Harsh Mander discusses with Mujibur Rehman his new book Shikwah-e-Hind: The Political Future of Indian Muslims (Simon and Schuster, 2024).
Harsh Mander (Henceforth HM): I think a central question for me is — what explains the confusion, the ambiguity, the silences of India’s secular majority? Firstly, do you agree that indeed secular formations constitute a majority? And what explains their muted response to the attacks of the Right, and the worrying, even terrifying, persecution of India’s Muslims?
Mujibur Rehman (Henceforth, MR): Well, there are several reasons for this. The secular elite is not homogeneous. Its various strands respond in their own ways, which reflects the ambivalence I speak of. Some find this completely nonsensical, what is going on, and feel there is no point of responding to this nonsense, this is just bizarre and beyond comprehension for them.
Shikwah-e-Hind: The Political Future of Indian Muslims, Mujibur Rehman, Simon and Schuster, 2024.
Second, there are also secular political elites who feel that given the electoral popularity of [the] BJP since 2014 and its ability to form governments after governments, given its growing electoral power, secular goals are now defeated as India has become significantly Hinduised. They just don’t want to fight those forces any longer because they feel that this is a lost cause. They say — let us try to navigate this new reality some way or other. In their navigation they often use Hindutva symbolism, through soft Hindutva politics.
But my sense is that those people are definitely out of touch with reality because the results of the 2024 general elections clearly showed that Indian voters were not comprehensively Hinduised, they were not throwing their weight blindly behind the Hindutva project. So there is a gross misreading on the part of some secular elites who were intimidated or scared by the growing electoral dominance of the BJP. As I argue in my earlier book, Rise of Saffron Power (Routledge 2018),the failure of the non- Congress opposition parties that came to power in 1977 and then again in 1989 to emerge as an enduring political formation is the main reason for the political void which was filled up by the BJP. Had there been a non- Congress, non- BJP opposition coalition in India’s electoral space, the BJP might have remained a regional party.
So to answer your question if there is a secular majority, my answer is yes- there is. A broad secular coalition — as a united force against the Hindutva — is a feasible political project out of which a secular politics could be rebuilt, even if it may not be a perfect one.
HM: As you look back at Hindu Muslim relations, one of you interesting observations is that conflicts between Hindus and Muslims are not simply a product of the colonial encounter. You argue that while there has been peaceful co-existence, there have been conflicts even before the British came.
MR: Well, there is greater evidence of peaceful existence than of conflict in Indian history. And the conflict that has taken place has been to establish supremacy. There is a long and complicated story of conflicts that were not religious but of state power, the State control by Hindu rulers, the State control by Muslim rulers. This has been wrongly interpreted as Hindu-Muslim conflicts. There was nothing called the Muslim rule, nor as the Hindu Right history is claiming that Hindus have suffered a lot of humiliation in long years of Muslim rule. What we had is this handful of Muslim families/dynasties who have ruled over many centuries. These dynasties have also fought each other. They fought their own family members and killed each other. They were not out here to preach Islam or establish Islamic superiority, they were driven by the lust for power, how to expand and consolidate power. In that process, they harmed Muslims, they harmed Hindus, they harmed Christians. But this false classification of “Muslim rule” has contributed to negative images and negative memories concerning Muslims, which is one fount of legitimacy for the Hindu Right.
HM: One important point that you make is that violence of various oppressed communities is part of India’s history from the earliest times. And the persecution and violence against Muslims that we see today is only one chapter in a much longer history of the suppression, persecution and violence against the Dalits, Adivasis and women. So, taking a longer view of history, how serious is this present moment of heightened and extreme persecution of India’s Muslims?
