Atir Khan/New Delhi
Hilal Ahmed is a well-known scholar and author, who is devoted to studying Muslim political discourse and IPolitical Islam. Besides working with the Delhi-based think tank Center for Study of Developing Societies, he has authored books like Siyasi Muslims: A story of Political Islam in India and is a regular contributor to the academic journals, newspapers, and websites. He's also a documentary filmmaker.
The Voice Editor-in-Chief Atir Khan spoke to him about the possibilities of the Muslim community’s future. Excerpts from the interview:
You often use the term intellectual politics, what does it mean?
We all are doing some sort of intellectual politics. And for doing that intellectual politics, honestly, you have to have three things. Number one: you have to make a principal distance from the communities you work on. I come from a Muslim community and I research the Muslim community. So, I need to keep distance from the people with whom I work, because only then I will be able to critically look at the things and the processes that constitute the present and the direction that the present is going to take in the future.
The second thing is that we also have to, as a researcher, be very honest about the process of Research. The process of research should be made clear to your audience so that your reader will be able to draw his or her own arguments and conclusions.
The third important point about intellectual politics is that you have to be very clear that whatever you're doing is tentative. That's the many things which, you know, you are not in search of or you are not here to tell your reader that you have discovered something absolute Truth.
You've written a book Siyasi Muslims, which focuses on Indian Muslims. Do you think that Indian Muslims form a political community?
Siyasi is used in two ways. One, Siyasi in a positive way. When you see that a community is conscious of its political interest, etc., there is also a negative way in which Siyasi is seen. It means that you are doing maneuvering and you know, how to make things in your favour collectively.
So, on the one hand, when we call Muslim Siyasi, we are saying that they are conscious of their rights as a minority. But at the same time, there is an allegation that they behave like their interests are superior to national interest.
So therefore, whenever we talk about Muslim communities, we have to look at how Muslim communities are described in public life. And to counter that public representation is positive as well as negative. It is very important to collect facts, do systematic research, and produce some context to specific arguments. And this is what I did in this book Siyasi Muslims.
I used Siyasi Muslim in order to make an argument that there is no one Muslim community. In India, rather, there are various communities, and they happen to be Muslims. So, their engagement with the different forms of politics must be evaluated in different contexts. And that's why the unit of my analysis is state not nation.
There's no harm in being a Siyasi Muslim, is there?
Yeah, there is no harm in using the term Siyasi Muslim. In my book -ABrief History of the Present– which has just come out I am making a distinction between two things. One is what I call substantive Muslim and the second is the discourse of Muslim as a Muslim identity. Whenever you do research or whenever you explore Muslim identity, you have to be very clear about those two things.
The substance of Muslimness means that Muslim identity is construed and rooted in a particular context. So, it may be constituted by a check to like cost factors, like your economic class and your language, and the kind of Islam you practice. So, it is very concrete and real.
But there is something called the discourse of Muslimness, meaning how Muslims are perceived as a community, as a minority in a positive sense, and as a threat to the nation in a negative sense. So, therefore, the interplay between substantive misdemeanors and the discourse of Muslimness will always determine how Muslim identity is constituted in different contexts.
What are your views on Hindutva as a political project? How should Indian Muslims reconcile with this new reality? Do you think while Muslims protect their human rights, they also need to have a look inward?
The two parts of this question? In the first part, as a researcher, my obvious reaction would be what is Hindutva? I don't subscribe to the view that there is a that there is a distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva.
Hindutva as a project has evolved over the years. What is interesting is that Hindu nationalism has various strands and various branches. It was led by Hindu minds at one point in time. RSS was highly uncomfortable with the term, and they did not use the term until the 1980s. For them, indigenization was a preferred expression. To assert Indian-ness, Hindutva became fashionable and it was encouraged during the Ram Temple movement. After some time, RSS also adopted it.
The second thing is that it has become a dominant narrative of Indian politics at the moment. It is wrong to think that only the BJP is using it as an ideology. No, because it is a dominant narrative of politics. And you cannot ignore the dominant narrative when you are doing politics of electoral kind. It is being used across party lines.
All political parties are using the term in some senses, many would say we are not anti-Muslim, but we are appreciating the term because Hindutva-driven nationalism is the dominant narrative in politics. Now, if that is the case, then we need to look at the placing of Muslims in this project.
What we have understood and whatsoever we have found in our survey, is a clear reflection that Indians, you know, obviously Hindus, would like to assert their Hindu identity, but that Hindu identity does not mean that it is anti-Muslim. In virtually every survey we found this, people would say that without Islam, India is incomplete.90 to 93% of people not merely in our recent surveys, but also in the Pew survey, which we did in 2021. It was overwhelmingly apparent that India belongs to all.
The entire political class, you know, they do not want to buy that argument. They are a bit uncomfortable with this because Hindutva-driven nationalism is something that is, as I said, the dominant narrative of politics.
