Modi walks into a mosque: What it means for Indian Muslims and cribbers
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the UAE has been headlined by a visit to the beautifully embellished Sheikh Zayed Grand mosque in Abu Dhabi – but the truth is that the PM couldn’t very well have said no, considering the UAE authorities requested him to do so.
Big picture
Seems the Sheikh Zayed mosque, the largest mosque in the Arab world after the ones in Mecca and Medina and on whose grounds is buried the founder of the UAE, the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nayhan, is a must-do on the itinerary of visiting heads of state or government, an equivalent to our very own Rajghat. A trip to the Mahatma’s Samadhi is an essential part of a visiting leader’s protocol to India and cannot be ignored.
Certainly, the PM was happy to oblige. He didn’t go inside the sanctum sanctorum of the mosque – he didn’t need to, as this isn’t an essential part of UAE protocol for visiting dignitaries of different faiths – which means that he didn’t wear a skullcap. All those waiting with bated breath to see whether Modi would, or he wouldn’t, can now sleep easy. This is not a man who will change his fundamental beliefs simply to suit the weather.
Still, as Zafar Sareshwala, a Gujarati businessman and confidante of the PM who has been camping in the UAE to prepare for Modi’s visit told The Hindu, the mosque visit will have a huge impact on Indian Muslims who tend to look at the Arab world for leadership in their religious affairs.
Only the cribbers will point out that the PM hasn’t visited a mosque inside his own country yet, and that he would much rather go abroad to display his so called secular credentials. These kind of people refuse to see the big picture and prefer to only focus on the detail – for example, that the Jama Masjid is only a few kilometres away from the PM’s house on Race Course Road in the heart of Delhi or that the tomb of the Sufi saint, Nizamuddin Auliya, is barely a stone’s throw away. The PM’s spokespersons will tell you he doesn’t need to go to a mosque to prove that he is secular, and they are right. Tokenism is surely the last refuge of the scoundrel.
National interest
In fact, these spokespersons will point to Modi’s primary belief in national interest. For example, during his recent visit to Turkmenistan in mid-July, the PM did not hesitate to visit the mausoleum of the Turkmenbashi Saparmurad Niyazov, a sort of Father of the Nation figure for that small, energy-rich Central Asian country. As he paid his respects at Niyazov’s tomb in Ashgabad, a mullah read the "kalma". Later, India and Turkmenistan signed an agreement to take forward the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to India.
Back home in Ahmedabad, Zafar Sareshwala, the aforesaid confidante of the PM also told The Hindu that Modi has been sensitive to the needs of the Muslim community in Gujarat, but has modestly shied away from publicising them. For example, Modi had ordered that the Gujarat government gave funds to restore an old mosque called Sarkhej Roza, which contains the tomb of a founder of Ahmedabad, Sheikh Ahmad Khattu.
Moreover, once it was restored and the management began to organise a Sufi music festival there in 2007, Modi would regularly attend the festival, Sareshwala added.
Tough image
Perhaps the most obvious outcome of Modi’s 15 months in office is the importance of appearing both tough as well as direct. So Pakistan’s violations of the Line of Control will be repaid ten times in kind. The Gandhi family’s decision to stall Parliament until several BJP leaders resign will be met with an attempted isolation of the Gandhis from the rest of the Congress. Chinese president Xi Jinping will be asked why the border problem hasn’t been resolved so far. And as for the UAE, why hasn’t it sealed the properties of Dawood Ibrahim and his brother Anis and their families, considering they have been India’s enemies for decades?
The jury is still out over whether this look-me-in-the-eye approach will work or not. Perhaps Modi has been used to being numero uno in Gujarat and believes that the same formulae must work in Delhi – after all, he remains the same person that he was in Ahmedabad, so why shouldn’t it?
But Modi may yet discover the uses of symbolism. For example his visit later this year to Saudi Arabia – before he goes to Israel – is as much being taken with an eye to the politics of Islam at home as is the need to further engage the Saudis in cracking down on terror as well as on strengthening the supply of oil.
This is definitely a good thing. Perhaps, as he stood on the ramparts of the Shah Jahan-era Red Fort for the second time last week, Modi may have harked back to Mughal rule and how its various emperors dealt with the bewildering melting pot that was India.
Akbar expanded the empire because he built trust, including by abolishing the hated "jiziya" tax that Hindus were forced to pay. Aurangzeb’s reintroduction of the "jiziya" was a reflection of the stresses and strains that ultimately led to the break-up of the nation the greatest Mughals had built.
Question is, what will Modi choose?