THE INERT THREAT TO PLURALISM.
Sheliza Hyder
The common mistake. When the question was asked generally in a class of students mainly of grade twelve, ‘what they meant by the term diversity?’ The most common answers given by them were: working together, accepting others, tolerance, inclusion, sometimes nasty fights because there are different contradictory opinions. And so the mentor realized that her students are conditioning the consequences of the term itself. She implied that her students posses a faint conception of diversity and its consequences. Instead of describing the definition of the word, they were more inclined towards the anticipated results of the word.
It is evident that we are habitual of making associations so briskly that our immediate apprehension of the word thunder results into rain or lightening, we speak of hot sun when we sweat, we speak of food when we hear the word crop, we yell the villager whenever we see a farmer. Our mind’s habit of association eventually results into, what I think, is a blunder. The blunder is made when we synonymously use the meaning of a particular cause with the meaning of subsequent effect. As for example humidity is a fact that represents the quantity of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. The word is often used as a synonym to heaviness/ sweatiness. Despite the fact that sweatiness is a sensation felt by the sense organs as a result of humidity.
Diversity is generally defined as a demographic fact. A relation to the structure of population. Let me make this clear with the e.g. of consensus. When consensus is held in a country, it only describes that how many families live in a particular area and how many of them are nuclear or joint families. Consensus do not tells us that whether a family, either being joint or nuclear, is living a good quality of life (specifically in terms of mental satisfaction of the family members) or is surviving in a misery of struggle. Census has nothing to do with the circumstances/consequences of the families living in an area. It provides us only with the fact. Likewise, diversity is a mere fact that describes the tangible and intangible structure of population living in an area.
The world at present and The Challenge. Today in the twenty first century we are facing a bigger challenge of learning to live not only with diversity but with greater diversity increasing with each passing year. We live in a global web of immense diversities of ethnicities, of languages, of cultures, of faiths, of communal and individual philosophies. We observe diversity in not only tangible standards that are, height, weight, color, age, geographical appearance, but also in intangible values which includes, religion, sect, political or social opinion, cultural or economical opinion, personal choices of being homosexual, of selecting a brand or a movie to watch, even of choosing the genre of a movie or novel. Diversity has became a conceptual term that can be observed day by day, more and more, in minor and least deviations. In the present day, even a kid uses frequently the phrase like, ‘in my opinion’ or ‘I believe’ or ‘I think’, before giving any of his statements. It reflects the emphasis of a kid that his opinion and his choice is different and must be listened with respect and attention. Such phrases we use regularly in our daily spoken language. In fact our tone also reflects the emphasis upon what we refer to personally because we suppose our opinion to be different and hence called it a diversified one.
Learning to live with this greater diversity is the spirit of Pluralism (one of the consequence of the fact diversity). We all today speak of the inclusive society, the pluralistic world which rest upon diversity and greater diversity. Most of us believe that building bridges with the diversified talent will result into a stunning success of human intellect. And our belief is firm because it is the truth which coheres with the events in history. The great civilizations of the past affirms the truth of this belief when the Christian, Jews and Arabic scholars work together all inclusively in the Abbasid court to produce some of the best intellectual works, when the Fatimid Empire gave a warm reception to Greek thought and expanded the boundaries of such studies, when a Sunni scholar, Nasir al din Tusi sits in Shia Ismaili library at the castle of Almoth and produces excellent intellectual doctrines, when the Great mosque of Cordoba reflects the architectural designs of not only Islamic intellect but also of a Catholic Christian temple. There are many affirmations.
With all the loftiest ideals of pluralism that we observed in history and of which we talk so enthusiastically, we often neglect the passive downfall of it. We take for granted the situation that more diversity seems to mean more division, greater complexity, more fragmentation that can also bring us closer to more conflict. It is certainly true that more diversity means richer pool of intellect, more fragmentation means more beautifully designed mosaic. But we can’t ignore that more variation means more competition, more fragmentation means more difficult to choose which fragment to be placed where in the mosaic. The intense competition will in due course result into individual insecurities.
There are several aspects because of which we are facing this greater challenge to live with diversities. One aspect of this changing reality is the human migration. Migration, either willingly or unwillingly, has become much easier in today’s world then it was in early twentieth century and in the world before. People migrate more these days under the tag of immigrants or refugees, in order to pursue their ultimate goals.
