Generally
no distinction is made between fundamentalism, traditionalism and
communalism are often used synonimously. However, it is not so. These
terms have distinct meanings and different implications. Religious
orthodoxy is often condemned as fundamentalism even by many well meaning
scholars. It should also be remembered that orthodoxy, traditionalism
and fundamentalism do not apply to religion only. These terms can
equally be applied to political ideologies and even to social or natural
sciences. But generally these terms are applied to religious beliefs and
practices. Religious orthodoxy or traditionalism may not be desirable
for many and may be of great value to others. Religious orthodoxy has
great deal of social implications but very little political consequences
though not always bereft of it. But fundamentalism, at least the term as
it is used by the scholars and media today, has serious political
implications. Fundamentalism, in its original sense as used during the
twenties in United States did not have political implications. Those who
believed that the Bible's words should be literally understood. In that
sense even fundamentalism had no political implications.
But after
Islamic revolution in Iran, the word fundamentalism came to be used
largely in political sense. This word began to be used with political
overtones by the western media to debunk Islamic revolution in Iran as
the Iranian revolution directly challenged the American supremacy and
political hegemony. Also it was in seventies that the Libyan revolution
took place and Qaddafi also became an obstinate challenger of American
policing of the world. However, Libya was not what Iran was and the word
`fundamentalism ' was not applied to Libyan revolution. The Shah of Iran
had a strategic importance for America and with his help American
authorities sought to control the Middle Eastern region. The Shah was
also pro-Israel and exercised effective control over the radical
movements in the region. Thus the Islamic revolution in Iran in the late
seventies hurt American interests much more than the Libyan revolution.
Hence the word `fundamentalism' was reapplied in the new political
context.
The
western media did not use the term fundamentalism when it came to the
Saudi regime as it was friendly to America and did not threaten its
interests. Thus while the Saudi regime was characterised as `orthodox'
the Iranian regime was described as `fundamentalist'. The word
fundamentalist has since become quite threatening in its implications.
In the beginning the Taliban revolution in Afghanistan was also thought
to be quite innocuous by the USA and it was for that reason that America
hurriedly recognised it. Afghanistan could become a launching ground for
controlling the Central Asian regimes which became independent after the
dissolution of Soviet Union. But when the Taliban began to threaten the
American interests in number of ways and even harboured Usama Bin Laden
it also graduated into fundamentalist regime. Moreover the Talibans
imposed unacceptably rigid code for women there were loud protests.
In the
Indian media too the word `fundamentalism' is rather loosely applied to
all sorts of people including the orthodox or traditional people. The
Indian media and academia also began to use the term fundamentalism in
imitation to the western media. It became current here towards the end
of seventies when Islamic revolution was taking place in Iran. It was
initially applied to the sections of Hindus and Muslims. But later it
was also applied to a section of Sikhs when the Khalistan movement was
launched in the Punjab. All those who agitated for reversing the Shah
Banu judgement of the Supreme court of India were also dubbed as
fundamentalists. Similarly the BJP and VHP or Bajrang Dal activists who
agitated for demolition of Babri Masjid and construction of Ram temple
were also described as Hindu fundamentalists. Thus it will be seen that
since late seventies the Indian media and academia are using the term
`fundamentalism' as political use or misuse of religion. Thus
fundamentalism has come to be used widely in this sense throughout the
world and all radical religious movements with political implications
are described now as `fundamentalist' movements.
There is
of course very thin line between fundamentalism and religious orthodoxy
but religious orthodoxy is not necessarily as threatening as
fundamentalism. Religious orthodoxy, as pointed out before, has little,
if any, political implications compared to fundamentalism. However, some
people are as much put off by orthodoxy as by fundamentalism though the
former is not as offensive politically as the later. While religious
radical movements be they in India or any other part of the world have
spread terrorism and violence the religious orthodoxy has not. However,
it is different thing that religious orthodoxy has brought about social
stagnation and obstructed change. But often religious orthodoxy has
sided with politically progressive movements while the modernists have
sung separatist tunes (though not always of course).
I would
like to cite an example from the Indian context. The orthodox Ulama
always stood against social change and opposed all attempts for reforms
with all their might. They opposed all attempts to reform Muslim
personal law. But the same Ulama led by most prominent theologians stood
by composite nationalism. In nineteenth century, in the post-mutiny
scenario while modernists like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan advocated change and
reform and boycotted the Indian National Congress and thought that the
Congress politics was not necessarily in the interests of Muslim the
most orthodox Ulama led by Maulana Qasim Ahmed Nanotvi urged upon the
Muslims to join Indian national congress and fight shoulder to shoulder
with their Hindu brethren to throw out the British rulers. No doubt
Badruddin Tyebji was an exception to this rule who was modernist and
also an advocate of the Congress politics and also became its first
Muslim president. But generally the modernists among the Muslims
provided cadre for the Muslim League. It is important to note that right
from the beginning the Muslim league drew its support from educated
upper classes of Muslims.
