Naseeruddin Shah, Stop Blaming the Community for its Victimhood

Liberal Muslims need to overcome the minority syndrome as the buck stops with the state to ensure their safety.

Naseeruddin Shah’s recent article, on not-to be-celebrated social group called ‘Indian Muslims’, is being celebrated in an unprecedented manner!

This sermon style autobiographical note, which is full of self-glorification, asks Muslims “to get over the feeling of victimisation they are in now… we must determine to stop feeling persecuted… we must stop hoping for salvation from somewhere and take matters into our own hands – not least of all to take pride in our Indian-ness and assert our claim on our country.’

This suggestive overtone reminds us of another celebrated sermon by another celebrity, Abul Kalam Azad, which was delivered on 23 October 1947 at Jama Masjid, Delhi.

Also Read: 10 Quotes From Naseeruddin Shah On Religious Polarisation In India

Think for one moment. What course did you adopt? Where have you reached, and where do you stand now... Aren’t you living in a constant state of fear? This fear is your own creation… If your hearts have still not changed and your minds still have reservations, it is a different matter. But, if you want a change, then take your cue from history, and cast yourself in the new mould.

Speech by Abul Kalam Azad, 23 October, 1947

From Minority Status to Claiming Indian-ness

Although there is a gap of almost 70 years between these two statements, the assumption that Muslims as a minority homogeneous social group are responsible for everything they face, seems to function as a valid reference point.

Shah and Azad believe, in fact quite stridently, that the minority status of Muslims is a permanent feature of their identity, which does not allow them to assert their Indian-ness. Therefore, they argue that Muslims should come forward, take initiative and give up the mentality of victimhood!

The idea that Muslims constitute a minority in India is a complex issue. It is true that in terms of religious demography, Muslims are the second largest religious group in India. But this aggregate national-level census figure should not be confused with the deeper constitutional meanings of the expression ‘minority’.

What Constitutes a ‘Minority’?

The Constitution does not elaborate the term ‘minority’; instead, two characteristic features of minority groups are well-defined.

1) First, Article 29 and 30 clarify that if a group, which is numerically smaller in relation to the rest of the population and which possesses distinct language, script or culture can be recognised as a minority.

2) Second, the Constitution does not envisage any one particular kind of minority. This makes it possible to identify minorities not merely on the basis of religion but also on cultural and linguistic grounds. (Article 25, 26, 350A).

The question arises: What should be the legal criterion to assess the distinctiveness of a group for declaring it a minority?

The Supreme Court in the TMA Pai Foundation & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Ors (2002) case clarified this ambiguity. The court categorically observed: ‘there can… be little doubt that… the unit to determine a religious or linguistic minority can only be the state.’

This observation makes it clear that the idea to have a national level majority or minority is a problematic issue. Legally, a minority can only be identified at the level of every state.

Definition of Minority at National Level

But there is another set of legal provisions which talks about the national-level minorities in a direct fashion.

Following the National Commission of Minorities Act 1992, the Government of India notified five religious communities as national minorities in October 1993. These five communities are: Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis). The Jains were notified as a religious minority in 2014.

Does this provision goes against the basic constitutional values?

Identifying a minority group at the state level and declaring six religious communities as national minorities are not conflicting provisions.

A community would be identified as a minority at the state-level if it is considered for certain welfare programs, etc.

But if the members of a particular community are not given equal opportunities to participate in public life, the government can address this kind of collective discrimination by recognising certain communities as national minorities.

This very fine distinction must be re-read with regard to Muslims in India.

Dealing With Exclusion

Muslims are recognised as religious minorities at the state level for legal-constitution purposes.

These state-specific Muslim minorities also enjoy the benefits of state-level welfare policies. However, this administrative recognition alone cannot ensure that Muslims won’t face any collective form of social exclusion.

The stigma of partition, followed by a long history of communal, targeted and systematic violence against Muslims creates an image around the community, which has been stereotyped as anti-national and terrorist.

The institutions such as the NCM and the Ministry of Minority Affairs, which evolved over the years in independent India, try to address these issues by recognising Muslims as a national minority.

Blaming Oneself

Naseeruddin Shah and Maulana Azad, interestingly, fail to understand these India-specific meanings of minority, though for different reasons.

Azad’s sermon of 1947 deserves some benefit of doubt. He was addressing Delhi’s Muslim population immediately after the tragic events of partition, when the process of drafting the Constitution was still underway.

Yet, Azad’s critical attitude reminds us of his obedience towards colonial politics of numbers – Hindu majority and Muslim minority! He blamed Muslims for becoming a minority in India – as if they were fully aware of the nuances of partition politics and were actually responsible for the creation of Pakistan!

Naseeruddin Shah, who glorifies his secular Muslim self, makes a similar mistake. Although he raises the issues of Muslims’ backwardness and exclusion in his article, Muslims are held reasonable for their perceived minority-syndrome and victimhood.

Also Read: BJP Woos Backward Muslims With Quota, but Will They Take the Bait?

What Naseeruddin Shah Got Wrong

This generalisation goes against the secular philosophy of the Constitution, which is more concerned about victimhood, marginalisation, and alienation of Muslims.

In fact, the institutions such as NCM and Ministry of Minority Affairs are meant to make the government accountable for getting rid of the feeling of victimhood among the minorities. Shah could not make sense of this larger constitutional commitment.

Shah’s appeal to Muslims that they must assert their India-ness is equally insincere. Why is something like this required? Why are Muslims required to undergo Indian-ness tests time and again? The enthusiastic and overwhelming participation of Muslim communities in electoral politics and social movements underlines the fact that they participate in society without giving up their Muslim identities.

The assertion of Indian-ness, we must note, does not contradict the minority status of Muslims. After all, the success of constitutional democracy depends on the active participation of its minorities in its political processes!

Also Read: Indian or Muslim? Why This Binary Needs to be Done Away With

(The writer is assistant professor, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, and Rajya Sabha Fellow 2015-2016. He can be reached @Ahmed1Hilal. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)