On Sunday, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria interviewed Bollywood actor/superstar Shahrukh Khan on his recently released film, My Name is Khan, his U.S. airport security woes (Stars! They’re just like us!), the Indian film industry, and perceptions of America abroad.
The interview was surprisingly interesting, but I found a few points to be the most thought-provoking. Towards the end of the first segment (around 5:00 onwards), Shahrukh asserts that it is the responsibility of educated Muslims to promote a more tolerant image of Islam. He emphasizes,
I think it’s a duty of every educated, maybe a little liberal Muslim to go out in the world and if he has the opportunity, like I think I have as an actor, I think we need to make sure, that’s yes, this is what it stands for, this is what Jihad means, this is what tolerance means and this is what Islam means.
Shahrukh raises a point we’ve discussed heavily before on this forum – do “moderate” Muslims have a responsibility to spread a more tolerant image of Islam? And, more specifically, do Muslim celebrities bear the burden of carrying that torch?
In My Name is Khan (feel free to weigh in on your opinion of the film since I haven’t yet seen it), Shahrukh plays a Muslim man married to a Hindu woman living in post-9/11 America, who subsequently “has to go on a journey to explain to everybody that, guys, just because ‘My Name is Khan’ doesn’t mean I’m a terrorist.” The debate is significant because it raises several fair points – first, if the loudest voices in the room are on the far end of the spectrum – Islamist radicals – shouldn’t there be attempts to at least raise the volume of the moderates? At the same time, has that moderate voice been cohesively defined in a manner that can counter negative perceptions? Finally, are we doomed to be constantly on the defensive, particularly since many attempts are unraveled the minute a terrorist attack occurs?
Zakaria, a little later in the interview, asked Shahrukh:
You know when George Bush saw Manmohan Singh at some event, the first time he had an opportunity chance to introduce his wife, Laura Bush, to Manmohan Singh, he said to her, honey, this is the prime minister of India. This is a country that has 150 million Muslims and not one member of Al-Qaeda. That was the way he thought of Indian Muslims. Why do you think Indian Muslims are not so radicalized?
Now, I admit to know relatively little on the subject of Muslim identity in India, but I do think Zakaria’s point is interesting. Although Shahrukh responded, “I think Indians by nature like people and they’re compromising and understanding,” I’ll leave further discussion about Zakaria’s question up to you guys (refraining from Pakistani/Indian bashing of course).
Al-Qaeda proper is not fully functioning in India coz there are other capable Islamist jehadist group doing the job finely who are members of United Jehad Council. Mumbai 26/11 attack was first such instance of HuJI-Brigade313-LeT joint op..
planned & designed by Laskhar-al-Zil..the military arm of Al-Qaeda..using swarm attack tactics.
There is significant radicalization of Muslim community in India..but its not as severe as Islamic countries mainly becoz..
1)the conspiratorial narrative like Al-Jazeera found in Arab/Islamic countries are not mainstream.
2)Heavy mingling w/ other religious communities on a daily basis..so hard to dehumanize the “other”..There are parts in India where “voluntary” ghettoization is taking place like in parts of UttarPradesh like Azamgargh where cable tv channels even illegally play OsamaBinLaden video tapes or jehadist videos in local channels and in Muslim majority parts of Kerala.
3)Mainstream media,judiciary in India is very proactive on acts of violence against Muslims and initiative is quickly stolen from Jehadist leaders by secular political parties like Congress..
Having said that..there is significant erosion of all three points mentioned above..and there is generous help from “external” intelligence agency meddling and hubris spread by Wahabist charities from Arab countries like Saudia Arabia.
India is a peaceful state, although there are some radical fringes of Hindu and Islamic extremism. Muslims (and people of all religions) have oppurtunity to grow in every field.
Here are some Muslim Indians who have served India and were loved and accepted by Indians for their contributions.
1. Actors – shabhana azmi, srk, aamir khan, salman khan etc
2. Science – Abdul Kalam, Israr Ahmed Dr. Qasim etc
3. Music – A R Rahman, Nadeem, Gulzaar, Resul Pookutty etc
4. Politics – Omar Abdullah, Farooq Abdullah, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, Sikander Bakht, A R Antulay, C. H. Mohammed Koya, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, Salman Khurshid, Saifuddin Soz, Ghulam Nabi Azad and Syed Shahnawaz Hussain many of these muslims leaders have held key portfolios such as Defence, External Affairs, Home Ministry, Railways etc.
