Born in Jaunpur (Eastern UP) in 1953, Jalalul Haq grew up in a very modest
background. Recalling his father’s interests in reading fiction, Haq relates how he developed a keen interest in reading whatever his hands fell on, in particular historical novels of Sadiq Sardhanvi and Naseem Hejazi. He recalls that in front of his house there lived a Bania, who subscribed to RSS ideology and its magazines and journals. This was a great opportunity for an avid reader like Haq, who used to borrow those books and journals and read them as well as the books of Maulana Mawdudi and other Ulama. He did his PhD on the Philosophy of Bertrand Russell in 1978. PROFESSOR JALALUL HAQ teaches philosophy in Aligarh Muslim University and has written several books on Hindu thought and civilization. At present he is working on the Hindu idea of tolerance. In an exclusive interview with JAVED ALI, he compares Jawaharlal Nehru and Savarkar, to find more similarities than none in their thoughts. Excerpts:
Please enlighten us about your writings and current research interests?
Nation and Nation-worship in India was my first book published in 1992. It was moderately well received. At that time, Hindutva was not very much in vogue as it is today. I made a reading of Savarkar’s book and compared it with Nehru’s Discovery of India. I found more similarities than dis-similarities between the RSS version of Hindutva and Nehru’s concept of Hinduism. They are counter images of each other. Power, sexuality and the Gods: studies in philosophical paganism, is my another book. It is a philosophical book but has Islamic perspective. I always held paganism equivalent to Shirk. Paganism is the philosophical basis of Shirk. Many philosophers of East and West agree to this point of view. Then Shudra hit the stalls. In Post modernity, paganism and Islam published by Minerva Publication, Delhi, I showed that post-modern philosophy is a pagan philosophy. My approach is to study these philosophies from the perspective of Islam. This book is an Islamic critique of post-modernity. It was well published and well received also. Currently I am working on the concept of tolerance in Hinduism. One thing is very much settled in the minds of Hindu intellectuals, whether from high cast or lower, that Hinduism is a very tolerant religion and Hinduism alone is the tolerant religion. Correspondingly, they will always say that most intolerant religion in the world is Islam. So all these things intolerance, dogmatism, fanaticism are associated with Islam. I tried to find out from the historical records and from the writings of modern thinkers how far these ideas of tolerance and non-violence are akin to Hinduism. My special focus is on Vivekananda. He is the real prophet of modern Hinduism in India. Hindu mindset was mainly shaped by Vivekananda. He was also the father of Hindu tolerance. Hindu mindset has not been made by Tagore or Gandhi or Aurobindo or others. No doubt they were great and bright people. But as far as the real influence or impact is concerned Vivekananda was ahead of them all.
In your opinion, can Hinduism be called a religion? If so what are its characteristics?
Hinduism is definitely a religion in every sense of the term. Religion consists of three things, namely: (a) the belief system; (b) rituals, and; (c) the socio-ethical ideas or value system. Hinduism has all these three things. They have belief in gods and goddesses. Have idea of nark and swarg (hell and heaven). They have a large number of rituals, go to temples, and also have a value system. It is true all over India. Of course 150 years before, or before Vivekananda, the Hindus were not conscious of their religion. Vivekananda shaped the religion out of a mass of beliefs, superstitions and rituals.
What is the impact of modernity on the revival of Hindu religion?
Modernity actually led to the creation and consolidation of Hindu consciousness. It created a religio-political consciousness. Before this there was no idea of Hindu state. Then, many other modernist ideas were absorbed and assimilated without injuring the core traditional beliefs and practices of Hindus. Now, the Hindus are advanced in every field of knowledge, science and technology, compared to any other non -western people. You will find high ranking technocrats and great scientists going to temples, sporting tikas and doing many religious things. Modernity has not affected them in a negative way to make them deviate from their original point of view. It is true for the lower as well as upper strata of the society. It is due to the efforts made by people like Vivekananda, Gandhi, Aurobindo, etc.
What is the likely future of Hindutva movement in India?
There may be short term and the long term predictions. In the short term it will remain a big factor in the body politic of India. In another 30 years it may not be eliminated. Hindutva’s base is not religious. Basically it is not a religious ideology but a secular ideology which is inspired by the western thought rather than the Hindu thought. It has religious cover and colour and presented in a religious garb. Hindutva attaches sacredness to the ancient history, ancient culture and geography or land. Hindutva is not only the BJP agenda, it is at a certain level adopted by Congress also, though it may not be in the party set-up. There may be some leniency and some Congressmen may not be very aggressive on the issue. But both want a Ram temple at Ayodhya and abolition of Muslim Personal Law. Their methods and approaches are different. Even in Discovery of India, Nehru praises the ancient land and ancient culture. He was against persecution of Muslims but liked to absorb and assimilate them. For both BJP and Congress, Akbar and Dara Shikoh are heroes and Aurangzeb is a villain.
What is the real agenda or objective of Hindutva movement?
I am not sure whether they themselves know their real objective. Because they know Islam and Muslims, Christianity and Christians will remain here. They would not be pushed into the sea. So they have to accommodate the interests and inspirations of the minorities. As far as the Hindu state is concerned, they cannot bring back the cast system, cannot deny the remarriage of Hindu widows, or reintroduce other outdated customs. So India will remain a secular and democratic polity. But within that polity they will try to introduce some distortions like banning of conversion, etc.
It is said that in modern India, two trends may be noticed among the Hindu leadership in relation to Islam and Muslims – one is accommodation and reconciliation represented by Gandhi or Raja Ram Mohan Roy, and the other is rejection and condemnation represented by Savarkar and others? Which trend will succeed and why?
It is not a case of this or that. Ram Mohan Roy case is not so much relevant in this context. He was a non-political person. He was influenced by Christianity and Islam. At that time there was no political movement among the Hindus. As far as Gandhi is concerned, he was a very peculiar kind of person. Looking at the surface he was always accommodative to Muslims. He supported Khilafat, Palestinian cause, etc. He was against communal riots. He generally took the pro-Muslim stand. He did not have any political programme or political roadmap. But many of his ideas are impracticable. His ideal state will have no railways, no factories, and no doctors. Read his book Hind Swaraj. The ideas presented therein are impracticable. He was able to see the weak and strong points of others; so he was generally accommodative.
Why have Muslims not done painstaking research on Hindu philosophy and thoughts?
In the present age, Muslims are generally in a state of cultural decline. It also includes the intellectual decline. Muslims are about 150 crore, or about one fourth of humanity, but educationally and intellectually we are backward at national and international levels. This applies to Ulama and intellectuals. In the past when Muslims were in power they were having world class intellectuals. Even in the first half of the 20th century in India, great people like Iqbal, Azad, Jauhar, Ashraf Ali Thanvi and Anwar Shah Kashmiri were present. But presently it is not so. In the medieval age, the Hindus were in such a state of decline but Muslims did not care about their thought and philosophy. Great Hindu stalwarts like Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, etc. had written monumental things but only few Brahmins were able to be benefited from them. Common Hindus were a downtrodden people.
Why was the wave of Islam not dominantly successful in India?
The wave of Islam could not succeed in Europe also. Only some ethnic groups were converted to Islam in Eastern Europe. Here a very large section of people embraced Islam. The Brahmins kept the fire burning in them. They were men of knowledge as well as good strategists to dominate other people. They were successful in the past and they are successful in the present also. In the medieval time they kept others under their domination. Presently Shudras are ruling but Brahmins are guiding. However in the medieval age, Muslims did not do justice to their duty of conveying the life giving message of Islam to their brethren in this country. It was a human failure and dereliction of their basic duty.