14 minute read
This Land is Mine
Is the world’s largest democracy, the secular and humanist Republic of India, on its deathbed?
BY HARSH MANDER
Advertisement
Under constant siege, weather-beaten and broken, the edifice of India’s constitution founded on the ideals of equal citizenship for people of all faiths and castes has endured — at least so far. And it continues to do so, despite the numerous onslaughts and rapidly mounting tension that have occurred, especially since the mandate given to the Narendra Modi government in 2014 and the even more emphatic mandate of 2019.
However, the Indian Parliament’s passing of the Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) in December 2019 had put India’s constitutional structure in danger of caving in. Make no mistake. This act does not require that the Constitution be rewritten; rather, its passage and the creation of a National Register of Citizens (NRC) threatens this document’s very soul with annihilation, for a new nation is now struggling to emerge from its rubble — one that is wrathful, muscular, majoritarian and inhospitable to its minorities.
This law is the result of tangled contestations of belonging and rights. Who belongs to India, and on what terms? And indeed, to whom does India belong? As the young Bengali-origin Assamese poet Kazi Neel laments, “This land is mine. But I am not of this land.” He loves India, but India refuses to claim him.
Citizenship ultimately is the right to have rights. Who in this country should have rights, and from whom should they be withheld?
The answer to these fraught questions was settled within the Constitution’s humanist and inclusive framework. Its iridescent central premise was that religious faith has no bearing on eligibility for citizenship, for the country belongs equally to its Muslim, Christian and Zoroastrian residents, just as much as it does to its Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Jain residents.
And yet it was these very questions of belonging and religion as politics that tore India apart. The All-India Muslim League (1906-47; https://www.britannica.com/ topic/Muslim-League) regarded religion as key to citizenship; therefore, India was not one but two nations — Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan.
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1962), founder of the right-wing Hindu Mahasabha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_ Mahasabha) asserted that India belonged only to its Hindu majority. However, the Constituent Assembly steadfastly rejected this idea. Jawaharlal Nehru, the country’s first prime minister, declared, “We accept as Indian anyone who calls himself a citizen of India.”
By introducing the CAA, the BJP-led government has deliberately reopened old wounds, thereby reviving the old fears, anxieties and hatreds of [the 1947] Partition. In effect, this law endorses the two-nation theory by creating a hierarchy of citizenship based on religious faith — a hierarchy from which Muslims are deliberately excluded.
The moral fig leaf offered is that this law will provide refuge to Hindus allegedly suffering religious persecution in the neighboring countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh [which India helped create in 1971 through direct military intervention] and Afghanistan. If religious persecution were truly to become the yardstick for becoming eligible for citizenship, then few neighbors would be more entitled to it than the tormented Rohingya battling genocide in Myanmar and Xinjiang’s interned Uyghur Muslims.
Until 1987, the only criterion for securing Indian citizenship was to be born in India. However, spurred by populist movements alleging massive illegal migration from Bangladesh, the citizenship law was amended to require that at least one parent be a citizen of India. It was further amended in 2004 to prescribe that not only must one parent be a citizen, but also that the other should not be an illegal immigrant.
Supported and led by the Supreme Court, the Indian state undertook a massive program that required all residents of Assam, a northeastern state that shares two borders with Bangladesh, to prove that they
Assamese Muslims pour over National Register of Citizens paperwork (Photo © countercurrents.org)
were Indian citizens based on a complex maze of documents. The BJP-led federal government of India and state government of Assam became uneasy when the final NRC revealed a surprising fact: Far more Bengali-origin Hindus had been excluded than Muslims. If they were to be classified as illegal immigrants, the 2004 amendment would make not only them, but also their offspring, illegal immigrants.
Only the CAA can rescue the BJP from this political conundrum. In short, it will treat Bengali Hindus as refugees and Bengali-origin Muslims and their descendants as illegal immigrants, even if they were born in India and know no other country as their home.
Treating Bengali-origin Hindus excluded from Assam’s NRC as persecuted refugees from Bangladesh, however, requires multiple extraordinary leaps of official faith. For example, none of them would have claimed on any official forum — NRC offices, Foreigners’ Tribunals or police stations – to be illegal Bangladeshi immigrants; rather, they would have strenuously tried to establish the exact opposite.
But now that the CAA has been passed,
they will also have to claim to be foreigners in order to become eligible for Indian citizenship! And then there will be questions of the evidence they will have to submit. How will they prove that they were citizens of the above-mentioned neighboring countries and suffered persecution? The truth is that most of them have not crossed any border and thus will be unable to produce any documents that will “prove” to officials that they are really Indian citizens.
The CAA is the harbinger of a national NRC. By passing it, New Delhi is effectively messaging that if any non-Muslim individual cannot produce the required documents, then he/she will nevertheless be accepted as a refugee and given Indian citizenship. In other words, only Muslims are actually required to prove their citizenship, because only they are in danger of being declared stateless.
While most Indians would find it impossible to collect the required documents to prove their citizenship, only document-less Muslims will face the prospect of being sent to detention centers or stripped of their citizenship rights. And then, since this imaginary foreign citizenship is all vested in documents, which documents will prove one’s religion?
