Madampat on the need for a Muslim Political Party

I recall, after 9/11, that some people claimed that no Muslim was guilty of that atrocity. Far from having initiated violence, Muslims were always and everywhere innocent victims of calumny and persecution. Over the subsequent decades, though hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims have indeed suffered terribly as a result of NATO's retaliatory war on terror, the number of people who cling to a narrative of Muslim non-violence has appreciably diminished, if it has not disappeared altogether.

There is some pathology involved in Islamic politics such that a small, but powerful, minority takes it upon itself to attack innocent non-Muslims even if this is bound to lead to a catastrophe for a much larger numbers of Muslims.

Consider the Rohingya extremists who, according to Amnesty International, massacred Hindus- no problem, Hindus in Myanmar have no power- but also attacked Buddhists and soldiers of the ruling Junta. The consequence was quite horrible for the Rohingyas as anybody could have predicted. Yet, the thing happened. Some Liberals took a swing at Aung San Suu Kyi but they achieved nothing. Why? The entire world now thinks of the sufferings of Muslims as something they have probably brought upon themselves by foolishly committing atrocities against more powerful peoples.

In India, however, there are still some people who cling to the old script according to which Muslims never initiate violence.

Consider the following article Shahjahan Madampat has published in Outlook-

The communal violence that rocked Northeast Delhi two weeks ago, the massive human and material losses Muslims had to suffer and the indifference of all political parties to their plight make one conclusion inevitable: the only option left for Indian Muslims is to organise themselves politically.

It appears that some Muslims, under the leadership of a Councillor of the 'Common Man' party, initiated violence against the majority community. They suffered disproportionately subsequently. Would the Muslims have put up a better show if they had been organized politically by a Muslim Party? Madampat may be from Kerala where a Muslim Party exists. But Kerala is different from Delhi. Hindus are a bare majority there whereas they are an overwhelming majority in Delhi. Furthermore, Delhi has a tradition of ethnically cleansing Muslims. 20,000 Muslims were killed after Partition and countless more were forced to flee. It is extremely unlikely that a Muslim Political Party could change the outcome of a violent clash. What is more likely is that there would be a wholesale expulsion of Muslims. There is a good reason no 'Muslim League' survives anywhere save Kerala. If the thing appeared, it would be a disaster for the Muslim minority in the same way that Jinnah's Muslim League was a disaster for them.
On the other hand, if the Muslims had a political party which aimed at removing barriers of caste and creed between Muslims and which focused on improving life-chances for young Muslims regardless of gender, then, perhaps, the violent or criminalized element of the community would get marginalized. However, militant Islamists can get funding from abroad, so this is by no means a foregone conclusion.

All other choices they have so far exercised have been utterly futile.

In other words, no political party has helped the Muslims. Perhaps, as the Holy Quran says, God himself only helps a community when it begins to help itself.

A political formation led by members from within would have improved their chances of effective resistance against marauding mobs.

Sadly, this isn't the case. The majority- meeting 'effective resistance'- would have upped the ante and gone in for more systematic carnage. They would have been backed by the police and the Army. This is not a battle Indian Muslims can win- even if they are in the majority, as is the case in the Kashmir Valley.

This may not be obvious to a Muslim from Kerala. However, South Indian Muslims are bringing in money from the Gulf and are helping their fellow South Indian Christians and Hindus do the same thing. By contrast, the Muslims of the Doab are in a weak economic position.

That Delhi did not have a single recognisable leader from the Muslim community to speak and act on its behalf in this crucial hour is proof that the usual practice of dependence on, and exploitation by, the so-called secular parties is no longer tenable.

Sadly, Delhi's Muslims did have 'recognisable leaders'. They instigated violence which was bound to end with Muslims being disproportionately affected.

Four Reasons
There are four reasons why Indian Muslims should seriously think about bringing a major chunk of the community under a single political umbrella.

There is only one reason. A Muslim political party could get the various different Muslim groupings to work together to improve their lives and life-chances. However, one which concentrates on creating a para-military force will be rapidly destroyed.

First, the subjectivity of an Indian Muslim at the current juncture is very different from that of even her ardent non-Muslim secular supporter. Tweets by Yogendra Yadav and Nidhi Razdan during the violence are illustrative of this difference in subjectivities. Both worried about the reputational damage to India during the visit of the US President.

It appears that some Muslims were paid to create mayhem during Trump's visit. One or two may have made money out of it but the community as a whole paid a high price. As for Trump, he couldn't have cared less. The West now approves of countries which get tough with their Muslims. Failure to do so may lead to the export of Islamic terrorism. The last thing NATO wants is to be drone striking Muslims in India the way they have to drone strike Muslims in Pakistan and Yemen and so forth.

