Islamists and Hindutva Fascists: Two Sides of the Same Coin

This interview was conducted by Yoginder Singh Sikand with X, a social activist from Jammu and Kashmir who requested anonymity. Here, he talks about his views on a possible resolution of the Kashmir conflict.

MWU!: The ongoing violence in Jammu and Kashmir has severely impacted on inter-community relations in the state. What can be done to promote some sort of dialogue between the communities?

X: I agree with you when you say that inter-community relations here are not the same as they were two decades ago. At the same time I disagree with the argument that some people put forward that Hindus and Muslims simply cannot peacefully coexist. But I would admit that in Jammu and Kashmir there are people with extreme views in each community, who use religion to preach intolerance and hatred. This has happened all over South Asia, and not just in our state alone. Unfortunately, I do not think there are any organized efforts underway on the part of civil society organizations here to promote better inter-community relations.

MWU!: How do common Hindus and Muslims see each other? What has been the impact of rightwing Hindu and Islamist groups on such perceptions?

X: As I said, there has been a marked deterioration in relations between the different communities. Many Hindus and Muslims have come to see themselves, unfortunately, as adversaries. The RSS [a Hindu nationalist movement] now has a strong base among the Hindus, and Islamists have considerable support among some Muslims. But still, at the common level there is still a fair degree of tolerance and acceptance. For instance, there is a fairly sizeable Muslim community in Jammu town, which is Hindu dominated. The Muslims there generally feel safe, although there is always this fear that the massacre of Muslims in Jammu in 1947 could be repeated again. In Kashmir there are still some Pandit families left. Many Muslims feel that the Pandits who left the Valley should return, although some Kashmiri Muslim elites fear that if this happens the Pandits would again take up all the senior government posts that they occupied earlier, so that is another problem. I don’t agree with the theory that the militants forced the Pandits to flee. I think that while the Pandits must have feared the militants, the then governor, Jagmohan, actually enticed them to leave.

MWU!: How do you look at Islamist groups like the Lashkar-i Tayyeba and the Jama‘at-i Islami? Do you think they reflect the views of most Kashmiri Muslims?

X: These are armed groups and command most of whatever strength they do by the force of their weapons. They certainly do not represent the views and beliefs of most Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir, who do not agree with their understanding of Islam. The Lashkar and many people in the Jama‘at seem to think that you can be a proper Muslim only if you live in what they call an Islamic state, but this is not true. This argument is wrong, but it is a persuasive one for many. Before 1947 the Muslim League claimed that Islam needed a territory of its own to prosper. What followed was the ‘Islamic Republic’ of Pakistan, which is neither ‘Islamic’ nor a Republic! Don’t misunderstand me. I am a believing Muslim myself but I cannot agree with this notion that the mere fact that one shares the same religion with others means that one belongs to the same nationality and must live in the same state, which is what the Islamists argue. The hollowness of this claim was exposed no sooner had Pakistan come into being, with mounting ethnic, linguistic and sectarian tensions between the different Muslim groups living in that country. These factors played a more important role in Pakistani politics than Islam. Even today, because of the injustice that they feel subjected to, many Baluchis and Sindhis in Pakistan are demanding the right to self-determination. I fear that if Kashmir joins Pakistan, in a few decades the Kashmiris will also start demanding freedom from Pakistan and Punjabi domination.

MWU!: How do you feel that the problem of Kashmir can be eventually resolved?