At present, the only official evidence of one’s religious persuasion is his/her declaration of it on the relevant decadal census form. But I can be born into a religion and reject it when I become an adult, or I can be born to parents who claim no religion. So if religion becomes the principal fulcrum of whether or not one is a citizen, which document will the state rely upon to decide if I am a refugee or should be thrown into a detention center?
For a republic built on guarantees of equality and non-discrimination on the basis of religion, using religious identity as the sole criterion for creating a class of potentially stateless persons would decisively mark the demise of India as a secular republic. A political opposition emptied of its moral and political convictions would share the responsibility for bringing about this catastrophic collapse of our Constitution’s very edifice.
When the CAA was passed, I announced my form of civil disobedience: If the CAA were passed and then followed by a national NRC, I would — in solidarity with those whose citizenship would be contested — declare myself a Muslim on all official records, despite being an agnostic and humanist who believes in according equal respect and rights to people of all faiths. I realize that doing so will change nothing, but at least it would show my opposition to those who would give lesser citizenship rights to Muslims. When the NRC is organized, I will boycott it by refusing to produce any documents. And then I will demand to be given the same punishment meted out to my undocumented Muslim sisters and brothers, be it detention or the extinguishing of my citizenship rights.
A nationwide civil disobedience movement has fought the CAA-NRC from the beginning, fully recognizing that it poses the gravest threat to India’s secular democratic Constitution since our country became a republic. For 100 days people of every faith, caste and identity, led by students and working-class Muslim women, joined hands to peacefully resist the passage of this law. But the union [federal] government used the Covid-19 health emergency pandemic to crush the movement — at least for the present.
The Delhi Police, controlled by the union government, claims that this peaceful protest was in fact the cover for a violent terrorist insurgency and thus has jailed many young people on charges of treason and terror. Police charge-sheets mention several others, including myself, as hatemongers and conspirators.
But the voices of those people who believe in the humane, equal and just nation pledged in India’s freedom struggle and Constitution will not be crushed. They will rise again, with peace, nonviolence and courage, to defend the soul of India. ih
Harsh Mander, an Indian author, columnist, researcher, teacher and social activist, is the director of the New Delhibased Centre for Equity Studies.
Political Scams Under the Muslim Cover and How to Avoid Them
BY AHMED SHAIKH
The U.S. political system relies on money and the control of complex political party machinery. Those who have even a nodding familiarity with the country’s politics over the past four years should know by now the political system has a nearly bottomless capacity for corruption — and relatively few checks to prevent it.
Despite this, many Muslims have found success at all levels of this machinery as elected officials, community and civic organizers, and donors. Some of this has been beneficial, and some of it has been perilous. While Muslim engagement in the political sphere is often regarded as a self-evident good, it’s also essential that our community understands the hazards of such involvement.
MUSLIMS PRACTICE ISLAM That Muslims follow the religion of Islam may sound obvious. However, this is not evident in American politics. The political world treats Muslims as a group defined by “identity” rather than a shared adherence to Islam. In other words, being a Muslim in many political spaces doesn’t require belief in God, His prophets, books or much of anything. There are no boundaries with which practicing Muslims may be familiar. It is just not how American politics works.
However, if you are Muslim, believe in God, pray, go to the mosque and have values not dictated by what is popular with one political party or another, you may still want to participate in politics. Perhaps you want more justice, more peace for all people or to help elect the best individuals with the most integrity.
But you also need to understand that your goodwill can be abused and that your faith in people will often be misplaced. THE DIRECTION YOU RUN In general, two different kinds of people are active in politics. The first one comprises the “centers of influence” — politicians, fundraisers, community leaders, influence merchants, business leaders and others who have a wide influence over groups of people — who will offer the voters’ loyalty or provide the large sums of cash needed for campaigning. This group is the political machinery. The second group consists of the ordinary voters and uninfluential donors.
As a Muslim, if you are in either group, you have an amana (trust). Everything in the heavens and Earth belongs to God (2:225). Whatever you have has been entrusted to you. Having money to give, running a mosque or another community organization attended by politicians and political organizations or promoting an organization with your prestige are other types of trusts. Try not to mess this up.
When donating to political causes, we are often running toward something (e.g., single-payer health care) or running away from something (say, Islamophobia). Often, we’re just following a crowd and doing what everyone else is doing. The latter is what happens most often.
Clearly, it is no accident that advocacy groups and politicians focus on specific demographics when crafting their messages. Entire social circles, groups of friends, professional organizations or masjid leaderships might support a politician. In exchange, they may receive no more than gauzy platitudes focused on those same demographics.
American politics has engendered corruption and grift among many groups, including white Christians (https://www.theatlantic. com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-secretly-mocks-his-christian-supporters/616522/), Black Christians (https://www. nydailynews.com/news/politics/black-clergy-support-trump-prostitutes-pastor-article-1.2451584), Native Americans (https:// www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus. php?ind=G6550), unions (https://www.npr. org/2019/09/12/760264386/fiat-chryslerkickback-scandal-widens-fbi-raids-uawheads-home) and others. It’s starting to look like Muslims, as relative newcomers to political activity, are merely next on the list.
