Title: - Making Muslim Democracies in South Asia

Abstract: - There are approximately 1 billion individuals of Islamic faith in the world. Only 200
million of the approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world are Arabs. When people talk of a
clash of civilizations, a clash between Islam and west, or opine that Islam is inherently or
uniquely resistant to democracy, secularism, liberalism, it is obvious that they typically know
little about Islamic traditions in South Asia, the term usually used to refer to India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and sometimes Indonesia and Malaysia (and distinct from
Southeast Asia, which refers to Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos).1
Most of the times, the fallacy of looking at Islamic traditions incompatible with
democracy arises when political activists, journalists, and even professors sometimes
misleadingly equate Islam with Arab culture.2 The fate of Islam should not mean what is the
reflection of Islam from the Middle East. Majority of Muslims in the world live outside Middle
East and hence South Asia which is home to world’s largest Muslim population has a major role
to decide what Islam or Muslims mean in the world. To understand Islam and particularly South
Asian Islam, it is essential to it from South Asian point of view, the way Islam has been shaped
in the subcontinent. Out of all theories on conversions to Islam in South Asia, or how Muslims
became Muslims in South Asia , I have found Richard Maxwell Eaton’s theory the most
compelling one even though the theory has its also its own drawbacks. By closely analyzing
Eatons’ theory of conversions3, I have come to a conclusion that there are two trends of Islam in
South Asia. In the first trend there has been and still continues a conflict among adherents of
Islam to define the true nature of Islam in the context of India. In other words it is the debate
over what model of Islam is suitable to India? Whether India can be considered as Dar-ul-Harb
(abode of war) or Dar-ul-Islam (abode of peace)? Jihad or no Jihad? Jizya or no Jizya? In this
trend there has always remained a constant collision between those who gave sympathetic
attitude to India’s other religious traditions and those who always considered India’s religious
traditions incompatible with Islam and thus to be eliminated.4 But then there are those who
wanted more rigid definition of what Islam should mean in South Asia. One of the founding
fathers of this trend is South Asia was Shaikh Ahmad Sirhandi. Shaikh Ahmad Sirhandi
believed it was supremely important, morally and spiritually, to conform to the Shari’ah in every
detail.5 The second trend that is more understandable is anti-Colonial, anti-British, whereby the
Muslims tried to localize the idea of Muslim community with the emergent idea of nationalism.
Both the trends extend from the 19th century onwards, in mutual conflict, or some elements
overlapping each other.

1
Martha C. Nussbaum, “The Clash Within”, p.4.
2
From Francis Fukuyama’s thesis on “the end of history”, Bernard Lewis’s “the roots of Muslim rage”, Ernest
Gellner’s essay on “religion and the profane” and Benjamin Barber’s argument about “jihad vs. McWorld” to Robert
Kaplan’s suggestion about “coming anarchy” and, more influentially, Samuel P. Huntington’s essay and subsequent
book on “the clash of civilizations,” all have collectively reinforced, in different ways, the idea that the Muslim faith
and Islamic civilization are incongruent with liberty, democracy, human rights, gender equality, and other
emancipatory principles. (Nader Hasemi, “Islam, Secularism and Liberal Democracy”, p.4).
3
Richard M. Eaton, “Approaches to the Study of Conversion to Islam in India”, Richard C. Martin (ed.).
4
Yohanan Friedmann, “Islamic Thought in Relation to the Indian Context”, Richard M. Eaton (ed.) p. 51-57
5
Ayesha Jalal, “Partisan of Allah, Jihad in South Asia” p. 36-40

1
 The attitude of fundamentalist trend to define Islam in the subcontinent in a rigid way
was is an attempt to take a break from the history and nature of society in South Asia. The most
undemocratic characteristics of this uncompromising attitude lied in the refusal to coexist with
difference. This is contrary to the way Prophet Muhammad had understood Islam. Despite his
critical attitude toward the local social and moral environment, Prophet Muhammad was very
much part of this environment which was deeply rooted in the traditions of Arabia and other
parts of the Near East. Although many new rules and principles were introduced, the old
institutions and ancient customs remained largely unchallenged. Strictly speaking much of
Arabian law continued to occupy a place in Shari’ah, but not without modification. Examples
include among many others prayer (salat), fasting, alms-tax, mercantile transactions, forms of
sale, barter, retaliation and qasama6 (blood money). In propounding his message, the Prophet
Muhammad plainly wished to break away from pre-Islamic values and institutions, but only
insofar as he needed to establish once and for all the fundaments of the new religion. Having
been pragmatic, he could not have done away with all the social practices and institutions that
prevailed in his time.7
The above examples show that foundationally Islam has been accommodative to
customary laws and plurality in contrast to the various aberrations made today by those who
think Islam is inherently incompatible with the plurality. Jinnah’s creation of Pakistan was a
result of the claim of having made a radical and unprecedented beginning, of having inherited
nothing from the past, not even from the past of Islam, by which it justified its existence. Thus
calling Pakistan as the formation of ‘Islamic’ state is nothing more than a fallacy. Because even
the Prophet of Islam did not even believe in taking radical breaks from nature and history. Given
the heterogeneity of customs in South Asia, this accommodative character of Islamic provided a
great opportunity to develop a significant paradigm of Islam in the world. The example of the
formation of Bangladesh is not only a nightmare to those advocates of Universalistic thesis of
Islam, which held that it is not the unity of language or country or the identity of economic
interests that constitutes the basic principles of our nationality and it is because we all believe in
a certain view of the universe, that we are the members of the society founded by Prophet of
Islam, but also is the also a failure of political democracy of Pakistan in its inability to
accommodate plurality of Islamic traditions, thus not able to provide a way out to show how
plurality of traditions is to survive.

6
If the body of a murdered person was found on the lands occupied by a tribe, or in residential quarter in ac city,
town or village, fifty of the inhabitants had each to take an oath to the effect that they neither had caused the persons
death nor had any knowledge of who did. If fewer than fifty persons were available, those present had to swear more
than once until fifty oaths had been obtained. By doing so they freed themselves of criminal liability, but
nonetheless remained bound to pay blood money top the agnates of the person slain. Hallaq “A History of Islamic
Legal theories.” P. 3-10.
7
Hallaq “A History of Islamic Legal theories.” P. 3-10.

2
3