Speakers: Dr Ashgar Ali Engineer & Prof Desh Raj Goyal
Discussants: Amb. Bhadrakumar & Partha S Ghosh

Maj. Gen. Dipankar Banerjee

Thomas Friedman first mentioned the phenomenon that while Muslims from around the world joined international terrorism under the banner of the Al Qaeda; Indian Muslims have been a sole significant exception. Either in jihad in the 1980s against the Soviet Union or even later in the 1990s when Al Qaeda shifted base from Sudan to Afghanistan, Muslims from almost all countries flocked to its fold, but none joined it from India. Elaborating further, Friedman suggested that perhaps democracy and the rule of law made Muslims feel that their legitimate grievances could be addressed within the bounds of the state structure in India. Muslims have prospered in this form of a plural society and have risen to the highest ranks in the state, in government, in the military and even as the richest Indian in business and therefore, their hopes had possibilities of fulfilment without violence. There are a few exceptions of course, for example terrorists have been found in Kashmir, in Mumbai in early 1993, etc. These small exceptions were confined to within India and in misguided but understandable response to the state's inadequacies.

The purpose of the project is to understand the reasons why this has been so? The following terms of reference were considered for this study and they are:

• Politics and Islam-comparison of Islam in India with that practiced elsewhere, particularly in West Asia.

• Radicalization of Muslims (examination of the growth of extremism and terrorism) and why has this not occurred to the same degree in India?

• Model of Indian democracy (analysis of how democracy works in India).

• India's democracy as a moderating influence and can it provide an example to others?

Asghar Ali Engineer

There are four key values of Islam: Justice ('adl), Benevolence (ihsan), Compassion (ahmah); and Wisdom (hikmah). These values are repeatedly emphasised in the Qur'an and these are Allah's names too. Thus, Allah is just ('adil), benevolent (muhsin), compassionate (Rahim) and wise (Hakim). Also, contrary to general belief, Islam does not advocate violence but peace. Anyone who studies Qur'an can easily conclude that peace is central to Islam and not violence. Centrality of peace can easily be established through Qur'an. The word Islam itself means 'establishing peace' apart from surrendering to the Will of God. In fact, 'salam' in Arabic means peace and Allah's name is also Salam.

Jihad is another highly misunderstood word both among Muslims and non-Muslims. Jihad is often translated as war. In fact the Qur'an does not use this word in the sense of war at all. There are other words for war in Qur'an like qital and harb. One should also distinguish between Islamic teachings and Islamic history. The former is value-based and the latter is empirical. Islamic history has been very bloody but in Qur'an there is no concept of war of aggression. It permits fighting only in defence. It clearly says, "and fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah does not love aggressors."

One will find sharp contrasts between Islam in Islamic countries where it is the official religion and Islam in India, which is a secular state. Islam in India, with few exceptions, was never associated with the state. It never was a state religion even when Muslim rulers ruled and it spread in India through Sufi saints and hence remained a religion of peace. The very fundamental doctrine of Sufi Islam is sulh-I-kul (total peace and peace with all). The Sufis showed respect to all local religions in India and adopted many cultural practices and local languages. Sufis were quite inclusive in their approach to religion and hence appealed to the Indian masses. Even the ulama, which were quite orthodox and rigid when it came to Islamic Shari'a, did not preach extremist views. On the whole Indian Islam tended to be moderate throughout medieval ages.

The tolerant nature of Indian Islam was reinforced due to Gandhian and Nehruvian influences in the modern period. In post-independence India, hardly any sectarian movement emerged among the Indian Muslims that could thrive. As a political party, the Muslim League did not flourish in post-independence India. Jinnah's Muslim League in pre-independence India was also a non-religious party and fought for political interests of upper class Muslim elite. In fact, the idea to carve out a new state was not mooted by the conservatives in the Muslim League, but by a modernist like Jinnah. Other separatist movements in India like the Khalistan movement or the insurgency raging in the Northeast has nothing to do with Islam.

Lastly, the minority status of Muslims in India has created a fear psychosis among them and restrained them from indiscriminate acts of terror. The moderation of Indian Muslims should and does play an important role. After all there are more than 130 million Muslims in India, and this number is next only to Indonesia. Indian Muslims constitute 10 per cent of the world's Muslim population. Their moderation can have an important role to play in the world of Islam.