5. Presidents – Fakhruddin Ali ahmed, Zakir Hussein
6. Singers – Mohd Rafi, Kamal Khan, Lucky Ali etc
7. Writers – Khaliq Ahmed, M K a Siddiqui,
8. Sports – Sania Mirza, Mohd Kaif, Zaheer Khan, Yosuf Pathan, azharuddin etc, many of whom have captained indian teams
9. Industrialists – Azim Premji
Apart from the many many successful muslims, India also gives reservation quotas for the upliftment of muslim community in academics, for engineering, medicine and management courses. India also has a Haj committee that helps pilgrims make the pilgrimage.
We in India love our muslim brothers and sisters as much as we love our Hindu, Christian or Sikh bretheren, and our muslim brothers and sisters love India.
We do not have opressive laws like the blasphemy law, we do not impose unequal statuses to a witness based on the witnesses’ religion when it comes to the law of the land. Many law officers and supreme court judges were muslims too.
I agree with Shahrukh that it is incumbent on moderate muslims to speak out against both a radical, extremist interpretation of Islam as well as the stereotypical portrayal of the ‘muslim terrorist’ that is relentlessly projected onto the western psyche by a sensationalist media.
However, I don’t think moderate muslims need to engage the west in an apologetic or defensive manner. On the contrary, they should be proud (but not arrogant) of their religion and cultural heritage. The ability of Islam adapt to the contemporary context – ijtehad’ or reinterpretation according to context, was a major reason why Islam flourished in the 6th-10th centuries – it was only after ijtehad was stifled by rigid, dogmatic theologians that the decline of the Islamic civilization began. It is that innovative spirit of ijtehad that needs to be rekindled in the 21st century by the moderate muslim. Bring it on!
I also feel that the reason why India has not been radicalized to the extent that other nations in the region have is because of the presence of increasingly robust institutions – due process, a rule of law, an independent judiciary and free press (however imperfect or corrupt the Indian system – and it is certainly corrupt having experienced that first-hand, there is some degree of political accountability and sense of justice/fairness; e.g. after the Gujerat riots there was massive introspection and national ‘catharsis’ that took place).
While there are undeniably pockets of disaffected and marginalized muslim populations (Kashmir and certain other pockets of India as Jaydev points out above), the vast majority of muslims in India do believe that they have ‘some’ opportunity to prosper in India – even if that opportunity is not exactly numerically equivalent to the Hindu majority. The same can not be said of many Islamic countries where there are millions of disenfranchised people/youth (Palestine is a good example) who either feel they have no opportunity whatsoever or that they are being oppressed by a tyrannical regime (feudalism/monarchy) or an occupying force or both.
I think a fair point would also be about India’s fundamentally secular identity versus a decidedly more Islamic identity in Pakistan. Although communalism occurs on a localized level, and it would be naive to assume there weren’t terrorist cells in India, that secular foundation is really important (though the issue of Hindutva and Shiv Sena has been an interesting challenge to that notion).
I agree with you, especially on Muslims’ attitude. There is no need for us to be apologetic or defensive. Like all religions, we are functioning on a spectrum and of course we’ll have the extremists, who want to commit atrocities in the name of religion, and the ultra-liberals, who want to interpret Islam too such an extent that it basically means changing the religion itself. I came across this book called “The Other Muslims: Moderate and Secular,” edited by Zeyno Baran of the Hudson Institute. I’m in the middle of reading it so will refrain from saying anything about it but I feel that it’s a solid read if you want to know more about where secular and/or moderate Muslims stand on the issue of promoting and educating people about Islam.
I would like, if I may, add my views on the issue of Hindutva and the political party, Shiv Sena. One is an idealogy on the retreat or reform and the other is a political party which has far limited area of influence and capability than projected in Pakistan. These forces and some others – such as left-wing extremism – have challenged India’s secular credentials from time to time. However, the extremists have never came close in replacing the secular fabric of the country. As India progresses, the principal actors who incite communal passions with an eye on political power increasingly find themselves in a bind or being mocked at.
