Anveshi - Research Centre for Women's Studies

This is the text of a conversation about blasphemy and bigotry that took place a while ago.  I am posting it for further discussion and intervention:

Forwarded conversation

Subject: I am confused -- is this picture blasphemy or bigotry?

------------------------

From: R Srivatsan

Date: Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:53 AM

To: "Moid M.A." , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , Susie Tharu , K Satyanarayana , "P. Madhavi" , Uma Bhrugubanda , Satish Poduval , Shamuel Tharu

Dear Friends,

I just joined a(nother!) ageing e-group of friends who live in the past (sigh!).  Dinner last night was extremely tasty, vegetarian (there was chicken kabab in the snacks served with the beer and whisky), some with garlic, some with hing and devoured by all with relish, relief (at being vegetarian) and a deep sense of community. 

One of my friends showed me a forward of Adam and Eve (Muslim Version) on his i-Phone, and I responded "What offensive stuff they put on the net now a days".  This friend protested that a Muslim friend had sent it to him.  There was a buzz of digestive conversation that went

"rhubarb--rhubarb-muslim-rhubarb-islam-rhubarb-bzz....." for about five minutes and then things went back to "what are you doing now?" etc...

He put the image up on the e-group.  

Seeing a bigger image, I must say I am confused --- is this blasphemy or bigotry?  Using Mamdani's speech categories!  One side of me says this is a really cute image -- both the man and woman look stylish, individualized, adorable!  The image is copyrighted by some one called Hamid Bahrami.  And yet I feel suspicious -- and perhaps a bit outdated!  Any responses?

link to Mamdani article

----------

From: R Srivatsan

Date: Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:48 AM

To: Madhava Prasad

Sorry -- I sent it to Madhavi by mistake!

How's life Madhav?

Srivats

----------

From: Satish Poduval

Date: Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:53 PM

To: R Srivatsan

Cc: "Moid M.A." , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , Susie Tharu , K Satyanarayana , "P. Madhavi" , Uma Bhrugubanda , Shamuel Tharu

Dear Srivats,

Thanks for sharing the image as well as the ambivalence it evokes in most of us.

Since you asked for responses, here's mine: twenty years ago, I suppose I would have chuckled at the wit and progressive wisdom of the cartoon--and the way it transposes one silly religion's conceit on to another; today that pedestal from which one chuckled(benignly or not) seems silly at best too. I surely smiled at the cartoon, perhaps helped by the name of the artist. And realized instantly that the extent of the smile would depend on where the cartoon was published and what overall disposition it participated in--what readership it sought to convoke, why. Which is why I liked the way you put it into circulation, with a pensive twinkle and lots of pre-cooking...

My own sense is that this cartoon isn't really "blasphemous" because I imagine it isn't saying anything against Islam's religious tenets; one keeps hearing all the time that the Quran mandates modest dressing for every follower, not a specific dress-code for women. The cartoon does seem to relay a certain irreligious (and anti-Muslim) bigotry, targetting a specific practice in force / enforced within some Islamic communities (my impression is that 8 out of 10 Muslim women in Kerala where Muslims are about 22 per cent of the population don't wear the burqa--and I think I'm saying this non-judgementally).  

Decades ago in literature departments we used to earn our stripes debunking the "intentional fallacy" (what the author-god really meant), the "affective fallacy" (judgement based on the emotional effect on the reader) and the "pathetic fallacy" (attributing "human" feelings/subjectivity where these weren't really relevant). Today, the discussion has shifted in the direction of Mamdani's point about the distinction between blacks/muslims laughing at themselves and others laughing at them. This distinction is quite important for it indicates how "public-ness" is experienced and traversed by dominated peoples. However, identity is a truism with a twist: identity does not simply inhere in a name/sex/faith/colour (some would say "signifier"), but in politicized identification that leads to specific public performances and consequences (re-making the "sign" itself).  Recall Rushdie's post-fatwa protestations that his satirical novel was offered as "internal criticism" to fellow Muslims--was it difficult to miss to which audience both the satire and the subsequent protestations were addressed? It brought to my mind, somewhat inappropriately, the well-known confrontational scene in the film Deewar, where Sashi Kapoor tells Amitabh Bachchan that "a brother would listen to a brother but a cop would listen to a criminal," and then reckons that Bachchan's statements are those of "a criminal in the guise of a brother."  

Hamid Bahrami's works available online suggest he is a very skilled illustrator (like Rushdie is with words) but he has lived and learned among the people he smiles at. I don't know more about him and how his work is received, so cannot say more.

