mujh ko to sikhadi hai afran ne zandaqi
Is daur ke mulla hain kyun nang-e-mussalmani?
(The West may have taught me faithlessness, But why are the mullahs of this age a disgrace to Islam?)
— Mohammed Iqbal, renowned poet.
 
“No matter how much offence Rushdie’s book might have caused, to condemn him to death for what he wrote is intolerable, inadmissible, and has nothing to do with the tolerant Islam that I was taught.”
—Tahar ben Jalloun, a prominent Moroccan literary personality in Pour Rushdie, (For Rushdie) a compilation of 150 Muslim intellectuals’ support for Salman Rushdie.
 
It was the apprehension of inflamed passions, uncontrolled anger and mindless violence that impelled many Indian secular-democrats to support, however uncomfortably, the ban on Salman Rushdie’s book, The Satanic Verses in 1989. India, a democracy, became the first country in the world to impose the ban with implicit or explicit endorsement from even proclaimed champions of freedom. Despite this, we watched aghast as violence broke out anyway. A 17-year-old Muslim youth, misled by inflammatory slogans during a procession protesting against the book in Bombay, fell victim to police bullets.
 
We appear to be in the same sorry state today. This time the problem is closer home. The target: 31-year-old, outspoken novelist from Bangladesh, Taslima Nasreen. Nasreen was, last fortnight, forced to go into hiding after the Bangladesh police ordered her arrest for alleged blasphemy. With a fatwa of 50, 000 takes on her head announced by a local mullah and with no state protection, she is in grave danger of losing her life.
 
The first fatwa against Nasreen was announced at a rally in Sylhet last September after the publication of her novel Lajja – a story on the plight of a persecuted Hindu family in Bangladesh following the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992—and her bold remarks against the oppression of women under all organised religions. Her attack was not limited to the clerics alone; holy texts, including the Koran, were also the targets of her critical scrutiny.
 
Her unorthodox views on sexual relations earned her the charge of “instituting sex and sin in society” and the label of a murtad (one hostile to religion). Allegations of blasphemy were even then hurled at her and her passport impounded by the Bangladeshi government.
 
Today, the threat to her life is far graver after an interview given to the Statesman, Calcutta, last month where she reportedly urged a revamping of all religious texts since, in her opinion, within them lies the root of women's oppression. (The author has since claimed that she had only demanded a revision in the Shariat law, not in the Koran, but the reporter who interviewed her still stands by the published version).
 
Women's organizations, students, trade unionists and some sections of the Bangladeshi academia have strongly condemned this “fundamentalist attack on an individual's freedom of expression”. Internationally, hundreds of renowned writers led by the post-war novelist, Gunter Grass, have risen to Nasreen's defence and have launched strong protests with the Bangladesh government.
 
But in New Delhi, Muslim activists of the Samajwadi Janata Party have already held angry demonstrations demanding that the author be hung. Even some Muslim liberals have gone on record asserting that the statement attributed to Nasreen in Calcutta is the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back.
 
Why? Simply because, as they see it, even if earlier writings and statements of Nasreen that conjured up visions of an unfettered play of feminist sexuality could be somehow swallowed, or ignored, the Holy Koran itself is now under attack.
 
But the question is — Even if Nasreen’s views cannot be condoned, are the violent threats to her life justified? By shifting attention from the extreme intolerance evident in the fatwa for her head to the blasphemy apparently committed by the writer, do they not endorse the view that violence is the best way to settle all differences?
 
By supporting the politics of fighting words with swords (isn't that what the Shiv Sena leader, Bal Thackeray, also believes in?), aren’t Indian Muslims, wittingly or unwittingly, contributing to the growing climate of intolerance within our multi-cultural, multi-religious milieu?
 
No democratic-minded person would deny to Muslims, or to any group for that matter, their right to peaceful, non-violent forms of protest against whatever or whoever wounds their religious or other sensibilities. But if dissent is going to be countered with fatwas for violence, if that is how the Muslim community chooses to deal with a minority within it, what moral and political message is it sending to the forces of Hindutva who have very similar views on how to deal with minorities in their midst?
 

