Dalit Voice has done its readers the great service of initiating a debate on the ideology and politics of the Jamate-Islami. This debate ought to be carried forward and not abruptly halted as some readers have sought to suggest. The Jamat itself appears to have taken cognizance of this debate as reflected in the several “Letters to the Editor” that have appeared in its official organ, Radiance. Heartening to note two of these letters have been written by a Muslim woman, Ms. Shabana, from Kanpur who, however, seems quite opposed to the views of the Editor of DV and in particular to M.A. Yusufzai’s article, “Jamat blind to brahminism: Toeing RSS line?” (DV Dec. 1-15, 1991).
However, Shabana has chosen to continue this debate. DV and the Radiance have, for far too long, been dominated by a male, patriarchal discourse, and one hopes that more women would emulate Shabana’s example and freely express their views. Shabana must also be appreciated for having stated that she welcomes a further Jebate on the issue of Mulsim-Dalit/ BC relations. Therefore, one can only hope that DV continues with This dialogue and does not abruptly end it for fear of antagonizing one or the other side.
The DV debate on the Jamat-Islami has, with the exception of the Editor, been carried on only by Muslims. No non-Muslim has, as yet, entered into this debate. This seems strange because the politics and ideology of Muslim groups, especially an influential one like the Jamate-Islami does have a vital bearing on non- Muslims in general, and on Dalits, BCs, tribals and women in particular. This is because, brahminism derives much of its propaganda ammunition from the activities, politics and ideological postures of several non-Muslim groups. Murad Ali Yusufzai says that one such group is the Jamat. Brahminism paradising in the guise of ‘Hindu nationalism’ is a means to further suppress the SC/ST/BCs and women. By boosting brahminism (as Yusufzai contends) the Jamat poses a threat to the interests of the Bahujan Samaj. This being the case, the silence of non Muslim intellectuals of the Bahujan Samaj on the DV debate on the Jamat is indeed unfortunate.
DV concern for Muslims: I know that DV is genuinely concerned about the vital interests of the Muslim masses. Hence, appeals to mobilise them on crucial issues ought to be addressed to the genuine leaders of the Muslim masses. The Editor of DV says that he has had a long-standing and close relationship with the Jamat leadership. The Koran that the Editor quotes from was presented to him by Moulana Mohd Yusuf, the late Amir of the Jamate Islami, who was also DV subscriber and great admirer like the present Amir, Moulana S. Hasan.
If this relationship was indeed so intimate, there would have been no real need to initiate this debate on the Jamat after so many years. The very fact that after all these years of a presumed close relationship DV felt the urge to assess the Jamat itself reveals that the Jamat and Its leaders had not been taking DV seriously all along. This also suggests that the Jamat cannot be held to be the true messiah of the Muslim masses, for had it indeed been so, it would, from the beginning itself, have upheld the basic principles that DV now urges it to do.
Shabana argument: Shabana (Radiance, Jan. 12 1992) suggests that she and others of her school of thought are not against Muslims befriending Dalits but adds that, “Islam is the only hope for the problems of SC/ST/BCs and women”. Now, it is true that Islam in India has carried forth a torch of hope for those sunk in darkness and has, to some extent, solved some of the crucial problems of social identity for oppressed groups who sought refuge from the horrors of brahminism. No one can deny this. However, by asserting that the Jamat or the Muslims can cooperate with the Dalits only if they convert to Islam, Shabana rules out a non-religious approach to the question of the relations between the Muslim masses and the Dalits.
Jamat wants conversion?: Being an atheist myself, I have no objection if anybody desires to convert to Islam or Christianity, or Buddhism or to any other religion for that matter. But what Shabana wishes to say is that if the Dalits do not convert to Islam, there is no way that the Jamat can conceive of entering into a dialogue with them. Now, there appears to be no sign that the Dalits would move in the direction of mass conversion to Islam. So, the rigid stance of Shabana rules out every possibility of a dialogue with non-Muslim Dalits.
Out of touch: The Jamat and other Islamic groups are not quite aware of social reality and of the very remote chances of mass conversions to Islam. This is because, as Yusufzai rightly says, these outfits in quite an un-Islamic fashion, have cut themselves off from social reality and do not have even a rudimentary understanding of contemporary social processes operating among the Dalits and the Muslim masses.
Ibne Khaldun’s role: The Jamat needs to be reminded that it is Ibne Khaldun, a noted medieval Muslim thinker, who is considered by many to have been the founding father of sociology. Those who proclaim themselves to be the messiahs of the masses ought to cultivate a keen and critical sociological insight. They ought not merely to build lofty castles in the air and feed their followers on delusions.