MR: My framework of analysis is a little different from what other scholars have used with respect to the Hindu-Muslim conflict. The Hindu-Muslim conflict in contemporary times has been presented as a case of violation of minority rights. The invocation of the Constitution in this context is also based on this understanding that Muslims are religious minority, and they have certain rights and those rights are getting violated and this is not fair and good for Indian democracy. What I argue is that what is unfolding is more serious than simply the violation of rights. What is unfolding is a de-Islamisation process. The Hindu Right is making concerted efforts to take on Muslim symbols and Muslim institutions, the Muslim ways of life taboo and redundant. All aspects of Muslim lives are under negative scrutiny- their food, their way of dress say like hijab, their food like beef, legality of Masjids/darghas, ways of prayer, azaan etc. This attack is very comprehensive, and must be seen to include also the recent Bill being now attempted concerning Wakf Board, which has less to do with the land than with the de-Islamisation project. The drive is for “no more Muslim, no more Islam”.
HM: Many scholars, observers, and commentators see a kind of continuum between the politics of Mr. Modi and the RSS and leaders like Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro, or Geert Wilders, or Recep Tayyip Erdogan, etc. – the whole range of the far right-wing leaders. They see a lot of commonalities, because they all target particular minorities and they foster hate. They are impatient with democratic process and institutions. Yet you say that what is happening in India, in relation to India’s Muslim minorities is distinct from each of these instances. Would you like to explain this a little more?
MR: Commenting on the rise of Mr. Modi and the Hindu Right politics, many scholars say this is happening elsewhere in the world as well. So this is not something very unique. But I challenge that perspective. That is why I underline that what India is going through is an ideological warfare. To understand this, you have to go back at least 100 years, looking at the political landscape of India of 1920s. The indigenous ideological movement of India that grew up in the 20s, led by the Hindu Mahasabha and all the Hindu Right organisations, gradually acquired strength. They operated from different platforms. Some organisation came and disappeared, like the Bhartiya Jana Sangh (BJS) — and then the Bhartiya Janata Party [the BJP] came into existence in 1980. The project is that this is a Hindu land that belongs to Hindu people and Muslims are outsiders. And India has to bring an end to these thousand years of slavery. This is what Mr. Modi said in his speech in the U.S. Congress where he spoke of 1000 years of slavery. So obviously the Hindu Right’s conception of the nation does not consider Muslims as a part of this society and that is a tragic irony! At a point of time, when you have a person of Hindu heritage Rishi Sunak, until recently served as the Prime Minister of Britain, you have a person of Hindu heritage, Kamala Harris, running for America presidency. On the other hand, whereas Muslims who have been living in this country for centuries, they are not even fielded by the BJP to contest elections. There is no member in the parliament [by the BJP in 2024 general elections] let alone serving in the cabinet. The Prime Minister makes a statement from the ramparts of the Red Fort on 15 August, 2024 that we need a secular civil code. Whereas the government itself is not secular, the ruling party is not secular, his cabinet is not secular. We do not have a secular government but we want a secular civil code. That itself is a contradiction. So, I think the first thing that the Prime Minister should do is he should set up a secular government, and set up a secular political party before he talks about the secular civil code, that is my position.
Also read: Local Admin and Police Okaying Bulldozer Action Against Muslims Should Remember Nuremberg
So the distinction that I would like to make so far as the other question is concerned is that the rise of the Hindu Right movement is not a result of global pattern nor does it have global sources. It is primarily an indigenous movement that was growing since the 1920s. Obviously there were global developments that provided legitimacy to this argument. For instance, 9/11 [terrorist attacks in the USA] provided a tremendous amount of environment for Islamophobic arguments. And so, the Hindu Right was able to take advantage of this favourable environment. My own understanding is that the Hindu Right movement would have grown in India on its own regardless whether there was a Trump in America or not, or other populist leaders elsewhere. What is equally crucial to note that in India’s attempt to build a secular polity did not take adequate measures to contain the anti- secular or anti- minority politics of the Hindu Right. Various secular regimes often under-estimated the Hindu Right forces and remained indifferent to their activities in the formal and informal arena of politics. In a way, the Hindu Right had a smooth ride in its ideological and political journey since the days of India’s independence. So this an indigenous movement but they derived some legitimacy from the global populism. Put bluntly, Narendra Modi is a populist leader but also a very ideological leader. Indeed, Mr. Modi and Mr Nehru are the two most ideological leaders of India. While Nehru wanted India to move towards the left and the Mr. Modi has been successfully bent the nation towards his right wing ideology.