Kalsoom,
Shiv Sena play with Sticks and Mobs power. They dont yield Ak-47s or IEDs. They are still at the end of the day a Political Party and people would never encourage,forget vote for, a overtly violent Party.
It’s people like these who give a more acceptable picture of Islam as a religion. After whatever the world has seen in the name of God and religion, I think these words by the actor sum it up very clearly. The actor said and I quote “I think it’s a duty of every educated, maybe a little liberal Muslim to go out in the world and if he has the opportunity, that’s yes, this is what it stands for, this is what Jihad means, this is what tolerance means and this is what Islam means.”
I thought Fareed Zakaria would have better sensibilities than to setup such a discriminating question. Every people have good and bad within them…even India. Shahrukh needs to remember ShivSena – what happened to the compromising and understanding of the Indian in regards to him and his followers?? Indians didn’t get screwed over by the failed U.S. policy in Afghanistan during the Afghan/Russian war…if it doesn’t happen in your house, you could care less about what’s going on. The problem lies with the fact that the U.S. created these monsters and then left them alone — leaving a vaccum and desperation that only lead to this insanity. A warrior knows no other way once it has been trained all it’s life to fight — they constantly seek an enemy…
Yeah I was kind of struck by how patronizing he sounded towards Afghanistan/Pakistan! It’s an interesting question, but I think it could have been framed a better way.
I didn’t think Zakaria’s question was that discriminatory. In fact, I felt it was valid. Of course India has its issues with balancing various ethnicities and races and religions. But their Muslim population is significant and the fact that al Qaeda or a copy cat network of that size has not originated in India or has sought shelter there should be acknowledged and praised. (Please note that I am not saying that there are no terrorists group in India. They are but on a smaller scale). I wasn’t too impressed with Khan’s answer though, which was basically Indians love everyone, they’re compromising, and hence accepting. That may be true on an individual level but I think it’s bigger. It’s basically nationalism taking precedence over religion: you are Indian first, Muslim later. And maybe that’s India’s “secret.”
I also think we need to stop blaming the United States for our extremism problem. We all know what happened. We can’t change the past so let’s focus on the future and developing better counterinsurgency measures.
I have been watching zakaria on cnn for past two years since GPS began. He has always been really anal about pakistan, its politicians and its role in spreading terrorism. His points are often valid but the tone extremely derogatory. Since he grew up in india, he cant help but show his contempt towards pakistan in any discussion about sub-continent. I have particularly noticed him quoting this statement so many time from ex. sec. of state, Madeline albright about pakistan being an international migraine – he even left western journalists behind. To be honest, I am not even sure if he knows how blatantly obvious his contempt for pakistan shows up on screen. One would expect a journalist/news anchor of his caliber to be more impartial and neutral. But with him being an indian, its hard to expect otherwise.
Raza:
Don’t you think Pakistanis like you over do “on getting offended” on any body’s comments in any context? Like,
1> Bangladeshi economy is growing and they don’t take IMF aid any more (a positive sign, but Pakistan might feel annoyed for some strange reason)
2> Nepal is a new tourist destination (don’t know what you might feel)
3> Al-queda /Laden/Palestine/Saddam/Nuclear bomb/Aq Khan etc. etc
4> *byzantine civilization*
dude, just have a chill-pill and let OTHERS have what they want and don’t relate your self everywhere to find a indo-pak connection or ANY-pak connection.
You are right in a way I shouldn’t care as he is sitting on cnn, he fits well in his community of pakistan bashers. Nobody, I care because pakistan’s name is being dragged in mud on international media (which is partially fault of pakistanis politicians) and I dont think one should take it lightly. I have lot of indian friends here in US so it’s not about india/pakistan issue for me. I came to this conclusion after being an avid viewer of his podcast for two years now. Freedom of speech and being entitled to your opinion is one thing but promoting your revulsive agenda is another. But then again, he is on cnn.