Although their commitment to Indian pluralism is beyond reproach, their social location allowed them the luxury of worrying about the country’s image, while a Muslim citizen could have only prayed for survival.

Really? Only Muslims in North East Delhi were affected and they were only affected because some of their number had attacked police-men and their non-Muslim neighbors.

For the Muslim, the pogrom threatened to kill her and her family and destroy her property.

Only if Muslims in her neighborhood had already killed non Muslims and destroyed their property.

The CAA/NRC/NPR posed a direct threat to her citizenship.

No it didn't. If non Muslims fleeing Islamic persecution gain citizenship- as has always happened- then no Muslim's citizenship is threatened.

She cannot open her door and tell the murderous mob with equanimity: “Friends, the President of America is here. The image of the country will suffer if you kill us and torch my house. Please come back a couple of days later”.

Nor could non Muslims who had been targeted first by Muslim mobs.

Second, dependence of Indian Muslims on ‘secular’ parties benefited the latter immensely throughout the period after Independence, but did little to protect the former during communal riots or to improve their material condition.

The weaker party gets bashed if it is foolish enough to start a fight. Politics can't change that brute fact. Kerala's Muslims were smart enough to go abroad and earn well. That is why their material condition improved. The Muslims who moved to North East Delhi hoped for a better life. However, some of their number ran amok provoking an asymmetric retaliation. But, if Malyallee Muslims in the Gulf ran amok, they would be shot out of hand. All Malyallees would be deported regardless of Religion. They would have killed the golden goose with a vengeance.

The lesson here is one all who run can read. Don't run amok if the result is that your people will get slaughtered and have to run away. Work hard. Make money. Don't knife policemen or commit arson.

No top leader from any ‘secular’ party had the courage to descend on the scene during the violence and offer their support to victims, primarily because they feared the loss of Hindu votes.

I fear this understates the case. 'Top leaders' don't give a damn about violence prone Muslims of very low socioeconomic status 'being taught a lesson' . Had a Dawoodi Bohra neighborhood been attacked, Modi and Amit Shah would have turned up in short order.

They believed, perhaps correctly, that a substantial segment of Hindus has bought into the Sangh Parivar propaganda about Hindu victimhood.

The trouble is non-Muslims no longer believe Muslim protestations of innocence. As for 'victimhood', what is the point in that? All over the world we see Muslims being punished in a draconian manner anytime they act up. Why be a victim when you can slaughter the terrorists quite cheaply with no repercussions whatsoever? Saudi Arabia and U.A.E are great friends with those who are tough on their terrorists. The world has changed but perhaps this 'Shahjahan' hasn't got the memo.

Had there been a strong political leadership within the Muslim community in Delhi, they would not have had the luxury of shirking their responsibility. Apart from the possibility of such a Muslim leadership standing by their people, they would also have been able to curb fanatical elements within the community that went berserk, attacking innocent Hindus in neighbouring areas.

This is the reason there is no 'strong political leadership within the Muslim community'. The fanatics would kill off any 'Liberals' who deny that 'Islam is in danger' or that the C.A.A isn't about stripping Muslims of Citizenship or that it wasn't Muslim 'fanatics who went berserk' who started the trouble.

Third, our political history has demonstrated that marginalised communities tasted political empowerment and a modicum of self-confidence only when they organised themselves politically--BSP, SP, RJD, IUML are some examples.

We are speaking of coalition politics here. The question is why hasn't there been a UP or Bihar Muslim League on the Kerala IUML model? Is it because politics in those states was thoroughly criminalized a long time ago?

Fourthly, a right-thinking social and political leadership for Muslims now is the best bet against possible radicalisation and foolhardiness.

The problem with 'right-thinking' Muslim leaders- like Arif Mohammad Khan- is that they may end up with the BJP because their own Community might have its own ideological 'wedge issues' or irrational shibboleths- e.g triple talaq. This relates to the wider question as to why the Islamic World shows no real equivalent to the Christian Democratic or Christian Socialistic Parties of Europe.  Where is the Islamic equivalent of Merkel? Ten years ago, we might have said- Erdogan is such a man. But who would say that now?

The political situation now is so completely pitted against the community that extremist elements wanting to fish in troubled waters will find their task much easier.

Not if they keep getting arrested and tortured and hanged. Fishing in waters filled with very stupid fish is something Intelligence Agencies are good at. What follows is Gaza type ghettoization with limited internet access and everybody's mobile being tapped.

Our pride in the fact that only a few hundred Indian Muslims out of 200 million ever joined the ranks of global Jehadi outfits may soon become passé.

