Author: Meghnad Desai
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: July 31, 2011
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/intolerance-of-difference/824838/0
There are parallels to what Anders Behring
Breivik (ABB) did in Norway. He was anti-Islamic and a Fascist. Fifty years
ago, his sort of right-wing fanatics used to denounce Jews and Marxists; now
they denounce Muslims and Marxists. Osama bin Laden (OBL) hated everyone who
was not a Sunni Muslim-Wahhabi style. Just as ABB wanted to create an all-White
European civilisation, OBL wished for a world which had surrendered to Wahhabism.
Such people are so dedicated to their own
narrow vision that they cannot tolerate even a small difference. The idea
of accommodating differences is fundamental to any modern liberal society
whatever its religious colouring. Yet, smaller intolerances are creeping in
all across Europe. France and Belgium have banned the burqa regardless of
the fact that there are few Muslim women who wear it and in any case, it should
be a personal choice. The argument is that somehow wearing a burqa denotes
a refusal to integrate with the host community. But the host community does
not possess uniformity; it celebrates diversity. Why keep Muslim women out?
Yes, the 'Muslim Question' is burning across
the Western world. When the issue was race or ethnicity, liberal society was
able to cope with it. Multiculturalism was the answer constructed in Western
societies to cope with the presence of Black and ethnic minorities. These
people were not unlike the majority in colour but in their culture even more
so. Hence, by respecting cultural differences, tolerance was extended to racial
differences as well. Of course, nothing is perfect even on that front but
the terrain of debate is well known.
It was when religion entered as an identifier
that European liberal societies began to have a problem. Paradoxically this
is because of and not despite the fact that Islam is an Abrahamic faith which
accepts the prophets of the Old and the New Testaments. Europe has had religious
battles for three hundred years and was just settling down having tamed religion
as a cultural rather than a political marker. Liberals may not be atheists
but they refuse to wear religion on their sleeves. In America, there are few
atheists but there is a separation of Church and State which is very strict.
It is because Muslims assert their identities through their religion that
Western liberals find it hard to be neutral.
Of course, the issue is confounded by Islamist
terrorism. There is an endless debate in European societies on separating
moderate Muslims from extremists. But why don't we have a debate about the
rest of the population as to extremism? ABB was after all a non-moderate Norwegian
Christian. Is it moderate for a whole society to ban the burqa for Muslim
women which is an oppressive act, while not putting any limit on any other
community's attire? Why do we need to label individuals by their religion
or race or ethnicity; why can't they all be citizens entitled to human rights?
Yet, the same rubric applies to Muslims in
India. The Darul Uloom has decided to sack Ghulam Muhammad Vastanvi from his
Vice Chancellorship of the University. The accusation is that he urged Muslims
of Gujarat to move on beyond the 2002 riots. But he has the right of free
speech and what he said was not a statement of fact but an opinion. No one
would dream of sacking a Sikh Vice-Chancellor for telling Sikhs not to dwell
on the 1984 riots in Delhi or for praising Rajiv Gandhi who was after all
Prime Minister when 3,000 Sikhs were slaughtered by Congress-led mobs. No
one has been censured for praising Sharad Pawar who as Chief Minister ignored
the massacre of Muslims in Mumbai in 1993. So why just be intolerant about
Narendra Modi? Is this a part and parcel of Indian secularism that communal,
i.e. non-Congress-led, riots are to be criticised while secular, i.e. Congress-led,
riots are kosher?
The tragedy is that in India as well, Muslims
know that whatever they do is watched over by their friends, the secularists.
If they decide to behave like free citizens rather than tame Muslims, they
will be in trouble. Darul Uloom was saving its own skin.