Amb. Bhadrakumar

Dr Asghar Ali Engineer has been very generous to Indian democracy. It is important to examine the contours of Islamic resurgence or what many refer to as 'political Islam'. Is political Islam a response by modern people to modern problems? Is Islamism a monolithic movement? Though there are certain differences within the groups involved in this movement, the common goals of Islamists are: to counter and defeat autocratic Arab regimes; to politicize the Israel-Palestine conflict; to oppose and counter the US and its Western allies.

The reason why Islamism has not succeeded in India is because unlike Pakistan and in West Asia, the political establishment does not support Islamism. The latter needs a regime change. Secondly, the vocabulary of Islamic culture is not part of the political discourse in India unlike in West Asia. In India, the state should help the evolution of Islamism rather than suppress it in order to effectively restrict the growth of a perverse form of Islamism seen in West Asia.

Desh Raj Goyal

Islam has come to be related to terrorism by the same people who promoted the idea of terrorist tactics in the world. Islam was not seen as - an adversary ideology to democracy or as violent by nature, at least until the end of Cold War. Until the defeat and exit of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, Western democracies perceived Islam as an ally or an instrument to defeat Communism. It was when the equation of world politics changed that the rhetoric changed and Islam replaced Communism as the enemy. The first salvo was fired by Samuel Huntington who propounded the astounding theory of 'clash of civilizations', in which Islamic civilisation was seen in violent confrontation with non-Islamic civilisations. Just as US President George Bush lost no time after the 11 September 2001 attacks in declaring a worldwide struggle against what he termed as Islamic terrorism or jihad, ignoring the fact that the same forces were encouraged and used against Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Of course, Bush later felt persuaded to explain that he did not mean the religion of Islam but only violence in the name of Islam. He simultaneously gave a call for promotion of democracy as an antidote to fanaticism, extremism and terrorism, and this too despite the fact that most of US' allies, especially in West Asia have been autocratic regimes.

Islam, as Prophet Mohammad preached it was essentially a religion of peace. It degenerated after the first four Caliphs, whose successors imitated the rulers of Roman and Persian empires, which they had defeated. That is why West Asian states have remained autocratic and contributed to terrorist organisations. India's response to the advent of Islam and the role of most Muslim rulers in India saved it from aberration so that Indian Muslims find redressal of their grievances in the democratic process rather than in militancy. That explains the absence of Indian Muslims in terrorist outfits.

India has been a glaring exception to the proposition that Islam is an extremist violent ideology that has bred terrorism that the world is facing today. India refused to associate terrorism with any religion, either Sikhism in Punjab or Islam in Kashmir despite the fact that the perpetrators of violence claimed to be functioning in the cause of their co-religionists. It is not Islam, but imperialist designs to dominate the world which are the true cause of violence that has manifested in world wars, in terrorism and in thwarting the spread of democracy.

Partha S Ghosh

The question is whether democracy and religion are comparable commodities. Can a particular religion be branded as more democratic than the other? If so, then there needs to be a discussion of the doctrines of other religions too. The discussion on Islamic theology immediately after a detailed narration of the evolution of Western imperialism in modern times tends to suggest that Goyal's subscribes to the view that Christianity, unlike Islam, has no commitment to democracy. If that is not the case then we tread into another problem - the problem of anachronism. Islam came into existence much before modern Western imperialism. Before the latter became the dominant force to dictate world politics, there was the long Crusade.

Islam and democracy need to be contextualized with comparisons such as, Christianity and democracy, Hinduism and democracy, and so on. The point is that no religion per se is democratic or non-democratic - it all depends on the societal context within which it is operating. We also need to see the present Indian context of Indian democracy and its evolution over the centuries to contextualise Indian Muslims in India's political development. It would be misleading to conceive Indian Muslims as a monolithic community.

Despite the debate about global 'jihadi' Islam and the emergence of 'terrorist international', not a single Indian Muslim has been found active in other theatres of the so called Islamic terrorism. Does the active participation of Muslims in the political process of India explain this? Does democracy not presuppose secularism? If so, can there be something like Islamic democracy? Since almost all nations in the world these days are plural in some form or the other, such selective categories create difficulties for the accommodation of minorities.

Anwar Sayaf: Islam in Indonesia

There are three approaches to the study of Islam: political, cultural and structural. There are two theoretical perspectives on Political Islam: implementation of Sharia, which is an inclusive approach; and ethical aspects of Islam, where the core idea is peace and justice. This is a substantive-inclusive approach. On Islam and democracy, there are three schools of thought: rejectionists - scholars who believe that there is an inherent incompatibility between democracy and Islam; the second school believes that democracy and Islam are not incompatible, but democracy needs to be moulded to suit Islam; and the last school consists of pragmatists, who believe that there is no conflict between democracy and Islam.

