Last days, two important incidents took place, Shabana Azmi complained about her not getting a house in Mumbai just because she was a Muslim (it drew lots of criticism from different walks of people that even Shabana Azmi is talking like this. She is supposed to be a very liberal and intellectual Muslim—as if being liberal or intellectual is guarantee of equal treatment.). The other horrible incident was riot against Christians in Orissa, reminding the Graham Steins and his two minor children’s murder that took place many years ago. The later being major and horrible drew attention from all over world and condemnation from Vatican.
Although, both the incidents are common in one aspect—the victim is minority community. It is not the religion or its ritualistic practice that creates difference among people and motivates them to target their ‘rival’. Many such incidents are not reported, like violence against the Dalits. They are not only targeted en masse which some time catches attention of the media, everyday people from this social group is targeted in forms of physical as well as mental violence, not only in remote areas but metros like Delhi and even institutions like universities and colleges. There exists a feeling of insecurity between both the parties where one may think that the other is eating up their share, while the other party would be of opinion that they are hated.
Christians in Orissa are demanding ST status to claim reservation, which they were enjoying as scheduled castes before conversion to a religion, which is not ‘Indian’ since our constitution does not allow scheduled castes status to a religion that did not originate in India. Similarly, a considerable amount of low caste Muslims are also denied SC status on the same ground. Even halalkhors in Bihar/Jharkhand, who are also called doms---neither Muslims let them enter in a mosque or even identify them as Muslim nor Hindus consider them Hindu---are denied SC or ST status. Therefore, this kind of legal bias on religious ground is forming opinions among the victim religious groups. On the other, the ‘upper castes’ are fade-up with the policy of reservation which is curtailing their opportunity in education and employment.
I don’t say that the policy of reservation is sole culprit behind sectarian hatred, rather I would see this as a social phenomena which has its root in perception and formation of ‘identity’. Before British got an upper hand in Indian Polity, the concept of ‘us’ and ‘them’ was somehow confined to the elites of the society or better say the players of power. When British came into prominence, they wanted to understand the Indian society and for that, they begin to define it. For the purpose, they translated various legal treatise pertaining to holy laws of Hindus and Muslims, and implemented it with courtesy considering these ‘holy laws’ basis of Indian society. They committed a great mistake by sidelining the customary laws prevalent in different communities, which was of course, more than Hindu and Muslim, out of their need to create uniformity in the apparatus of empire. These pasted label of ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’ widened the scope of definition of ‘us’ and ‘them’. The Van Gurjars were once ‘Van Gurjars’ they had their common panchayats, customary laws and relation pertaining to ‘roti’ aur ‘beti’(relations of marriage and dinning together), now they are Hindu Van Gurjars and Muslim Van Gurjars. Similarly, Meos of Haryana has now crystallised its identity of Muslim—thanks to Tablighi Jama’t, so much so that, namaz is the only solution for their every socio-political problem. Not two decades before they did nikah along with seven pheras around agni (alter of fire). Since this kind of identity formation, somehow guaranteed upper mobility to these castes or tribes on the one hand while it provided opportunity to create a support base for those who had ambition in politics with a changed scenario and invention of parliamentary democracy. Now, this identity which has only become a tool of hatred, associate a layman who even don’t know name of his great grand father, with those who ‘invaded’, ‘looted’ & ruled India with lots of ‘oppression’ and ‘tyranny’. The associations with the rulers—I remember a phrase “Babur ki santano Bharat chhodo” (sons of Babur quit India!) written on the walls in Sherghati, my native place, and as a child I used to ask my father who are these sons of Babur?—certainly ‘increased’ social status, and made one section of the society ‘proud’ of their ‘genesis’ while to others, provided reason of hatred.
Similarly, the identity of masculinity is also associated with valour and power and once its victim was only women—a well known ‘other’ of our society. However, the crystallisation of this identity (masculinity) now has gulped another gender i.e., ‘eunuch’ and their identity is now not more than of a ‘beggar’, an extortionist, who extorts money applying several psychological weapons. This community was not ashamed of being eunuch and neither had they any ‘profession’ ascribed only to them. Malik Kafur was a well known eunuch (khawaja sara), a high ranking general of Alauddin Khilji, who made this great Sultan a puppet of his hand during later phase of Alauddin’s reign. Itimad Khan, was chief of the Mughal harem and later elevated to the position of deputy to Todar Mal, the wise Finance Minister of Akbar. But now the situation is, if some people out of joke chose an eunuch as municipal councillor it makes great news for media (itself a part of dissemination of social message of masculinity).
The identity, however, has been trespassed voluntarily by many persons in the past as well as present. Last year, a news channel made a whole long day entertainment with news of Mithlesh Paswan marrying an upper caste Muslim girl from Gaya, Bihar. Mithlesh is an M.A from Benaras Hindu University already married to Urmila with two children, with substantial economic background and the girl is a graduate from Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. Both were employed as teacher in same government primary school. They also shared same locality and Mithlesh had good relations with her ‘bahubali’ father who is by profession a medical practitioner. They developed love for each other, eloped, and married in a Shiva temple in Benaras. There was lot of outcry, father of the girl was not ready to accept the marriage and went to police, registered a case against Mithlesh of kidnapping in Gurua Police Station. All this followed by ‘generous’ intervention of that channel, they were given security and the new bride landed in her sasural with grand reception—this reception was of a ‘hero’ who brought a ‘trophy’. However, the couple tried hard and succeeded initially in trespassing their social identity of Hindu, Dalit, Muslim & upper caste (pathan). But after a mere two months passed, the girl had to run away from her in-laws who hated and called her a ‘mussalmani ’(At this place, the identity of Dalit had enough power to overcome and claim Hindu identity with more vocal words).
