Why the veteran actor was right in castigating a section of Muslims who celebrated the Taliban’s return to power
In his recent video message, Shah also said that the Islam practised in India is different from that followed elsewhere, a reference to the former’s syncretic nature
Actor Naseeruddin Shah belongs to what can be called Muslims Like Us (MLU), a numerically insignificant subset of People Like Us (PLU). Both groups comprise members who are middle class, privileged, and deeply troubled over the illiberal turn India has taken under the Modi rule. They are viciously trolled and dubbed as anti-national.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a rare reversal, it is PLU and MLU who are now frothing at Shah for releasing a video in which he castigated those Muslims who celebrated the Taliban’s return to power. Shah also said that the Islam practised in India is different from that followed elsewhere, a reference to the former’s syncretic nature. He said Muslims had to choose between reform and modernity and the values of barbarism of centuries ago.
Upset, PLU and MLU asked: Why did Shah take Hindutva’s bait that Indian Muslims must condemn the Taliban to prove their patriotism? Did he not realise that his video would demonise Muslims? Some said it did not behove a non-practising Muslim to talk of reform in Islam. Or thought his video was unnecessary given the perilous position of Muslims today.
Forgotten was the courage Shah had often displayed in expressing his disquiet over bigotry in Modi’s India. In 2018, after a police officer was lynched over cow slaughter, Shah said he was bewildered that the “death of a cow had more significance than that of a police officer”. His remark incensed Hindutva groups into compelling the Ajmer Literature Festival’s organisers to cancel the keynote address he was to deliver.
In January 2020, as protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act mounted, Shah said since Modi had never been to college, he lacked compassion for students who had taken to the streets. A year later, he spoke out against love jihad, saying its proponents were incredibly stupid to believe Muslims would outnumber Hindus.
Perhaps the bruised psyche of PLU-MLU has them to judge the value of a public act by gauging whether it enhances or diminishes the Bharatiya Janata Party’s electoral fortunes. This is likely why the timing of Shah’s video was deemed inappropriate, coming as it did months before the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections. Mohammad Sajjad, a historian at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), told me that he, in his 51 years, has always seen the argument of inappropriate timing invoked every time a Muslim advocates reforms.
Critics who are PLU or MLU, ironically, forget their own argument when they pooh-pooh the claims of Opposition parties that public criticism of Hindutva alienates the Hindus and drives them towards the BJP. To win the battle for India’s soul, Opposition parties argue that an ideological silence on Hindutva is vital.
No, counter PLU, Hindutva must be resisted before the constitutional idea of India is altered beyond recognition. This argument is precisely why MLU must, as Shah has done, challenge Muslims who celebrate the Taliban’s triumph, for their joy stems, at least partially, from the hope of seeing a “pure Islam” emerge, denuded of its syncretic elements.
The search for a pristine Islam is regressive. Take Pakistan, where President Zia-ul-Haq sought to substitute the greeting of “Khuda hafiz” (God protect you) with “Allah hafiz”. Allah is the Arabic word for God, for whom the Persian word is Khuda. In 1985, a popular anchor on Pakistan TV, a government channel, is credited with having first used Allah hafiz to sign off. In 2002, banners appeared in Karachi advocating the use of Allah, even though it is Khuda that is mentioned in Pakistan’s national anthem. This lexical imposition reflected the Arabisation of Pakistan’s Islam, which has had terrible consequences.
In India, too, the usage of Allah hafiz has outstripped that of Khuda hafiz under the growing influence of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi culture. Yes, the Islam of India is different from that of Saudi Arabia, where, for instance, the veneration of saints is perceived as idolatry. This twisted worldview inspired the Saudis, according to author Carla Power, to destroy over 98 per cent of their historical-religious sites since 1985. The house of Hamza, Prophet Muhammad’s uncle, was flattened, and the house of the Prophet’s first wife, Khadijah, was demolished to build public toilets.
It is hard to decipher from Shah’s video whether the barbarism of centuries ago was an allusion to the medieval period, which is identified with the Muslim rule. Let us not carp. Think of the horrific punishments, including beheading and amputation, meted out to the convicted in some Muslim countries. Public flogging was discontinued only in 2014 in Saudi Arabia. In 2019, Iran amputated a thief’s fingers. This is barbaric. Period.
PLU and MLU should read Shah’s And Then One Day: A Memoir to fathom his rage. On his first day at AMU, senior students summoned Shah to offer namaaz. He “felt miffed at being compelled to pray”. Shah says he does not have fond memories of his father who was forever seeking to turn him into a person he did not want to be. Before he went to AMU, Shah had run away to Bombay to become an actor. He continues to rebel, without caring for MLU and PLU, because he knows Hindutva and Wahhabism strive to erase the individuality of every person.
The writer is a senior journalist. Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com
The views expressed in this column are the individual’s and don’t represent those of the paper.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
