Shabana Azmi is a remarkable woman: five times National award winner, she has performed multiple roles in life and cinema. That someone from the increasingly vacuous world of Bollywood has emerged as a public activist-intellectual is rather creditable in itself.
She may well have been a prisoner of political correctness at times, but few will deny that she has chosen to venture where few others of her ilk would dare: then whether it be standing up for slum-dwellers rights, women's rights or against communal politics, hers has been a powerful voice. Which is why when in a recent television interview on CNN-IBN, the actor said that the polity was unfair to Muslims and spoke of her personal experience in being denied a house in Mumbai because she was a Muslim, the response was instantaneous. Her critics described her as 'irresponsible', questioning her claims as inflammatory and designed to spread communal disharmony.
There is another Azmi, meanwhile, who has also been grabbing the headlines. Abu Asim Azmi has a rather different career graph to the actor. Accused in the 1993 Mumbai blasts, and charged with links to Dawood Ibrahim, he was later let off for want of evidence.
Re-inventing himself as president of the Samajwadi party in Maharashtra, he became a Rajya Sabha MP in 2002. As a self-styled spokesperson for the north Indian community in Mumbai, he was arrested alongwith Raj Thackeray a few months ago for promoting enmity between communities.
A fortnight ago, Abu Azmi was back in the news when he vowed to fight for Abu Bashar, prime accused in the Ahmedabad blasts case, claiming that the SIMI activist was innocent.
Both the Azmis seem to be projecting the Muslim as 'victim', and yet their personal and political persuasions could not be more different. When Shabana Azmi spoke out, she appeared to be reflecting on a genuine liberal Indian Muslim predicament : how do you ensure the 'mainstreaming' of a community when there is active discrimination on a basic issue like housing.
Abu Azmi, on the other hand, was engaging in a time-worn populist appeal: "Islam Khatre mein hai" was the message (Islam is in danger). Far from seeking ways to restore confidence within the minorities, his rhetoric was only designed to promote divisiveness by creating a distinct Muslim constituency based on fear and enmity towards the majority community.
Unfortunately, the distinctiveness in approach between the two Azmis hasn't been sufficiently appreciated. When a Shabana Azmi is vilified for speaking out, it almost seems as if she stands guilty of having crossed a certain lakshman Rekha by publicly questioning the implementation of the constitutional guarantee of equality among citizens, irrespective of faith.
As Ms Azmi put it eloquently in a signed article in Hindustan Times, "would it not be fair to assume that implicit in this hue and cry is the desire to shut up the liberal voice and demand of Muslims who are successful to be good Uncle Toms? Have I ever been asked to apologise to men when I've talked about discrimination against women? Have I ever been asked to apologise to the rich because I've talked about the need to alleviate poverty?"
It is almost as if we are comfortable with the idea of having to deal with the Abu Azmis and the Shahi Imams as symbols of Muslim fundamentalism in our society. These are the shrill voices of Islam that confirm our worst stereotypes and prejudices of a community in crisis: for example, every time, these gentlemen make an outrageous remark in a television debate, there is an "I told you so" smirk that sweeps through the studio audience . If a Praveen Togadia does not represent the voice of the silent majority, why should an Abu Azmi or a Shahi Imam represent the average Muslim citizen? Every time there is a terror blast and a Muslim is arrested, it is as if an entire community must accept the blame. Do we demand the same sense of collective guilt among Hindus every time the Bajrang Dal stands accused of murderous assaults?
That Hindu fundamentalists need the Muslim fanatic for survival is well-established. What is less clear is why even a section of the so-called secular intelligentsia is unable to look beyond a certain stereotypical notion of the Indian Muslim. It is as if we are satisfied that India has established its 'secular' credentials by having three Muslim presidents, the Khans who preside over the film world and the Irfan Pathans and Zaheer Khans who do us proud on the cricket field.
Our definition of a "liberal" Muslim it seems is confined to those who publicly take on the fundamentalists within their community (do we make similar demands of the liberal Hindu?). Our definition of the "successful" Muslims is of someone who attains fame on a bigger stage without making a fuss of their minority identity. So long as an APJ Abdul Kalam limits himself to a vision 20-20 that focuses on education and technology, he is a role model for all of us. Were he to raise questions on Hindu-Muslim relations, then he suddenly would become a 'suspect'. Sharukh Khan as a happy-go-lucky film star is a national icon, but if Sharukh were to take a stand on a communal riot, he might lose his iconic status.
Which is why we need to value Shabana Azmi's intervention as a brave attempt to force a public debate on realities that we choose to deliberately blind ourselves to.We cannot be cheerleaders of the actor when she challenges the Shahi Imam, but become her critics the moment she acknowledges her concerns on prickly Hindu-Muslim questions. Indeed, it is only when we raise discomfiting questions that perhaps we can hope to find some of the answers that still elude us on why our secular spirit has failed, on why there is a growing intolerance of the 'other', on why home grown terror groups have emerged, or on why our minds and neighbourhoods are being 'ghettoised'.
The answers are complex, as perhaps are the solutions. But let's at least make a start by distinguishing between a Shabana Azmi and a Abu Azmi: let's consolidate one voice, weaken the other.