Sorry if this response sounded too much like a lecture; hardly my "intention" ha, ha!

Best,

Satish

---------

From: Madhava Prasad

Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:01 AM

To: R Srivatsan

Mamdani's distinction is useful to understand the past but in the present, the thing seems to break down? The cartoonist is himself a Muslim we might say, but is he so in a way that blasphemy means something to him? Was Rushdie blasphemous or not? I remember Partha's fierce defence of Rushdie, where he asserts that it is definitely not blasphemy: cant remember what else he said.

M

-- 

M. Madhava Prasad

Department of Cultural Studies

The English and Foreign Languages University

Hyderabad 500 007- 605 India

Ph: 040-27689553/040-27689400

madhav@efluniversity.ac.in

---------

From: R Srivatsan

Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:37 AM

To: Madhava Prasad , Susie Tharu , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , "Moid M.A." , Shamuel Tharu , K Satyanarayana , Uma Bhrugubanda , madhumeetasinha

The Rushdie issue brings out something certainly.  Pushing a bit both what Madhav and Satish are saying, I get to feel that Mamdani's binary of blasphemy and bigotry depend on a clean binary of inside and outside a religion (Christianity).  Only an insider may be blasphemous, and bigotry always targets something outside the self.  

But perhaps not the inside and outside of a religion as such: was Khomeini not seen to be a bigot (in a public usage of the term -- this is not my value judgment)?  A "religious bigot" is modelled as one who only supports a particularly owned version of religion, and chastizes, issues fatwas against and what have you, whatever doesn't conform to that version.

On the other hand, blasphemy may well "descend" (or "ascend"?  I am not sure) into bigotry over centuries --  for instance (and speaking to your argument somewhat, Madhav), Luther's speech was blasphemous  according to the Roman Catholic Church!  But  today American protestantism may in some instances perhaps be, in my own guess, a little more bigoted than Catholicism.

Liberalism is another historical factor here, rather than Christianity to which Islam is impervious being of the same mold, and explicitly also because Islam takes account of Christianity's historical 'past imperfectness'.  Liberalism as a secular derivative of Christianity -- perhaps, but I am also not sure that this is so, since Liberalism is often tolerant of more than a little pagan excess.  This Trojan virus of liberalism is perhaps what characterizes both Bahrami and Rushdie.

 Moid, Suneetha and Vasudha, I was also thinking that some of our discussion in the recent workshop -- especially Uzma's positions were teetering on the brink of blasphemy and she is pulling heroically to ensure that the formation of Islamic thought and culture itself moves in a way to accommodate her exorbitance.  But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that blasphemy and bigotry are peculiarly Christian terms that don't resonate well with the politics and culture of Islam.

Srvts

From: Susie Tharu

Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:38 PM

To: R Srivatsan

Cc: "Moid M.A." , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , K Satyanarayana , "P. Madhavi" , Uma Bhrugubanda , Satish Poduval , Shamuel Tharu

Despite all the charm of the image there is a snigger there that brings to mind all the male chauvinist jokes about women that used to pass as just humour.  (Where have they all gone?)  Clearly this image is addressed to those of us who will find it adorable and stylish--not banal and irritating. It is not relevant whether the artist is Muslim or female or not. Its the attitude that matters.

Was not able to get onto the Kafila page with Mamdani's arguments about biogtry. As for Zapiro (a white man) I got a taste of his much appreciated and totally racist cartoons when I was in South Africa last year.  

Susie

----------

From: R Srivatsan

Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:13 PM

To: Susie Tharu

Cc: "Moid M.A." , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , K Satyanarayana , "P. Madhavi" , Uma Bhrugubanda , Satish Poduval , Shamuel Tharu

Susie,

This is the Kafila link again see if you can open it:

I would imagine that Partha's "fierce defence of Rushdie" as Madhav put it, was perhaps related to a highly politicized and practical notion of community, rather than one which was rigid and categorially impervious.  And working with such a notion of community would involve  the task of dealing with irritating and banal interventions with intent to cause sniggering -- as in feminism's case. And sure enough, the razor edge of feminism's 'intentional fallacy" in pointing to masculine misogyny  became a structural assault as soon as it made contact.  The question exploded, changing from "why are you so misogynistic", into "why is masculinity dependent on misogyny?"  It was a very powerful weapon.   Let us hope that -- as you ask in half surprise about misogynist jokes -- that these facetieties too shall pass!

