by JAWED NAQVI
OF late, everyone seems to want to sing and, worse, patronise “the Sufi ghazal” whatever that may be. The more brazen have also discovered a sufiana dance. From the little I have observed of the latter it appears to be a mishmash of Kathak and foxtrot. I suspect the surging excitement with Sufi motifs is linked to a pervasive fear of puritan Islam.
This fear has been instilled by a macabre new cult of suicide bombers and throat-slitting zealots. Their gory messianism has come as a boon though for publishers of its antidote, the poetry of Rumi and Hafiz in the West. The terror is responsible also for the genre of so-called Sufi music even if it subverts extant traditions in South Asia. The upstart cult is markedly distinct from the established mystical-musical traditions connecting Bulleh Shah with Kabir, for example.
The late Kunwar Mohammed Ashraf, a legend among Indian historians half a century ago, would have squirmed at the crop of commonplace assumptions about Sufis. He had famously found Sufis no different from puritan Muslims in their beliefs. They only made it more widely acceptable by adding music to the mix, he would say.
Many who see early puritans such as Wahabis and Farazis as leading the charge against colonialism in 1857 do not readily grasp the error of judgment. They mostly perceive their rival Sufi sects as inclusive and open-minded, which they are, with plenty of poetry and music thrown in. However, as the anti-colonial revolt in West Africa suggests, Sufi icons could be adept in the art of military tactics. They too could be spurred by clearly political objectives. But we don’t have to travel to Africa or Southeast Asia to discover a tradition of bonding between mysticism, poetry and soldiery. Our home-grown Ameer Khusro is as good an example as any of a soldier doubling as a mystic poet and vice versa.
Sufi leaders like Omar Mukhtar in Libya, Abdul Qadir al-Jazairi in Algeria and Imam Shamil in the Caucasus externalised their inner spirituality as armed jihad against real or imagined oppressors. In West Africa, Sufi brotherhoods expanded with French colonisation, where people turned to religious authority rather than the colonial administration. French rulers feared Sufi orders such as Tijaniyyah and Mourides, the main challengers to colonial authority.
It must be a coincidence that I travelled to Senegal on the westernmost tip of Africa recently with an unusual book recommended by a Pakistani journalist. Warrior Ascetics and Indian Empire by historian William R. Pinch deals mainly, as the title suggests, with Hindu mystics and their frequent military interventions. Often the mystic-ascetics also determined who ruled India or its growing clusters of independent provinces that came with the fall of the Mughal empire. Being Hindu did not necessarily mean siding with a Hindu challenger against, say, a Mughal quarry. On many occasions, the equation could be the other way around.
Hinduism is widely and erroneously seen as a religion of non-violence, a notion that gained ground when Gandhi took charge of India’s freedom movement. It may be argued that Gandhi’s garbled notion of Hinduism may have been dictated by his proximity with Christian anarchists just as his mentor Leo Tolstoy was shaped by a combination of Christianity, pacifism and anarchism.
Dawn for more