Around 1400 years ago, a young man brought warring clans together by settling the dispute on who would place the hajar aswad (the black stone) in the holy shrine of the Arabs. Later, in the capacity of a Prophet, he tried to bring diverse communities together through the mithaq e Medina (the constitution of Medina). This constitution referred to the ummah vahida (single community) that comprised of diverse religious groups along with the fledgling Muslim community. He would pray facing Jerusalem and adopt many of the practices of the Abrahamic faiths including male circumcision and kosher dietary requirements. However, uniting people under one banner can be an exhausting and impossible job akin to herding stray cats. No wonder, the Qur’an refers to the Prophet in verse 2:120 that “Never will the Jews or Christians be pleased with you, until you follow their faith.” This verse can be taken to stoke a narrative of exclusion, as it has been wielded by the fundamentalists, or it can be understood as what it originally meant, that is, there is a limit to the politics of appeasement.
Then, 1300 years later, a young barrister followed a similar path of bringing diverse communities together. Hailed as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, he was inspired by Gopal Krishna Gokhale and English liberalism, married a Parsi woman, and upheld secular principles and way of life. Eventually, he learned the hard way that there is only so much one can concede to bring diverse communities together and that there is a limit to the politics of appeasement. He represented the most educated and liberal class of Muslims, but the Indian National Congress was not interested in building ties with his kind and instead connected with the most regressive class of Muslim clerics that held their community back from progress. Instead of coming to an agreement based on consociationalism with democratic power sharing, as witnessed between the English and the French in Canada, the Congress cast away a “moth eaten” country through a painful partition of two large provinces that Jinnah and the Muslim League vehemently stood against.
The Muslims of the Indian subcontinent were divided. They had lived in the Indian subcontinent that was shaped by various empires and boundaries for a thousand years. They were a blend of Afghan, Persian, Arab, and Central Asian (especially Uzbek) heritage, who married within the local population and raised their progeny as Muslims. Those who followed Jinnah refused to live as minorities under a Hindu hegemony. Others that could not migrate for various economic, financial, and familial reasons bought into a narrative of a secular India. But how could secularism and liberalism thrive in a country where prejudice runs deep with an ancient caste system, where the Congress tried to appease the regressive elements of both Muslim and Hindu communities, and where a deep-rooted inferiority complex was addressed through the Hindutva narrative that pushed against the 1000-year foreign Muslim and British rule.
It is in this context that the Khans in India, who comprise the most secular and liberal class of Muslims that raise their families in multi-faith traditions, now face boycotts from large swathes of middle class, educated Indians with an increasing political consciousness of their ancient land of Bharat. Unlike Hollywood, where actors like Meryl Streep and Sean Penn openly espouse political opinions against populist demagogues like Trump, the Khans remain guardedly quiet on the populist demagogue Modi to protect their market and financial interests. Moreover, where black actors like the late Chadwick Boseman (the Black Panther) have the integrity to refuse roles that stereotypically cast their people, the Khans follow a politics of appeasement in an industry that stereotypes Muslims as skullcap wearing “Rahim Chachas” and increasingly as terrorists. To maintain their financial interests, they remain strategically quiet on human rights issues like the Pakistan floods or take any stance that would raise the ire of rabid Hindutva fanatics. Instead, they resort to PR media stunts showcasing themselves as devotees of Indian gods or assume roles showcasing themselves as shah se zyada shah ke wafadar (sycophants by being more patriotic than the regular Indian).
But for all their desperate politics of appeasement, the Hindutva brigade that adopts a binary view of the world as Hindu or Muslim instead of accepting non-binary diverse Hindu-Muslim identities, stereotypes them as jihadi terrorists of the Urdu-wood that should be socially and economically boycotted. The Hindutva brigade like any extremist group is well educated with financial means. Several have migrated to western countries where they stoke their politics of division by harassing western academics and through street hooliganism noted most recently in Leicester. This is a people with a deep-rooted inferiority complex. They cannot give. They can only take as they project themselves as perpetual victims. They inconsistently harp about Muslim practice of male circumcision and halal dietary restrictions, even as they extol Israel despite its parallel practice of male circumcision and kosher dietary restrictions. Additionally, their obsession with swine images to put down Muslims stands in stark contrast to their obeisance to Israel with its similar taboo against the swine. But then fundamentalists are not known for their appeal to reason. Their dynamics are like those of fundamentalist Muslims who yearn for the age of Muslim empires.
