Jama'at - E - Islami And Secular Democratic Politics
By Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer
19 November, 2010
Csss-isla.com
Maulana Maududi, the founder of Jama’at-e-Islami was known to abhor secular, democratic politics and condemned it as haram (prohibited) in Islam. He asked his followers while leaving for Pakistan not to participate in (secular democratic) politics in India. But then ideology does not always represent the entire complexity of practical life and is, at best, a mental theological or political construct. If one tries to rigorously follow it in practical life it leads to several irresolvable problems.
This is clearly brought out in case of Maududian Jama’at ideology in a field study by Irfan Ahmad published in his book Islamism and Democracy in India[1] which is basically an anthropological field study of the Jama’at in India after partition. It is basically a Ph.D. thesis and is brilliant exposition of ideological and practical dilemmas faced by the Jama’at and its earlier (but no longer) student wing SIMI which has been banned as so called terrorist organization.
The book is divided into three parts and seven chapters. In the part one Irfan deals with field work and historical context, in part two he deals with Zigzags to Allah’s Kingdom and part three deals with Opposition and Negotiation. The study has been mostly carried out in Aligarh and Azamgarh. This study would be greatly helpful in understanding the ideology and functioning of the Jama’a-e-Islami-Hind in India.
The book concentrates more on SIMI (Student’s Islamic Movement of India) and its ideology than its parent body Jama’at-e-Islami. SIMI, unlike the Jama’at remained ideologically consistent as it was more radical. SIMI being a student body is not called upon to deal with practical problems with a sense of responsibility and wisdom and hence can afford to be radical rather than practical.
SIMI proved to be so radical that the Jama’at had to disown it soon as it became downright embarrassment for it’s responsible functioning. The Jama’at too, as the book shows, tried to follow the Maududian line initially but soon discovered that it would lead it nowhere if it follows Maududian ideological dictates and would become at best another SIMI. But the transformation was also not easy and it was long winding and complex process.
Any Muslim would proudly say that according to Islam all Muslims are equal and there is universal concept of brotherhood (sisterhood included) as Qur’an states that innama’l muslimin ikhwatun (all Muslims are brothers) and equality of all believers (in fact all human beings) is very fundamental to Islam and yet, as Irfan Ahmad so very well brings out in his field study in Aligarh that forget about all Muslims even members of Jama’at living in Aligarh Muslim University area considered themselves superior to those members who lived in Aligarh city (shahar) as those living in shahar are poor and illiterate and hence inferior. So much for practicing Islamic teachings.
The questions like social status, class and ancestry counts more than ideological or theological relations. The literacy rate in shahr is very low among Muslims, some 10 percent and 28 per cent Muslims lived below poverty line. Those who lived in AMU area were quite prosperous and highly educated. It was, therefore, natural, for AMU Muslims to look down upon those who lived in shahr including members of the Jama’at.
To begin with how averse the Jama’at was to anything secular is well illustrated by Irfan Ahmad by telling the story of one Ikram Beg who had studied in a secular school Ikram rose to become Amir of the shahr unit of Jama’at. His father was a lawyer who practiced in a secular court. When Ikran wanted to become member of the Jama’at but he was refused since his father practiced in a secular court.
Ikram had to wage jihad on the home front against his own father (it is not surprising as ideologies divide father and son, brother and brother). He thought his father was committing a sin by practicing in a secular court. He was strengthening the idolatrous system and rebelling against Allah. Money he was earning was haram and so the food in the kitchen bought with that money was haram too. Thus Ikram says he rebelled against whole family for the sake of Islam.
Such was he narrow sectarian ideology of Jama’at in those days. However, it was difficult to sustain such an ideology in an overwhelming society where majority of not only Hindus but also of Muslims accepted the system. Another representative Islamic organization Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i- Hind had accepted secular nationalism since the days of freedom movement under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership and vehemently opposed partition and participated in elections too and most of the Muslims were in favor of secular democracy through some or the other political organization.
Thus Jama’at was isolated and found it difficult to fight its socio-political isolation. Like politics, it also boycotted in the beginning, modern secular education. But the Jama’at had to re-think its educational policy too as students coming out of its own schools could not find job as its degrees were not recognized and these students could not be admitted to AMU also. Ultimately it had to convert its own school in shahar into regular secular school.
Thus debates began within the Jama’at whether to carry on with the Maududian ideology of total rejection of secular democratic politics or to participate in it. Also, the Jama’at could not talk of establishing Hukumat-e-Ilahi (Islamic state) so it talked of what it called iqamat-e-din (i.e. establishing religion of Islam) which was not against Indian Constitution.
When SIMI rebelled against Jama’at-e-Islami and insisted on waging jihad, Jama’at disowned it and established another student’s organization SIO (Students’ Islamic Organization). There was sharp contrast between SIMI’s ideology and that of SIO. While SIMI talked of jihad, SIO talked of compassion and peace. SIO pursued the path of persuasion and adherence to public laws.
The main body Jama’at too after internal debates gave up Maududian line, of course without saying so and slowly began to take part in mainstream politics. Thus it ultimately accepted secular democratic system of polity and even began to actively participate in it though it was not by any means an easy decision. Irfan Ahmad also observes in conclusion:
“The thorniest issue dominating the Jamaat agenda was therefore the illegitimacy of the secularism and democracy embodied in the Indian constitution and the state, as that form of government challenged the very situation of the Jamaat’s ideology, namely, an Islamic state….”Maududi had forbidden Jamaat members to vote in the elections of ‘secular democratic’ state because he considered it haram. Secularism and democracy were the ultimate symbols of taghuti nizam(idolatrous system).”
Nevertheless the Jama’at took the plunge and I believe it is sign of health. Ideologies should not be rigid and should be flexible enough to change with the context. Jama’at was only facing total isolation as very few Muslims agreed with it on rejecting secular democratic system. Jami’at-ul-Ulama, as pointed out earlier had justified nationalism and secular democracy on the basis of Qur’an and Sunnah the very sources Maududi used to reject secular democracy and call it taghuti nizam.
This show how even the primary sources like Qur’an and hadith can be interpreted differently by different people. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani of Jami’at-ul-Ulama wrote a tract Islam aur Muttaheda Qaumiyat (Islam and United Nationalism) and quoted profusely from Qur’an and Hadith to justify united nationalism and rejected two nation theory.
Irfan Ahmad’s book is an important contribution to the study of Islamism in India. In earlier part of the book he also traces various phases of Maududi’s development who once supported the Indian National Congress, than Muslim League and then rejected both and founded his own party Jama’at-e-Islami. He had opposed partition and ultimately migrated to Pakistan. There also we see that Jamaat never succeeded in winning any election. It was marginalized because of its radicalism. The masses are not interested in theological issues but in their day-today problems.
The Jama’at wisely has transformed itself in India and is active on several fronts like human rights, communal harmony and peace. That is real spirit of Islam too bereft of hairsplitting theological issues. Qur’an stresses religious pluralism, tolerance and respect for others. It is much more inclusive than priestly Islam which is intolerant and exclusive of non-believers. Maududi’s ideology is highly exclusive and negates religious pluralism. He believed in theological state and had no place for non-believers in his system.
I congratulate Irfan Ahmad for doing this study with diligence and objectivity expected of a honest scholar.
[1] Irfan Ahmad Islamism and Democracy in India (Princeton Universityy Press,2009) PP-306