Muslims in India can be studied in the following contexts. They are: historical context - longstanding tradition of democracy; sociological context - coexistence with various religions; and political context - practice of democratic secularism by the state.

As far as Indonesia is concerned, the radical 'Salafi Movement' is on the rise. Islam came to Indonesia in the 13th century and was essentially moderate. But after the Iranian revolution, which can be referred to as a transformation in the religious-political Islamic thought, the Salafi movement has gained momentum. The radical Salafists in Indonesia have their interpretation of Islam. Jews and Christians are considered enemies of Islam. The nature of Islam is gradually changing and becoming more radical today.

Comments & Questions

Comment: Normally, when Islam is discussed as political philosophy, it digresses into imperial history or into discourse on modernity. As far as Islam and secularism is concerned, they are incompatible. Islam clearly divides the world into Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-harb and people into Kafirs and Dhimmis. We have to discuss Islam as a political philosophy and not as a religion. Every madrasa is propagating jihad. Therefore, it is difficult to term Islam as the religion of peace, tolerance and justice.

Comment: There is much talk about the US using Islam against Communism. Even France and Britain encouraged Arab nationalism to further their goals. These are all part of real politick in international politics. However, no one dwells upon the US intervention in Bosnia, which prevented thousands of Muslims from being massacred.

Comment: The title of the project, "Islam and Democracy - Case study of India as a moderating influence" is problematic. One cannot discuss Islam and democracy without discussing Islam and violence. Islam may be propagating peace and justice but one has to take note of what the Muslims are practicing. There is no reciprocity in Islam. A mosque can be built in Washington and Paris but no temple or church can be built in Mecca. Though Indian democracy has its shortcomings, it has a message to give to the world. There is marked difference between Indian Muslims and other Muslims. For example, Indian Muslims living in Black Pearl in the UK are found to be more modern in their outlook and more progressive than their Pakistani or Bangladeshi counterparts. Long ago, Sir Syed gave a message to Indian Muslims: Sufism; encourage culture of debate and discussion within the Muslim community and make science and technology integral to Islam

Comment: Democracy is a Western construct and thrust upon others in a manner that reflects their sense of superiority. Anything that is in contradiction of democratic principles is inferior. Democracy is used as a label to justify suppression. However, it is not democracy, pluralism or secularism that is the problem. The problem starts when religion intermingles with politics as more often than not it leads to radicalisation. Clerics, who are responsible for preaching fundamentalism, do so for power and it is only by inciting religious sentiments that their aspirations for power can me achieved.

Comment: Islam emerged in sixth century AD - as a prescription, to bind various tribes together. Islam poses a dilemma as it has not come to address today. Islam needs to reform itself to the 21st century, but no one is ready to undertake those reforms. The reforms should be in the form of a movement on the fundamentalist issues. Dr Engineer mentioned the principles of democracy initiated by the Prophet Mohammad. However, this democracy, which grants the right to vote, is not synonymous with liberty, freedom of conscience and thought. Therefore, if there were freedom of expression, people could criticise the doctrinal issues of Islam. Another area, which needs reform, is with regard to the concept of sovereignty of Allah over every action. If that is so then how does a constitution function? Can the constitution be subordinated to some abstract entity? In no other religion does godhood affect all actions. Thus, Islam needs a reform movement.

Asghar Ali Engineer: The views expressed here show that propaganda forms our opinion and it is quite powerful. Religion is not practiced in a vacuum, as there are history, sociology, power struggles, politics etc. Also, the role of media has been very negative. There is no single trend in Islam but multiple trends. In Saudi Arabia, the monarchy has been holding dialogue with women, youth, and other groups to bring about change. However, the power structure there is such that it separated democracy and human rights. However, people in Saudi Arabia do aspire for democracy and human rights. Their king uses Islam to legitimise his rule. Islam, however, does not uphold monarchy and the king is violating Qur'an at every step.

Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb are not mentioned in the Qur'an and Hadith. This had been said by Ulama as some ruler must have wanted them to say. The Indian Ulama coined another concept for India, Dar-al-Aman - the land of peace. This was used collaborate with Indian non-Muslims and the theory of political separatism was rejected. Also, the terms zimmi and kafir had a context. The Qur'an did not declare anyone kafir with any motive, while if a human does so it will be for a reason. These are games played for power. Mullahs call one another kafir and do not agree as to who is a true Muslim. Are these mullahs in any way true representatives of Qur'anic teachings? Shari'a is not divine in the sense people take it to be. It was a human approach to Qur'anic understanding. Why are there differences to Islamic understanding on Shari'a?

