What about Shamis near us?
Alok Tiwari
Right until the wrenching loss on Sunday,
Team India had been riding high in the World Cup. There was particular focus on
pacer Mohammed Shami who played a key role in India’s unbeaten run up to the
final. The adulation showered on him was partly to undo the abuses he suffered
from a nefarious section among us during an earlier relatively poorer run. This
section not only targeted him for being a Muslim but also threatened
unspeakable violence on his family members. So, when this time his performances
proved critical in Indian victories, many of us rightly felt compelled to come
out strongly on his side. Some even projected the diversity of Team India as
proof of India’s fundamental secular character. Some of it was repudiation of
increasingly communal discourse in our politics, which is fine. But to the
extent it was meant to paper over the harsh realities of community relations in
Indian society, it was superficial and even dangerous.
Treatment of celebrities including
cricketers and film stars can never be the indicator of how their communities
are treated in the society. Many superstar athletes and rockstars in the US are
black. They make millions of dollars and draw huge multi-racial crowds wherever
they go. The adulation showered on them is genuine. Yet, it is no reflection of
the way blacks in general are treated in American society. Decades after end of
segregation and blacks attaining full legal rights, blacks as a community remain
deprived in terms of education, attainment, representation in jobs and
politics. They are at much higher risk of being shot and killed by police. In
fact, it is believed that relative over-representation of blacks among athletes
and musicians reflects how tough it is for a black person to make it in the
normal way.
Something similar could be seen in India as
well, very starkly in case of Muslims but also in case of other deprived groups
like tribals and backward communities or even women. We may celebrate the rise
of a Droupadi Murmu to the highest office of the land but that is largely a
token. It in no way means tribals in general have full representation in
political and economic life of the country. Similarly, we have had our Azharuddins
and Zafar Iqbals, Khans still dominate our movie industry, we have seen a few
Muslims as president. But that hardly means our biggest minority is where it
should be economically and politically. To a lesser extent it is also true of
scheduled castes though affirmative action of several decades has helped at
least some among them get to the high table.
While we may genuinely love Mohammed Rafi,
Amjad Ali Khan, and have huge respect for Abdul Kalam it does not overcome the
walls between the communities on the ground. Just look around. Do you find
presence of ‘other’ community in everyday life, at your workplace, in the
markets you visit, in public transport, even in your FB and Insta friend list?
In an ideal society people should be ‘visible’ roughly in the same proportion
as they are in larger population everywhere. If they are not that indicates
prejudice and ghettoization. It is not a situation we must tolerate. It needs
to be set right and that needs work.
Even though we may have no legal
segregation, separation among communities is a fact of life, even among
followers of same religion. This is by no means unique to India, but it is
particularly acute here with our multiple divisions and resistance to widen our
horizons. Forget small towns, even in our biggest metros, which should be
cradle of modernity, it is not uncommon to find societies restricting residents
based not just on religion but also on eating habits and even sexual
orientation.
This extends to workplaces too and has
gotten worse. The class in my school was much more diverse than the classes of
my sons. The offices of our best corporates are not nearly as diverse as they
need to be. The offices I have seen up close almost never had adequate
representation of minorities. Worryingly, there is not even an effort to make
it right. On the contrary, there is a vocal opposition to reservations that
attempt to set the balance right at least among Hindus. They survive not
because mainstream political parties are committed to the idea of equity but
because electorally it would be suicidal to scrap them. In recent years we have
seen calls among our villages and small towns to boycott businesses of Muslims.
It is shameful in the extreme and a huge threat to the very fabric of the
nation.
If we are okay with this situation, then
our showering love on Shami rings hollow. Why should someone need to be a Shami
for us to show our inclusiveness? Why is it so difficult to accept ordinary
people who pray and eat and look different as our neighbour? I am not blaming
Hindus alone for this. Similar prejudice exists on the other side too.
Muslim-owned small businesses also almost exclusively tend to employ people
from that community only. But as an overwhelming majority, the responsibility
of setting it right is of Hindus. It is sad that push back against politics of
division has not been as strong among Hindu elite as it should be.
Everybody ends up loser in this situation.
Fairer societies, where all sections have access to fruits of economic
development and have better representation in power structures, have always
been more creative, prosperous, and peaceful. Societies where large sections
live in isolation and make it difficult for some to rise only deprive
themselves of contributions those people can make. But we should not be aiming
for a more just and representative society for this reason. We should do it
because it is the right thing to do.
This column was published in Lokmat Times on Nov 22, 2023
Comments
Post a Comment