Total Comments: 79
Read Comment | Post Comment
Religions are essentially different thoughts which came about at different places at different times and all of them have been invariably influenced by the places where they originated. This has happened in case of all religions regardless of the place where they originated. However, one common strain between all of them is: They all want us to be good human beings and at the same time all the religions try to provide a path to salvation. The differences were are there but they are more because of their place of origin, the circumstances, the geography and social milieu in which they originated. In an era where they were working separately in different geographies, it was fine. Conflicts arose when two or three major religions came together, Like in India where all the major religions of the world are there. However in the past, this challenge was also dealt by people in one way or the other. People evolved their own local processes by which they could leave peacefully with each other. There were many processes evolved by them to leave peacefully with each other rather than attacking each other.
Globalisation and the instant transfer of news now places a major challenge to all the religions. The local balances created by the local communities are now falling apart. The different religions have not yet evolved a common milieu. This is resulting in conflicts at global level. This can be finished very quickly if interfaith understanding is fostered and developed at global level. We all need to understand that essentially all the religions are same at macro level and differences can only be at micro level. We need to understand to interact at macro level. Essentially we are all citizens of same universe and to all of us the same global laws are applicable.
Why all the leaders of major religions canât sit together and ultimately agree on some basis of universalism something which can join all of us and we can then have less conflict. This would easily take away atleast one major point of conflict between people.
India in the past has provided leadership to the world in resolving religious and spiritual matters. Let's do it one more time so that this conflict gets resolved. As a start why canât our religious leaders in India start this process? This can be a model which entire world can follow. Because if India with the presence of all major religions can do it everybody in the world can do it.
...Reply
We cannot lead unless we follow our culture. And it is this cultural silence in our schools and colleges in the name of secularism that I am objecting to... It is this silent acceptance of our fate everywhere.....
...Reply
Contributions are being made by Hindus in Islamic and Christian world also. That doesn't make them any more first class citizens in their world. Which Islamic country is apologising for being Islamic? Which Christian country is bending over backwards to be secular to the extent of providing special status to minority Hindus and Buddhists and Jews?
There are approx. 70 Islamic countries in the UN and not a single one is a shining example of a progressive society to the planet at large. India, despite being laughed at for having a Hindu rate of growth less than 3 decades ago today has a place on the economic map of the world. And it got there because those who struggled, did not sit down to whine and blame others for their plight. They cashed in on opportunities when they arose.
Why is it so difficult for you to appreciate that the Hindus do want a country of their own. A country that will recognise their culture in schools, and provide and propagate to them their rich and vast sciences of knowledge freely, without owing anyone any apology, or wondering which corner of society will start screaming - "SAFFRONISATION"!!!!
The difference between Taliban and the Hindu society would be that the Hindu society would continue to produce more Indra Nooyis and Chanda Kocchars even in a Hindu predominant society, whereas the Taliban will drag women into a car and shoot them dead and take a video of it and publish it on the net.
Let us not even begin comparing..........
...Reply
I don't find any difference between both the "Azmis" you mentioned in your article. We respect Abdul Kalam because he has risen above the religious barriers. Similarly Shah Rukh Khan confined to his domain of acting. Actors are not the "competent" authorities to raise or air opinion firmly on some important social issues which have religious flavour. If they do so, they have to be ready to face the blame or fame that is associated with it.Who said muslims are the minorities in India? There is a muslim in every six people in India. Politicians know that their votes are decisive in winning more than 200 parliamentary constituencies.
Muslims constitute 20% of the population of India. Hindus r divided on caste lines. No caste among Hindus can reach that much percentage. Even the media is scared to write anything against Muslims because they know that they can cause havoc n ruin their studios/offices.
As Gandhiji said an average Hindu is a coward n average Muslim is a bully. Shabana Azmi knows which side of the bread is buttered. Perhaps she wanted to side with Imam Bukhari for sometime to get some political mileage in the next election. Woman empowerment n poverty alleviation concern all the people of the country. But getting a flat in Mumbai or not doesn't concern us. If some Muslims don't get a flat it is their own making. People of India r not the Govt of India to give sops to a particular community. Enough is enough. They have to be 'one' with all the sections of people in the country. ...Reply
Mr Kautilya - Lets not be selective. What happened in Maharashtra, MP, Rajasthan UP and Orissa? Would you be kind to note that whatever happened was a reaction to Jihadi forces destroying peace? Ordinary people what started to take law into their hand because governments like present UPA government are not securing he country without rule of law (Afzal guru SC decision not honored, guilty in all bomb blasts not apprehended, Lalu/Mulayam/Paswan openly support SIMI which claimed bomb blasts)
Lets not go witch hunting with Sangh Parivar without any basis. They may be guilty of reacting. But the problem lies with whoever starts voilence without impunity like SIMI and other Kashmiri/Pakistani groups with help from Indian Muslims. ...Reply
Read More Comments
The views/ideas/opinions expressed in this section of the website www.ibnlive.com / www.ibnpolitics.com are solely those of the writer/author and not of Web18 Software Services Limited (Web18) or of IBN18 Broadcast Limited (IBN18). The statements made by the writer/author have not been verified in any manner by Web18 and/or IBN18. Web18 and/or IBN18 shall not be responsible for or liable in any manner whatsoever for the views/ideas/opinions expressed by the writer/author of this section.