Of Faith & Statues: Arab World & Indian Govt Care About Symbols More Than People

Both sides are willing to protest if their symbols are insulted. But they care much less about real, living humans.

Photo for representation. 

(Photo: Deeksha Malhotra/The Quint)

(The Quint brings to you 'Khairiyat', a column by award-winning author Tabish Khair, where he talks about the politics of race, the experiences of diasporas, Europe-India dynamics and the interplay of culture, history and society, among other issues of global significance.)

We know that countries like Kuwait and Qatar, with close business and other ties with India, protested officially against the reportedly insulting remarks made by two BJP spokespersons on television. As one global newspaper put it: “An international diplomatic storm has engulfed India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, following the sanctioning of two party spokespersons over insulting remarks the pair are reported to have made towards Prophet Muhammed.” The umbrage even bridged the Sunni-Shia chasm, with Iran, again historically close to India, also complaining strongly.

Of course, what the two now-ex BJP spokespersons said was not new in Hindutva circles: I have personally heard Hindutva supporters say such things. Though some Muslims take umbrage in India too, most of us just stuff our ears with cotton wool and get on with our lives.

• Everything boils down to a gesture of tit-for-tat insults aimed at entirely symbolic figures. The faithful, Hindu or Muslim, are not interested in the history behind the symbol.

• Middle Eastern countries were right in protesting against the insulting of their Islamic symbol, just as Hindus would be right in protesting if an idol of a Hindu god is insulted.

• Any Indian party, as long as it makes the right noises about such symbolic matters, can do whatever it wants to Indian Muslims without any Arab regime batting an eyelid.

• The Arab states have made their stand for a symbol dear to them. Hindutva supporters make their stand for their own symbols, ranging from the temple in Ayodhya to huge projects that are supposed to bolster the national ego.

• In the process, all these leaders, in India and abroad, manage to distract ordinary people, whose rights are always on the verge of being denuded, and whose lives are often threadbare.

The 'Doing' Is for the 'Fringe' Element

In India, such statements serve various factors, of which the biggest one is the consolidation of the ‘fringe’ element around the Hindutva agenda, for, of course, it is the fringe element that goes out and, shall we say, physically ‘does’ things. This kind of ‘doing’ is very much part of the Hindutva agenda, too. For the supposedly moderate Hindutva supporter, such aggressive statements are justified, as one of the ex-spokespersons did it, by attributing a similar insult to some Hindu god by a real or imagined Muslim.

Incidentally, everything boils down to this gesture of tit-for-tat insults aimed at entirely symbolic figures. Because any god or prophet is finally a symbol for the faithful, even if he or she existed in the past – because his or her historical contours are never to be objectively discussed. The faithful, Hindu or Muslim, are not interested in the history behind the symbol. That is the reason why all such figures, even if historical, such as the prophet of Islam undoubtedly was, should be discussed with restraint – they are symbols, and can never be anything else for their followers.

So the ‘Middle Eastern’ response to insulting remarks about the Prophet was both expected and, ironically, in keeping with the Hindutva way of thinking. Both sides are willing to protest strongly if their symbols are insulted.

They seem to show much less of an inclination to protest on the behalf of real, living human beings, who may not just be insulted but also oppressed, jailed unfairly or lynched without too much trouble.

Protest for the Prophet Isn't a Protest for the Indian Muslim

Middle Eastern countries were right in protesting against the insulting of a paramount Islamic symbol, just as Hindus would be right in protesting if an idol of a Hindu god is insulted. But it also strikes me that at least in the Arab nations, there is very little respect for actual Indian Muslims. While tens of thousands of Indians, many of them Muslim, work in the Gulf states, they are usually considered not at par with Arabs or even white Europeans and Americans. Pay scales, treatment by employers, etc, all seem to be weaker in the case of most Indian Muslim workers in the Gulf, particularly those lower down the class scales.

Hence, the protest by the Gulf and other Muslim states against the insult to the Prophet was not a protest for the Indian Muslim, and most Indian Muslims know that. Professor Khalid Anis Ansari put this strongly in a tweet: “For the racist West Asian Sheikhdom, the Prophet is kin, lineage, and family. The poor subcontinental Muslims are khadims (servants), cheap labour, eminently expendable. The selective outrage is about visceral tribal honour, not justice.” Any Indian political party, as long as it makes the right noises about such symbolic matters, can essentially do whatever it wants to Indian Muslims – or any Indian – without any Arab regime batting an eyelid. The concern, on all sides, is not with human rights. What, after all, is that bird in the Gulf and, increasingly, in South Asia?

Distracting People From What's Important

It is also, as I argue here, a concern that focuses on the symbolic at the expense of the actual. In this, it shares a vital element with top-heavy structures of power, religious or political. One can say that the current iteration of the BJP presents a version of exactly that way of thinking, what with the huge statues, gigantic temples, megalomaniac restructuring of urban vistas, and huge corporatised projects being promoted by its supports and leaders, even as India seems to constantly deteriorate on many ordinary indexes: poverty, food security, inflation, prices, etc. Symbols all. There is a similar use of symbolic gestures in all these states, even as the ordinary human being continues to suffer.

The Arab states have made their stand – justified as it is – for a paramount symbol dear to them. Hindutva supporters make their stand for their own symbols, ranging from the temple in Ayodhya to huge projects that are supposed to bolster the national ego.

In the process, all these leaders, in India and abroad, manage to distract ordinary people, whose rights are always on the verge of being denuded, and whose lives are often threadbare.

So, it is not a surprise that the BJP agrees with the Arab states that symbols need to be respected. This might also mean paying some lip service to high-sounding principles. And, on all sides, this will enable them to distract their, and other, people from rights that actually matter: the rights of ordinary human beings to live in peace and security.

(Tabish Khair, is PhD, DPhil, Associate Professor, Aarhus University, Denmark. He tweets @KhairTabish. This is an opinion article and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)