[Reader-list] FW: Seize the moment

[Taha Mehmood]

Dear Sandeep

Could you please elaborate particularly on the use of two words 'Islam' 
and 'Hinduism' because 'generally speaking' 'broadly understood' these 
categories hide a lot more complexity than they reveal. I find them 
highly complex, multi-layered and intertwined. Islam in India, for 
instance, as I have argued on earlier occasions on this list, could be a 
variant of either Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki or Hanbali school of thought, 
and may comprise of Mappilas, Knokani, Marathi, Patel, Memon, Dawoodi, 
khoja, Ismali communities. The Muslims who who first came to India from 
central Asia used to follow a different kind of Islam, even within that 
Islam there were divisions. Therefore the point being, any open honest 
discussion around historical dimension of Hindu Muslim relations is  
bound to be  fraught  with  inconsistencies, because, the categories- 
Hindus and Muslims in fact do not exist, have never existed. There has 
never ever been a universal definition and a universal sense of sameness 
for the adherents of these religions.

And then one has to contend with a view that Hinduism is in fact not a 
religion but a way of life, as if those who claim to be Muslims, do not 
rely on certain codes of conduct determined for them by others. In a way 
one might also argue about some sort an imagination relating to an 
'Islamic' way of life. But surely there cannot be 'the Islamic way of 
life' as there cannot be 'the Hindu way of life'.

Any inquiry which seeks to established the true account of /kisne kya 
kiya /will have to first clearly and beyond any doubt establish who is 
this /kisne /and then move on from there. Hence it seems insofar as the 
collective identities of people of these religions is concerned we need 
to look closely at the history of formation of religious categories as 
distinct from one another. Whatever points you have raised seem genuine 
and worth discussing but it surprises me that  for someone who, not so 
long ago held a view that-

'Identity poltics can be good time pass or resersch project if the point 
is to expose their hollowness without mercy and tolerence of stupidities 
of these actors whether oppressed or wannabe oppressed. As far as i 
think both oppressed and oppressors when they play identity game they 
want to change Supreme opressors, and do nothing about social 
inequality, democratic rights etc. In other words every oppressed 
mniority wants a space where it can oppress others. '

(as posted by you on the reader-list on 2/1/2009 2:54 PM)

could so clearly articulate this new fad of 'apology politics'. I don't 
think, that in majority of Indian Muslims, there exists many people who 
have a historical memory of governing even a small chunk of this nation, 
more than most of the Muslims who were left behind after partition were 
either urban poor or rural landless peasants. Again within the Urban 
poor most of them were artisans and I would not be surprised, if one 
were to find that most them had converted to Islam five or may be six 
generations ago. The point being, don't you think, that for anyone to 
ask and expect an apology, from a 'Muslim'  whose family had been  
'Hindus' five or six generations back for forceful  or voluntary 
conversion to Islam is little off the mark.

Regards

Taha

PS: I saw Mohan Bhagwat's speech with fascination and no I do not think 
he seemed like a common leftist.  For no leftist, I think, irrespective 
of the fact whether he is common or uncommon will, quote an article from 
Reader's Digest ( God...oooppps Marx forbid) to justify a claim that his 
organization is gaining in popularity or acquiring validity in the 
public domain.