A world, in which migration, of humans, of all the values, of all the ideas and of all the good and evil forces, is so common, is referred to as a global village. According to Aga Khan IV, in such a world the ‘Other’ is no longer a distant someone whom we encounter primarily in the pages of magazine, or on a video screen, or an exotic holiday trip. The ‘Other’ increasingly is someone who appears in what we think of as ‘Our Space’, or even in ‘Our face’. And that reality is sometimes can be hard to handle. This, I think, could be better explained through the latest advertisement of Shan masala. In the ad a Chinese lady settles into Lahore Pakistan because of her husband’s professional work in the city. The lady in order to make friends and get known in the neighborhood attempts to cook Briyani (with the Shan Briyani masala as it’s the Ad of Shan) and serves that to her neighbors. She thus gains the recognition in the space. To my inference, the Chinese lady and her husband is the ‘Other’ appearing in ‘Lahorian Space’, giving a competition not only in profession but also in domestic life.
When the ‘Other’ is seen as a potential competitor for a job or in domestic life for e.g. then the challenge of acquiring pluralistic attitude to live with greater diversity becomes more difficult. Such competition leads to individual insecurities which then tempt to look for scapegoats, someone to blame. People then find it easier to define their identity by what they are against, than by what they are for. Such fears must be culturally biased, or economically driven, or psychologically induced. These fears and insecurities must not be underestimated. They will not be driven away by lofty ideals.
What happened in the Past? The threat which I discussed above is not only present in today’s global village but was also present in second half of the sixteenth century, when Mughul Dynasty of Subcontinent was ruled by the emperor, Akbar the Great. Akbar had the long reign of almost fifty years, which was immensely fruitful in the field of not only politics but of spirituality, literature and the arts. It is said that indeed, it was under Akbar that Mughul Culture really took root. The culture that was a marvelous blend of Islamic and Indian tradition (because of early Muslim migration and conquest in the region), and above all a culture which represented the most tolerant attitude in the pre modern period.
Akbar’s royal court reflected a microcosm of shared religious tolerance. The spirit of pluralism and tolerance was eminent among the people of Akbar’s reign as everyone was allowed to celebrate their own festive despite of being Hindu or Christian or Muslim. Furthermore he allowed a great array of Hindu festivals to be celebrated inside his court because there were Hindu officials working for administration as per the new policies introduced by him. Such policy of opening up the administration to the local nationals of the land led to the positive radiance of mutual tolerance in the society. The best e.g. of this policy was that a Hindu, Todar Mal, was made finance minister in 1564, and in 1570 eight out of twelve revenue officers of the province of the empire were Hindu. Several of Akbar’s closest friends and advisers were also Hindu.
Akbar promulgated laws allowing Hindus and Christians to build new temples and churches respectively. They were also allowed to make schools. Akbar permitted those Hindus who had been forcibly converted to Islam to revert to their Hindu faith. In addition to this socio-political bridge, Akbar was instrumental in building spiritual, intellectual, cultural, and esthetic bridges between the two faiths. This he did through a sustained programme of court patronage of architecture as well as art, music and poetry. And perhaps most significant of all, through ordering of translation of religious scriptures. These translations gave a new momentum to Persian literature in Indian Subcontinent at the time and for generation to come.
In the light of such impressive achievements, the reason why Reza Shah Kazemi in his book stated that the contemporary Hindu writers, in particular, refer to Akbar as one of the greatest rulers India has ever had and why Muslim liberals see his rule as a forerunner to modern cosmopolitan culture and liberalism.
Again according to Reza Shah, the policies and general thought of Akbar reflected the thought that he had an undoubted appreciation of the idea that no one religion has a monopoly on the sacred. The idea is also present in Quran (Surah Al Kafirun, verse 1-6) and was also the central element in the doctrines of Andalusian mystical authority, Muhyid-Din-Ibn-al-Arabi. Abul-Fadl, the court historian and the chief religious adviser of Akbar was supposed to be the one who mediated such thoughts and doctrines of Al-Arabi in the religious discussions held at Ibadat Khanah.
Ibadat khanah (lit: house of worship) was established at Fatehpur Sikri, where Muslims of different sects, Jesuit fathers from Goa, Zoroastrians, Hindu Pandits and others gathered together to discuss religion with Akbar and among themselves. Deen-e-ilahi (lit: divine religion) was the result of such discussions which took place at Ibadat Khanah. It was a religion born out of synergy, intended to merge the best elements of religions of his empire and in so doing reconcile the differences that divided his subjects. Hence I could say that like other policies of his state this was also an effort to live inclusively in the diversified society which his empire possessed. It also resembles the Bhakti movement, as the movement also had a sort of similar aim to produce some universal moral values and to try to reconcile two different communities that had to live together.