Sadly, this is a reflection of the low opinion Arabs have of Indian Muslims. In the Caliphate, they were assigned menial jobs.

Indian Muslims never fell for jehadi adventurism precisely because the sense of equal citizenship the Constitution granted them made them feel at home in spite of it being far from equal in reality.

So, this guy feels pride that few Indian Muslims joined the jihadis because...they were so stupid as not to be able to recognize reality.

Now they feel a sense of betrayal by allies on one hand and a sense of psychological disenfranchisement and imminent denial of citizenship, even physical annihilation by enemies, on the other.

This may be true. But if it is true, then the Opposition parties have much to answer for. They have lied to a poor, ignorant- and very very stupid, by Madampat's account- section of the population.

Muslims have lost faith in all institutions in the country­—government, police, judiciary, media, civil society and political parties.

So what? No great harm is done in being sceptical of the institutions of what is still a very poor country. What Muslims need is to have faith in their own good character, piety, family values, hard work and enterprise. Without this type of collective faith, no community can come forward even if it is relocated to Sweden- or rather, more particularly if it is relocated to Sweden. Dependence is not a good thing. It is not what Islam- or any other Religion- teaches.

They know that hate against them is spreading like wildfire among Hindus.

Sadly, it isn't just Hindus. Hatred of Muslims is now more common than not among non-Muslims the world over.

They also know that among the disseminators of hatred are people who hold the highest positions in the land, who meticulously work on new laws and policies aimed at consigning Muslims to an infernal existence in their own country.

Muslims may be hated but nobody wants to spend money on doing anything other than kill them if they attack. Why waste resources on constructing a Hell for Muslims to inhabit? How does this boost one's standard of living? Where is the profit in it?

Madampat has succumbed to Manichaean thinking. Why not take the next step and start foaming at the mouth and gabbling about the Jews and the Free Masons and the diabolical Christian plot to deny that Muhammad was the final Prophet?

This kind of an abject situation is fertile for radicalism and extremist tendencies to take root.

So what? Killing radicals and extremists is cheaper than enforcing laws which would criminalize the sort of black propaganda Madampat is spewing here.

Unless a political and social leadership—with a strong moral fibre and committed to the values and ideals of the Constitution—emerges within the community, the existing leadership vacuum will be filled by impetuous zealots and cynical rabble-rousers.

While cretins like Madampat publish this type of tripe.

Contours of a New Muslim Politics
This new Muslim politics should be Gandhian in its inclusivity, in its acc­eptance of diversity within and outside the community, in its commitment to Hindu-Muslim unity, in its adherence to non-violence.

In other words, the 'new Muslim politics' mustn't be Islamic at all. All Jihad must be 'inner' directed and should aim at things like absolute veganism and chanting the Gita and the Torah and the Bible along with the Quran.

It should not only be open to, but must proactively include within its ranks and leadership its overwhelming diversity—various sects, devout, atheist, irr­eligious, Sunni, Shia, gay, lesbian, transgender, freethinkers. In other words, anyone who is likely to be targeted as Muslim by Hindutva forces should have equal space in it.

Why hasn't this already happened? The answer is simple. 'Hindutva forces' retaliate against but don't otherwise target any type of law abiding Muslim. That is why this defensive alliance does not exist. On the other hand, the State has targeted Muslims in the past. Indeed, had India lost the '65 War, it is likely that a lot of Muslims would have been forced to flee despite being wholly innocent. Hopefully, India is now too strong for this danger to recur.

Second, women should take the lead in the formation and running of the political formation.

Like Shaheen Bagh? But that was an own goal. The BJP increased its seat count. Congress and the Left lost their deposits. Women doing stupid shite are still merely stupid shitheads.

History shows us that menfolk, imbued with macho patriarchy, have always subordinated greater common good to selfish motives. Shaheen Bagh has shown us spectacularly how a women-led movement can be qualitatively different, not prone to violence and remarkably stubborn.

But the thing failed! To quote Ghalib 'Ik tamasha hua, gila na hua'- there was a spectacle, but the complaint was not registered. Look what happened to the Greenham Common Women. They went on protesting nuclear weapons 9 years after they were all removed! The thing had about as much political importance as a sewing circle. Men may subordinate the common good to the desire to assert their masculinity but women too are quite content to make a nuisance of themselves for purely histrionic reasons.

Third, the new formation should eschew religious symbols and slogans, and instead choose symbols and icons of Indian nationhood.

But, if they are committing a public nuisance, sooner or later people will turn against them. The thing is childish play-acting.

Shaheen Bagh proved the efficacy of that approach not just as a tactic, but also as an inspiring model of citizenship assertion.

