certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islam and Politics (04 Sep 2019 NewAgeIslam.Com)



Arif Mohammad Khan as Governor: The Fundamental Question to Ask is Why He Did Not Find Space in Secular Parties

By Arshad Alam, New Age Islam

04 September 2019

 





Arif Mohammad Khan, Governor Kerala


----


A plethora of opinions have flooded the media over the appointment of Arif Mohammad Khan as governor of Kerala. Some have expressed utter surprise at the elevation of a Muslim who was in almost in hibernation. Others have termed it as the government’s sincere effort to project an inclusive face. Many commentators on the Left have termed this as an opportunist move of Mr. Khan to ingratiate himself within the political ecology of BJP. Muslim reaction to his appointment has been mostly negative. They have argued that it has become clear that Arif Mohammad Khan was supporting the government on triple Talaq only because he wanted a position for himself. They argue that he is no social reformer in the true sense of the word: all that he wanted was to come close to the BJP and that’s the reason why he was critical of many religious and social practices within Muslim community.

So is Arif Mohammad Khan an opportunist? Let’s not forget that Mr. Khan did not invent the problem of ‘Muslim reform’ after the BJP came to power. Certainly, he has been arguing for the necessity of social reform since he was a student leader at Aligarh Muslim University. He is perhaps the only politician who resigned over the issue of Shah Bano because he certainly believed, and rightly so, that the Supreme Court judgment was progressive and Muslim opposition to it was regressive and unjustified in its entirety. When the then Rajiv Gandhi government (which had an overwhelming majority) buckled under the pressure of Muslim orthodoxy, Arif Mohammad Khan consistently sided with the victim Shah Bano. It is important to remember that Mr. Khan is no ordinary run of the mill Muslim politician: he is an erudite Islamic scholar and his decision to support alimony to divorced Muslim women (as in the case of Shah Bano) as well as his campaign to abolish the practice of instant triple talaq (and consequently his decision to support the government on the issue) came from his own reading of Islamic scriptures. To call him an opportunist in this matter is thus far from true.

I can understand why the Left will call him opportunist but that’s another story another time. Certainly, Muslims should be last community to call him one. Muslim political leaders have been thoroughly compromised: they neither have an ideological commitment towards any party nor have they been loyal to Muslim interests. At best they have been willingly co-opted by one party or the other (mostly Congress and other Congress-type parties) and have shamelessly toed the party line even when it has gone against Muslim interests. What do we call Muslim leaders of the Samajwadi Party- a so called party with a secular outlook-when they remained silent over the massacre of Muslims in Muzaffarnagar? As the ruling party, the primarily responsibility to protect the lives of poor Muslims was that of the SP. And yet, they remained criminally invested in the pogrom with the cynical aim to get some more Muslim votes by creating fear amongst them and then posing as their saviours. How many of its Muslims leaders resigned over the issue? Leaders like Azam Khan, whose whole career is based on appeal to Muslim votes, remained silent. And yet no one called him an opportunist.

What about those in the Congress, the mother of all so called secular parties, which has another co-opted set of Muslim leaders? Have they ever put any pressure on their party to apologize for their role in series of anti-Muslim riots which took place when Congress was in power? And what about its role in the Babri mosque demolition? How many of its hallowed Muslim leaders did resign in protest against the cynical manipulation of Muslim votes which has historically been done by this party? None perhaps. But then, there is no one who is calling these Muslim leaders as opportunists for remaining in party which has practiced strategic communalism. More than any other party, it is the Muslim leaders of the Congress party who appeal to Muslims to vote for the party. If need be, they appeal in the name of religion. I personally know of some of these leaders who enjoy their single malts in the evening but would lecture Muslim masses on the virtues of Islam every time they address them. These Muslims leaders are not just complicit in Muslim backwardness but they want to perpetuate this backwardness forever so that their brand of politics can go on unhindered. If at all, any one is opportunist, it is these set of leaders and not someone like Arif Mohammad Khan who has called a spade a spade right since the beginning.

Yes, Mr. Khan wore different party hats at different times. But then so many other politicians have done the same without being called opportunists. The real reason why Muslims and other secular intellectuals are gunning for him is not that he has changed many parties but that ultimately he joined the BJP. And that his utterances on triple Talaq and its eventual criminalization were designed to help the BJP. So, if a Muslim joins BJP today, does he automatically become an opportunist? Why is this kind of analysis reserved for Muslims alone?

Hordes of CPI (M) workers and leaders in West Bengal voted for the BJP and are joining the party en masse but then no one is shaming them as opportunists. All the analyses are pointing out that there is a need to understand why this shift happened? But then perhaps, because Arif Mohammad Khan is a Muslim, there should be no discussion as to why he made that decision. Perhaps because the assumption is that Muslim political mind is incapable of making any kind of ideological shift.