"Sab khuda ke vakil hain lekin
Aadmi ka koi vakil nahin.”
(Everyone claims to speak for God But no one speaks for the human being.)
–John Ellia, Pakistani poet

 
Is it not obvious that a vibrant, secular, democracy is the only guarantee for the security and the protection of the identity of all Indian citizens, including Muslims? Is democracy conceivable without freedom of expression? And are not the freedom of expression and the freedom to follow one's faith totally meaningless in a democracy without the equal freedom of individuals and groups to dissent?
 
In the past decade, we have experienced frequent incidents of violent responses to the written or the spoken word: 

• Three years after a murderous attack on his life by students of the Jamia Milia university — for defending Rushdie's right to the freedom of expression – Professor Mushirul Hasan, its Pro-Vice Chancellor, cannot step into the premises. A month ago, some students have threatened again to “cut him to pieces” if he were to resume duty on the Jamia campus. He has no adequate security. Hasan, a liberal in an avowedly secular state has, in a nutshell, been held to ransom by fanatics threatening violence. *Frenzied kar sevaks in Ayodhya brutally assaulted press people, including a woman journalist obviously critical of the happenings while the Babri Masjid was being torn down. This was followed by a vicious campaign of threatening hate-mail and abusive phone calls against journalists, historians and other intellectuals in New Delhi and elsewhere, forcing one senior journalist to move to Kerala. Needless to add, from Hindutva's point of view, all pseudo-secularists' are enemies of Hinduism'.
• The prestigious Times of India group in Bombay succumbed to Shiv Sena-BJP pressure and apologised for an article on Shivaji, the Maratha ruler and the Rani of Jhansi after copies of the Illustrated Weekly of India were burnt in July 1993.
• The uncrowned king of Bombay's streets, SS chief Bal Thackeray periodically dictates his disapproval of personalities and happenings: a number of films (including Dharavi starring Shabana Azmi and Sholay, with veteran actor, A.K. Hangal) were ordered to be pulled out of theatres in the country's commercial capital last year.

For a secular-democrat, the issue of freedom of expression including the right to dissent is a basic principle. But even from an entirely pragmatic point of view, there is no real option in pluralistic societies like India. Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Parsis not only need to learn to peacefully co-exist with each other but also with agnostics and athiests who whatever their birth, have opted for independent value-systems. If we are unable to accept varied and dissenting opinions and world-views from within our own or other communities, intolerance and violence can be the only result. And, since we do not live on isolated islands, this bigotry, fanaticism and extremism must inevitably flow across the borders of faith.
 
The practice of “majoritarianism” by the self-appointed custodians of Islam, that is, the resort to violence to settle any difference over views or issues can only contribute to the growth of majoritarian tendencies in society as a whole. Both hate ridden majoritarian politics and the violent and intolerant reactions of the members of a minority towards a dissenting voice from within are flip sides of the same coin. Both deny the principle of equal treatment for all, both reject through word and deed the principle of the right to dissent.
 
Dialogue, debate, peaceful forms of protest by aggrieved individuals or groups are the very essence of democracy, fatwas and dictats its very anti-thesis. In a democratic society such as India, any religious community can have only as much right to its freedom of faith as any another community or individual. To deny the basic principle of equality of all before law or to assert a group’s right to take the law into its own hand is to undermine the very foundation of democracy. If democracy loses ground in India, or anywhere else, who gains?
 
When intolerance of individual dissent takes an extreme and violent turn — such as threats to the life of Nasreen, Hasan, and Rushdie –Muslims not merely sacrifice abstract principles of freedom and democracy; they help the growth of majoritarian politics and thus endanger their own security along with that of other minorities and individual dissenters.
 
The right to equality for all religious and other minorities in a democracy presupposes an inherent equality between the various individuals who together constitute the community. The preparedness to accept divergent opinions, beliefs and traditions within and outside both majority and minority frameworks is the only practical way through which citizens can bring abstract principles of secularism and democracy to life and only thus ensure the flourishing of a diverse, multi-cultural, multi-religious society.
 