Bahujan is not BSP: Shabana has clearly misunderstood Yusufzai’s appeal that Muslims ought to unite with the “Bahujan Samaj”. She says that he appeals for Muslim support to the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Apparently, she is in the dark about the fact that the Bahujan Samaj and the BSP are two quite different entities.
She then adds that by making an appeal for the unity of the Bahujan Samaj (including the Muslim masses), Yusufzai has “suggested that the Muslims should befriend the Dalits even at the cost of their (i.e. Muslim’s) separate identity” (Radiance, Feb.23-29). Here again, Shabana has misconstrued Yusufzai’s views.
DV Editor’s stand: The Editor of DV has repeatedly stated that he would always oppose any move to subvert the separate religious Identity of the Muslims. DV and the Dalit movement are certainly not against the separate religious identity of the Muslims. They do not seek to “absorb” the Muslims into the non-Muslim told through the backdoor (as Shabana thinks they do).
Shabana (and the Jamat) needs to be informed that every person has several different identities and the religious identity is but one of them. The other crucial identities of every person include the ethnic, linguistic and the economic.
Insofar as the Muslim masses have an ethnic, linguistic and economic identity in common with other oppressed sections, among the SC/ ST/BCS, they ought, according to DV, to cooperate with them. But in sofar as their religious identities differ, there is no need for the Muslim masses to enter into any compromise with any other group. They may unite with other similarly placed groups for their secular (i.e non-religious) concerns.
Un-Islamic approach: However, Shabana apparently believes that there can be no possibility of the Muslim masses uniting with non- Muslims on purely non-religious (i.e. secular) issues. This is primarily a reflection of the Jamat’s hostility to the ideology of “secularism” which is so intense that it adopts an extremely antagonistic posture towards all the non-religious interests of the Muslim masses. This, some believe, is a rather un- Islamic position, for in Islam the interests of this world are said to have been given as much stress as those of the after life.
Ambedkarite ideology: Shabana can only think of Muslim-Dalit unity on the religious plane, for she says, “To my understanding, the shudras may get rid of their problem if they accept Islam, which makes no distinction among human beings (Radiance, Feb.23-29). Now, conversion to Islam may or may not be a solution that many Dalits would consider, but it is up to them to decide. Many Dalits are today seeking to develop their own radical Ambedkarite identity based on Buddhism. This may or may not be a proper solution but that is another matter altogether. It is a fact and a crucial fact that needs to be taken cognizance of.
Public opinion: Now, if these Dalits choose Ambedkarism or Buddhism or Christianity and not Islam, Shabana would rule out the possibility of a dialogue between them and the Muslims. Apparently, Shabana confuses the Jamat for the Muslims for while the Jamat may not be ready for a dialogue with non-Muslim Dalits, many Muslims have adopted a more enlightened stand and are actively involved in cooperating with oppressed groups among the non-Muslims. Thankfully, the likes of Shabana do not represent Muslim public opinion, even though they may claim to do so.
It is tragic, yet true, that the Jamat and Shabana choose to think in terms of two categories alone Muslims and non-Muslims. They do not allow for any other categories and social variables to influence their world-view. In their world-view, all those who are not Muslims are arbitrarily clubbed together and labelled as a single category “non- Muslims”. No effort is made to further categorize and differentiate between various antagonistic groups within the non-Muslim category.
Distorted view: Hence this world- view cannot conceive of the non- Muslim category as consisting of such mutually opposed categories as rich vs. poor, high vs. low, Dalit vs. non-Dalit, oppressed vs. oppressor. All of them, in this world- view, are taken as one and the same.
Similarly, in this distorted world- view, all those who claim to be Muslims are taken as one category and no effort is made to further categorise them into groups such as Muslim classes vs. Muslim. masses, Muslim rich vs. Muslim poor and so on and so forth.
This world-view cannot think of “Muslim masses” entering into a dialogue with “non-Muslim Dalits” because it cannot think in terms of “Muslim masses” and non-Muslim “Dalits”. It can only operate employing the categories “Muslim” and “non-Muslim as do the brahminical chauvinists who can only think in terms of “Hindu” and “non-Hindu”.
Continue debate: I would earnestly request the Editor of DV to continue this debate, especially since Shabana has been so kind as to herself request him to do so. It would be heartening it any more would join in and express their views. I must state here that I too am sincerely concerned about the interests of the Muslim masses and that my views have no ulterior purposes to serve whatsoever. It is possible that I may be wrong and that future events may prove me to be mistaken. But, then it is only history that can prove one to have been right or wrong. Humans must, however, strive to make their own history, for there can be no such thing as pre-ordained fate and nor can there be room for a passive prostration before the all-powerful deity of history.