Deen-e-ilahi, in general outlook, prohibited lust, sensuality, slander and pride, considering them sins. Piety, prudence, abstinence and kindness were the core virtues of it. The soul was encouraged to purify itself through yearning of God. Celibacy was respected and the slaughter of animals was forbidden. There were neither scriptures nor a priestly hierarchy in this religion. I think the religion offered an esoteric path in seeking the affection of God just like other Sufi traditions. Deen-e-ilahi had always been a part of ambiguous debates. Many Muslims question that whether or not Akbar did worship the sun or the fire or did something related to atheism. I will debunk the answer to this question later in this article.
Having a brief account of what Akbar did in his reign, I will now comprehend how his policies embed the seeds of individual insecurities inside his court. We know that in opening up the administration to the Hindu nationals, Akbar opened his court for competition. The court which was once the prestige of higher Muslim elite. The policy of reducing imperial patronage of the religious classes implied a sense of susceptible contest between people of two entirely different communities. Such feeling gave rise to individual fears and insecurities in the prior homogenous Muslim elite. Another insecurity to note here is that Muslim elite feared the dilution of orthodox Islamic culture into the heterodox form. And as I discussed in the former phase of the article that people having insecurities usually end up searching scapegoats. People, in particular, the Muslim religious elite accused Akbar of being ‘heretic’ and ‘apostate’. Deen-e-ilahi was made the reason to accuse Akbar. Though the religion did not abandon the worship of One God, or offered the human submission to any earthly thing along with God. It proclaimed the esoteric path to reach God and accepted the universal values which were offered by every other religion. The practice of Deen-e-ilahi resembled Sufi teachings but no one in that period accuse Sufi practice of being atheistic.
And as far as the question of worshiping the sun or the fire is concerned, I will make this more digestible while defining two terms noticeably. Mathal (lit means similarity) and Mithaal (lit means analogy). In order to contemplate the nature of God and the relationship between man and God many people have derived analogies. Hassan, the grandson of Prophet has explained the Islamic doctrine of GOD and the universe by describing an analogy of the sun and its reflection in the pool of a fountain. In Quran also Allah gives the mithaal of HIMSELF as the light of the heavens and of the earth, the light which is like a niche in a lamp (Ayah Noor). It is ok to understand the nature of God with analogies but if one instead of giving mithaal of God, provides a mathal for God, then he is said to have done shirk. For me Akbar must had used the sun/fire as the analogy to contemplate God, but people desperately searching a reason for scapegoat, neglected a second thought to ponder upon Akbar’s mithaal i.e. analogy and simply accused him of being atheistic. Nevertheless Akbar didn’t ask anyone to bow in front of him assuming himself the Lord of his empire, he didn’t introduced a new scripture or claimed that he was a prophet. And above all his Deen-e-ilahi never affected a huge population of Muslims. It affected only a tiny minority of people at his court. It is said that there were only eighteen fully pledged members of this religion. After the death of Akbar, there were no signs of discontent among his Muslim subjects.
I think the reason why Akbar’s Deen-e-ilahi was caught as a scapegoat is that, Akbar called his esoteric practice a Deen (religion) instead of calling it a tariqat (practice) or any other movement. Furthermore another aspect which had worsened the situation is the misinformation and disinformation about Deen-e-ilahi. As misinformation and disinformation always produces three subsequent gaps in a society. And they are, ignorance gap, knowledge gap, and empathy gap.
The way out. People in order to advocate pluralistic society often refer to the general idea that under the skin, deep in our hearts, we are all brothers and sisters and the secret to a harmonious world is to ignore our differences and to emphasize our similarities. We didn’t realize that this idea could also lead to homogenization and cultural imperialism climaxing into individual fears.
Differences we posses are not trivial, they cannot be ignored and ultimately can’t be erased. Our understanding and our underlying humanity should motivate our quest for healthy pluralism. And most significantly such a quest must also built on empathetic response to our crucial and inevitable differences. Pretending that our differences are trivial will not persuade most people to acquire pluralistic attitude, rather it might push them to live in their own space without letting anyone in. People need to acknowledge that differences are there, they can be challenging, that disagreements are unavoidable, that our fellow humans can sometimes be disagreeable. As Adrienne Clarkson puts it, “the secret to social harmony is learning to live with the people you may not particularly like.”
We need to make sure that in building bridges we must not cross the bridges. We need to accept the difference with respect and we also need to withhold our own identity and cultural values. We need to affirm social solidarity without imposing social conformity. This will also prevent homogenization. The identity of a person must not be diluted in a pluralistic world, but rather fulfilled as one bright thread in a cloth of many colors or one bright piece in a beautiful mosaic.
Comments
Post a Comment