Why pseudo-seculars hate Muslims like Arif Mohammed Khan, Abdul Kalam

Every religion has some conservative elements which are no longer relevant to socio-political and geographical realities. With the passing of time, ‘reforms’ are required to ‘correct’ the old and outdated practices.

Industrialization, Individualism, and Capitalism changed religions in very fundamental ways. Some religions accepted these changes and took humanity forward while some others are still stuck in medieval societal practices. 

If we talk about Islam in India, the followers still support predatory ‘personal laws’ like Triple Talaq. The conservative elements in society support the predatory practices in the name of ‘religious freedom’. The non-interference of the state in the personal lives of the people is put forward to argue the case.

The ‘liberal interpreters’, arguing for reformation and modernization of the Muslim society have been repeatedly attacked by conservative elements as well as left-liberal intelligentsia of the country.

Few years of after independence, when Hindu Code Bill was passed to give legal protection ‘liberal interpretation’ of Hinduism, the majority of the society accepted it. However, at that the debate was about passing ‘Uniform Civil Code’ and many members including the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru supported it. But the Muslim conservatives vehemently opposed it and the Maulvis tried to protect their privilege under the veil of All India Muslim Personal Law.

After three decades when Supreme Court of India tried to protect the rights of the Muslim woman in Shah Bano Case, the Muslim clerics convinced the gullible Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to pass a Bill in parliament to override the bill. Arif Mohammad Khan, a member of parliament from Bahraich constituency resigned from the party over differences on Muslim Personal Law Bill passed by Rajiv Gandhi. 

After almost three decades, Arif Mohammad Khan again came into limelight when PM Modi quoted what a minister from Rajiv Gandhi had told Khan. “If they want to lie in the gutter, let them be” said the Prime Minister. According to Khan, a minister of Congress party had said this to him when he was trying to convince Khan not to resign. After that Arfa Khanum Sherwani, a journalist from leftist web portal The Wire interviewed Khan. The 38-minute interview went viral because Khan pointedly attacked conservative elements of Muslim society in the video.

Since then, the left-liberal media establishment and conservative elements of Muslim society has tried to defame and demean Khan. “Arif Mohammad Khan is history. Don’t know why media is hell-bent on giving him prominence. He doesn’t represent Muslims and, more crucially, he can’t win elections. Don’t forget that he lost even the India Islamic Cultural Centre’s election in Delhi in Jan. Polled just 702 votes,” tweeted Rifat Jawaid, Ex BBC Editor.

Swati Chaturvedi, a journalist well known for anti-BJP and pro-Congress political stance went a step further and claimed that Khan is doing this for Rajya Sabha seat. “So #arifmohammadkhan is in line for a Rajya Sabha seat from the Bjp. After leaving the congress he joined BSP & then the Bjp for a while,” tweeted Chaturvedi. To those who watched the interview of Khan, it is very clear that he held the same views even when he was in Congress or any other political party. So, only a ‘fool’ would accuse him of opportunism on his current stance on Muslim society.

Khan’s case is not unique to receive rant from Muslim clerics as well as the fundamentalists masquerading as seculars in the media, for not being a well-wisher of the Muslim community. Some other prominent Muslims in public life who advocated for reform in the societal practices of the community like late president Abdul Kalam, former Wipro chairman Azim Premji were also accused of being anti-Muslim for criticizing the medieval practices of the society. Azim Premji was also accused of being apathetic to help the Muslim community despite being a billionaire.

The accomplished Muslims like Arif Mohammad, Abdul Kalam, and Azim Premji are targeted for not being ‘Muslim enough’, that is, not subscribing to the ‘victimhood’ narrative of the pseudo-secular brigade.

In contrast, these figures evoke admiration from the larger society and justifiably so without adhering to the monkey-balancing, the pseudo-secular politics has become the hallmark of.

They recognize the fault lines in the Muslim community and recommend inward progression rather than outward aggression on behalf of perceived victimhood, these figures prescribe progressive changes in the Muslim society in accordance with the modern values, something that is resisted by the Muslim orthodoxy. As Arif Muhammad Khan put it, ‘the 4 percent Deobandis fed with toxic fundamentalism hold the position of power within the clergy and define the rule of engagement with the rest of Indian society’ and as such pave the way for more orthodoxy, fundamentalism and perpetuation of victimhood narrative.

The unwillingness to accept the ‘liberal interpretation’ of the religious laws, embrace to Uniform Civil Code and intolerance towards advocates of ‘reform’ is not doing the Muslim society any favor. As long as people like Arif Mohammed Khan would not be accepted and the bigoted Maulvis would not be sidelined, the victimhood narrative perpetuated by the select but influential few for political benefits would continue to hold back the Muslim community in India.