Sujay:
- Indian Muslims are periodic victims of mass scale violence which is planned and executed by the State. At best of times, the State is a cheering spectator if not actively abetting and plotting the violence. Gujarat, Bombay, Bhagalpur, Meerut and countless other cities are proof of that. Please see the works of Paul Brass and Martha Naussbaum.
- Indian Muslims are very poor and are in fact denied equal economic opportunities in all spheres of life according to the Sachar Commission report. Please read the report for details.
- No Indian Muslim has ever won a state wide office in India except in the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
There is no Al Qaeda presence in Malaysia and Senegal either. Not more than 10 out of 50 plus Muslim countries have seen any Al-Qaeda violence.
I think Jaydev’s point about conspiratorial narrative is pretty astute, though Al Jazeera is not the source of those. That narrative is not present in India as most Indian Muslims get their news from local newspapers and radio/tv/cable which does not peddle those narratives.
Plus you need existing powerful institutions with access to power and wealth to host Al Qaeda. There are no ultra-right wing Muslim institutions in India with access to levers of power. Also the larger country (Hindu population) is pretty hostile to Al Qaeda or it’s local variants. It will be difficult for them to take root with the vast majority of country being anti-Al Qaeda with no shades of gray or nuance.
desi_justice;
Re no Muslim having occupied state-wide office in India (except in J&K):
A.R.Antulay was Chief Minister of Maharashtra in the 70s. That’s no mean feat — Maharashtra is the most industrialized state in India, and its capital is Mumbai.
To hold state-wide office, a leader really needs to capture the imagination of the *entire* constituency, not just his co-religionists.
I think no Muslim leader has transcended his religion to reach out to the Hindu community — unlike say the Gandhi family.
The day that happens, you will see not only a Muslim chief minister, but also a Prime Minister.
The present PM is a sikh — and Sikhs are less than 2% of the total Indian population, I think. The only reason he is PM is because he transcended his religious identity to become a pan-Indian figure — just like APJ Abdul Kalam.
desi_justice:
There have been successful Muslims in the state apparatus of India; Muslim presidents, vice-presidents, bureaucrats, speakers in the parliament, governors and chief ministers. Not to mention Muslims who live quite comfortably while working in non-governmental professions. Although India has a Sikh prime-minister today it was almost unthinkable two decades ago. If a visionary Muslim leader connects with pan-Indian imagination, I do not see why he/she will not be elected to the highest office.
The Sachar committee not only focused on the difficulties faced by sections of the Muslim community but also impressed the need for the community to introspect if it wants to develop along with other communities.
@desi_justice,
India’s Muslim population is roughly that of Pakistan. But, look at the number of Muslims that have succeeded in their respective fields!
Cinema: Shahrukh, Aamir, Salman, AR.Rahman(a convert mind you. You know what happens to converts from majority community to minority in Pakistan or any Muslims state), Gulzar,Javed Akhtar,etc.
IT: Azim Premji(Richest man in India not far long ago)
Science: Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam.
Sports: Sania Mirza(her short skirts and tight T-Shirts would have induced a Fatwa and a terrorist attack in Pakistan), Zaheer Khan, Azaruddin, etc.
Media: Fareed Zakaria and a bunch of regional language journalists.
These are just few of the names from select fields. Take the combined total and compare them with Pakistan. Their chances of success is higher in India than in Pakistan.
Indian Muslims are the luckiest in the world to be born under a constitution that protects them and a govt that considers them as assets when it comes to elections. They are blessed that the members of the majority community are tolerant towards all other Religions. They must be feeling proud that if ever a moderate Islam exists in this world, it exists in India. Pakistan represents and can identify more with the Arab world than with India. Sure, Pakistan is in the Sub-continent geography wise but they are mentally an extension of Middle East.
I love SRK. and i probably respect the person more than the actor…BUT…i realize it’s putting him on the spot when you ask him a question like that.
so obviously his answer will frustrate me when it makes it sound like as pakistanis we “don’t like people and are not compromising and understanding.”
Ive been to India several times and yes, I’ve been treated brilliantly, and i have close friends there. but i also know that when Indians come here they are treated like celebrities(even the regular ones). Every one from the street vendor to the random person in a market they encounter are excited to have an Indian visiting.