As Muslims think about how they can use their influence and money, they should consider the following hazards:
FOREIGN AGENTS Several Muslims involved in politics are agents of foreign governments. While the term “foreign agent” is not intended to be a slur, and representing foreign governments here is not in and of itself illegal or immoral, such people should register with the United States Department of Justice.
A foreign government, person or organization does not need to pay an agent or have any kind of formal agreement. For example, Nisar Ahmed Chaudhry was convicted of being a foreign agent because he communicated with the Pakistani government and tried to influence U.S. policy. His failure to register landed him in serious trouble (https://www.reuters.com/article/ us-usa-justice-foreign-agent/pakistanipleads-guilty-failed-to-register-as-u-s-foreign-agent-idUSKBN1I82H4).
Los Angeles-based political fundraiser Imaad Zuberi, who had the ear of top Democrats and Republicans alike, was
© LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
POLITICS CAN BE A MEANS OF IMPROVING THE CONDITIONS OF PEOPLE’S IMMEDIATE LIVES, OR ACHIEVING GREATER JUSTICE IN A SOCIETY. IT’S ALSO AN EXCELLENT WAY FOR THE UNSCRUPULOUS TO GAIN WEALTH, POWER AND INFLUENCE. MUSLIM AMERICAN NONPROFITS AND LEADERS SHOULD BE MORE CAREFUL ABOUT VETTING EACH OTHER.
convicted in 2019 for his unregistered activities as a foreign agent for various countries. He reportedly kept much of the money he raised for himself (https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-donor-pleads-guilty-toacting-as-foreign-agent/).
Turkey and the United Arab Emirates have likely done the most to cultivate relationships with Muslim American leaders who spend time in politics and government (https://muslimmatters.org/2019/11/11/aguide-for-american-muslim-leaders-whoare-also-foreign-agents/).
A significant risk with supporting or donating to foreign agents is the possibility that the agenda your funds are serving may bolster values that are antithetical to your own. They might scam you.
ASTROTURFING Astroturf organizing in the political world is like “grassroots” organizing, only it’s fake. This is less of an issue for political donors, at least at first, and more of a problem for Muslims who hold positions of trust within the community. Astroturfing can often leverage misplaced trust.
Moneyed interests outside the community in the U.S. would like to create the impression that Muslims support or oppose things.
In 2020, Emgage was at the center of an astroturfing scandal after reports emerged about it being a muzzle for Muslim Americans that ultimately discouraged genuine political participation (https://www. middleeasteye.net/big-story/joe-bidenemgage-muslim-america-us-elections). Its policy positions were mainly restatements of Democratic Party orthodoxy. The organization’s abundant funding mostly came from non-Muslim sources. In reality, it was little more than a service provider for funders. Emgage’s founders also had connections to military contractors (https://ehsan.substack. com/p/review-of-emgage).
Although mosques in Florida had banned Emgage for years — it was known as a badfaith actor — it took a long time for Muslims elsewhere to become wise to this. The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, mostly in response to pressure from activists (https:// uscmo.org/2020/10/08/official-uscmo-statement-regarding-emgage/), had expelled Emgage from the membership it was granted only months before (https://mondoweiss. net/2020/09/call-to-muslim-leaders-to-dropemgage-usa/). Emgage claimed it resigned (https://emgageaction.org/emgage-actionresponse-to-false-allegations-by-uscmo/).
And yet other Muslim organizations continued to welcome Emgage, whose main selling point is its close ties to the Democratic Party and the new Biden administration.
Unfortunately, other such organizations are still operating in Muslim spaces. Muslim leaders should carefully scrutinize all political organizing efforts, because the incentives to hijack the Muslim voice in politics are quite strong.
IDENTITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP Both progressives and conservatives have use for people who “identify” as Muslims. Right-wing groups have long had a cottage industry of “native informants,” people purporting to be Muslims who use their platforms to spew blatant hatred of Islam and Muslims. These are people like Asra Nomani and Zuhdi Jasser, who Republicans have called to testify before Congress to promote Islamophobic tropes. Muslims are not a significant intended audience here, and so this has less impact in our spaces.
In the past two decades, most Muslims in politics have found it hard to imagine being anywhere but inside the Democratic Party. This is largely because progressive groups within that party’s political machinery have welcomed them as a “marginalized group.” Although demonstrating that the inclusion of Muslims matters to the Democratic political machinery, genuine input from Muslims tends to matter very little when it comes to controversial issues.
But in the progressive world, identity entrepreneurs can scam Muslim leaders more easily. In 2019, CAIR Oklahoma admitted to being duped into signing a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court by a group that was actively hostile to Islam and did not appear to have any meaningful support or funding from within the community (https://muslimmatters.org/2019/07/31/were-muslimgroups-duped-into-supporting-an-lgbtqrights-petition-at-the-us-supreme-court/).
Mosques nationwide unwittingly hosted various grifters who came to Muslim spaces to promote Countering Violent