So, this was the tragic end of a trespassing couple’s story. Nevertheless, the society is full of successful stories. I too had such an experience. One of my colleagues impressed with my chivalry told me jokingly “Mati, if you were not Muslim, I would have been dating you”. This was just a joke on her part but it somehow made me think that, although, me an atheist, identified with what my social identity is. So, in nut shell what I mean to say is that Society brand you with identity whether you associate yourself with it or not. And if you are given something by someone else, it will certainly be of more useful to them than you.
(The writer is Research Scholar
at Department of History, University of Delhi)
Although, both the incidents are common in one aspect—the victim is minority community. It is not the religion or its ritualistic practice that creates difference among people and motivates them to target their ‘rival’. Many such incidents are not reported, like violence against the Dalits. They are not only targeted en masse which some time catches attention of the media, everyday people from this social group is targeted in forms of physical as well as mental violence, not only in remote areas but metros like Delhi and even institutions like universities and colleges. There exists a feeling of insecurity between both the parties where one may think that the other is eating up their share, while the other party would be of opinion that they are hated.
 |
| Photo: vozmob-17234's blog |
I don’t say that the policy of reservation is sole culprit behind sectarian hatred, rather I would see this as a social phenomena which has its root in perception and formation of ‘identity’. Before British got an upper hand in Indian Polity, the concept of ‘us’ and ‘them’ was somehow confined to the elites of the society or better say the players of power. When British came into prominence, they wanted to understand the Indian society and for that, they begin to define it. For the purpose, they translated various legal treatise pertaining to holy laws of Hindus and Muslims, and implemented it with courtesy considering these ‘holy laws’ basis of Indian society. They committed a great mistake by sidelining the customary laws prevalent in different communities, which was of course, more than Hindu and Muslim, out of their need to create uniformity in the apparatus of empire. These pasted label of ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’ widened the scope of definition of ‘us’ and ‘them’. The Van Gurjars were once ‘Van Gurjars’ they had their common panchayats, customary laws and relation pertaining to ‘roti’ aur ‘beti’(relations of marriage and dinning together), now they are Hindu Van Gurjars and Muslim Van Gurjars. Similarly, Meos of Haryana has now crystallised its identity of Muslim—thanks to Tablighi Jama’t, so much so that, namaz is the only solution for their every socio-political problem. Not two decades before they did nikah along with seven pheras around agni (alter of fire). Since this kind of identity formation, somehow guaranteed upper mobility to these castes or tribes on the one hand while it provided opportunity to create a support base for those who had ambition in politics with a changed scenario and invention of parliamentary democracy. Now, this identity which has only become a tool of hatred, associate a layman who even don’t know name of his great grand father, with those who ‘invaded’, ‘looted’ & ruled India with lots of ‘oppression’ and ‘tyranny’. The associations with the rulers—I remember a phrase “Babur ki santano Bharat chhodo” (sons of Babur quit India!) written on the walls in Sherghati, my native place, and as a child I used to ask my father who are these sons of Babur?—certainly ‘increased’ social status, and made one section of the society ‘proud’ of their ‘genesis’ while to others, provided reason of hatred.
Similarly, the identity of masculinity is also associated with valour and power and once its victim was only women—a well known ‘other’ of our society. However, the crystallisation of this identity (masculinity) now has gulped another gender i.e., ‘eunuch’ and their identity is now not more than of a ‘beggar’, an extortionist, who extorts money applying several psychological weapons. This community was not ashamed of being eunuch and neither had they any ‘profession’ ascribed only to them. Malik Kafur was a well known eunuch (khawaja sara), a high ranking general of Alauddin Khilji, who made this great Sultan a puppet of his hand during later phase of Alauddin’s reign. Itimad Khan, was chief of the Mughal harem and later elevated to the position of deputy to Todar Mal, the wise Finance Minister of Akbar. But now the situation is, if some people out of joke chose an eunuch as municipal councillor it makes great news for media (itself a part of dissemination of social message of masculinity).
The identity, however, has been trespassed voluntarily by many persons in the past as well as present. Last year, a news channel made a whole long day entertainment with news of Mithlesh Paswan marrying an upper caste Muslim girl from Gaya, Bihar. Mithlesh is an M.A from Benaras Hindu University already married to Urmila with two children, with substantial economic background and the girl is a graduate from Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. Both were employed as teacher in same government primary school. They also shared same locality and Mithlesh had good relations with her ‘bahubali’ father who is by profession a medical practitioner. They developed love for each other, eloped, and married in a Shiva temple in Benaras. There was lot of outcry, father of the girl was not ready to accept the marriage and went to police, registered a case against Mithlesh of kidnapping in Gurua Police Station. All this followed by ‘generous’ intervention of that channel, they were given security and the new bride landed in her sasural with grand reception—this reception was of a ‘hero’ who brought a ‘trophy’. However, the couple tried hard and succeeded initially in trespassing their social identity of Hindu, Dalit, Muslim & upper caste (pathan). But after a mere two months passed, the girl had to run away from her in-laws who hated and called her a ‘mussalmani ’(At this place, the identity of Dalit had enough power to overcome and claim Hindu identity with more vocal words).
So, this was the tragic end of a trespassing couple’s story. Nevertheless, the society is full of successful stories. I too had such an experience. One of my colleagues impressed with my chivalry told me jokingly “Mati, if you were not Muslim, I would have been dating you”. This was just a joke on her part but it somehow made me think that, although, me an atheist, identified with what my social identity is. So, in nut shell what I mean to say is that Society brand you with identity whether you associate yourself with it or not. And if you are given something by someone else, it will certainly be of more useful to them than you.
(The writer is Research Scholar
at Department of History, University of Delhi)
0 comments:
Post a Comment