Those against Mr. Khan’s appointment also argue that he blames the Muslim community for all their ills. I haven’t come across any of his interviews which state that Muslims are responsible for their economic backwardness. He does say that Muslim leaders are certainly responsible for thinking that secularism is the protection of minority communalism. Many years ago, the ace Muslim commentator and novelist amid Dalwai said the same thing: any struggle against majority communalism will not succeed without fighting minority communalism. There are many who are fighting against majoritarianism in this country and most of them happen to be Hindus. It is in the fitness of political demands then that the fight against Muslim communalism should be spearheaded by Muslims themselves. Arif Mohammad Khan has always been a shining example of this and has taught us how to lead this fight from the front. Instead of saluting his courage, there are those who just want to paint him as an opportunist and nothing else.

The point is not to pin him down for being an opportunist. The fundamental question which needs to be asked about a progressive Muslim like Arif Mohammad Khan is why he finds space only in the BJP. Answering this question will automatically reveal what has been fundamentally wrong with the politics of so called secular parties.

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-politics/arshad-alam,-new-age-islam/arif-mohammad-khan-as-governor--the-fundamental-question-to-ask-is-why-he-did-not-find-space-in-secular-parties/d/119651

New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   7


  • Ishqh khatil sey bhI.Maqhtool sey hamdardi bhi.yrh bata kis sey mohabat ki jaza mangay ga.
    Sajhda khaliqh ko bhi,iblees sey yaarana bhi.
    Hashr mein kis sey aqheedat ka cilaa mangey gaa.

    By Syed Qamar Hasan - 10/7/2019 10:40:38 PM



  • Well- argued and quite an expressive article! You have presented various discourses allowing space for discussion and debate. Surely, critiques have to be wary now! 
    By Meera - 9/11/2019 7:23:49 PM



  • During the Shah Bano episode,  98% of Muslims opposed the  Judgement and lacs rioted on the road.  The secular parties / Congress , which depended on muslim votes, modified Shah Bano judgement, to  save their secular vote bank.  Arif Mohammed Khan then  and now command very few muslim votes.
    Promoting Arif to high posts, would anger muslim voters, which is why no secular party promoted him
    BJP does not need muslim votes, and does not fear loss of muslim votes,  Thats why they promoted him
    Arif , like Hamid Dalwai, calls out muslim communalism.  He has won from seats 80% Hindu, getting lacs of Hindu votes against other Hindu opponent candidates
    Hamid Dalwai  was boycotted by the Indian muslim community.  His  daughter ended up marrying RSS man, because no muslim man would marry her
    Typical muslim leaders are mullahs, gangsters, communal rabble rousers, who can only win from seats with over 40% muslim, vs someone like Arif can win from any seat, with Hindu votes, all over India
    BJP will never give posts to muslims like Azam Khan, Badruddin Ajmal, Owaisi, Mukthar Ansari  .  But will give posts to muslims like Arif  Mohammed Khan, MJ.Akbar etc.  If  the muslim community puts forward more leaders like Arif Mohammed Khan, more posts will be given
    The main problem is muslims think that their religion and society is perfect  and needs no improvement.  Every moderniser has faced hostility from fellow muslims
    1) Mullahs tried to kill Shah Wali-ullah,  because he translated the Koran from Arabic to Persian to make it more understandable  to the public
    2) Syed Ahmed Khan was called a kafir for starting English medium education for muslims
    By Shan Barani - 9/6/2019 8:27:29 PM



  • Because zeculars were frauds or sickulars

    By Dinesh Solanki - 9/5/2019 7:56:38 PM



  • You are very just to write Mr Arshad Alam that " let's not forget that Mr Khan did not invent the problem of 'Muslim Reform ' after the BJP come to power. Certainly, he has been arguing for the necessity of social reform since he was a student leader at Aligarh Muslim University.
    By Mohd Anwer - 9/5/2019 7:55:55 PM



  • I agree that it would be wrong to call Mr. Khan an opportunist. I see him as a principled reformer. His turning to the BJP is evidence of the fact that anti-reform Muslim politicians have had too much of a sway in the so-called secular parties. Another aspect of this imbroglio is that if the BJP wanted to appoint a Muslim to a high position they would have difficulty finding  one in their party who has the stature of Mr. Khan.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/4/2019 1:46:39 PM



  • The argument appears to be "if Arif Khan is an opportunist so also is every other Muslim politician". That is unfortunately true and I agree but that is neither here nor there.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/4/2019 7:17:10 AM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content