Nafis Haider on the Anti-CAA protests

Nafis Haider, a student of Political Science at Aligarh Muslim University, writes in Scroll-

While attending a protest at Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh last week, I heard several speakers invoking the India of Mohandas Gandhi and Bhagat Singh to argue that the new Citizenship Amendment Act and the planned National Register of Citizens run contrary to the spirit of Indian Constitution. Some of these speakers – ordinary women, not high-profile personalities – ended their speeches with religious advice, telling audiences that the discrimination they faced was the consequence of Muslims deviating from Islamic monotheism and counselling them to hold on to their faith. In other parts of India, too, Muslims are proudly wearing their religious identities on their sleeves (and on their heads) at the protests.

These Muslims are protesting that non-Muslims who have fled Islamic persecution are to be granted Citizenship.

There is a long tradition, within Islam, of claiming that if Muslims are more perfect in their monotheism then they will inevitably be able to take control of the country in which they live in. However, where this has happened, non-Muslims have faced persecution and ethnic cleansing. Even in countries where their presence is very recent, there has been a backlash against Islam. In particular, acts of political violence by Muslims have been heavily punished wherever they are in a minority.

In India, Muslims have sometimes tried to assert themselves and gain dominance. However, this has been opposed by the majority community in many parts of India. The result has been asymmetric harm being meted out to Muslims.

This display of Muslimness at the protests has brought into focus the long-standing discussion about whether identity politics is compatible with secularism.

This 'long-standing discussion' was otiose. History has shown that Muslim identity politics leads to the declaration of Islamic Republics- and the rejection of Secularism- everywhere save under military regimes- e.g. Egypt- where Islamists are severely repressed and persecuted.  Tunisia and Indonesia, however, are exceptions to this rule.  Bangladesh, currently, seems to be firmly established on a secular economic growth path. But one can take nothing for granted. It seems that education and a robust 'civil society' can stand as bulwarks against Islamist extremism and this in turn can yield more rapid economic growth and improved Social Welfare outcomes.

Some liberals argue that such appeals to religious identity have undermined the ability to create broad-based coalitions against the Bharatiya Janata Party’s discriminatory citizenship initiatives, which could be used to harass Muslims – and perhaps even disenfranchise many of them.

How? Dis-enfranchising people is best done by killing them and chasing them away as the Islamic Caliphate has demonstrated. There is no need for any Law. Just using voting lists, or opening your eyes and looking, can establish who is or isn't a member of the targeted minority.

This liberal criticism is based on wrong premise.

The premise of the Liberals is that Muslims going crazy with anger because some non-Muslims have been allowed to escape Islamic persecution will cause non-Muslims to hate and fear them. The moment the Muslims resort to mob violence or terrorism they will be killed and their property will be looted. Their representation in the Administration and the Legislature and the liberal professions will decline. Religion may tell you that the victory of your sect is assured. But starting a holy war when you are much weaker will only result in your annihilation.

In this case the wrong premise of the Liberals  is that CAA discriminates against Muslim. The result of their lining up with jihadi lunatics is that they come to be reviled as stupid hypocrites. Their virtue signalling has put them in bed with utterly illiberal fanatics.

It is an undeniable fact that the vast number of people assaulted and detained as the state has cracked down on opponents of the initiatives have been Muslim – be it on students at Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University or the police brutality in Uttar Pradesh, where they vandalised homes and property of community members.

It is also an undeniable fact that Muslims have instigated violence and then been very badly beaten. This trend will continue. One can't blame uneducated people for being fooled by 'intellectuals' who tell them that will be deported or will lose entitlements unless they act now. Still, it should be obvious to them that if they resort to violence, they will be slaughtered immediately. True, some non Muslim 'liberals' are instigating them, but will these liberals convert to Islam? Will they give their lives in Jihad? No. This is mere moral grandstanding of a wholly hypocritical sort.

Since the suppression has been based on Muslim identity, it is entirely natural for the protests to be conducted on the same grounds.

Just as criminals are persecuted because of their identity as criminals so too are Muslims who resort to violence for Religious reasons suppressed because of their Religious identity. The problem is that, sooner or later, there will be a spill-over such that wholly law-abiding Muslims too are targeted.

Critics have failed to understand why Muslims are talking shelter in Identity politics.

This is not true. Everybody thinks that Muslims take shelter in Identity politics because, as a Community, they are poor and uneducated. But this is also true of those Pakistani or Somali origin Muslims in the U.K. who have hearkened to the call of Jihad.

Not since Independence have there been such enormous demonstrations by Muslims, unabashedly displaying community symbols.

Nonsense! The anti Mandir demonstrations were much bigger.

So why now? The reason is simple: the Modi government has compromised every institution in which the Indian Muslims have placed their faith.

But, if that were the case, why wait for the CAA bill? Also, which 'institution' did Muslims put their faith in? The Courts? Are you crazy? No Indian puts their faith in the Judiciary. What about the Police? Who in their right mind trusts the Indian Police? If you get raped don't go to the thana. They will rape you some more.  What about the Universities? Do they turn out employable graduates? Don't be silly. They are utterly useless.

