Muslims have, historically, had a complicated relationship with the clergy. By virtue of their association with religion, clerics obviously wielded a significant amount of power. At the same time, they had their weaknesses: the Islamic clergy was neither a hereditary caste (any Muslim can theoretically become a cleric if he studies the scriptures) nor unified into a single church that could wield political power.
As a result, Islamic societies have, throughout history, a rich tradition of ridiculing and mocking the cleric or the mullah who is stereotyped as venal, lazy and hypocritical, looking out only for his self-interest under the cover of religion. Also derided is his obsession with the narrow rules and regulation of faith over the more evolved spirituality of, say, the sufi.
This tradition can also be found in the subcontinent. In Urdu, Ghalib has mocked the mullah’s hypocrisy and Iqbal his narrow-mindedness. In Bengali, Nazrul Islam calls mullahs the “self-appointed upholders of religion”. In Punjabi, Bulleh Shah compares them to roosters and dogs and concludes that the mullah is less useful than either animal.
This tradition is dying as modernity confers significant political power to the mullah. However, given the disastrous record of Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the current Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid, one can see how important this ridicule was. In November, in a faux medieval coronation ceremony, Ahmed Bukhari appointed his son as the deputy imam, even as the Delhi Waqf Board opposed this hereditary succession, claiming that only it had the power to appoint imams.
The Bukharis have been hereditary imams of the Jama Masjid in Delhi since the 17th century. The father of the current imam, Abdullah Bukhari, started the tradition of fiddling about in Indian politics, as he issued fatwas advising Muslims to vote for the Janata Party in 1977 and the Congress in 1980. Ahmed Bukhari, the current imam, continued his father’s tradition. In 2004, he appealed to Muslims to vote for the BJP. A decade later, he urged support for the Congress instead, meeting with Sonia Gandhi in a move which generated much controversy. In 2012, for the Uttar Pradesh state elections, Ahmed Bukhari backed the Samajwadi Party, in return for which his son-in-law was sent to the Legislative Council.
The imam’s antics are not limited to political wheeling and dealing. He has been part of activities which involve outright illegality. Bukhari has a warrant out against him for violence in 2004 and has been accused of misappropriating masjid funds as well as constructing illegal structures on the premises of the heritage monument. As the cherry on this sordid cake, in 2001 the imam called Shabana Azmi a “naachne gaane waali tawaif” (prostitute) on national television.
Why then does he get the importance that he does? For this we will have to blame a regular culprit: Muslim tokenism. Just by virtue of being the imam of India’s most famous mosque, Bukhari is an excellent symbol for parties looking to brand themselves as “secular” and thus attract the Muslim vote. In the past decade, the imam has endorsed the BJP, the Congress, the Samajwadi Party, the Bahujan Samaj Party and now, the Aam Aadmi Party.
Curiously, however, in spite of being a star campaigner, Bukhari’s direct impact on elections has been rather poor. The Jama Masjid is located in the Muslim-dominated Matia Mahal Delhi Assembly constituency, which has elected as its MLA, Shoaib Iqbal, five times in succession. This is in spite of Bukhari opposing Iqbal each time. In his own backyard, it seems, the Shahi Imam has little political influence. Matters, of course, get worse as we leave Delhi. In 2012, Bukhari’s son-in-law contested the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections on a Samajwadi Party ticket from Behat, a constituency where Muslims make up 80% of the electorate. The results were embarrassing: not only did Bukhari’s son-in-law lose but his performance was so poor that he had to forfeit his electoral deposit.
Not surprisingly, Muslim parties such as the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen have no use for Bukhari given his lack of actual support among Muslims. In an interaction with the Indian Express, Asaduddin Owaisi questioned Bukhari’s status as a Muslim leader. “What has the man done for the community apart from being the imam of the Jama Masjid, which is a Waqf property?” argued Owaisi. “Has he sponsored a single girl’s education? He has done nothing constructive.”
The Shahi Imam therefore represents a perfect example of how Muslim tokenism works in India: a hollow symbol of “Muslimness”, which has little support among Muslims per se but which is flogged incessantly nonetheless as a symbol of “secularism”.
No comments:
Post a Comment