Text Size: A- A+

Political parties host iftars only for a few identified Muslims, who are selected primarily as key stakeholders to reach out to Muslim voters.

The decision of the Rashtrapati Bhavan to not hold any iftar party this time did not become a ‘breaking news’.

The press secretary to President was quoted as saying: “after the President took over office, he decided there would be no religious celebrations or observances in a public building such as Rashtrapati Bhavan on taxpayer expense. This is in keeping with the principles of a secular state and applies to all religious occasions, irrespective of religion”.

This news was not at all surprising. The BJP has always been critical of such parties during the holy month of Ramzan. Many party leaders describe them as a symbolic form of ‘Muslim appeasement’. In fact, this has been the reason why the Narendra Modi government strongly discourages practice of official iftar parties.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to look at the evolution of political iftar parties in post-colonial India – simply to revisit the question of Muslim appeasement.

Genealogy of the iftar parties

Mahatma Gandhi, who recognised the capacity of fasting for articulating his philosophy of passive resistance, was highly sympathetic to those Muslims who used to fast during the month of Ramzan. However, unlike today’s politicians, Gandhi was more interested in the actual message behind the act of fasting.

Talking to Khudai Khidmatgars in 1938, Gandhi said: We seem to think that the observance of Ramzan begins and ends with abstention from food and drink. We think nothing of losing temper over trifles or indulging in abuse during the sacred month of Ramzan. … If you really want to cultivate non-violence, you should take a pledge that come what may, you will not give way to anger or order about members of your household or lord it over them. (Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 74)

Thus, Gandhi seems to make a distinction between roza (fast) and iftar (breaking the fast collectively). For him roza does not end at dusk during Ramzan; rather as a practice it encourages us to make non-violence a way of life. This might be a reason why iftar could not become a political entity for Gandhi.

In post-colonial India, Nehru introduced a very different conception of religion. In his opinion, religious customs and practices represented a distinctively Indian culture – a unity in diversity. Iftar, in this framework, was to be seen as a symbol of India-specific Islamic practice. Since Nehru’s cultural policy envisaged interfaith interaction as a fundamental principle for achieving national integration, inter-faith iftar parties during the month of Ramzan emerged as an acceptable mode to ‘reaching out to the minorities’.

However, Nehru never made the iftar party an official affair. He used to invite his Muslims friends for private iftar as an individual leader not as the Prime Minister of the country.

The nature of political iftar parties changed considerably after the death of Nehru.

Indira Gandhi strategically used iftar parties to identify and nurture favourable Muslim elites for electoral-political purposes. These functions were projected as concrete evidence to show the much-needed ‘accommodation of Muslims’ into the national mainstream.

The outcome of this new iftar culture was quite predictable. A few Muslims leaders, who did not have any political base, eventually emerged as authoritative Muslim representatives. These Muslim elites employed the Islamic customs and rituals – iftar, namaz, Haj, azan – to bargain with the state. The Imam of Delhi’s Jama Masjid, Abdullah Bukhari, was one such leader, who was patronised by Indira Gandhi on a number of occasions for nurturing his fatwa politics.

It is interesting to note that the BJP was not always critical of iftar parties. The Muslim leaders of the BJP used to host iftar parties to underline the party’s concerns for Muslims. Even Atal Bihari Vajpayee, after becoming the prime minister, organised official iftar party in Ramzan during his tenure.

Political iftar as Muslim appeasement

The iftar party as an inter-faith event, and the iftar organised by the political parties are two very different forms of political iftar.

When people from different faiths come together to pay respect to those Muslims who open their fast with them, the iftar party emerges as a unique cultural practice, a dialogue of some kind. These events may help religious communities learn from each other, something that Nehru envisaged in his The Discovery of India.

But, the iftar hosted by political parties cannot be qualified as an inter-faith event. Political parties host iftars only for a few identified Muslims, who are selected primarily as key stakeholders to reach out to Muslim voters. The concerns of competitive electoral politics seem to determine the nature of such events. In this case, Muslim leaders are appeased and legitimised as representatives or guardians of Muslims.

However, the appeasement of Muslim elites in the name of iftar parties should not be confused with the BJP’s favourite slogan of ‘Muslim appeasement’.

While it is true that non-BJP political parties adhere to a very simplistic view that the Indian Muslim community could only be approached through the Muslim elite; the BJP has systematically campaigned against the constitutional rights of Muslims as a religious minority.

As a result, it has become easier for the BJP to describe everything associated with Muslims as pacification. The Aligarh Muslim University, Babri Masjid, personal law, offering namaz on roads, and even having iftar with non-Muslims are clubbed together as a symbol of Muslim appeasement.

It is very important, therefore, to highlight the difference between Muslim elites and Muslim masses. The internal power structure of the Indian Muslim community (or better to say communities) is always sustained and encouraged by the political parties (including the BJP) for creating favourable leaders. These leaders are pampered either to justify the ‘reaching out to Muslim drive’ or to validate the claims of Muslim appeasement.

The iftar parties have been one such political tool; the absence of such events in future is certainly going to produce a new kind of Muslim elite. After all, BJP has its own nationalist Muslims, who cannot be appeased!

Hilal Ahmed is an associate professor, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it You are reading this because you value good, intelligent and objective journalism. We thank you for your time and your trust. You also know that the news media is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is likely that you are also hearing of the brutal layoffs and pay-cuts hitting the industry. There are many reasons why the media’s economics is broken. But a big one is that good people are not yet paying enough for good journalism. We have a newsroom filled with talented young reporters. We also have the country’s most robust editing and fact-checking team, finest news photographers and video professionals. We are building India’s most ambitious and energetic news platform. And have just turned three. At ThePrint, we invest in quality journalists. We pay them fairly. As you may have noticed, we do not flinch from spending whatever it takes to make sure our reporters reach where the story is. This comes with a sizable cost. For us to continue bringing quality journalism, we need readers like you to pay for it. If you think we deserve your support, do join us in this endeavour to strengthen fair, free, courageous and questioning journalism. Please click on the link below. Your support will define ThePrint’s future. Support Our Journalism

Show Full Article