Returning to the Khans, their days are numbered. What goes up must come down. The same applies to Indian Muslims who must rabidly downplay Pakistan to establish their Indian credentials. However, the sooner they realize the limits of the politics of appeasement, the better. After all, the movie Sunshine (1999) showcased that even conversion to Christianity did not save Ralph Fiennes’s character from the concentration camp. And Hindutva borrows from Nazi Germany despite all its attempts to sanitize its image. Such a lot cannot be appeased. They can only be countered by strength. If this means migration and loss of financial interest, then these are a small price to pay for the millionaire Khans to redeem their integrity. For their part, Pakistanis reject Pakistani Uncle Toms, who make a career out of self-hate and spite for the Quaid e Azam, and who sell their nation for a paltry price. In doing so, they reject the politics of appeasement.
Then, 1300 years later, a young barrister followed a similar path of bringing diverse communities together. Hailed as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, he was inspired by Gopal Krishna Gokhale and English liberalism, married a Parsi woman, and upheld secular principles and way of life. Eventually, he learned the hard way that there is only so much one can concede to bring diverse communities together and that there is a limit to the politics of appeasement. He represented the most educated and liberal class of Muslims, but the Indian National Congress was not interested in building ties with his kind and instead connected with the most regressive class of Muslim clerics that held their community back from progress. Instead of coming to an agreement based on consociationalism with democratic power sharing, as witnessed between the English and the French in Canada, the Congress cast away a “moth eaten” country through a painful partition of two large provinces that Jinnah and the Muslim League vehemently stood against.
The Muslims of the Indian subcontinent were divided. They had lived in the Indian subcontinent that was shaped by various empires and boundaries for a thousand years. They were a blend of Afghan, Persian, Arab, and Central Asian (especially Uzbek) heritage, who married within the local population and raised their progeny as Muslims. Those who followed Jinnah refused to live as minorities under a Hindu hegemony. Others that could not migrate for various economic, financial, and familial reasons bought into a narrative of a secular India. But how could secularism and liberalism thrive in a country where prejudice runs deep with an ancient caste system, where the Congress tried to appease the regressive elements of both Muslim and Hindu communities, and where a deep-rooted inferiority complex was addressed through the Hindutva narrative that pushed against the 1000-year foreign Muslim and British rule.
It is in this context that the Khans in India, who comprise the most secular and liberal class of Muslims that raise their families in multi-faith traditions, now face boycotts from large swathes of middle class, educated Indians with an increasing political consciousness of their ancient land of Bharat. Unlike Hollywood, where actors like Meryl Streep and Sean Penn openly espouse political opinions against populist demagogues like Trump, the Khans remain guardedly quiet on the populist demagogue Modi to protect their market and financial interests. Moreover, where black actors like the late Chadwick Boseman (the Black Panther) have the integrity to refuse roles that stereotypically cast their people, the Khans follow a politics of appeasement in an industry that stereotypes Muslims as skullcap wearing “Rahim Chachas” and increasingly as terrorists. To maintain their financial interests, they remain strategically quiet on human rights issues like the Pakistan floods or take any stance that would raise the ire of rabid Hindutva fanatics. Instead, they resort to PR media stunts showcasing themselves as devotees of Indian gods or assume roles showcasing themselves as shah se zyada shah ke wafadar (sycophants by being more patriotic than the regular Indian).
But for all their desperate politics of appeasement, the Hindutva brigade that adopts a binary view of the world as Hindu or Muslim instead of accepting non-binary diverse Hindu-Muslim identities, stereotypes them as jihadi terrorists of the Urdu-wood that should be socially and economically boycotted. The Hindutva brigade like any extremist group is well educated with financial means. Several have migrated to western countries where they stoke their politics of division by harassing western academics and through street hooliganism noted most recently in Leicester. This is a people with a deep-rooted inferiority complex. They cannot give. They can only take as they project themselves as perpetual victims. They inconsistently harp about Muslim practice of male circumcision and halal dietary restrictions, even as they extol Israel despite its parallel practice of male circumcision and kosher dietary restrictions. Additionally, their obsession with swine images to put down Muslims stands in stark contrast to their obeisance to Israel with its similar taboo against the swine. But then fundamentalists are not known for their appeal to reason. Their dynamics are like those of fundamentalist Muslims who yearn for the age of Muslim empires.
Returning to the Khans, their days are numbered. What goes up must come down. The same applies to Indian Muslims who must rabidly downplay Pakistan to establish their Indian credentials. However, the sooner they realize the limits of the politics of appeasement, the better. After all, the movie Sunshine (1999) showcased that even conversion to Christianity did not save Ralph Fiennes’s character from the concentration camp. And Hindutva borrows from Nazi Germany despite all its attempts to sanitize its image. Such a lot cannot be appeased. They can only be countered by strength. If this means migration and loss of financial interest, then these are a small price to pay for the millionaire Khans to redeem their integrity. For their part, Pakistanis reject Pakistani Uncle Toms, who make a career out of self-hate and spite for the Quaid e Azam, and who sell their nation for a paltry price. In doing so, they reject the politics of appeasement.