We’re just victims of bad ‘marketing’ and too much international scrutiny.
India, I enviously admit, has mastered the art of promoting a positive progressive image of itself. Massacres get side tracked by beauty pageants and award shows, and Bollywood’s growing popularity in the world makes people forget that the metros are not ALL of India.
I think the marketing point is really interesting, khizzy – I was just discussing that yesterday. I went to a yoga class over the weekend, and the teacher (African-American now named Shakti) + the entire class sang Om Shanti Om seamlessly. Also, on American (and British) television, Bollywood has quickly become part of the mainstream – when people think of India, for the most part they think of trendy, positive things. With Pakistan, I think we have a serious perception problem, though not entirely baseless. I think there needs to be an effort to figure out what positive figures & attributes can also be elevated and promoted.
As far as Islamic radicalism n India is concerned, many sectarian HQs are in India whose followers are only in AF-Pak. Since this war has been declared ideological by Al-Qaeda/Taliban (who are just the followers of these school of thoughts) the lack of connection between the two groups is quite hard to believe.
Similarly there is no count of the Indian Muslims involved in the Afghan war against the REDs back in 80s. Didnt they participate at all? and if they did where did they go after the war ended? Did they join AlQaeda or Taliban liek others after the US left the region?
wOlf: You are right. I should have clarified. I meant run and win as any party’s candidate for Chief Minister. I believe Abdul Ghafoor of Bihar and Anwara Taimur of Assam were also Chief Ministers for less than a term.
Religion is not moderate or extremist; it’s neither mild nor cold. It is an individual that used religion for extremist ideals, so religion is being manipulated by zealots. Take Blasphemy laws for instance the Prophet (P.B.U.H) faced harsh critique and maligned campaigns but he did not resort to violence. If we take separate religion from politics I believe many problems can be solved.
Im sorry but that was a stupid generalized question and Sharukh Khan replied with an even dumber, more generalized response. Has anyone been watching “Shahrukh Khan – Living With a Superstar” on the Travel and Living channel? Let’s see how intelligent everyone thinks his commentaries are after watching that trainwreck. Bah
p.s. well said Khizzy
I will go ahead and claim that the most moderate version of Islam is practiced in India. Over the centuries Islam has transformed in India and acquired a separate identity. It has luxuriously adopted many tolerant philosophies of the majority community and even practices(Eg: Basant. Although, now it is in decline in Pakistan due to Radicalization of not only the population but also the Courts which declared it unsafe).
Indian Muslims are a great success story and some of the leading Muslim minds come from the Sub-Continent(India).
Women in the Muslim community enjoy the most moderate environment when compared to any Muslim state.
Just as a Sikh is a PM today in India, the future holds unlimited potential for Indian Muslims.
Indian Muslim is the role model for the whole ‘muslim’ world.
I truly appreciate Shahrukh’s efforts. One can hear him quoting Koran more often.
I agree with him it is the duty of every moderate Muslim to stand up not for other Muslims but for himself/herself or else the consequences could be what Pastor Martin put in his poem:
“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
‘My Name is Khan’ was NICE! Because it was the first ever balanced movie to come out from the Indian film industry. One might not agree with the entire script but it does raise some interesting questions.
Indian Muslims as role models for the entire Islamic community? OH PLEASE!
Indian Muslims marrying hindu women/men is a sign of ‘moderation’? – No that’s ZINA, and will not be forgiven by the Almighty.
Indian Muslims participating in events related to hinduism, inter alia ‘monkey-, elephant- (and God knows what else) worshipping’ etc! – That’s not moderation or ‘adaptibility’, or ‘tolerance’ – that’s SHIRK, and is gunah-e-kabeera!
As for people like SRK, they better stick to interviews regarding their acting/films, and leave questions about Islam up to someone who KNOWS/FOLLOWS it.
You people have it all wrong, as does Shah Rukh. Just my observation, as an Indian:
Indians, above all, hate other Indians. After that, they hate Pakistanis, because Pakistanis are so similar to Indians.
I suspect the same is true on the Pakistani side of the equation.
They had a wonderful idea and they screwed it up. I regret watching that movie.