The panel discussion, organised by Newstrack, videomagazine of the India Today group, on Wednesday (May 27) on the current trouble in Jamia Millia Islamia, was too chaotic to have helped clarify issues. Militants, students as well as teachers were present in strength and they made orderly and fruitful discussion well nigh impossible. But certain points stand out. One of these relates to the Indian Muslim view of proper punishment for someone who has said and written something allegedly offensive about Prophet Mohammad and Islam.
This is not a new issue. History apart, the fatwa of death passed by Ayatollah Khomeini on Salman Rushdie, author of Satanic Verses, is three years old and it has survived the death of the father of the Islamic revolution in Iran. Even so, it must come as a shock to citizens of democratic and secular India that someone should advocate in this country and age a similar fate for Prof Mushirul Hasan for having done nothing more heinous than questioning the effectiveness of the ban on Satanic Verses.
The issue arose at the Newstrack ‘discussion’ as a result of reference to an article by Mr Saeed Naqvi in these columns, wherein he had accused Mr Salman Khurshid, Deputy Minister in the Union Cabinet and an active member of the Jamia Executive Council, of sitting through a meeting where the threat to ‘execute’ Prof Mushirul Hasan was held out. Mr Khurshid did not deny specifically that such a threat was held out, though he claimed that he had criticised the students for their talk of violence and exhorted them to function within the parameters of the Constitution.
That should have been the end of the matter if the irrepressible Mr Bahruddin Qureshi, president of the Jamia Millia Students’ Union, had not intervened just then. He claimed that no such threat had in fact been held. All that he had said at that meeting was that if a fatwa of death was indeed passed on Prof Mushirul Hasan by a leading and respected alim (learned Muslim or an imam), he would support it, and indeed that the Shariat provided for nothing less drastic in cases such as Prof Hasan’s.
Mr Qureshi went on to add that since the Shariat criminal law did not operate in India, there was no question of such a fatwa against Prof Mushirul Hasan. This version was at odds both with what he himself had admitted having said a little earlier and with what Mr Salman Khurshid had said. But I shall let that pass.
Waging a heroic battle
What took my breath away, however, was Prof Mushirul Hasan’s own response to this threat. He said that the Shariat had no bearing on the controversy and that not a single Muslim alim or imam had held him guilty of defaming either the Prophet or Islam. It is difficult to believe that Prof Mushirul Hasan did not realise that he was conceding in theory the right of the ulema not only to judge him, but also to punish him under the Shariat. Apparently, he has been under great strain and therefore, desperately anxious to prove his Islamic bona fides.
Prof Mushirul Hasan had placed himself in an untenable position which his detractors were quick to exploit. Mr Qureshi and others pointed out that Maulana Nadvi, of Lucknow, popularly known as Ali Mian, and Imam Bukhari, of the Jama Masjid in the Capital, had called for his resignation as pro vice-chancellor of the Jamia Millia Islamia, and that in view of his own claim of deference to the ulema, he should comply. Prof Hasan did not respond. He could not have.
Prof Mushirul Hasan is waging a heroic battle in defence of the right of free expression for Muslim intellectuals under attack, not by the Indian state, but by fellow Muslims. His courage must command admiration, even if on occasions he has compromised his position under pressure, as in respect of an advertisement he placed in an Urdu newspaper which Syed Shahabuddin cited with relish. But the issue is larger. It pertains to the scope of the Shariat. So far, most of us have believed that it was relevant only in respect of family matters such as divorce, alimony and inheritance covered by the Muslim Personal Law. Now one cannot be quite sure.
There is plenty of violence in the country. Indeed, by prevailing standards, Jamia Millia students have behaved with notable restraint, the attack on Prof Wasey and on some houses of teachers notwithstanding. But they have been invoking an ideology which is potentially very explosive.
Some Jamia Millia teachers insisted that the institution be called by its proper name which is Jamia Millia Islamia. They specifically objected to it being called the Jamia Millia University. The intention clearly was to drive home the point that Jamia Millia is not an ordinary university and that it is a Muslim institution meant to promote the cause of Islam.
A “dark conspiracy”
This interpretation about the status of the Jamia Millia, I understand, is not consistent with the Parliamentary Act under which it is funded by the Union Government. That apart, however, the teachers in question had two immediate goals. The first was to meet Ms Seema Mustafa’s objection that the Human Resources Development Minister, Mr Arjun Singh, should have convened a meeting of only Muslim MPs to discuss the Jamia Millia trouble. And the second was to drive home the point that Prof Bashiruddin Ahmed was not qualified to serve as its vice-chancellor because, as Imam Bukhari has told the world, he is a Qadiani (Ahmediya). Ahmediyas have been put outside the pale of Islam in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and some other Muslim countries in the region.
Liberal Jamia Millia Muslim teachers did not get a chance to present their viewpoint during the discussion which lasted well over three hours. They were effectively silenced by the militants, and by their own good sense and manners. This provided another confirmation that they do not exaggerate when they say that a witch hunt is on and that support for it is not confined to the Jamia Millia campus. There can also be little doubt that a section of the teaching community has entered into an “unholy alliance with the perpetrators of violence and terrorism” and marginalised “right to dissent and reason” with powerful support from outside.
The besieged teachers have not named names. But they are well-known. And they are not only influential, but also claim to be working for ‘peace’ on the Jamia Millia campus. Syed Shahabuddin sounded so reasonable and made the vice-chancellor look so utterly unreasonable. He spoke of a dark conspiracy to malign Indian Muslims, as in the Shah Bano case. He did not elucidate. Perhaps we can read Imam Bukhari’s sermon on May 22 for the necessary clue.
In the circumstances, only the naive can believe that the cause of liberalism has won out in Jamia Millia Islamia. But it must also be recognised that seldom before in post-Independence India have Muslim liberals held their ground so well. That 126 Jamia Millia teachers should come out in defence of the right to free expression and in condemnation of the politics of witch hunting is an event of no mean significance. Their defeat, in the form of the resignations of Prof Ahmed and Prof Mushirul Hasan, will effectively reverse this trend with bad long-term consequences.
The Pioneer, 1 June 1992