No it didn't. It showed Muslim women were stupid and ignorant and easily fooled.

The impassioned resort to the symbols and icons of India’s pluralist history and the reading of the preamble to the Constitution there and elsewhere created a new idiom of secular, yet not deracinated resistance.

Which failed.

Fourth, it should not be a monolith, but a loose umbrella of regional or state-based outfits. Because the political situation in the states differs from each other, a monolith will be counterproductive. It can also lead to a particular region or state developing hegemony over others. The only common ingredient at the national level should be a set of ethical principles and the dream of restoring India to its saner self.

It is dream of every lunatic to restore the sanity of everybody who treats him as a demented retard.

Fifth, it should keep out of electoral participation for at least a period of 10 years, focusing instead on organisational work, political education, social welfare and interfaith communication.

But if it keeps telling stupid lies like- C.A.A strips Muslims of citizenship- then over the course of a decade, even grannies and hysterical little girls will understand that the thing is demented.

Jumping into the fray will make it susceptible to all that is wrong in Indian politics. The suggestion is not to boycott polls, but to avoid them until such time that the community feels is ripe to form reliable electoral alliances.

Meanwhile, the BJP's Minorities cell will make steady inroads into the Muslim vote.

Sixth, it should build bridges with civil society groups to fight communal forces, environmental destruction and the denial of civil liberties and human rights.

Sadly, telling stupid lies does not 'build bridges'. It creates a pluralistic community of stupid liars who have no political influence whatsoever. This is a rainbow coalition of motley fools.

The difference between most such civil society groups and so-called secular parties is that the former is less likely to betray their ideals for temporary gains than the latter, which are prone to compromises and deception.

The problem with civil society groups is that they get taken over by unbalanced zealots with histrionic personality disorders. They can be effective in the short run, but medium to long term they damage their own cause by the shrillness of their rhetoric and their reckless disregard for the truth.

One example of this is that a majority of ‘secular’ parties have formed alliances with the BJP at one point or the other.

Would these 'secular' parties ally with a Muslim party? Sure! That's how secular they are!

Seventh, it should not do or say anything that will provoke more Hindus into the Sanghi fold. They should always maintain in their words and deeds the distinction between Hindutva and Sangh Parivar on the one hand and the larger Hindu society on the other.

What does this mean in practice? Surely, it is things like accepting the Supreme Court verdict upholding the contstitutionality of CAA and so forth. The fact is, non-Muslims feel people fleeing Islamic persecution should be given citizenship whereas Muslim economic migrants shouldn't.

The problem here is that the Sangh Parivar voices issues of concern to all Hindus. It would be foolish to endorse all their suggestions while vilifying them.

Eighth, the new political formation should keep away the temptation to indulge in identity assertion and focus on citizenship assertion.

So, shave your beard, take off your burqa, before taking to the streets.

Harsh Mander recently said: “The Muslim brothers and sisters and children who are present here are Indian by choice. The rest of us are Indians by chance. We had no choice. We had only this country. But you (Muslims) had a choice and your ancestors chose to live in this country. Today, those who are in the government are trying to prove that Jinnah was right and Mahatma Gandhi was wrong.”  

Why is this fool quoting Mander? Does he really think Indian Muslims chose to live in a secular Republic where cow protection is a directive principle of the Constitution? Are Indian Muslims less devout than Pakistani Muslims? They prefer not to live in an Islamic Republic as a matter of personal choice. They like being in a country where polytheists predominate. They swoon with delight when the Israeli Head of State receives a rapturous reception in India.

The fact is, the vast majority of Indian citizens had no choice regarding where they were born. Some non-Muslims had no choice but to flee to India and they do get citizenship. But is was a matter of chance that they didn't get butchered first.

It is the moral and historical duty of the Indian Muslims to prove Jinnah and Savarkar wrong, for that is the best tribute they can pay to their forefathers who chose to stay on in India.

Sadly, from what I have been able to glean over my long life, it seems the moral and historical duty of Indians & Pakistanis is to prove Jinnah and Gandhi wrong by emigrating to the UK or the US or Australia or Canada and thus giving their kids a better, more secure, life under the Rule of Law. In England, a Muslim or a Hindu can become Home Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer purely on the basis of merit and without having to condone any type of corruption or pledge loyalty to some incompetent dynast. The day may come when this will be equally true of India- but that day is distant.

Why can't India have a Left wing Party and a Right wing Party like other Democracies? Why should Religion and Caste still matter? The answer, I am sorry to say, is that India does not have an indigenous Economic theory. Thus 'Left' and 'Right' relate to a foreign terrain and can serve no orienting purpose, not utterly mischievous, on the Indian political landscape.