[Prev][Next][Index]
Profile of a Hindutvavadi Muslim
A SUITABLE HINDUTVAVADI
Times of India, March 26, 1995
There might not be much about Sabir Shaikh that elevates him above the
commonplace except for his uncommon political loyalties - the latter,
however, are aberrant enough to make him stand out both in his party and
the current cabinet. For, Maharashtra's newest minister of labour, employment
and Wakf happens to be that consummate curiosity - a Muslim Shiv Sainik.
What a man of his religious persuasion is doing in a party known for its
anti-Muslim stance - the recent public turn-arounds notwithstanding - is a
question that must intrigue people, but it does not faze Shaikh. The loyal
foot soldier of Bal Thackeray's battalion trots out the party pitch - the
Sena is much misunderstood, it is not against Muslims, merely against those
who are "anti-national" - and holds himself up as the unassailable example
of the party's secular credentials. Presenting as a clincher the fact that
he is not alone - there are many of his coreligionists in the brood as well.
The temptation to compare Shaikh to Sikander Bakht, another Muslim in the
top echelons of a Hindu party, is vast. However, unlike Bakht, who began his
career with the Congress and eventually moved to the BJP, Shaikh has never
belonged to any political outfit apart from the Sena - he was, in fact, one
of its earliest members, along with the likes of Dattaji Salvi and Manohar
Joshi, way back in 1966.
Born into a Maharashtrian Muslim family in Narayangaon village near Shivneri
Fort (the birth place of Shivaji, an icon very close to his heart), Shaikh
claims to have been attracted to the Shiv Sena by Thackeray's writings in
Marmik on the wrongs being perpetrated against 'sons of soil'. "At that time,
I was working in a factory in Ambarnath, and I could see the injustice being
done to the Maharashtrians there," he says. "Being a son of the soil myself,
Thackeray's theories touched a chord in me. And subsequently I decided to
join his party."
Did he perceive himself as a Maharashtrian rather than a Muslim - in which
case the conflict would not appear quite so pronounced? "I am an Indian first,
Maharashtrian next and Muslim last," Shaikh declares loftily. "But, make no
mistake about it, I am a devout Muslim. I do namaaz wherever I can, I keep
the roza fast in the month of Ramzan."
Not surprisingly, therefore, there were misgivings galore among his
family members when Shaikh decided to join the Sena. "My elder brother
asked me, 'What will you do if Thackeray asks you to renounce your religion?"
he reminisces. "A few days later at a public meeting I declared, 'If Thackeray
asks me to leave Islam, I'll leave the Sena instead. But should anyone equate
Islam with rashtradroha (treachery), I will renounce Islam rather than betray
my country.' Thackeray appreciated my sentiments. And, as you can see, after
29 years I'm still in the Sena, still Muslim and proud of my religion."
How can a Muslim who takes pride in his religion live with the virulance
being directed at it by his own party members?
"What virulence?" asks Shaikh with a deadpan visage.
His Party chief's infamous speeches, for instance, or the writings in
Saamana?
"Those,"explains Shaikh patiently, "are not against Muslims; they are against
anti-national Muslims?"
And what is his definition of an anti-national Muslim?
"One who bursts crackers when Pakistan wins against India in a cricket
match," he says.
Even if one were to accept that definition as valid, how many actually
do this?
"See, the point is not how many people do it," he says. "It may be less
than one per cent. The point is, do the other 99% come out in opposition of
this practice? Our Muslim leaders should be condemning such activities in
newspapers. Nationalist Muslims must come forward and speak out; it is
because they don't that the misunderstandings arise."
Again, even accepting his party's classifications, what does he feel about
the post-Babri Masjid-demolition riots? By what criteria were the thousands
of Muslims who were killed and terrorised then classified as "anti-national"?
Shaikh's face turns serious. "I agree that the riots should never have
happened," he says. "I agree that thousands of innocent lives - Muslims as well
as Hindu - were lost then. But what happened could have been avoided if the
Muslims had handed over the Babri structure gracefully to the Hindus in the
first place. I'm not saying that the breaking of the structure was right, but
it was the duty of the Muslims to let go of it, given the fact that Hindus
hold the site so dear."
Given such views which would do any Hindu hardliner proud, does he consider
himself a representative of Muslim interests at all? Will he, for instance,
take up the volatile issue of Namaaz being performed in the streets? "Yes",
he says. Ever since his party, after coming to power, made the surprising
discovery that Muslims were forced to do namaaz on the streets because of a
lack of space in the mosques, it has changed its outlook - thus what was once
fiercely countered with the maha-aarti is now being sought to be amicably
resolved with extra floor space index to the city's mosques. "We are looking
into the matter," says Shaikh.
The new minister, however, does have more going for him than his unswerving
loyalty to Thackeray and the Shiv Sena. Back in his Ambarnath constituency,
for instance, he is known as an ardent admirer of Shivaji who has read all
there is on the Hindu king and an equally ardent mountaineer who has organised
umpteen treks among the locals. It is also averred that he is among those with
a cleaner image in the party and has worked towards bettering the lot of his
constituents.
Not surprisingly, there are Muslims who regard Shaikh as something of a
renegade. The man himself, however, is unconcerned about the allegations.
"I am a Hindustani and therefore a Hindutvavadi," he declares. "Hindutva
has nothing to do with religion; it is the culture of India. And one can
change one's religion but never one's culture."