I am grateful -- learned a lot. But let this not end a conversation -- that as Suneetha said just now, was very interesting!

Srivats

----------

From: MA Moid

Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:45 AM

To: R Srivatsan

Cc: Susie Tharu , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , K Satyanarayana , "P. Madhavi" , Uma Bhrugubanda , Satish Poduval , Shamuel Tharu

Friends,

When I saw these images my first reaction was of amusement. I remember many other funny cartoons of Adam and eve. My second reaction was nervousness. I thought ‘O God, another cartoon. Will it also cause any trouble/controversy the way other cartoons caused’. But after reading various comments I developed a third reaction, which was embarrassing to me. I asked my self, why did I found this cartoon funny. With it I noticed a conflict in me. I said to myself  ‘If you enjoy the cartoon of Adam and Eve who were also prophets of Islam according to Muslim scriptures, then why cant you take the cartoons on the last prophet of Islam in a similar way?’ This question caused discomforts in me. Instead of thinking about the answer to this question I began thinking about the nature of this question itself. Then I thought if Adam and Eve are also prophets of Islam then why Muslim establishment don’t react to it, and also why they don’t react to the pictures of Jesus. What kind of Knowledge politics the religious establishment practice and similarly what kind does the secular- scientific-liberal establishment practice. Are these controversies about cartoons intimately linked with the ‘meaning and its practices?’ On the other hand why I was embarrassed with his question. What is the history of this embarrassment in me and in other Muslims? Is it the fear that my inauthenticity will be exposed or a pressure that I need to take a universal stand?

Need to think more  really.

Moid

----------

From: suneetha achyuta

Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 4:44 PM

To: MA Moid , Uma Bhrugubanda , k satyanarayana , Vasudha Nagaraj , Satish Poduval , Madhava Prasad , Madhumeeta Sinha , Susie Tharu , R Srivatsan

Friends,

Srivats' comment that blasphemy and bigotry are terms that derive from a Christian history of liberal West somewhere rang a bell. In the liberal imagination (Christian or Hindu), one sees that bigotry is now attached to only Muslims as a sign of backwardness or stigma that they have to get rid of. The meaning and significance of bigotry or blasphemy are being set by non-Islamic traditions, to such an extent that we get to hear very little about criticism that is or claims to be within the Islamic traditions of criticism. Even though Mamdani's categories are evocative and would mean something to me trained in the Western traditions of criticism, I wonder if they mean the same to a Muslim thinker. So, the position from which this cartoonist has drawn this picture - fanatic Muslims will cover even Eve with a burqua - for me is an outsider position, even though he happens to be a Muslim, because he has chosen to ignore the multiple positions vis-a-vis the burqua or veil within Islamic communities across the world (I know, I sound pedantic!) The joke is on Muslims, isn't it? Is he blasphemous or bigoted, I can't figure out. But he seems to be a good Muslim, able to laugh at the bigoted bad Muslims, alongside other likeminded souls liberated from Religion.

 Are Uzma's interventions translatable into the register of blasphemy, I again wonder. Her interventions with Personal Law Board/ulema have been possible with her keen sense and acknowlegement of key role of ulema in the Muslim communities, drawing, and perhaps stretching the boundaries of law-making role permissble to women within the Islamic traditions. I am too aware of the sense of blasphemy that her position evokes in the liberal (Muslim and feminist) imagination but I cannot comment on what it means in the Islamic communities!  

Suneetha.

-- 

A.Suneetha 

Fellow and Coordinator

----------

From: Susie Tharu

Date: Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:37 AM

To: MA Moid

Cc: R Srivatsan , Vasudha , suneetha achyuta , K Satyanarayana , "P. Madhavi" , Uma Bhrugubanda , Satish Poduval , Shamuel Tharu

Dear Moid

As usual I really found your response thought provoking. Unlike the rest of us who read the cartoon as a comment on purdah and muslim patriarchy (and a protest, maybe against the injunction that the human image should not be drawn, you have taken an altogether different route that points us to the continuous embarrassment the average modern muslim is subject to .  

I agree that it is more important to think about the nature of the question: ‘If you enjoy the cartoon of Adam and Eve who were also prophets of Islam according to Muslim scriptures, then why cant you take the cartoons on the last prophet of Islam in a similar way?’ than to look for an answer. This demand for some sort of abstract consistency or equivalence is itself the problem. For one thing in todays's context there is no equivalence between Adam and Eve and 'the last prophet.' The last prophet and his people are under attack at this moment, Adam and Eve are forgotten and unimportant--unless this cartoon results in their gaining contemporary importance. 

