|
FUNDAMENTALISM, TRADITIONALISM AND COMMUNALISM
By Asghar Ali Engineer
Generally no distinction is made between
fundamentalism, traditionalism and communalism, they are often used
synonymously. However, it is not so. These terms have distinct meanings
and different implications. Religious orthodoxy is often condemned as
fundamentalism even by many well meaning scholars.
It should also be remembered that orthodoxy, traditionalism and
fundamentalism do not apply to religion only. These terms can equally be
applied to political ideologies and even to social or natural sciences.
But generally these terms are applied to religious beliefs and practices.
Religious orthodoxy or traditionalism may not be desirable for many and
may be of great value to others. Religious orthodoxy has great deal of
social implications but very little political consequences though not
always bereft of it. But fundamentalism, at least the term as it is used
by the scholars and media today, has serious political implications.
Fundamentalism, in its original sense as used during the twenties in
United States did not have political implications. Those who believed that
the Bible's words should be literally understood. In that sense even
fundamentalism had no political implications.
But after the Islamic revolution in Iran, the word fundamentalism came to
be used largely in political sense. This word began to be used with
political overtones by the Western media to debunk Islamic revolution in
Iran as the Iranian revolution directly challenged the American supremacy
and political hegemony.
Also it was in the Seventies that the Libyan revolution took place and
Qaddafi also became an obstinate challenger of American policing of the
world. However, Libya was not what Iran was and the word 'fundamentalism'
was not applied to the Libyan revolution.
The Shah of Iran had a strategic importance for America and with his help
American authorities sought to control the Middle Eastern region. The Shah
was also pro-Israel and exercised effective control over the radical
movements in the region. Thus the Islamic revolution in Iran in the late
seventies hurt American interests much more than the Libyan revolution.
Hence the word `fundamentalism' was reapplied in the new political
context.
The Western media did not use the term fundamentalism when it came to the
Saudi regime as it was friendly to America and did not threaten its
interests. Thus while the Saudi regime was characterized as 'orthodox' the
Iranian regime was described as 'fundamentalist'. The word fundamentalist
has since become quite threatening in its implications.
In the beginning the Taliban revolution in Afghanistan was also thought to
be quite innocuous by the USA and it was for that reason that America
hurriedly recognized it. Afghanistan could become a launching ground for
controlling the Central Asian regimes which became independent after the
dissolution of Soviet Union. But when the Taliban began to threaten the
American interests in number of ways and even harboured Osama Bin Laden it
also graduated into fundamentalist regime. Moreover, when the Taliban
imposed unacceptably rigid code for women, there were loud protests.
In the Indian media too the word 'fundamentalism' is rather loosely
applied to all sorts of people including the orthodox or traditional
people. The Indian media and academia also began to use the term
fundamentalism in imitation of the Western media. It became current here
towards the end of seventies when Islamic revolution was taking place in
Iran.
It was initially applied to the sections of Hindus and Muslims. But later
it was also applied to a section of Sikhs when the Khalistan movement was
launched in the Punjab. All those who agitated for reversing the Shah Banu
judgement of the Supreme court of India were also dubbed as
fundamentalists.
Similarly the BJP and VHP or Bajrang Dal activists who agitated for
demolition of Babri Masjid and construction of Ram temple were also
described as Hindu fundamentalists. Thus it will be seen that since late
th Seventies the Indian media and academia are using the term
'fundamentalism' as political use or misuse of religion.
Thus fundamentalism has come to be used widely in this sense throughout
the world and all radical religious movements with political implications
are described now as 'fundamentalist' movements.
There is of course very thin line between fundamentalism and religious
orthodoxy but religious orthodoxy is not necessarily as threatening as
fundamentalism. Religious orthodoxy, as pointed out before, has little, if
any, political implications compared to fundamentalism. However, some
people are as much put off by orthodoxy as by fundamentalism though the
former is not as offensive politically as the latter.
While religious radical movements in India or any other part of the world
have spread terrorism and violence the religious orthodoxy has not.
However, it is a different thing that religious orthodoxy has brought
about social stagnation and obstructed change. But often religious
orthodoxy has sided with politically progressive movements while the
modernists have sung separatist tunes (though not always of course).
I would like to cite an example from the Indian context. The orthodox
Ulama always stood against social change and opposed all attempts for
reforms with all their might. They opposed all attempts to reform Muslim
personal law. But the same Ulama led by most prominent theologians stood
by composite nationalism.