Muslims have grown disillusioned with the increasing violence they face. The lynchings under the guise that Muslims have slaughtered cows, the accusations that they are waging “love jihads” to woo Hindu women and covert them to Islam and conducting “land jihads” to dispossess Hindus of their homes, and now the Citizenship Amendment Act-National Register of Citizens make the blatant Islamophobic nature of Modi government very apparent.

But Muslims were killed for these reasons before the BJP came to power and will be killed for these reasons long after Modi is dead.

Even political parties such as the Congress that once relied on Muslim votes are showing the tint of Hindutva.

Congress under Jawaharlal ethnically cleansed millions of Muslims and reduced those who remained to second class status. Indira and Rajiv were turning the screws on the Muslims. Sonia's reign was pro-minority in terms of words, not deeds. Now even those words have disappeared.

The double standards of India liberals are evident from the fact that some of them promote Hinduism, even as they claim to merely be espousing longstanding cultural practices.

But Nafis Haider is showing the same double standard. She is not denouncing her own Religion or 'longstanding cultural practices'. Since she is herself illiberal, according to her own standard, her animosity against liberals is understandable.

When minorities do the same thing, though, their representations of identity are categorised as communal.

The Parsis are a tiny minority. The Jains are not numerous. Nor are the Bohras. But they are economically and professionally successful. This means they are politically over-represented. There is nothing wrong with being 'communal'- if that means looking after your own poorer or more vulnerable people. What people object to is being attacked by crazy mobs inflamed by lying scumbags.

This controversy is an echo of the debate between Gandhi and BR Ambedkar over the Poona Pact in 1932, on the reservation of seats for the “depressed classes” in colonial-era provincial legislative assemblies. If Ambedkar had allowed the Dalit movement to be subsumed by the national Independence movement, the community would not have such a strong presence in Indian politics today. That is why it is important for Muslims to assert their identity.

Ambedkar failed. Congress got to nominate its own 'Harijans' to fill the Reserved Seats. Jinnah was offered the same deal- i.e. reserved seats filled by what he considered to be Congress 'show-boys'. He refused and created an Islamic state which persecuted non Muslims. But India would have done the same if Muslims had ever posed a threat.

Muslims do assert their identity just as Hindus and Sikhs and Christians do. However, if they are not economically successful, then that identity becomes a stigma. It is associated with lower earning and worse life-chances. Consider Muslims like the current British Chancellor of the Exchequer or the current Mayor of London. Are they 'asserting their identity'? No. They are clean shaven and wear business suits.  Why do they not have thick beards? Why won't they wear Islamic dress? The answer, is that such things are not associated with success and doing smart stuff.  On the other hand, in hiring a Tandoori chef or kasai for a Halal shop, preference may be given to those with long beards who are sporting Islamic dress. Indeed, I would prefer a cab-driver or truck-driver with this quality. He is unlikely to be a drunkard. The problem is, these jobs are not well paid.

Compare the contrasting fortunes of two Ashkenazi men, both named Cantor or Cohen. Both are orthodox jews with beards and ringlets. But one is Ultra-Orthodox and speaks Yiddish, not English. He is unemployable save as a kosher butcher or bagel maker. The other guy is going to make you a lot of money before he splits off from you to create his own hedge fund or Accountancy firm or whatever.

I think a lot of people would hire Nafis Haider. She is likely to be conservative in her behavior. Her English is good. I suspect she comes from an Ashraf family and is related to top barristers and Doctors and so forth. Identifying as a Muslim is a way of signalling good character and employability but only because she is already from the traditional elite. At any rate, that is the impression she gives. In the end, that is all that matters. Paideia is a matter of 'faking it till you make it'.

But this does not help the vast majority of Indian Muslims.

As commentator Asim Ali has noted, despite the protests, Modi retains the support of the silent majority.

Why? Because political Islam remains a threat on the Indian sub-continent. In any case, Casteism is India's debilitating disease. Consolidating the Hindu vote across Caste lines promotes good Governance because Parties have to compete on 'last mile delivery'. This benefits poor Muslims as well. Hence CAA is a last ditch attempt to convince them to vote en bloc.

In this situation, the slogans and symbols deployed by Muslims in these protests do not matter as much was whether members of other communities can find any affinities with a group that is protesting their explicit segregation through legislation.

The problem is that the legislation does not affect Indian Muslims at all. It may effect non Indian Muslims- but they had no entitlements anyway.

So far, that does not seem to be the case. It would seem that most people on the streets are those who are already sceptical of Modi. The need of the hour is to broaden the coalition involved in the protests by including farmers in distress, workers hurt by the economic slowdown and others who have been battered by the Bharatiya Janata Party’s poorly conceptualised policies.

This is the crux of the problem. The moment you include an imaginary grievance with real ones, only the real ones will get redressed. Thus those who make all the sacrifices because of the imaginary grievance discover that they helped other people, not themselves.