Stressing equivalence pushes us to ignore this context and treat them as if the existed in some kind of timeless Koranic sequence. Your anxiety--and discomfort--is the response of a contemporary Indian and a Muslim in the contemporary world. I do not know whether it can be considered 'typical'--if it can, then it is a politico-aesthetic fact with a history. (By the way it came as a surprise to me that A and E were considered prophets--and that there is a woman prophet!).

Do share any further reflections you may have had.

susie

Comment (0)

Anveshi’s quiet and self-effacing librarian, L.V. Lakshmi, has a keen interest in computerization of the library system.  She has played a key role in implementing our new on-line catalogue and currently is troubleshooting the new version of the SOUL software.  She is also at work on an M.Phil thesis in Library and Information Science, on an area of vital importance to research in women’s studies, , i.e., unpublished documents, technically referred to as “grey literature.”  She is collating the grey literature in women’s studies available in Hyderabad libraries and will suggest how access to it can be improved.

She has an engaged relationship with her two children for who she is clearly a friend as well as a mother. Both Shyam (14) and daughter, Keerthi (12) are lively presences in their school, and favourites in Anveshi. Both are keenly interested in the arts, especially in theatre.  Shyam has already played a role in a feature film.   Lakshmi’s husband, GLN, is a cinema buff and is one of a handful of experts in Telugu cinema.   Right now the family is looking forward to playing host to a German boy, Amos, who is coming on an exchange visit and will study in Shyam’s class at school.

This is how Lakshmi would like to describe herself:

I prefer to be an urban rural blended figure  and  have confidence of achieving good results if supported by a right guiding team. After my family members  I owe my gratitude  to many of anveshi senior members whose guidance helped me  look at the world with a different perspective. Assisting kids in their extra curricular activities and cooking  rayalaseema ethnic  tastes are my leisure time choices.

Comment (0)

Srinivas Vellikad is a friend who has been associated with Anveshi since the past several years.  He was instrumental in establishing an early version of the library software.  Since the past year Srinivas has been working pro bono with the Anveshi library catalog and has found a way to put it successfully on line.  He has collaborated with Lakshmi, Adley and Srivats in a fairly complex coordination between the Library software, the web site software, the available freeware on the web to complete this task.  To see the results please click on Library in the menu on the left, and then click on Catalog.

It has been a pleasure to work with Seenu and we hope to continue this association in the future.

Seenu would like to describe himself as follows:

I write user guides for a living. The rest of the time, I enjoy pursuing my hobbies -- flying imaginary planes, driving imaginary trains, cooking (one of my more useful hobbies), reading Harry Potter, and dreaming for our next holiday.

Comment (0)

Tracking Telangana…..

Tracking Telangana is an effort to go behind the scenes of the current Telangana movement. Reasons or outcome apart, this movement is extremely fascinating for its mass democratic character. Distinguished by wide ranging and active participation of diverse sections of  population – farmers, lawyers, students, employees, women, Muslims, caste groups, professionals, this a moment in which different kinds of injuries and aspirations are being articulated through the notion of a ‘regional inequality’. One is witnessing the process of ‘Telangana’ itself acquiring a history, identity and cultural integrity. Dalits, a strong presence in several forums, are contending that Telangana’s culture is a ‘Sabbanda culture’ that is predominantly non-Sanskritic or un-Hindu. The Muslimness of Telangana is being rediscovered and rearticulated. Nizam is no longer a pariah, nor the questions of Police action and Muslim repression in this region are. Long suppressed in nationalist and communist histories, Muslims in the movement are demanding that their presence, contribution and rights be acknowledged. Backward caste and Dalit Students of Osmania University, faced with bleak employment scenario of the liberalized/globalized world are asking, what is wrong in loosing a year, when their entire future is at stake!

Tracking Telangana, aimed at English readership, brings forth different voices in the Telangana movement – through pamphlets, interviews, news reports, fact-finding reports, poems, photographs, impressions and so on. This is an open group where people can post their opinions, share other posts and links.
Tracking Telangana has been created as a separate forum under Google Groups to help organize the discussion independently.

Go to Forum

Comment (0)

This is a forum for sharing notes about Hegel's Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1830) based on a reading of the hypertext resource available at www.hegel.net.  Inevitably, the reading will involve references to his Science of Logic, to Phenomenology, and to commentators like Marx, Lenin, C.L.R.James, Erdmann, Westphal, and others.

