“The need of the hour is to seek a more effective approach to further mutual understanding.”

Religion, in a generic sense, covers both the articles of faith or creed and a set of rituals emanating from them. The two are connected but not synonymous. Furthermore, all systems of faith also promulgate certain universal values and principles of human conduct that are similar to each other. On a metaphysical plain thinking about Creator, the Purpose of Creation, and the relationship between the Creator and the Created often tends to run along parallel lines and reaches proximate conclusions. Once that level is reached, commonalities prevail:

Hum muwahhid hain hamara kaish hai tark-e-rusoom

Millatain jab mit ga-een ajzaa-e-eeman ho ga-een

The first, and unquestionably the most important in the Indian context, is the contact between Islam and Hinduism. This was not a single point happening in space and time and response patterns were not uniform. In southern India Islam as a faith came through traders and had little difficulty in being accommodated. The story was different elsewhere in the Sub-continent where Islam was often identified with rulers; here too, however, response patterns varied and their homogenization does no service either to history or to proper understanding.

It is true that all social orders are impacted upon by belief systems as well as by politics. In order therefore to comprehend the interaction between the two, it is essential to distinguish between (a) a religious action that is politically relevant or conditioned and (b) a political action that is religiously relevant or conditioned. A good many examples in both categories can be found in history as well as in current practices.

An early example of Muslim perception of Hinduism is to be found in the Central Asian scholar Abu Rehan Alberuni’s account written in the early years of the 11th century. He candidly admitted the dissimilarities between the adherents of the two faiths, highlighted “the deeply rooted hatred” resulting from the invasion of Mahmud of Ghazna, and then wen ton to dwell on the essence of Hinduism:

“The Hindus believe with regard to God that he is one, eternal, without beginning and end, acting by free will, almighty, all-wise, living, giving life, ruling, preserving: one who in his sovereignty is unique, beyond all likeness and unlikeness, and that he does not resemble anything nor does anything resemble him.”

In a similar vein Amir Khusro in the 14th century said the Hindus are among those good people who believe in God who is omnipotent and omniscient and is “pure Truth and Inimitable Reality.”

Another example of this approach was Dara Shikoh’s Majmaul Bahrain wherein he concluded, with regard to Indian monotheism, that “he did not find any difference, except verbal, in the way they sought and comprehended Truth.” (Juz ikhtilaaf-e-lafzi dar daryaaft o shenaakht-e-Haq, tafaawati na deed).

In the 20th century, Muhammad Iqbal went even further in a popular poem, Hindustani Bachon Ka Qaumi Geet:

Wahdat ki lai suni thi dunya ne jis makaan se

Mir-e-Arab ko aai thandi hawa jahaan se

Mera watan wahi hai, mera watan wahi hai

These should have signaled a mutual appreciation of two systems of belief. The Mughal Emperor Akbar and his Prime Minister Abul-Fadl came close to such an appreciation. However, compulsions of statecraft directed the majority of rulers in an opposite direction. As a result, identities were principally sustained through the cultivation of prejudices rather than through spiritual and social values. Politics contributed to it in great measure. Rulers were motivated by political and economic considerations; principles of their faith rarely guided their actions. The result of this approach was twofold: on one plane, the coming together of people in daily life impacted on habits and customs and induced acceptance of each other; on another, they lived together separately.

The chasm was sought to be bridged by the Sufis who, as one scholar put it, took religion from the classes to the masses; another described it as “a walking incarnation of inter-religious dialogue”. This achieved degree of success, had its imprint on the Bhakti movement, left some mark on perceptions but did not alter the wider picture. Over time, the negative perceptions congealed.

It is evident, therefore, that despite adequate knowledge and good intentions, misperceptions were allowed to prevail. Their impact on Indian society is in no need of commentary.

The need of the hour is to seek a more effective approach to further mutual understanding.

By Muhammad Hamid Ansari,

Vice President, India.