The socio-political tremors which the kar sevaks triggered in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992, did not merely reduce the Babri Masjid to rubble. The ensuing violence claimed over 3.000 lives and property worth crores was looted or destroyed. Muslims were the major victims in this holocaust engineered by the saffron brigade. The demolition did something more. It rudely jolted the very foundations of India's secular democracy and, 18 months later, the cracks are still visible.
 
The Hindutavaadis’ hatred for what they term as ‘pseudo-secularist’ has been more than matched by the intolerent Muslim’s cry for the head of a Salman Rushdie, Mushir-ul-Hasan or Taslima Nasreen. People whom the saffron brigade calls ‘pseudo-secularist’ are those who have systematically questioned the Hindutvavaadis’ monopoly over Hinduism and resisted distortions of history aimed at promoting the exclusivist, hate ridden politics of the sangh parivar.
 
If, today, Hindutva seeks ideological hegemony over all of Indian society, Islamic extremists are similarly trying to assume the role of the thought police in Bangladesh. Both are identical as both threaten the freedom and equal rights of all those other Indians or Bangladeshis who by birth and descent are non-Hindu or non-Muslim (the minorities) respectively. Not to oppose the fatwa of the Bangladeshi mullahs is one way of supporting the growth of an identical tendency in India — Hindutva.
 
Any commitment to a genuine secular, democratic ethos (read mutual co-existence in a pluralistic society) must therefore necessarily affirm the link between the principles of the right to freedom to life with dignity and the freedom to dissent.
 
The principle of mutual coexistence based on equality and tolerance, the only guarantee for the continuance of a democratic order must, in honesty, be equally extended to the free, non-violent expression by individuals of even such thoughts and beliefs which fall outside the pale of accepted norms, customs and tradition.
 
Any denial on this freedom, whether by the majority or the minority needs to be unequivocally condemned. This may often lead to painful situations when individuals, in disagreement with popularly accepted religious or political beliefs, feel compelled to speak out against them, and thus commit ‘blasphemy’ or ‘treason’. However difficult, however hurtful the voice of dissent, peaceful, non-violent forms of protest are the only option. Otherwise, the very existence of a secular democratic order and the security of minorities (whether in India or in Bangladesh), will be in serious jeopardy.
 
Any fatwa for the killing of any individual however serious the provocation, oversteps the acceptable norms of democratic protest. That is why the hysteria and the outrage whether against Salman Rushdie, or Taslima Nasreen or Mushirul Hasan must be publicly and unequivocally condemned. If unchallenged, only intolerance and violence can grow.
 
Between the frenzy of Hindutva and the murderous fatwas of the mullahs there is, really speaking, nothing to choose. Support to Taslima Nasreen, then, is both an urgent pragmatic need and a question of an essential democratic principle.
 

