By M D Nalapat
Fanaticism and exclusion cannot be fought with fanaticism and exclusion.
In
1992, this columnist warned “South Asia experts” at meetings in the US
that Wahhabism was an existential danger to several countries, including
many that were Muslim-majority. However, he was met with scepticism.
The Wahhabis, after all, had been loyal foot soldiers of first the UK
and later the US for considerably over a century, first against the
Turkish caliphate, later against Arab nationalists such as Egypt’s
Nasser or Algeria’s Ben Bella, and very recently against the USSR in
Afghanistan. Indeed, practitioners of this creed are still serving
incumbent US administrations, these days against Iran and its allies
such as Syria’s Bashar Assad. Policymakers as well as “think-tankers” in
the US and the EU have, over the decades, indulgently encouraged Saudi
Arabia to send billions of dollars annually to institutions and
individuals committed to the exclusivist, supremacist Wahabbi creed that
was developed more than two centuries ago, and which has since been
seeking to gain more and more followers across the globe, in the
process, creating severe ripple effects on community relations. In
India, for instance, almost every “Hindu-Muslim” clash involving loss of
life is between Wahhabis and members of the Hindu community. There have
been close to zero such encounters between Shias and Hindus, or between
Sufis and Hindus, and relatively few between Sunnis and Hindus, if we
differentiate the Sunni community from the (much smaller number of)
Wahhabis who often pose as the sole representatives of this important
branch of the Islamic faith. Almost all acts of terror in the US or the
EU that have been perpetrated by Muslims have actually been carried out
by Wahhabis, and these teachings are also the basis for the theology of
Al Qaeda and its latest mutant, ISIS. Small wonder that these days,
warnings about Wahhabism are taken somewhat more seriously even in the
US and the EU than was the case a quarter-century ago, although even
now, analysts there always confuse Wahhabis with Sunnis, thereby doing a
great injustice to the latter, many of whom are modern and the
overwhelming majority of whom are moderate.
Now, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has become the first member of the Al Saud
family to publicly acknowledge the harm done by Wahhabism, and to call
for its substitution with genuine Islam, a faith that promotes
tolerance, mercy and beneficence. The Saudi Crown Prince has acted just
in time. A rolling back of Wahhabism and a return of moderate and
inclusivist practices is essential for the Muslim community more than
for others, and in such a task, India’s moderate majority among Muslims
can be a global asset. At present, there are tens of millions across the
globe, who segregate themselves from the rest of the societies they are
resident in, and who clutch at uniformity in their dress and
deportment. There is nothing objectionable in the hijab or a headscarf,
if such choices be the consequence of free will and are not based on
coercion. Should an overall climate of freedom of expression and
lifestyle prevail within a country, such individuals will find courage
to challenge those who are illogical enough to claim that wearing the
same type of dress as was in vogue a millennium ago is obligatory for
the wearer to enter heaven.
In India, where Muslim women have been in
the lead in battling against such medieval practices as triple talaq,
finally a fightback by the Muslim community against Wahhabism is taking
place, with several both in educational institutions as well as the
workplace refusing to follow those dress codes that have been imposed
across centuries. Except of course voluntarily, the way many women still
wear that most graceful of dresses, the sari. It may be possible to
fight fire with fire, but fanaticism and exclusion cannot be fought with
fanaticism and exclusion. Recent edicts of some schools in UP who have
banned girls who wear the hijab or a headscarf, will encourage Wahhabi
tendencies, rather than damp them down. Such acts of exclusion will be
used by the Wahhabis to validate their “Us versus Them” dialectic,
thereby reinforcing existing affinities to this school of theology,
rather than weaning people away from it.
The difference between Malaysia and
Indonesia is that one country enforces a ban on the eating of pork, the
other does not. The difference between Nepal and India is that one of
these countries prohibits the eating of beef under threat of prosecution
and, in practice, sometimes death, whereas the other freely permits its
consumption. It is a big difference, although there is certainly a case
for reducing the eating of beef, given the environmental impact of such
consumption. However, such an objective needs to be achieved through
informal persuasion and not through the force of law. A state that
relies on the police to enforce certain choices in dress, diet and
lifestyle choices is usually one where laws are ignored by many.
Assuming that the script of the movie is as derogatory of the character
of the heroine as is being depicted by detractors of Padmavati,
banning its exhibition (that too without having seen the movie) will
not erase the historical fact that large parts of India underwent
centuries of rule by Muslim kings. Much more reflection needs to take
place as to exactly why Muslim invaders were successful over Hindu kings
who ruled over far more prosperous lands. Rather than threaten film
producers and actors, those aggrieved by it should instead produce a
movie that ends with a resounding victory by the defenders of Chittor
against Alauddin Khilji, who would in this movie jump into a fire to
escape his foes, thereby creating an alternative reality suiting their
historical preferences.
The UPA went into a frenzy of enactments,
passing laws and imposing regulations each time a television anchor
demanded “action”. In the case of the NDA as well, there has been far
too frequent a reliance on the bludgeon of law and the police in
enforcing choices that are less than universally popular. In a free
society, regulations curbing freedom of choice and speech should be the
exception rather than the usual recourse of those elected to office.
Wahhabism cannot be defeated or even slowed down through methods and
mindsets similar to those favoured by adherents of this creed.
No comments:
Post a Comment