In the
twentieth century too the Jami`at al-Ulama - an organisation of the
orthodox theologians opposed the two nation theory and the Pakistan
movement tooth and nail. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani who defended the
Shari`ah law and opposed any change in it condemned Jinnah's two nation
theory and launched a movement against it. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad,
though not orthodox like Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani was also a
prominent theologian of Islam and he too stood firm like a rock opposing
the Pakistan movement. Jinnah, on the other hand, was a modernist and
advocated reforms in Shari`ah law and also moved various Bills to this
effect was opposed to composite nationalism during the end of thirties
and became not only champion but also the architect of Pakistan.
Similarly Maulana Shibli Nomani, again an eminent Muslim theologian and
a noted Islamic historian had condemned the formation of Muslim League
in 1906 in an essay written by him in 19011. He had questioned in this
essay the claimed representative character of the League.
Among the
Hindus too it was educated class and persons like the founder of the
Benaras Hindu University Madan Mohan Malviya who provided leadership to
the Hindu right. Veer Savarkar who pronounced the theory of Hindutva and
thought that Jinnah's separatism was justified was not a religious
leader. Like Jinnah he also advocated modern reforms in the Hindu
society. This might appear baffling to many but it is not. The educated
classes and modernists are directly involved in power struggle and on
account of this that the modernists get involved in rightist or
separatist or fundamentalist movements.
In
contemporary India the leadership of BJP, VHP , Bajrang Dal and RSS
(i.e. that of the Saffron family) is by no means provided by the
orthodox Hindu priesthood. Some of the Shankracharyas who are the
highest Hindu religious authorities are even strongly opposed to the VHP
usurping the issue of Ramjanambhoomi which is essentially religious in
character. The Shankracharya of Dwarka and Jyotimath Swami Swarupanand
who is very proud of his heritage as a Sanatan Hindu leader said in an
interview to The Times of India that "finding a solution the
Ramjanambhoomi issue should be left to the Dharmacharyas of the two
communities. It is a universal principle that if a man is ill he seeks a
doctor for a cure. If there is a problem involving the religious
sentiments of people then the religious leaders have to take the
leadership in providing a remedy.
Post
independence India is a democratic polity where political leaders have
to accept that there is a limit to their authority and power.....The
divisions and the problems have been created by politicians interfering
in religious matters. Orthodox Hinduism does not believe in disrespect
for any religion. We believe that it is only through respect and
sacrifice that a solution can be found to the Ramjanambhoomi
issue." This statement is truly a religious and not a political
statement. Swami Swarupanand would very much like a temple to be built
in Ayodhya which for him is a Ramjanambhoomi but not by launching
aggressive political movement but through dialogue with the Muslims.
Thus an orthodox Hindu leader who would not like to compromise on his
religious belief would like to solve the problem in religious manner not
by spreading extremism and violence. The entire Ramjanambhoomi movement
in the late eighties was launched by politicians for political purposes.
It was the educated Muslim middle class which provided the support base
for Jinnah's Pakistan movement in its own political interest. Similarly
it was the educated Hindu middle class which provided the main support
base for the BJP movement for Ramjanambhoomi to serve its own interests.
I would
like to make it clear that I am not at all justifying religious
orthodoxy in any way. I am myself involved in reform movement in the
Bohra Muslim community and have been advocating certain essential
changes in the Muslim personal law which impinge upon Muslim women's
rights. I am only trying to explain the social and political
implications of religious orthodoxy on one hand, and, of modernist
project on the other. There is again very thin line between
fundamentalism and communalism. These two terms have become almost
synonymous in India. The Saffron family is being described both as
communalists and fundamentalists. Similarly some Muslim leaders also are
described both as communalists and fundamentalists simultaneously. The
important difference between fundamentalists and communalists is that
while fundamentalists are also religiously orthodox, the communalists
are not. The communalists are mainly modernists as already pointed out
and not religiously orthodox. A careful academic or journalist should
always bear these differences in mind while using these terms or
categories and should not apply them loosely as is often done.
( Source: Secular
Persepective Dec: 1-15, 1998)