It has been set up as a separate Google Group because it is organized as a structure that follows the table of contents of the volume.

Go to forum

Comment (0)

Adley Siddiqi is our honorary consultant who has taken charge of the Anveshi website -- very decisively and nicely since the past two years.  The website was designed by him in collaboration with Jayasree Kalathil (in London) and with Vasudha and Lakshmi Kutty (at Anveshi, Hyderabad) who painstakingly put together the write ups and descriptions from different sources.  Adley has the habit of goading us into action on the website -- and that is a good thing, since we tend to sit around on non-top-priority items of the agenda.  This is how Adley would like to describe himself:

Adley is famous for taking Jayasree Kalathil away from Anveshi :)  Has been working in IT for entire working life - which is a long time. Currently running a small web development company called Icreon. Half Pakistani. First got to know India whilst working as a volunteer for 2 years with an NGO in Orissa called Gram Vikas where he met Jayasree. Can usually be found lying in his hammock.

Comment (0)

Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi, the long time president of Hyderabad based Muslim political party, Majlis-e –Ittehad ul Muslimeen (MIM/Majlis) died on 29 September 2008 at the age of seventy two (b-1936). The Hindu daily called him a ‘colossus’ and the Deccan Chronicle remembered him as the symbol of an ‘era’. Similar responses came from other newspapers. Compared to the English, the Urdu press was cautious in appreciating him, where as the attitude of English press itself was surprising. Here was a man who was always ignored by the press or only talked about his negative aspects was suddenly respected.

Soon a few articles in Urdu newspapers were published and innumerable condolence meetings were conducted at every nook and corner of the old city of Hyderabad. There was a discussion everywhere about the personality of Owaisi (he was affectionately called ‘Salar-e-millat’—commander of the community—or ‘Salar’, a title given by a poor Muslim who used to regularly contribute two rupees every month for the party), and his contributions to the Muslim situation of Hyderabad. These meetings and discussions gave a different picture of Owaisi’s personality and his contributions. The content of these meetings, discussions and personal views are summarized in the following pages. It is an attempt to look at this grand figure of Hyderabad from the perspectives of Hyderabad Muslims who supported, opposed or watched Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi and his party.

Muslim's Concerns and Owaisi's Responses

After the Accession of Hyderabad to Indian Union in 1948, the situation of Muslims changed drastically. They lost the supportive bases of a government (of the Nizam) and a party (the Majlis) that was interested in them. They also lost jobs and properties along with lives and self-respect. Accession disturbed the classes and demography of Hyderabad. Muslims lost all these things in a short time resulting in a deep shock and far reaching socio-psychological impacts. The uncertainty about the future made the situation more difficult. In such situation new concerns emerged and became the priority of all the Muslims in Hyderabad.

Security

In interviews, people reported that after ‘Police Action’ they developed three kinds of insecurities in relation to three fears. The first was the fear of the new government. They saw that most of the Muslim, Nizam and Majlis haters became ministers and important officials in the new government. They started fearing that these people will further harm Muslims and their interest in some way or the other. The second fear was about the Hindus. Many Muslims overnight saw a change in the attitude of many Hindus on whom they were dependent for many reasons. Though many Hindus supported Muslims in such difficult times and such Hindus outnumbered the hostile Hindus but still this fear took its roots. The third fear was about destiny, making them uncertain about the future and uncomfortable about the past.

The challenge before the Muslim leadership was to provide a solution to these and similar other fears, and to restore confidence. It became important for them to resist the government if it had designs against the Muslims, resist those Hindus who hate Muslims and reduce the anger of God by becoming virtuous. In the period after Police Action we see some perspectives emerging in this regard, which can be summarized, as cautious, low profile and inward looking. When the Majlis was revived in 1957 (It was banned in 1948) a significant change occurred in the people’s responses to it. It is said that Owaisi constantly used to roam in the streets of old city from morning to lunch and keep meeting people for many years. Even though he was a young man in his early twenties but the name of the party, Majlis and the support of his father, who was its president, both helped and created difficulties for him. Few supported and many opposed him. On the other hand there were communal tensions and riots were always a possibility. In such conditions Owaisi was always the first to be on the spot. According to the people this habit of Owaisi’s helped in developing similar tendencies in the public. Owaisi realized the importance of being on the hot spot in difficult situations and made it his policy to be present on the situation. This policy encouraged his party colleagues also to travel on the same path. Over a period the tendency to be on the spot and confront adversity became a strong tradition of not only the Majlis but also the Muslim residents of Hyderabad.