HM: You have talked about political representation. The Muslim people never have had membership in parliament and legislatures that is proportionate to their share in the population. But this representation has declined even more sharply in the last 10 years. And as you observe there is not a single number of parliament and almost no member of the legislative assemblies of the ruling BJP. Which means that 200 million people are hugely under-represented. The really thin defence that is given by the BJP, which you quote, is that they are just looking at winnability, they are not against Muslims. But the results of 2024 prove them wrong. All parties together put up historically the lowest number of Muslim candidates, but the number of successful candidates remained the same. It is also important to underline that it is not necessary for Muslims to represent Muslims. How grave is this crisis of representation? And what are the possible remedies?
MR: Well, this is a serious problem. Let me begin by saying that proportionate presentation is very important for different ethnic groups for a variety of reasons There is a famous saying about the “American Revolution”. No taxation without representation. Taxation without representation essentially is colonialism. It is one thing that people are not adequately represented, it is another thing to make it a policy not to allow some ethnic group or minorities NOT to represent themselves, which is far more dangerous.
Then what is happening to Muslim community here ? What we have noticed is that there is a deliberate attempt by the BJP not to field Muslim candidates. In the last election [2024 Lok Sabha] as we noticed in Kerala, they [the BJP] only fielded one candidate which they knew was not going to win. Obviously, this is no representation. It is apparent that the BJP does not have any interest in representing or accommodating Muslims in their party structure. Also we notice, in the same political party- the BJP-has got several spokespersons who are Muslims. But they do not stand for minority rights. I would like to call them the agents of Hindutva. Even there, the BJP has no consideration to include a Muslim in the cabinet.
The big question is: what kind of people we need in an ideal secular polity? You know, anyone can represent anybody. That is an ideal secular polity. It does not matter whether you are Muslim or Hindu. But otherwise, I think the community should be allowed also to represent themselves for the same reason that women should be allowed to represent themselves. It is possible that some men may have an understanding of women’s problems, but in the end, by enabling women to represent themselves could bring different sets of issues to the table and different sorts of legitimacy and inclusion. The same is true with regard to Muslims or Dalit community as well.
What happens here is that there is a deliberate attempt to exclude Muslims justified by the argument that Muslims were in power for a thousand years and they had done all kinds of injustice. And now it is the pay-back time! So, they cannot be in power or be treated as equals. They should be treated as subjects. So the Hindu Right argues that they have been very nice to Muslims and they will take care of any issues Muslims have. It will be left to the whims and fancies of the Hindu Right leaders on how to deal with this community. So, how your Wakf Board is going to be run will be decided by Hindu representatives in the Wakf Board. But how the temples are going to be run is not going to be decided by Muslims and Christians. So only Muslims will be under surveillance.
But another important thing that I want to say on this is: While talking about, of course, the best form of government is the proportionate representation, where Muslims could get a fair share in terms of their share population. What kind of Muslims are representing the community? That is also equally important. Take, for instance, you had Muhammad Shahabuddin, a mafia DON of Bihar, in the Lok Sabha. What sort of community interest or democratic and social interest is going to be served by a mafia don becoming a Member of Parliament? Similarly, Atiq Ahmad from Uttar Pradesh who was recently gunned down, who was considered to be a gangster. So the secular political parties when they field Muslim candidates, they should also know that what kind of candidate they are fielding. Even I will include Yusuf Pathan [elected MP from Bengal] for instance. I personally do not understand what sort of political rights and issues Mr. Yusuf Pathan, who is otherwise a fine cricketer, could represent from the point of view of Muslim or secular interests. In these parameters, we do have some sort of distortions. There is massive underrepresentation even in secular parties or under secular regimes and then there is complete exclusion by the Hindu Right.
HM: Any minority has typically three sets of anxieties and concerns. One set of concerns relate to identity. A second set of concerns relate to equity. The third is security. And here you have a very painful extensive chapter outlining the experience of violence against Muslims in what are called communal riot.
