Chattels no more

There was a time when Indira Gandhi used to regularly seek a fatwa from Shahi Imam, Syed Abdullah Shah Bukhari of Delhi's Jama Masjid, just before the general elections asking the Muslims of the country to vote for the Congress Party. Imam Bukhari eventually became a household name here and thus reveled in the supposed power he wielded.

But this clearly un-Islamic act never called for the removal of Bukhari. Over a period of time as the Muslims of the country became aware of their rights and entitlements – also how they could not be led as if they were chattel – Bukhari, too, lost his leverage. However, no one really removed him from his temporal seat. He died a natural death and was succeeded by his son Syed Ahmed Shah Bukhari, who in turn passed the baton to his son Syed Saban Bukhari.

Yet, here in Kolkata, the 'unthinkable' is happening. The Imam of the historic Tipu Sultan mosque of Central Kolkata has been put on notice by the managing committee – appointed by the Calcutta High Court – for dabbling in politics.

In a series of epistolary bombshells the managing committee has issued a show-cause to the Imam Noorur Rahman Bukhari, why he was using the mosque premises for such 'unholy' practices like holding press conferences, issuing statements on political issues and contributing to the slow but sure growth of communalism in the state.

Now one can say that if it not were case that Ayatollah Rohullah Khomeini roused the people of Iran from faraway Paris, the decadent monarchy of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahalvi and his hated secret police organisation, Savak, would have continued to oppress the people and loot the nation.

But the Iranian Revolution also showed how a mixture of religion with politics can be incendiary. And in Bengal, we do not really have the divide between peoples who wanted to indulge in medievalism on the one hand, and ultra-Westernisation of the ruling elite on the other; the kind that could cause deep social cleavages, resulting in political upheavals.

Yes, the Rajinder Sachar Committee had particularly shone light on the utter backwardness of the Muslim community in the state despite 35 years of rule by so-called 'godless' communists, who were to treat the people equally without any fear or favour. However, so was the case with the dalits and adivasis in the state. Thus, if one were to say that official Left parties who ruled the state by distributing privation equally, there won't be a whiff of religiosity in that statement.

Having said that, it remains a pan-India fact that the attempt to control the Muslim minority by provisioning the maulanas, mullahs, and the maulvis have not made the public goods and services percolate down to the common Muslims, one would not be too far off the mark.

The story of Barkati is one such example. This writer has been consistent in challenging the Indian Constitution that has institutionalised the discretionary powers of the ruling elite. Supposedly the unchangeable 'Basic Character' of the governing document, cannot be changed through legislation.

This basic character has defined 'secularism' in such a way that the West has created a separate solipstic class for the Indian definition of the word. It is different in meaning in reality from the one prevalent in the West. In a previous piece, readers might recall, I had said that secularism, as enshrined in the Constitution of India, conflicts with Art 25 that promises freedom of 'religion.' In other words, the State has the right to enter the sanctum sanctorum of a temple, mosque or a church; is that secularism?

This writer had once asked Taslima Nasreen what she meant by 'secularism' in an interview for s Mathrubhumi newspaper of Kerala. Predictably, she came up with the Indian definition. But one wonders whether she has changed her mind after her Harvard University sojourn. For in the secular West, the State is blind when it comes to religion.

It is thus not ironic that mullahs likeBarkati can wield their religious wand empowered by the State to do so. This, in turn, makes organisations like the RSS and Hindu Munnani claim that minority politics invariably raises the hackles of the majority.

The counter-factual, in this case, does not hold water. For, one cannot say that Barkatis of the world will deliver the basic and fundamental needs of the Muslim commoners – who are by far more deprived than the majority Hindus, for the latter's votes are more numerous than the former's. The moment religion becomes the subject of polls, politicians across the spectrum seek to ensure their sway. But as recent history has shown, the Muslims no longer wish to be treated like chattels. Instead, they vote the strongest candidate who can defeat the majority communalists.

So for politics in India, the influence of the Shankaracharyas or other myriad saints and their religious counterparts can neither deliver government resources to the people nor can they garner votes. What value do they have then in the temporal arena? Zilch.