We, the reviewers, have faced this observation often enough over the years. Implicit in this statement is an assumption about what constitutes a ‘Bihari’. He (mostly ‘he’ and rarely ‘she’) has to be wild, uneducated, ill-mannered, least likely to be law-abiding, in constant pursuit of shortcuts, and forever wedded to the idea of jugaad.

While the observation might come as a compliment, it distresses us nonetheless. Being born and brought up in Bihar during a time of great political and social transformation, we rarely came across any fellow Bihari who fit this assumed definition. Yet, the assumption has persisted for years, in Delhi and elsewhere in India.

Having interacted with countless Biharis, we know – to use Hilal Ahmed’s distinction between discursive and substantive aspects of an identity – that a whole host of factors contribute to the making of a Bihari. An imagined discourse is an additional burden for every Bihari to deal with. The factors contributing to the making of a Bihari include caste, religion, region, educational background, place of residence, and many others.

Who Are Indian Muslims?

The same assumption versus reality rule applies when describing a group of nearly 20 crore people known as Indian Muslims. Hilal Ahmed writes, “History of the present is perhaps a provocative title, especially when it is employed in relation to Muslims of India. It is a well-known fact that Islam is the second-largest Indian religion, and Muslims constitute almost 14% of the country’s population. This ‘community of believers’ is highly diversified-they are divided on caste, class, region, and even sub-religious lines.”

Yet, as he further notes, “Their classification as a religious minority in purely statistical terms, the description of medieval Indian history as Islamic rule, and the media debates around Islamic jihad and terrorism produce a simple and undifferentiated image of a homogeneous Muslim community.”

Members of the community are perceived to have identical views on all issues under the sun, are seen as voting strategically, and are associated with multiple imagined jihads. And the list goes on.

Muslim ‘Politicophobia’

When such widespread diversity is glossed over and assumptions are made based on stray events –  fuelled by a heavy dose of “global anti-Islamism” and “anti-Muslim communalism in the Indian context” – you have a situation that Hilal Ahmed describes as ‘Muslim politicophobia’. This leads to political engagement with the community being shunned, accusations such as population jihad (got to know this for the first time while reading the book) being levelled against them, and their representation in various fora being discouraged.

Increased religiosity in recent years, with public displays of aspects of religion that were previously confined to the private domain, has further complicated the situation on the ground.

No Different From Other Groups

Despite these challenges, members of the community, the author argues, continue to take part in political processes to secure tangible benefits as stakeholders. “They behave like consumers/clients and respond to the welfare packages offered by political parties,” he writes. And in this sense, Muslims are no different from other social groups.

What are the ways then to fight this Muslim politicophobia? Is it all doom and gloom as far as Muslim issues are concerned in contemporary India? We couldn’t agree more with the author’s conclusion. He says, “The fight against anti-Muslimism cannot be separated from the wider struggle for social justice and economic equality…. One that allows individuals like me to critique economic injustice and social inequalities while adhering to my conception of a liberative Islam.”

The book is a refreshing take on New India and all that it represents. There is no bitterness, there is no blame game. It is a foremost social scientist’s take on the struggles and triumphs of Muslims in everyday life – their political participation, their survival strategies against odds, their dialogue with modernity and liberalism, and their engagement with what is called Muslim heritage.

(Mayank Mishra is Consulting Editor and Marya Shakil is Executive Editor – National Affairs, at NDTV)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

New Delhi:

The RSS slammed Rahul Gandhi for his “not Hindus” jibe at the ruling BJP in the Lok Sabha on Monday and said it was “unfortunate” that the leader of opposition linked Hindutva with violence.

Reacting to the Congress leader’s remarks, senior Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) functionary Sunil Ambekar said, “People occupying important positions linking Hindutva with violence is unfortunate.” “Whether it is the Hindutva of (Swami) Vivekananda or (Mahatma) Gandhi, it is a symbol of harmony and brotherhood,” he added.

Ambekar heads the all-India publicity department of the RSS.

Launching a no-holds-barred attack on the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the Lok Sabha, Mr Gandhi said the leaders of the saffron party are not Hindus as they engage in “violence and hate” round the clock.

His remarks drew massive protests from the treasury benches, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi accusing the Congress leader of calling the entire Hindu community violent.

Mr Gandhi, however, hit back at Modi, saying he was speaking about the BJP and that neither the ruling party nor the RSS nor PM Modi represents the entire Hindu society.

Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) president Alok Kumar also condemned Mr Gandhi’s remarks and said if the Congress leader thinks his party will get votes by “cornering and insulting” Hindus, he must remember that it is still way behind the BJP in terms of seats won in the Lok Sabha.

“He (Gandhi) should remember that the Congress could get just 99 seats out of 542 (in the just-concluded polls) and it is still way behind its competitor,” Mr Kumar said in a video message. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)