Mutton, Mimbar and Morality

Two completely unrelated incidents exemplify a drift from inherited societal values giving way to self-interest, apathy, or moral relativism. Driven by identity crisis, cultural shifts, and institutional decay, the society is being unmoored from its ethical bearings, where once-clear lines of morality dissolve into expediency, opportunism and indifference.

The sale of rotten mutton in the Kashmir Valley exposes not only regulatory failures but also a deeper erosion of ethical business practices and societal morality. This breach of trust between vendors and consumers violates trade regulations and the social contract binding communities. Prioritizing profit over well-being, such incidents reveal cracks in our collective conscience and moral compass. Beyond health and commerce concerns, the crisis reflects broader societal values and daily compromises. It serves as a stark reminder that ethical lapses in business are not isolated but resonate through society, urging us to confront fundamental questions about our communal integrity. `

In a completely unconnected event, Aga Syed Mohammad Hadi Kashmiri, a Islamic cleric and scholar, during an Arbaeen gathering used intemperate language in sharply criticising the failure of Omar Abdullah’s political leadership.

Without getting into a jurisprudential debate on whether politicizing faith in a sermon, which many scholars deem makruh or haram if it causes fitna, the use of derogatory terms and explicitly sexist and misogynist phraseology (“monde hind paet wadun”) is unacceptable in general and impermissible from the mimbar. The language in the sermon cannot be discriminatory or derogatory especially towards a gender. The pulpit is traditionally held as a sacred space, from the vantage point of which, religious authorities like Maulana Hadi are entrusted with the responsibility of inspiring, and guiding, and expected to elevate the moral consciousness of the community. Yet, the obverse has been done.

While the addressing legitimate grievances, Maulana Hadi’s shaming language from a religious platform risks undermining his credibility and the community’s spiritual focus. Ethical critiques should use civic channels to preserve the pulpit’s sanctity. By targeting an individual leader, Hadi violated tehzeeb, prioritizing personal diminishment over ideology. Islamic tradition emphasizes reforming rulers through constructive criticism, not humiliation. His accusatory speech incited resentment, undermining ethical goals and dialogue.

What is said from the pulpit is Islamic orthopraxy and a valid expression of Islam. It is a “primary text” that inform and articulates ideals and values symbolically and pragmatically. For the followers, this liturgical language is a part of their identity. The choice of words, the phraseology, the tonality of the sermons is a linguistic degradation, a precursor to setting in at the moral level. For now, the moral sanctity of the pulpit stands compromised, whether through coarse language or divisive rhetoric. The consequences of which can be profound. It is not merely a lapse in decorum—it reflects societal currents that tolerate, or even reward, such transgression.

These recent events in the Kashmir Valley underscore that ethical breaches, whether in commerce or communication from the pulpit and are reflective of the moral health of society. Both the sale of rotten mutton and the misuse of the pulpit are symptomatic of larger moral questions facing society. They force us to ask: What kind of community are we building? What standards do we hold ourselves and others to? How do we balance individual interests with collective good?

Restoring trust, whether in the marketplace or the mimbar demands an introspection, a cultural shift. For business owners, this may mean adhering to higher standards, even in times of hardship. For religious leaders, it means embodying the virtues spoken from the pulpit, fostering an environment of respect and unity. In the extant situation in the Valley today, it is important to promote the idea and ideal of social unity not limited to the theological unity of tawheed but extended to a social contract.

It is not as if the learned Maulana is not aware of these issues. But the decades of conflict, repression and socio-economic pressures of survival have caused a drift which manifests as a collective desensitization, rising self-interest, and a blurring of ethical boundaries, exacerbated by external and internal forces. Over time, prolonged cycles of violence normalized brutality, despair bred extremism. Today, this loss is evident in everyday behaviours and systemic issues, as highlighted by the way the sermon went viral on social media being shared with glee and gusto. In essence, the loss of Kashmir’s moral compass is a tragic byproduct of conflict and neglect.

The language of force, not unique to Maulana Hadi, stems from deep-seated societal power dynamics among groups, shaping a new social order. This embedded “relations of force” forms its foundation, a troubling development. A new historico-political discourse of violence links these relations to societal aspirations, creating a truth through historicism that challenges the values originally meant to be protected. This discourse poses a greater ideological and moral threat to civil society’s normative relations than legislative disempowerment.

Eric Hobsbawm describes this as “social banditry of primitive rebels.” Tragically, large sections of the civil society, especially the youth, seem to be embracing this violence, as seen in viral social media glorifying it. Left unchecked, this trend risks becoming a fulcrum for destroying the social order and indigenous social contracts, if it hasn’t already. It signals a profound shift, undermining the moral and social fabric of society.

Tail Piece: Of Tashakhus, Tamadun and Tehzeeb

The Maulana’s sermon repeatedly highlights the loss of “tashakhus” due to the abrogation of Article 370 and Kashmir’s downgrade to a Union Territory. However, Article 370, enacted in the 1950s, does not define Kashmiri identity. The identity of Kashmiris transcends this legislation, rooted as it is in a rich history and cultural construct. The abrogation is a breach of trust and political power, but it is not the erosion of Kashmiri “tashakhus.” Compromising the sanctity of the mimbar and eroding the tehzeeb and tamadun by delivering a sermon in such language truly scars this identity.

Let’s be clear: Article 370 did not make one a Kashmiri. It provided constitutional safeguards for the identity, but its removal does not lessen it or the essence of our ethnicity. If it does, that reflects a monumental societal failure. Politicians have wrongly framed Article 370 as shorthand for Kashmiri ethnic identity. The Kashmiri identity stems from ethnicity, culture, faith, and practices—not from a legal provision.

Article 370 was a consequence, not the cause, of Kashmir’s distinct identity. Its elevation as the cornerstone of Kashmiri existence is a political misstep. Kashmiris are more than Article 370, United Nations resolutions, or the Line of Control. These may symbolize the Kashmir issue, not Kashmir. The Kashmiri identity is not tethered to these constructs.

Kashmiris become less connected to their identity when they lose their sense of history and heritage. A society that grows less tolerant, less inclusive, and less liberal undermines its own essence. Forgetting the contributions of Kashmiri society—both pre-Islamic and Islamic—to the world diminishes its collective identity. Kashmiri identity is rooted in its cultural legacy, including the manner of communication, not in any transient political frameworks.

The author is Contributing Editor Greater Kashmir