• Aubrey Menon's O Rama is targeted for fundamentalist attack by Hindu chauvinist sections in India (1950s)
• The Last Temptation of Christ, a fictionalised critique of the Biblical version is the target of fury by the Christian orthodoxy, many western countries forced to ban/restrict viewing; in India too, there are protests demanding a ban. (1960s).
• Jesus Christ Superstar, another fictionalised biography of Jesus, on the stage and films is similarly targeted. (1970s).
• Shakepeare ki Ramayana, a play scripted by Iqbal Khwaja and staged in Bombay is disrupted by Vikram Savarkar of the Hindu Mahasabha, the playwright forced to touch Savarkar's feet in forgiveness; the play is never performed again. (1987).
• Mohammed, the Idiot, the title given to a short story in the Deccan Chronicle generates such rage from Muslims in Hyderabad that offices of the newspaper are attacked and set ablaze. (1987)
• Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's Riddles of Hinduism on Ram and Krishna generated violent objections from the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra which were silenced only after a massive show of strength from Dalits in support of the book. (1988)
• Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses generates worldwide furore, a price is put on Rushdie’s head; the author has been forced into a life in hiding ever since. (l989).
• Public showings of Ram Ke Naam, a documentary film by Anand Patwardhan that severely critiques the Ramjanmabhoomi movement have often been marred by violence and the filmmaker subjected to violent threats from various wings of the Hindutva brigade. (l990 onwards)
• Nikhil Wagle, the outspoken editor of the Marathi eveninger, Mahanagar has thrice been roughed up, and copies of Mahanagar burnt by Sainiks for his courageous criticism of the Sena (first in 1991).
• Professor Mushirul Hasan survives a murderous attack on his life by Jamia Milia students after he defends Rushdie's right to freedom of expression. (1992).
• Dr. Abid Raza Bedar, Director of Patna's Khuda Baksh Oriental Library faced a violent witch-hunt from Muslim students and other fundamentalists when he made bold to say that the word kafir meant someone who rejects faith; hence Hindus should not be called kafirs but mushrik, someone who has more than one God. (1992).
• The Rape of Sita, a critique of the anti-feminist perspective of the Ramayana is banned in Indonesia (1992).
• Hum Sab Ayodhya, an exhibition put together by the Sahmat group Delhi faced violent objections since among many other panels, it displayed the Dasaratha Jataka that depicts Ram and Sita as siblings. (1993).
• Activists and MLAs of the Jharkand Mukti Morcha threaten Sunil Gangopadhyay for his book, Prothom Aalo for “uncondonable derrogatory references to Goddess Kali”. (1993).
• Taslima Nasreen faces the wrath of the Bangladeshi clergy for her book Lajja and outspoken remarks against organised religion. (1993).
• Schindler's List, the award-winning film by Stephen Spielberg is banned by many Muslim countries because it “portrays Jews as a persecuted minority and encourages racism!” (1994)

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1994

The post To Ban or Not to Ban ? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

"The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence"

Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf.

The history of India over the past century unfolds like a chronicle of civil war. India was partitioned, the segment re-partitioned. "Internal enemies" were identified and massacres unleashed. No solutions were found. Today, communal myths possess nuclear bombs. There are lines of control everywhere – in villages, cities and in hearts. Barbed wire, iron gates and security guards abound. Flagpoles of religious places compete with each other for height. Society is awash with fear. Thanks to the guardians of "identity", outraged sentiment seems to be on the rampage – battling over cricket pitches, books, films and paintings.

Humanity possesses a natural tendency for remembrance and its transmission. For those interested in ideals of progress history is a laboratory of social theory. It is also the terrain of Identity, a category that sits uneasily with human equality, and has taken millions of lives. History as the maidservant of a cause undermines its own disciplinary procedures. No history is free of tendency, and historians’ convictions undoubtedly affect their output. However, just as the Euclidian point is essential to geometry, the search for truth has to remain an ideal, even if an unattainable one, for history.

This is a painful commitment, because historical materials defy dogma. None of us like our beliefs being challenged. Gandhians do not want to be reminded of the repercussions of the Khilafat movement or the Congress’ attitude to the 1946 naval mutiny. Communists are defensive about the stance of the CPI in 1942 and the Adhikari resolution supporting Partition. Admirers of Savarkar do not advertise the fact that he assisted the British war effort, was not averse to Mahasabha participation in the Muslim League ministry of NWFP in 1943, and was a main accused in the Gandhi murder trial. The Pakistan Ideology Act restrains Pakistani historians from questioning the two-nation theory or writing a non-tendentious account of Jinnah’s career. The RSS might not like to be reminded that in May 1947 the Akhil Rajya Hindu Sabha under J&K RSS chief Prem Nath Dogra, passed a resolution on Kashmir stating that "a Hindu state should not join secular India". Or that Sardar Patel accused RSS men of celebrating Gandhi’s assassination. Trotskyists don’t dwell on Bolshevik military action against the Kronstadt sailors in 1921, Stalinists don’t remember state terror and mock trials in the USSR. Nazi apologists don’t recall the Holocaust and Zionists suffer amnesia about the terror unleashed by the Haganah and Stern gangs in 1948. Japanese historians are defensive about the massacres in Nanking and Shanghai and some day Chinese historians will forget that China waged war on Vietnam in 1979 in tandem with the USA.

