TeaThe discussion on the mindset of ‘Muslim supremacy’ in India is not new. If we examine the past carefully, we will find that the two-nation theory is nothing but a Muslim supremacist idea coined by the elite Muslims – the Ashrafs, the dominant Muslim class/caste – to protect their vested interests.
According to the two-nation theory, Muslims and Hindus cannot live together, but the reality is that it was the Muslim elite who did not want to be ruled by non-Muslims or share power with them in a secular democratic system Were, that’s why it was built. Pakistan.
The age-old debate again took center stage in the country’s political discourse when Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat gave an interview to RSS mouthpieces. Organizer And fifth generation On 11 January. He said, “The simple truth is this – Hindustan must remain Hindustan. There is no harm to the Muslims living in India today. If they want to stick to their faith, they can. If they believe in the faith of their forefathers, If they want to return, they can do so. It is entirely their choice. Hindus do not have such dogma. Islam has nothing to fear. But at the same time, supremacy to Muslims, their lofty statement of ‘Muslim supremacy’ should leave.
Worrying thing is that no thinker wants to discuss such statement/sentiment with seriousness and honesty but only with an agenda. In this ongoing ideological battle, there is a side that will read between the lines and create a narrative of hostility towards all Indian Muslims. And then a section from the other side will do the exact same thing.
Read also: BBC Modi documentary row India’s new image exposes the highly risky nature of wars
status quo remains
My problem is that these highly polarized narrative wars will never allow for an honest intellectual discussion around such sensitive matters, discussions that will actually help everyone, including Indian Muslims.
But before going into any discussion let us examine Bhagwat’s statement – what message is he trying to convey here? There can be many interpretations, what does the ‘but’ coming after the statement ‘Islam has nothing to fear’ mean? Does this mean that conditions apply for Muslims to be safe in India? Or is it a simple positive statement with a message to take in?
Looking at the statement from a political point of view, it has two meanings, either Bhagwat is talking about the hegemonic mentality or the religious aspect of Islam.
When we look at the Muslim dominated mindset of the dominant class, we must acknowledge that influential positions in both intellectual and political spheres were assigned to Ashrafs only before partition. To be honest, the status quo has remained even after partition. All in the name of Muslim rights or Muslim representation.
Almost 80 percent of Indian Muslims (Pasamanda, oppressed Muslim class/caste) have nothing to do with this ruler/supremacy mentality, they were never rulers, they never exercised any authority to influence any policies did not share the power or status of Even most of the religious leadership comes from the Ashraf community, which has ensured to keep the Pasmanda Muslims in the same, backward, status even after independence.
Having said that, to say that Ashraf Muslims today endorse such a mindset would be an insult. But even today there are people who still live in the glory of the past and from time to time make statements reflecting this ideology. The irony is that they do not shy away from taking pride in an ‘invader’ ruling India, but in the same breath complain about ‘majoritarianism’.
Read also: Why should Muslims consider the rainbow being created by the BJP. Identity matters in a democracy
the story of being a victim should be abandoned
Religious supremacy, whether Hindu or Muslim, only deepens the already existing fault lines. The only difference is that we discuss the latter in detail and speak out against it within the majority. We do not want to accept that such an idea exists even in the Muslim society and to condemn it from within is a far cry.
This is not only harmful for the country but also for the Muslim society, poisoning the youth of the community. The dominant classes adhere to the idea that they once ruled India, and ultimately see themselves as victims of a system that has forced them to see themselves as part of a nation and equal to every other citizen. instead stripped them of their status as rulers. Such a dose of manufactured and misogynistic victimization only drives most of us, Pasmanda Muslims, into ghettos, fills us with suspicion towards the majority and inhibits our mainstreaming.
President of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and MP Asaduddin Owaisi feedback To interview Bhagwat – Who is Mohan Bhagwat who allows Muslims to live in India? – Precisely points out the problem. That instead of wishing to initiate a dialogue between the two communities, the Muslim elite are more focused on creating a narrative of victimhood by spreading the message that they are all under attack.
Muslim supremacy is not a whim raised by Mohan Bhagwat. But an ordinary Indian Muslim does not pose any threat to the country nor does he have the power or ability to shape policies. Especially because Muslims are a minority, accounting for only 15 percent of the country’s population.
So while it is important to discuss the supremacist attitude of certain elites within the Muslim community in order to find a long-term solution to bridge the gap between the two communities, the word ‘Muslim’ should not have been used in Bhagwat’s statement Because it implies that every member of the community is accountable.
The Muslim youth who are going to shape our future must be made aware of the existence of a supremacist mindset within the community and why they should shun this inflammatory rhetoric. Additionally, Owaisi’s confrontational attitude only harms communal harmony IndiaHe cannot act like a bully while pretending to be a victim.
Amana Begum Ansari is a columnist, writer, TV news panelist. She also runs a weekly YouTube show called ‘India This Week by Amaana & Khalid’. Thoughts are personal.
(Editing by Therese Sudip)