MR: Let us look at our own history and see what kind of violence that society had gone through at different points of time. So that is why I quote Paul Brass that Gandhi and others resorted to non- violence as a method of struggle because they knew that Indian society has enormous potential for violence. Not that everything was non-violent. There was violence happening here and there. Look at some of the social practices like Sati. A lot of violence that occurs in our own society which has nothing to do with what is going on elsewhere in the world. that is why it is important to see it as a continuum. So, basically, I’m trying to argue that our people have also got the capacity to unleash violence of all kinds against our own people, and what we are seeing against Muslims or against Dalit is only part of it.
As far as the law is concerned. Take, for example, we have enough laws against violence against women, and we had this horrific violence that has taken place in Kolkata against a doctor in the hospital . To deal with such violence requires societal reform, education etc. So, how to reform those attitudes? I don’t think political parties are taking any interest in doing that. We don’t see this in our governance structure. Look at containing religious violence. We are all children of one God, so different religions and people can cohabit together. Gandhi used to do all of that through his religious prayer meetings. But these have been abandoned by secular political parties. And so the question is can people belonging to different religions live together? This is no longer a social reality. You cannot enforce all these things merely through State policy. This requires a reform movement. So one of the arguments I have, let me conclude it by saying that secularism is not just to protect minorities. It is also to rescue Hinduism, since Hinduism is threatened with new politics of Hindutva. So I think one of the tasks of secularism is also to rescue Hinduism from Hindutva!
Also read: Suspected VHP Activists Accused of Terrorising Doda’s Muslims
HM: You conclude with the lines. “Without the healthy political future of the world’s largest religious minority, India’s Muslims, Indian democracy will remain incurably wounded”. You speak about your dream, echoing Martin Luther King, of building a country which values people for the content of the character and not their religious, caste or racial identity. I see that you are finding it hard to see light at the end of the tunnel. But it is that really the case? As a scholar, but also a person of Muslim identity who has grown up in this country and loves this country, are you seeing a situation of persecution that is going to continue without any let-up even in the middle run? Or do you see hope?
MR: Well, I’m quite hopeful since I mentioned about Martin Luther King, Jr. As Dr. King used to say that the arc of humanity would eventually gravitate towards justice. So, I do believe that GOOD will eventually trump over Evil. And well-meaning people will eventually be victorious. How would we get there ? It requires a political struggle. This book is also an appeal for such a political struggle, both in the electoral as well as non-electoral arena. This book is further an appeal to the Muslim community, to take active interest in political activism, and to remain alert to what is unfolding in the world of power. This book is also about appealing to the Muslims to be remain politically active, and organised. At this point, the Muslim community is not sufficiently organized and its elites are deeply de-politicised. I’m quite convinced that in this area of nationalism only those who love a hundred percent of his population are the hundred percent nationalists. Those who don’t love hundred percent population, they are not nationalist at all. You know, people, who talk about 80 vs 20 population don’t love this country.
Unfortunately, as I said before that there are some secular political parties and their leaders who believe that those voters [who vote for the BJP] are believers in the idea of a Hindu Rashtra, and have become more radical and political Hindus. Therefore, these secular parties also deploy Hindu idioms and language in their campaign or what is also called soft Hindutva. We saw that in the Madhya Pradesh assembly elections.
My own sense is this there is no adequate secular push back. If there is an adequate secular push back, the politics would change in favour of minorities and Muslims. Only by firm positioning with respect to Muslims and their rights, there would be rewards not just for Muslims but also from majority community, and in the end, it will be useful in defeating the Hindu Right-wing forces.
Yes, democracy in India can be re-built. I recognise that there were strategic blunders that were committed. But at the same time, I don’t see neither India nor most parts of the world are moving in any direction other than multiculturalism and equal rights. In a nutshell, the political struggle for secularism has to continue – through writing, activism, and it is possible a secular democracy can be brought back, which will be good for Muslims, for Hindus and all people of India.
Harsh Mander is a social worker and writer.