When the communal riots began in the late 1970s, the Muslims found them selves at the receiving end of Hindu ire, but this confrontationist attitude changed the situation and created a power balance between the two communities. Owaisi’s mastery of the art of being on the spot for the people resulted in a positive support for Muslims. The common Muslims who were scared and insecure felt that there was somebody who could understand their pains, show solidarity, and was ready to fight for them. Owaisi’s presence and later, the presence of a whole group from Majlis, was an extremely reassuring factor for the poor and affected Muslims. On the other hand it seriously discouraged rioters and scuttled their plans. As one person said, ‘what ever bad things that can be said about Owaisi, the truth is that he was always there for the people in times of trouble and moments of panic and fear’. It is also said that ‘Owaisi played a major role in controlling and ending the communal riots from Hyderabad’. His strategy of confrontation and presence explains this claim and thus played a major role in providing a sense of security to the Muslims of Hyderabad.

Unity

People were dejected and confused after the Police Action. Because of the collapse of social systems with the end of Nizam’s rule and because of in and out migrations there was chaos and disturbance everywhere. This situation was dangerous and it was necessary to collect the community on some grounds. On the other hand people’s inclination to the Communists parties was considered as threat to Muslims faith and religion.

It is interesting to explore how this unity was achieved in Hyderabad and how different strategies were adopted by the MIM in the earlier and latter years. For Owaisi, the concern for unity was always important, as it was in other groups dealing with Muslim issues. Owaisi’s concern for unity expressed itself in a call that the Muslims should show unity through one political party. Owaisi played a major role in creating this understanding in the people. This was so complete that whoever talked about unity was considered as talking and supporting Owaisi’s version/definition of unity. The efforts for an alternative unity as proposed by MBT (Majlis Bachao Tehreek, a break away faction of the MIM) and other religious revivalist groups who are not pro Majlis could not gain currency. The electoral success of Majlis contributed widely in spreading Owaisi’s particular connotation of unity. It will be a useful project to evaluate how this meaning of unity as used by Owaisi has an impact on Hyderabad affairs. Another visible strategy used by Owaisi to achieve unity among Muslims, according to an observer was that ‘ Owaisi always tried to give representation to different Muslim sects of Hyderabad. Presently the lone MLC is a Shia, one MLA is Mehdavi, two are Pathans and one belongs to the traditional soofi circle. He always tried to maintain this kind of harmony and include all the groups in Hyderabad’.

Legitimacy

The Muslim question lost its legitimacy with the formation of Pakistan at the national level and with the defeat of Razakaar and Majlis at Hyderabad level. The active and passive supporters of Pakistan and separate Hyderabad lost their face and were overtaken by guilt. But the people who neither supported Pakistan nor a separate Hyderabad also lost confidence. The common Muslims who were least bothered about Pakistan or Hyderabad ironically became the biggest sufferers of losses in Accession. In such a situation there was an urgent need to address the Muslim question politically but the circumstances were against it and also no one—neither Hindus nor Muslims—were feeling courageous enough to do so. There was a dominant tendency among the Muslims to suppress their voice and concerns, and to escape, though there were instances of one or two Muslim leaders coming forward to take up the Muslim issues.

In Hyderabad when the Majlis was revived, the question of legitimacy was the most prominent. It was considered widely that the Majlis has no right to reestablish itself because of its earlier history/positions and its consequences. But when it was revived the important priority was to prove to the Muslims and to the government that its revival is justified. Abdul Wahid Owaisi, the new president of Majlis, struggled hard to prove its justification by changing the Majlis’ constitution and redefining its aims and objectives according to the principles of new Constitution of India. Secondly the people endorsed his presidentship of the party since he was nominated initially (though still many consider that his president ship was not endorsed properly).

Thus two legitimacies were achieved by Abdul Wahid Owaisi, but his son Salahuddin achieved the third legitimacy, i.e., that from the common Muslim’s perspective according to some observers. This was an extremely uphill task and required consistent hard work and presence. Owaisi spent his whole life for the people’s problems and gained not only legitimacy for the Majlis, the party but also a reputation for himself.

Government

The relationship of the Muslims of Hyderabad with the post 1948 governments was difficult most of the time. This relationship was determined in the earlier phases by the activities of the new military government and then later on by those of the civilian government. After Police Action the Muslims were nervous as well as hope full about the new government but soon they realized that the government’s decisions were directly influencing their lives negatively. They felt that their fears were not illusory. The governments subsequent to the military rule also continued this trend in different ways. And the later governments literally dumped the Muslims of Hyderabad. This worsening attitude of different governments to Muslims also brought change in their relationship with the governments.