For some ideologues, the past is a saga of victory and defeat. The fear of ambivalence is characteristic of them and in their hands, history is pure polemic. Savarkar’s speech to the Hindu Mahasabha in 1942 described 17th century India as being "a veritable Pakistan", with "Hindustan being wiped out", and the 18th century witnessing the march of Hinduism. This anachronism is repeated in a Pakistani textbook of 1982, which teaches that in the 16th century, "`Hindustan’ disappeared and was absorbed in ‘Pakistan’". The distortions extend to contemporary analysis. Time summed up the history of the 20th century as a victory of "free minds and free markets over fascism and communism" (December 31, 1999). Along with Clinton’s essay it misrepresents the Allied victory in World War II as an American one, ignoring the role of the Red Army and the fact that the USSR lost over twenty million dead, compared to less than 3 lakh Americans. This is History as the paean of megalomania. I do not believe that all viewpoints are equally biased, or that history provides no lessons. From the welter of partiality, we may glean truths and hope – but only if our profession is motivated by respect for human experience, and not just "Hindu" or "Muslim" experience. The historian has to be an iconoclast or risk becoming a propagandist.

In an attempted refutation of Bharat Bhushan’s article The Other Italian Connection (HT Feb 18), K.R. Malkani (Feb 23) states that the RSS was founded before Moonje visited Italy, that its heroes were Indians, and that Gandhi also met Mussolini. Here is an example of history as polemic. It was the militaristic mind-set of fascism, not its specific heroes that inspired Moonje. All ultra-rightists had their own "national" heroes. Mussolini seized power in 1922, and his impact was evident by the time the RSS was founded in 1925. And whereas Moonje was greatly impressed by Mussolini, Gandhi told the latter that his state was "a house of cards", and took a dim view of the man – "his eyes are never still". Moonje’s trip was not an innocuous replica of Gandhi’s.

Defending the recent withdrawal of the ICHR volumes, government protagonists aver that the authors reduced Gandhi to a footnote. It is ironic that persons sympathetic to the politics of Gandhi’s assassin repeatedly take refuge behind Gandhi’s memory. Let us address the issue differently. Gandhi was a proponent of ahimsa. Hinduttva’s proponents believe that Hindus are too pacific – even cowardly, and need to become militant. Their heroes are those whom they identify as warriors. Their constant evocation of wounded sentiment as a justification for "direct action", prompt us to ask the government to clarify its position on violence. Should sentiment be elevated to a level superior to the needs of civic order and criminal justice? Is it surprising that a retired CBI director is so fond of the Bajrang Dal, an organisation known more for muscle than mind? That a former union minister encouraged the intimidation of a film unit? That the vandalisation of the BCCI office was condoned by a Chief Minister who saw no reason for a police case? Is it their case that Naxalite violence is wrong but violence unleashed by outraged sentiment is acceptable? Do they have the courage to say so explicitly?

The assault on the mind is the most dangerous feature of the current situation. Mushirul Hasan was attacked for suggesting that the ban on Satanic Verses be lifted. (A prominent Congressman incited that campaign). Asghar Engineer is beaten up for questioning the Syedna’s powers. Whatever happened to the rights of minorities within minorities? Demands are voiced – rather belatedly – for a ban on Dante’s Inferno. Film screenings are disrupted. Literary commentaries on the Granth Sahib result in threats of excommunication. (How brave our militants are!). And when we need a discussion on the rule of law, we indulge instead in literary criticism, film appreciation etc. Surely the point ought to be whether bad authors and filmmakers have a right to remain alive, with their bones intact. Whether the government can ensure a peaceful resolution of conflicts or if musclemen may run amuck because they have high connections. Gandhi rendered Hindus nirvirya and napunsak, said Godse. I beg to differ.

Gandhi had greater physical courage than most politicians in his time – and not many of today’s luminaries would venture forth without protection after three attempts at assassination. His ahimsa was a name for restraint, without which no society may survive and no institutions gather strength. Let us stop flaunting our boringly delicate sentiments, and address the deliberate inculcation of revenge and hatred. Those who care about human survival can see their future in the mirror of history.

(This article are fisrt publish in The Hindustan Times.)

Archived from Communalism Combat, April 2000. Year 7  No, 58, Editor's Choice

The post The Mirror of History’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.