X: Violence is no solution at all, and I think most Kashmiris now feel this way. Any solution to the issue, to be acceptable, must ensure that justice is done to all the ethnic, linguistic and religious groups living in the state. Otherwise, if the voices of some groups are suppressed there is bound to be constant instability. I think that any future political set-up for Jammu and Kashmir must necessarily be secular and democratic. This is not simply because of the large and significant non-Muslim minority in the state, but also because the single largest group, the Kashmiri Muslims, do not, as a whole, want to live under a so-called Islamist regime. And then, you must realize that the Muslims of the state are not a homogenous community. In addition to the Kashmiri Muslims, you have Dogra Muslims, Gujjars, Bakkarwals, Kargilis, Punjabi Muslims and so on, and they have their own diverse political views. I personally think that the majority of the Muslims of the state would not like to live in Pakistan, given its history of military rule, Punjabi domination, sectarian rivalries and backward economy. On the other hand, India is the cause of some of its own problems. It never allowed true democracy to function in Kashmir and consistently rigged the elections in the state. In any case, it is pointless discussing what has happened. I think no solution to the problem can afford to leave out the voices and aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It is not simply a problem concerning India and Pakistan alone, and so the voices of the people of the state must also be taken into account. And by this I mean not simply the Kashmiri Muslims, but all ethnic, linguistic, sectarian and religious groups, Muslims and others, who live in both parts of the divided state of Jammu and Kashmir. The people of both parts should be allowed to interact and dialogue among themselves.

MWU!: What the advocates of Kashmir’s independence or accession to Pakistan generally overlook is the impact this might have on Hindu-Muslim relations in the rest of India. What do you have to say about this?

X: Yes, you are very right. There may be 10 million Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir, but Muslims in the rest of India number, say, 14 times that. It is obvious that if Kashmir becomes independent or joins Pakistan, Hindu fascist groups in India would be even further strengthened. It would further reinforce their argument that Muslims are communal, that they cannot be loyal to a non-Muslim state and so on. It might lead to a wave of attacks on Muslims in the rest of India and will perhaps even permanently ensure Hindutva hegemony in India. However, I do not think that the Islamists in Kashmir and Pakistan, who claim to be fighting to defend the rights of Muslims all over the world, are really bothered about what happens to the Indian Muslims if they succeed in their designs in Kashmir. It is the same as the position of the Muslim League when India was partitioned and Pakistan was created. The leaders of the Muslim League were not at all concerned about the fact that the Muslims in what became the Republic of India had to suffer, and continue to suffer even today, because of the Partition demand. So, I think that any solution to the Kashmir issue that ignores its possible consequences for the Indian Muslims, who account for 14 times the Kashmiri Muslim population, is unacceptable, even from the Islamic point of view, which the so-called Islamists conveniently forget.

MWU!: So what you are saying is that the radical Islamists and the Hindutva rightwing feed on each other, and, in a sense, need each other?

X: Yes, exactly. One always needs an opponent to justify one’s own aggressive intentions. So, that is why I say that Islamists and Hindutva fascists cannot survive without each other despite claiming to be the most inveterate foes. Islamist radicalism in Kashmir is, in a sense, a response to Hindutva aggression, and Hindutva gets further reinforced by Islamist radicalism. It is a vicious circle. The fear of Hindu hegemony also created Pakistan, although it is a different matter that this was no solution at all. It only further exacerbated the communal problem. Likewise, I think that if Kashmir becomes independent or joins Pakistan and what they see as their rival—India or the Hindus—are no longer on the scene, rival armed militant groups might start fighting each other, and we could witness a civil war as in Afghanistan.

MWU!: Islamists claim that they will establish what they call a ‘genuine’ Islamic state in Kashmir, which will ensure social justice and equity for all. How do you see this claim?

X: I think this is all empty propaganda. Can you tell me the name of even one Muslim country where such a state exists? These people have been fed on the writings of people like Maududi and Sayyid Qutb, who only created fanciful theories of their own. They do not have any clear economic program. They deliberately do not talk about the details of the polity that they want to establish, because they have no idea how to run a modern state. This is the same in the Hindu case as well. Hindutva ideologues say they want to establish Ram Rajya, but we know the sort of Rajya they want to establish means death and oppression. There is nothing as a blue-print provided in Islam, or in any other religion for that matter, for running a modern state. We need to think pragmatically, not in narrow ideological terms.

Yoginder Singh Sikand is a Reader in the Department of Islamic Studies at Hamdard University, New Delhi and editor of Qalandar, an online magazine devoted to a discussion of issues related to Islam and Inter-Faith Relations in South Asia. He received a Ph.D. in history from the University of London and has published numerous books and authored over 250 articles on Islamic studies-related topics.