This is what happened to the Khilafat movement. Muslims made the sacrifice but got nothing. How are city dwellers employed in the informal sector benefited if farmers get a bigger pay-out while formal sector workers are feather bedded even more? JNU and Jamia Milia and so on may be able to gain lower hostel fees and other benefits, but what will the illiterate Muslims in the slums gain by running riot at the command of 'student leaders' or 'public intellectuals'? No doubt some Mullahs and Muslim dynastic politicians and gangsters will gain from the troubles. But they are parasites on the Muslim community.

Besides, to suggest that the protests against the citizenship initiatives would be tainted unless Muslims keep their religion inside their homes is in itself discriminatory.

If this protest was about a genuine grievance then Muslims should emphasize their religious identity. The problem is that they are protesting that non-Muslim refugees are gaining safety. This is a mean-spirited, dog-in-the-manger, attitude. It is precisely calculated to make non-Muslim loathe Muslims. Consider the fate of the Kashmiri Muslim. Indian Muslims were prepared to sympathize with them. However, they would keep insisting that they would not accept 'Indian' Muslims- even if they had Kashmiri ancestors. They wanted everything for themselves and refused to give anything- even if it was purely symbolic- to anyone else.

The claim by some Indian liberals that our fight against the citizenship initiatives must be based on a single identity as Indians is a little confused.

It is not confused, it is false and hypocritical.

How can we safeguard a Constitution that speaks for religious freedom while discarding our own religious freedom?

Sadly some Muslims believe 'religious freedom' means freedom to kill kaffirs.  Even in Saudi Arabia, they are incarcerated.

Indian secularism is different from the western version of the ideal.

There is no single 'Western ideal' of secularism. A Frenchman would say England is not secular because it has an Established Church. An Englishman may reply that there is no such thing as an 'Anglican vote' similar to the notion of a 'Catholic vote'.

As Nehru stated, for him secularism meant protecting every religion.

Nehru failed in protecting non Muslims in Pakistan. That is why there has had to be a CAA bill. It turned out Nehru couldn't protect Assam from Chinese aggression. In a radio-broadcast, he told them they were on their own. For their part the Assamese don't want Bengali immigrants. It was the Nellie Massacre in 1983 which forced the Government to promise a Nationality Register and the deportation of illegal immigrants. Once the Supreme Court decided to take over this job, the fuse was lit for the present agitation in the North East. Muslim protests elsewhere are over an imaginary grievance.

Asking a minority community to hide its identity and repose their hopes only on the Constitution is paradoxical.

This is a Muslim protest against Muslims from Islamic Republics not being treated as Refugees fleeing Islamic oppression. On the other hand, it is foolish to get Muslims to protest something as unconstitutional when senior Lawyers believe the thing is perfectly constitutional.

Is it not a fact that one specific community in India has been targetted by the citizenship policies?

No. It is not a fact. What is a fact is that only Muslims who have set up States on the basis of Religion and then ethnically cleansed non Muslims. Every country in the world deports illegal migrants unless they have a 'well founded fear of persecution' in their home country.

India is a land of multiculturalism and those who argue for freedoms to be limited themselves betray the idea of Indian secularism.

Islam argues that certain freedoms- e.g. that to pursue a homosexual life-style- should be limited. Thus, by the author's own argument, 'it betrays the idea of Indian secularism'. But that is scarcely news.

Muslims are not the perpetrators but the victim of identity politics practiced by the Sangh Parivar and Modi government in particular.

Says a Muslim who opposes Modi. Why should we believe her? Muslims seem to be able to victimize non Muslims where they are the majority. Preventing them turning into a majority is a valuable service to non Muslims.

By using religious symbolism, Muslims are reclaiming their space and the freedoms guaranteed to all Indians under the Constitution.

But they were using religious symbolism long before there was a Constitution. They aren't reclaiming anything save an increased chance of getting ethnically cleansed.

They are demanding that other communities should also adhere to Gandhi’s idea of India where Gita, Quran and Bible were recited on the same platform.

Really? Are the Muslims chanting Gita in their mosques? Who knew?

It is time for other communities to show their solidarity with Muslims and reassure the community that we need not feel alienated in our own homeland.

Why? Muslims are saying 'we object to non Muslim refugees from Islamic terror finding safe haven in India. We want them to be returned to where they will either be forcibly converted or killed. Meanwhile we want you to chant Quran while we will steadfastly refuse to chant Gita. Why can't you people stop being the majority? Why are you refusing to be ruled by us? We are feeling alienated in our own homeland. We may perform Hijrat- as we did in 1919- if you refuse to listen to reason.'

Other communities should heed Muslim demands if they are based on genuine grievances. Suppose they are protesting lack of educational opportunities. Then we must find a way to address this. The whole nation benefits if a poorer segment of it can rise up. On the other hand, if illiterate people believe the lies of hypocritical virtue signalers, then other communities should point out that their grievances are imaginary.