What we find the most striking problem of the people of India is economic disparity. You know, to hide those substantive issues, you need some kind of a discussion of public discourse in which things would revolve around identity issues.
There has been a conflict between Islam and modern modernity in the Indian subcontinent. How does it affect them?
I think we have to contextualize Islam in South Asia very carefully because there is a tendency to see Islam as static and unchanging, which is wrong. The Muslim identities of South Asia, are somehow the product of very specific modernity that has been evolving over the years in the continent. So, therefore, it is a modern project. I don't buy the argument that there is a conflict between modernity and Islam, that Islam has modernized and expressed itself in a religion that is a modern religion.
And whatsoever actually has been done in the name of Islam is also a modern project. So, we have to make a distinction between the spiritual aspect of religion and the political aspect, the spiritual aspect of religion you understand when you read the Koran and think spiritually and you will develop yourself to a stage where this worldly consideration will become irrelevant for you, that is the spiritual impact. But when it comes to ritualistic fact, these rituals are completely modern.
Sunni madrassas such as Darul-ul-uloom are very much modern. So, therefore, I think the debate is rather outdated. I think at the moment we have resolved that tension. Look at modern Muslims, they are very much religious.
They do not find any difficulty in accommodating modern values with Islamic values. And that's why people like me, who obviously in a conventional sense, I am a practicing Muslim, I offer prayers five times. But I do not find any problem in my conduct to see or adhere to progressive values like equality, social justice, etc. Or to celebrate my Indian identity.
So, in my new book, I look at the question of religiosity. How do Muslims look at Islam? How do they practice their religion? And we find that Muslim religiosity is actually also changing. Now, Muslims would like to see things that are happening in the outside world, but for the inward-looking things, they are becoming more spiritual.
So, they would like to create a balance between these two and the madrassas and mosques have become sites where many things are changing today.
What are the issues which the Indian Muslim community needs to address on priority?
What I have found in my research is very significant. And I can certainly think of at least three or four issues first is that you know, there is something called awareness. I think the aspirations of Muslim communities are very potent about economic insecurities, and we have found that in our survey. The second thing that is also very crucial is with regard to poverty.
Muslims are mainly poor, so they need some kind of state intervention to deal with the kind of poverty that they have been experiencing. Muslims are fully aware of the new kind of state that's that has evolved in the last ten years, and I call it a charitable state because the state is making a distinction between the political sphere and the economic sphere.
There is an argument that the market-driven economic sphere is self-sufficient and there is no need for state intervention in the economic life of the country. On the other hand, in the political sphere, it is argued that we would provide you with a one-time grant to equip you so that you can compete in the market. But at the same time, in order when you get one time grant, it is expected from you to do expected from you to behave as a responsible citizen.
The (Narendra) Modi Government is based on the idea of the charitable state. Muslims have appreciated this idea of charitable estate in a variety of ways. We have also found that the government schemes and the welfare schemes which are provided by this and by state governments as well as the central government have reached out to Muslims. So, it is true that they recognize that these are important. This model is working well. However, there is an expectation that goes beyond this model.
One last thing. As far as the question of security is concerned whenever we do surveys or whenever we talk to Muslims, we do not find that the security concern would come as the priority, they argue that if these things are solved, the insecurity problem will also be solved.
Why? If affirmative action is given based on secularism, then everyone will be benefited. Right. They know why they are being lynched and targeted. There is a lot of Hindu unemployment as well. The unemployment rate among Hindus is much higher. So, therefore, this this creates some kind of a vicious circle.
The argument which is presented by Muslim communities in our surveys is simply that if these things are taken care of, then the security question and communalism can also be reduced.
Please tell us about your new book when is it going to be released?
The book is now in the market, it's available. So as the title suggests ABrief History of the Present the idea is to bring out what is happening in India. It's very contemporary and I have tried to look at the idea of new India not as a slogan but as a policy discourse.
So, the book makes a few broad arguments. One argument is that, as I said initially, Muslim issues are very much Indian issues. There is a need to recognize that until and unless we translate Muslim issues into national questions, we won't be able to solve Muslim problems. Second is that, as I said, civil society participation and the linkages between civil society and Muslim groups are very important. There is a remarkable adherence to democracy and constitutionalism among Muslims. It is also important to recognize that Muslims are very much interested in involving politics in our services.
We find that you know, there is there was an impression given to us that Muslims are no longer interested in politics, which is wrong. Muslim voting patterns, Muslim voting turnout has not dropped, they virtually give votes to every political party. You know, Congress is indeed the preferred political party, but it is also a fact that every political party gets a Muslim vote, this time BJP got 8% percent Muslim vote.
ALSO READ: Haniyeh's assassination may well be the end of Hamas
So, people express surprise why is that so? No political party can ignore Muslims. So, therefore, a progressive result and a progressive social justice-oriented result is the resolve of Muslims. And until and unless we translate it into a national resolve, we won't be able to do anything.
.png)
.webp "Construction workers warming up in Srinagar")
