The persistent pleas of exhibiting autonomy on the pretext of political stability are overdue and resilient in a large part of the world. Today we witness ravaging conflicts, especially in a world that is well clad in rhetoric of all encompassing shades. We stand at a time where politics employs labels that implore absolute meanings. The countries/terrains/ spaces with Muslim populations are witnessing a trend which has not been unknown for certain reasons historically. Our politics is slowly turning into absolute truths fashioned and refashioned with time to be strengthened and endorsed. We do not of course witness how difficult it is to engage with mere labels until our personal encounters happen to us. Times have long passed when a ‘black’ person could be so conveniently humiliated in public or perhaps we are well over the times when racial bias against the Jews was a norm. In India especially (the country where political claims weigh far much greater than actualities) a dominant mainstream is still very receptive of a ‘Dalit’ (Socially discriminated caste) but what about a Muslim?
In response to the barbaric rhetorical attack based on faith against Muslims, we almost must agree that what happens almost on daily basis is only a very subtle demonstration of how space for a Muslim’s ‘humanness’ has been snatched away. But what one does not get enough space to engage with is Political Islam. The use of this term borrowed from academia refers to varied difference–sans nationalism– sans a cultural claim. But can there be something like Political Islam or should we say political system within Islam? Are we conveniently than ascribing labels (political ones) to simply defy a more nuanced inquiry that it demands? After all what are these claims that Political Islam lays over us? I would like to dwell into these claims and also place it inside a context (often very misplaced from journalistic pieces and liberal commentary).
Some of the interesting claims that it lays on Human beings (in this case first Muslims and then the world) are basically and foremost ‘god centric’ and not ‘power’ centric. The pan-ultimate claims of an internal reform (Muslim reform) to build a relation of human with God and make human’s connection of servitude with God alone. All political structure that bases its premise on ‘sovereignty’ is demonized by the political Islam as against Human beings. It claims everything/system on this earth is fallible. Therefore ultimate sovereignty must not belong to anything but to the ‘book’ which is God’s guidance for mankind. Sovereignty of law and the ultimate authority is subject to the same law. This point pulls out a view of Islamic political system more fundamentally different than ‘those systems’ of which we are cautioned particularly those against the Western Church system. These claims are not as simplistic as we assume they are, nor are Islamic theology a rule book but a diverse realm of debate, argument situated on difference and plurality. Many Western scholars have noted the ‘culture of difference’ existent within Islam is to the extent that one Muslim Scholar on the drop of a hat would accuse another of ‘disbelief’ and yet agree to different standpoints. Therefore, emerges the actuality of Islam as a political system. If theology is vast and varied how one does suppose that political Islam is a monolithic, and essentially an anti-human entity?
Political Islam agrees unanimously on one proposition that Human beings are not slaves of each other but slaves of God alone. There is an important scanty awareness that our disagreement with political Islam that transpires and of which it is deliberately accused– that is of being medieval in nature. This awareness stems on the assumption of ’we have evolved’. Most probably the secular mainstream believes that there was a time when we needed God, but that need is over and displaced–replaced by modern scientific advances, rationality and pure reason.
The leaps of human progress– have been— polytheism to monotheism to atheism and hence, our overwhelming success in doing away with the dependency on God. This misinformed social evolution has led us to under estimate the fact that in the ‘other’ there exists the Hinduism (polytheism), Buddhism (atheism) and Islam (monotheism), and one has to but agree that we have not overcome either of the phases (if they so be) but they have existed side by side and continue to do so. Social evolution does not serve more than an illusion that forces existent knowledge into channels, filtered and altered.
But here I must mention that political Islam has emerged through violent politics from Egypt, Chechnya, and Afghanistan to Kashmir in an organized fashion largely against political oppression. There is a recognition that political power that once allowed Muslims to advance into rationality and all human geniuses, —its lack, taming through colonization has led to political regress. Our cold treatment to political Islam that seeks to build a just governance ‘God centric’ (religeo-secular) pattern has led to constricted space for pluralism.
If we can, we must retrieve Political Islam from the onslaught and oppression of political rhetoric and label politics.
At the out-set of this expression that political Islam needs to be pulled out of sham and abusive aura that circumspect it, we are left destitute in our response to it. Kashmir like all other Muslim populations under foreign rule are experiencing a similar cautionary tactics towards how to define what is meant by ‘freedom’? In the 1989, during the violent insurgency phase of Kashmir protest the handiest slogans for protest read ‘la sharakiya la gharabiya, Islamia Islamia’ [No East no West, Islam Islam]. The people of Kashmir and their equivalent with justice was none other than the philosophy of Islam. But the post-colonial expectation of a third wordlist occupier [in this case India] Islam stood as a convict, responsible for Partition more than even Mr. Jinnah himself. With time enemies were forgiven but philosophy is still convicted. This cautioning has led to large number of [anti-occupation people] distancing from promoting which was earlier expressed as a sole source of Justice. The Left-Nationalist front of Kashmir has shaped and reshaped over years its political edges just in accordance with what is expected and what is a norm in the politics. Nietzsche a philosopher warned us, “Watch out against the oppressor lest you become one yourself”.
Today a Muslim’s proof of being a Human being is distancing from Political Islam as if we have successfully established in any part of the world a secular nation. India is an explicit example of a Hindu Fascist country, with its widening self explanation on the basis of extermination of the other [which more specifically is Muslims]. Let us accept one basic thing that one is yet to arrive at a non self-defeating political system that is universal in its application.
Kashmir is still a fourth wordlist narrative and occupied people’s autonomy to fashion their politics is also informed by the occupier to the extent that the occupier makes nullified, the physical presence and the cost. All decolonization is basically an attempt to reduce the cost of physical presence. All colonization is a process of disciplining thought and action that benefits the instructor [occupier] and all decolonization is the understanding that we have achieved it. Therefore, in the modern times places like Kashmir get pulled to level zero of priority, since people are at the first stage of this onslaught of thought and action. Thus, Power of the occupation has set routes to follow through; we must agree that occupation is hierarchical and nations and peoples are placed through chiseled out politics that benefits some or ultimately a few termed as [core occupiers]. The set patterns of thought and action ensures our entry into this hierarchy as nations, individuals, religions and tribes.
So one needs to ponder on a few things in order to construct an actually viable solution for people’s problems, Should real democracy prevail that is people must choose the system that ultimately governs them or should they accept readymade options that can actually lead to decolonization or Struggle must continue in order to build a consensus among the diverging political points on the question of freedom? I think this question is persistent in all the places which are still at level zero of priority list.