It is seen that Muslims in Hyderabad are very sensitive to the governments and have strong opinions. According to one set of opinions all governments are bad for Muslims; according to another, governments are slow, weak and corrupt but interested in the betterment of its people. The people who have the second opinion are supportive of the good intentions of the governments. They think that governments should be approached for the Muslims problems in a sensible and wise way. According to the third set of opinions the ruling politicians matter most since they can influence the government. So the success and failure of the government in relation to Muslims is dependent on this relationship.

The MIM tried to include all the three elements in its understanding of the relationship with the government. Owaisi was the chief architect of this relationship and implemented his understanding throughout his long career as Majlis president. One very significant aspect of this relationship was that Owaisi never disowned any government; he always worked for some kind of relation ship with it, either critical or cooperative. Thus there are three elements in this relationship, one is about resisting, opposition and criticism, the second is about cooperation and collaboration, and the third is about applying pressure, lobbying and encouragement. It is also seen that people generally have a high regard for Owaisi’s judgments and are impressed by his boldness with governments. It is said that, ‘he is liked for the fact that he always interacted with the governments on equal basis and on his terms. He was never overawed and never went out of his way to get things from any government’.

Consciousness

Disinterestedness, passivity, fear and suspicion arose among Muslims in the context of Hyderabad’s accession. It was realized that this attitude would further damage their future prospects and present abilities. It was an extremely critical situation and demanded an immediate corrective. There was a need to speak to the people and made them aware so that these negative developments could be arrested. Thus we see that reaching out to the people and create awareness was the most important activity of the new leader’s agenda.

The first one to take a bold initiative in the earliest years with in the Muslim circle was Khallelullah Hussaini of the Tameer-e-Millat. But when the Majlis was revived Abdul Wahed Owaisi tried to reach out to the public in a new way. There are narratives that say that no one used to attend the public meetings conducted by Majlis initially but soon came a period in which people became obsessed with their public meetings. Many people confirmed that ‘some times there used to be three public meetings in a day and they used to rush to attend all the meetings and listen to the same speech again’. What they gained from these meetings was hope and an electrifying motivation. It is said that there used to be only two star speakers in these earliest public meetings- Abdul Wahed Owaisi and Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi—one was old and wise and the other was young and dynamic.

But after the death of Abdul Wahed in 1975, Salahuddin became the president and continued this trend. It is said that ‘Majlis is the only party in India which conducts so many public meetings all the year round with in Hyderabad’. The purpose of these meeting which became famous as ‘Jalsa Halat-e-Hazara’ (meeting about present circumstances), was to educate the people about the recent national and local socio-political developments and make them aware about its implications for Muslims and the options available for them. Public participation in these meetings is always found to be high even today. These meetings are conducted in every corner of the Muslim dominated areas and especially in lower income group localities. The impact of these meetings were serious and far-reaching. As one opponent of Majlis confessed grudgingly, ‘Majlis’ greatest contribution is that it created a political consciousness among the Muslims’. Another impact was, ‘Owaisi taught the Muslims to speak’. This was an important achievement for the people who lost hope and voice in the post Police Action period.

Self Help

After Police Action many people started migrating to Hyderabad from the affected areas. The military government allotted some areas for the settlement of these migrants and refugees along with providing some other kind of help. But people found these efforts meager and insufficient, at this moment the Muslim community came forward on its own to help the needy. As one resident recalled ‘my mother sent me to Nampaly railway station to find a needy family and get them home. I found one family who just arrived from Marathwada area. I asked them if they are searching for a place to stay. They said, ‘yes’ and I told ‘my home is available, please come’. I brought them home to Moghal pura in a rickshaw and gave a room in our relatively large house. This family took our help for few weeks monetarily and after couple of months left our house when the head of the family got some employment’. Accordingly many families came forward to rehabilitate the affected families. The government’s insufficient response thus did not create much resentment but the people were resentful when they saw that the government is not helping them in getting back their lands and houses in their native villages that was forcefully taken from them.

