Author: Sudeep Mukhia
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: July 18, 2002
URL: http://www.indian-express.com/archive_full_story.php?content_id=6166
Introduction: He may be secularism's
shining new symbol but don't read too much into that
Mohammad Kaif leading India to a
famous victory at Lord's saw articles in newspapers speaking of hope for
India's secular tradition ('Batting for the future', IE, July 16).
In fact, Kaif's adulation shows
how isolated Muslims are from the mainstream. The idolisation of Kaif as
secularism's new symbol took me back to school, where we - big, boisterous,
all members of sports teams - used to mock and intimidate the 'weaker'
chaps.
The only way anyone from the other
side could become part of the group was by doing something extraordinary.
Smoke on the sly, steal beer from their fathers' freezers, maybe even take
us home and show us 'sexy' films on the drawing room video.
But it had to be something spectacular
if the big boys were to be convinced that the others were good enough to
be part of the gang. Last Saturday, Kaif became 'part of the gang' with
his great batting.
A Muslim, a day after Gujarat saw
a commando-escorted rath yatra remain incident free after months of communal
violence, got India a trophy to take home after several finals. He is good
enough now to be one of Us. Just like A.P.J. Abdul Kalam was welcomed into
the gang. He conformed to the big boys' idea of coolness.
Not only is he considered the father
of the nation's ultimate symbol of patriotism - nuclear capable missiles
- he also reads the Gita and plays the veena. He's the ideal Muslim: a
Hindu-Muslim.
Yet both Kaif and Kalam, despite
deserving this adulation, reflect the isolation of the Muslim community.
For a Muslim to be accepted in the mainstream, he or she has to conform
by proving their worth in a manner prescribed by the big boys.
Only flag-holding achievers of spectacular,
public achievements conform. The achievements themselves have to conform.
Would Kalam have been a happy choice for president if he had had fathered
a vaccine to fight a disease like kala azar? Probably not. Because curing
kala azar is just not cool enough on the patriotism scale.
So the option for the Muslim community
is simple: acceptance will come only after conformity, not just to the
agenda, but also to the manner such conformity is achieved. Even that doesn't
ensure much.
It's no wonder then that mobs reached
the doorstep of M.F. Husain, arguably the best-known painter in this country
during the Bombay riots. Or, more recently, the attack on social activist
Professor Bandukwala of Vadodara in Gujarat, who had to be saved by his
Hindu neighbours. These are not ordinary Muslims. But painting and social
activism do not measure very high on the patriotism scale.
So what chance do anonymous, ordinary
Muslims, hounded by stereotypes and history, have to escape their isolation?
Where do they get the chance to perform the spectacular feat that would
win them acceptance? Of course, Muslims need to look within for causes
of their isolation.
Here again, the ordinary Muslim
is hostage: by fundamentalists and liberals, not always Muslims themselves.
The position of the fundamentalists is obvious: any change will break their
hold over the community. With the liberals, it is more complex.
They seem unwilling to engage the
fundamentalists of both sides directly. This leaves the fundamentalists
free to raise all the questions and come up with the answers as well.
In the end, ordinary Muslims - those
who are mocked and intimidated -remain stuck within their stereotyped paradigms.
For them, the symbolism of Kaif
and Kalam will remain mere symbolism, which at best provides a short-lived
feel-good glow that one among them has moved into the big league.