Because four Imams thought differently, so how can it be divine as human factor is always there? We have to rethink the issues in Shari'a. Islam stands for certain values and not on laws based on them, so value should be given to those values.

We need to refer to the Qur'an to establish moderation and a humane society. To legitimise reforms, one has to go back to the scriptures and quote from there. With regard to violence, it is prevalent due to political and other factors and not due to Islam. Quoting a verse from Qur'an, without taking into account its context is faulty. Peace is the central theme of Islam, it literally means - establishing peace. Islam is undergoing reforms. Unfortunately, they do not make headlines in the media. An overwhelming number of Muslims want peace, though some do use Islam to justify violence. With regard to building churches and temples, etc, it is only Saudi Arabia that does not permit it. It is distorting Islam for its own interest.

Comment: Why is Indian democracy relevant for the Islamic world? When India became a democracy, we had already seen how it worked in some other countries and we adapted it to our needs. The US or French constitutions are based on the concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity. However, the Indian constitution has a fourth element in its directive principles - social justice. This is because Indian society has been full of accumulated social injustice.

In addition, it would be a mistake to see democracy as imposed by the West. Nobody forced India to adopt democracy. There is something inherently good about democracy. It is a healthy tradition of coexisting relations. Second, it has a tradition of the middle path sanctioned by society. Democracy also supports the idea of argument. Also, Islam in India has had open doors just as any other religion. These are the lessons of Sufi and Bhakti movements. India also dealt with issues that are not present in the West - pluralism, caste system, social injustice, poverty, but even then, India has made considerable progress.

Comment: Kerala has considerable Muslim population, it has 100 per cent literacy rate, Sufi shrines, etc. but there is a trend of growing violence. A violent Islamic element is coming into Kerala.

Comment: The major problem lies with the interpretation of Islam. With the rise of Western power, mullahs came to reject whatever came from the West as un-Islamic. Though the Qur'an is a book for all people and all the time, it remains same but the society keeps changing. Thus, there is a need to reinterpret Islam with the changing times.

Comment: The concept of democracy also needs to be discussed. With Hamas being elected to power, the concept of democracy needs to be discussed.

Comment: We talked of Sufi Islam in India and J&K. Does it remain like that in Kashmir today? With the Kashmiri pundits being chased away in early 1990s by the Hizbul and now, introduction of Wahabi faith by Lashkar is influencing the educational and social structure. For e.g. building colourful mosques is alien to Sufi Islamic culture. This is a worrisome trend. Earlier, the militants were fighting for Kashmir, but now it is the Kashmiris who are becoming militants. So it is not radicalism leading to terrorism, but terrorism leading to the radicalisation of society.

Comment: Instead of addressing the issue as Islam vs. democracy or Islam vs. modernisation etc., the need of the hour is a dialogue and not confrontation. Institutions that can act as bulwark i.e. education, etc. must be identified for this dialogue.

Comment: There is a need for emphasis on the inherent democratic traditions in Islam - dissent and dialogue. The rise of the Abbasid Caliphate, development of four schools of law, etc. is a form of dissent. Islam has concepts like din and daula. But, when violence creeps in we need to understand and negotiate with it.

D R Goyal: Indian influence can be used as a modernising influence. There has been academic neglect of Urdu writings in the field of research. Thus, leaders Maulana Azad are missing from modern Indian history and the likes of Jinnah are projected as representatives of Islam. Second, India's non-violent and united response to colonialism is the reason why India has evolved the way it has.

Amb Bhadrakumar: West Asia became a breeding ground for radical movements who were just looking for empowerment. The conditions in India have been different for Muslims. The Western world has not interfered with Islam in India. India is still steeped in caste system etc.; therefore, the reference to India's democracy is questionable? Dissent and dialogue is not all-pervasive. The whole Islamic world is in ferment. The violence in Kerala is in the north and not in the southern parts. This cannot be seen in isolation. The increasing fundamentalism in Hindu society also needs to be studied to observe Islamic response to it. Further, globalisation has evinced a negative reaction in the Muslim world in the cultural arena, but not in India.

Asghar Ali Engineer: Islamic history is rich in intellectual dissent. Islam is not homogenous and is not associated with violence. Indian democracy does have an impact on Indian Muslims.