Similarly during communal riots the government announced some compensation that would never come; but the people’s need was immediate and urgent. In this period Owaisi asked the people to contribute financially for this purpose resulting in a large collection of donations and charities. Owaisi immediately distributed this money after any communal riots and restored peoples livelihoods and confidence. This response became a policy for Majlis, i.e., to support the people with people’s money and not to rely on the government’s help. Making the Muslims of Hyderabad self-reliant was an important desire of the Muslim leaders especially those of the Majlis from the beginning. It was considered a good in itself because it can raise the community morally and materially, also it could help the Muslims not to rely on the false promises of the governments. The struggle towards self-reliance was shown in different ways in different phases. It is widely believed that Majlis is the biggest supporters of small traders, service providers and marginal workers. It is also widely acknowledged that Majlis aggressively protect their interests and that this group is the biggest supporter of Majlis. Majlis provide protection to this group against the police and local anti social elements.

The protection of small livelihoods was the concern of Majlis but the practitioners of trades and skills felt a moral responsibility of spreading their skills to other members in their family or locality. It is widely noticed that cycle mechanics, auto drivers, welders, electricians, plumbers, zari workers, painters, tailors and other similar trades train many young persons so that they can help them learn skills and also help in starting their own units. Many children are also found to be in such trades seeking to acquire some skills. This trend was quite widespread and helped many people acquire productive skills quickly, without spending any money and by taking admission in to the training institutions. Owaisi encouraged such trends by providing protection and also encouraged people to take up some trade/skill for their livelihood.

Majlis established an Industrial Training Institute in 1970 when it got some money from the government as a rent for Darusalam (the Majlis office, which was used as a fire station by the government). A decade latter the MIM lobbied with Chenna Reddy government to establish SETWIN (Self Employment in Twin Cities) in the old city to give training in new skills to repair refrigerators, air-conditioners, TVs and other electronic goods, screen-printing and many such trades. This training institute brought a significant change in the vocational skills and spirits of the young people. Owaisi was the biggest supporter of this institute, which encouraged people to take up technical skills in a new way. This resulted in the spread of many service providers in the old city and helped various young persons to go to the Middle East for employment. Those who do not like Majlis feels offended when they see a lot of them everywhere in the old city and feel sorry for the Muslims who practice such trades. They also accuse that Owaisi has a vested interest in keeping the people poor and illiterate. However, when we examine the situation after Accession, and look at the affected rural/urban and semi-literate people, who were without any relevant economic skills, and who with in three decades have acquired significant skills and changed the livelihood landscape of old city and conditions of their own lives, our opinion of Owaisi cannot but be positive.

Thus it is widely believed by many residents of old city that Owaisi’s attitude and approach towards self reliance through vocational skills, his respect for the working class and their political protection played a vital role in helping the Muslims of Hyderabad stand on their own feet and live respectable lives.

Lastly

These were some of the thoughts that circulated in the old city regarding the role of Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi and about the conditions in Hyderabad. In order to understand the Muslim politics of Hyderabad we need to look at the whole situation from 1940 onwards from the Muslim perspective. Adapting developmental, secular and nationalist perspectives will only contribute in perpetuating an unacceptable picture of the reality. It looks strange when you look at the contributions of Owaisi from the residents of Hyderabad and compare it with the image about him in the so-called mainstream. He is the hero, visionary, statesman, and a deliverer for the people, but for others he is a demon, an antihero, a villain and a pre-modern politician who thrives on exploiting peoples’ vulnerabilities. In such a scenario asking the proper questions about the Muslim politics of Hyderabad requires certain sensibilities about the lives of Muslims and awareness about the underside of official history.

Apart from these there are many questions that need to be asked for academic and practical purposes about the role of Owaisi, the Majlis, various other groups, the nature of Muslim politics, its dynamics, compulsions and limitations. Presently I am interested in asking what could be the role and limitations of minority politics of Hyderabad in the context of the larger Muslim and National politics of India. What could be the further relevant questions and points to focus on?

Comment (0)

Dear Friends,

Happy New Year! Welcome to the new initiative on the Anveshi website.  Starting January 2010, we will be maintaining a section of our website for blogs from fellows, members and other interested writers.  The website will be devoted to academic and activist matters, and will operate according to different criteria.  Some will be open forums in which comments from readers will be displayed directly.  Others will be more like seminars, where first preference will be given to invited respondents, after which general comments will be accepted.  We need to work out the modalities and practices to make sure that both of these forms work.  As with everything at Anveshi, this is an experiment.  Let us make the most of it in the different domains the organization's work.  We would be happy to put up for discussion any opening suggestions or comments that you may have. 

Best Wishes Again
Anveshi Blog Team

Comment (2)