In the 19th century, in the post-mutiny scenario while modernists like Sir
Syed Ahmad Khan advocated change and reform and boycotted the Indian
National Congress and thought that the Congress politics was not
necessarily in the interests of Muslim the most orthodox Ulama led by
Maulana Qasim Ahmed Nanotvi urged upon the Muslims to join Indian national
congress and fight shoulder to shoulder with their Hindu brethren to throw
out the British rulers.
No doubt Badruddin Tayebji was an exception to this rule who was modernist
and also an advocate of the Congress politics and also became its first
Muslim president. But generally the modernists among the Muslims provided
cadre for the Muslim League. It is important to note that right from the
beginning the Muslim League drew its support from educated upper classes
of Muslims.
In the 20th century too the Jami'at al-Ulama - an organization of the
orthodox theologians opposed the two nation theory and the Pakistan
movement tooth and nail. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani who defended the
Shari`ah law and opposed any change in it condemned Jinnah's two nation
theory and launched a movement against it. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, though
not orthodox like Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani was also a prominent
theologian of Islam and he too stood firm like a rock opposing the
Pakistan movement.
Jinnah, on the other hand, was a modernist and advocated reforms in
Shari'ah law and also moved various Bills to this effect was opposed to
composite nationalism during the end of thirties and became not only
champion but also the architect of Pakistan. Similarly Maulana Shibli
Nomani, again an eminent Muslim theologian and a noted Islamic historian
had condemned the formation of Muslim League in 1906 in an essay written
by him in 1911. He had questioned in this essay the claimed representative
character of the League.
Among the Hindus too it was the educated class and persons like the
founder of the Benaras Hindu University Madan Mohan Malviya who provided
leadership to the Hindu right. Veer Savarkar who pronounced the theory of
Hindutva and thought that Jinnah's separatism was justified was not a
religious leader. Like Jinnah he also advocated modern reforms in the
Hindu society.
This might appear baffling to many but it is not. The educated classes and
modernists are directly involved in power struggle and on account of this
that the modernists get involved in rightist or separatist or
fundamentalist movements.
In contemporary India the leadership of BJP, VHP , Bajrang Dal and RSS
(i.e. that of the Saffron family) is by no means provided by the orthodox
Hindu priesthood. Some of the Shankracharyas who are the highest Hindu
religious authorities are even strongly opposed to the VHP usurping the
issue of Ramjanambhoomi which is essentially religious in character.
The Shankracharya of Dwarka and Jyotimath Swami Swarupanand who is very
proud of his heritage as a Sanatan Hindu leader said in an interview to
The Times of India that "finding a solution to the Ramjanambhoomi
issue should be left to the Dharmacharyas of the two communities. It is a
universal principle that if a man is ill he seeks a doctor for a cure. If
there is a problem involving the religious sentiments of people then the
religious leaders have to take the leadership in providing a remedy. Post
independence India is a democratic polity where political leaders have to
accept that there is a limit to their authority and power.....The
divisions and the problems have been created by politicians interfering in
religious matters. Orthodox Hinduism does not believe in disrespect for
any religion. We believe that it is only through respect and sacrifice
that a solution can be found to the Ramjanambhoomi issue." This
statement is truly a religious and not a political statement.
Swami Swarupanand would very much like a temple to be built in Ayodhya
which for him is the Ramjanambhoomi but not by launching aggressive
political movement but through dialogue with the Muslims. Thus an orthodox
Hindu leader who would not like to compromise on his religious belief
would like to solve the problem in religious manner not by spreading
extremism and violence.
The entire Ramjanambhoomi movement in the late eighties was launched by
politicians for political purposes. It was the educated Muslim middle
class which provided the support base for Jinnah's Pakistan movement in
its own political interest. Similarly it was the educated Hindu middle
class which provided the main support base for the BJP movement for
Ramjanambhoomi to serve its own interests.
I would like to make it clear that I am not at all justifying religious
orthodoxy in any way. I am myself involved in the reform movement in the
Bohra Muslim community and have been advocating certain essential changes
in the Muslim personal law which impinge upon Muslim women's rights. I am
only trying to explain the social and political implications of religious
orthodoxy on one hand, and, of modernist project on the other.
There is again very thin line between fundamentalism and communalism.
These two terms have become almost synonymous in India. The Saffron family
is being described both as communalists and fundamentalists. Similarly
some Muslim leaders also are described both as communalists and
fundamentalists simultaneously.
The important difference between fundamentalists and communalists is that
while fundamentalists are also religiously orthodox, the communalists are
not. The communalists are mainly modernists as already pointed out and not
religiously orthodox. A careful academic or journalist should always bear
these differences in mind while using these terms or categories and should
not apply them loosely as is often done.
Source: http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com
|
