Towards Reconciliation

It is said (dapan) that Shiites are vampires. Dapan Shiites make it a point to spit on food for the Sunnis. Such slogans as “Din-i Muhammad chu barkarar, rafizen patichi kafren laar”;  and “Shiites know only Hussain and not God” may still be occasionally heard.

In turn Shiites imagine many Sunnis to be the Other, to be dismissed or laughed about; and stories about them are a staple diet in many private conversations. In a land supposed to be fostering interreligious harmony, inter-sectarian harmony has been strained occasionally. We need to revisit the troubled history of relationships, and see if we are witnessing a paradigm shift due to modernity; and if we can build a more enduring foundation for inter-sectarian (especially Shiites and Sunnis) relationship.

It is an honour to review one of the best books of the decade written in Kashmir. Samir Hamdani has already given us priceless work on Syncretic Architecture and is publishing another important work on Srinagar.

This is a monumental book, the first of its kind, written with a refinement that neither Sunnis nor Shiites would be discomforted with, though both forced to introspect. We can’t afford to admire his humour and wit and the courage to approach such a prickly issue that is bound to raise too many eyebrows, even skirmishes, if not deftly treated. It is walking on a tightrope that he has managed to do and hasn’t sold us platitudes and stories that are a staple diet of pulpit, popular press and private conversations.

He takes to task accounts that read Shiite history in terms of relationship to the religious other. He does admit uneasy relationship or history of conflicts and bloody riots, and notes many facts we conveniently sideline.

The book begins invoking dapan tradition in the Sunnis regarding gory stories of torture of Sunnis by Shia. I suppose dapan tradition has imagined similar things from the other side.

However, Samir’s intervention is worth noting and admiring in the account of riots in 1801. “We see how a dapan tradition superimposes on the actual historical event to erase the lived reality of the past, in this case, the Shiites suffering at the hands of rioters and the Sunni ruler, the Afghan Subedar Abdullah Khan.”  Samir laments how Dedmeri imagined a Sunnni spiritual state commencing with the establishment of Sunni sultanate and Shiites seen as a later development, a betrayal of pure faith.

Our author is able to question major historical accounts written with Sunni bias, but notes more conciliatory account of Abul Qasim Muhammad Aslam in the Gowhar i Alam. Aslam addresses Shiias as Fiqa-i-Imamai unlike Dedmeri who prefers the term Rafidi. Shiites remain demonised. What Samir does is to show how we have now moved quite far from Dehmeri’s frame and as destiny would have it increasingly  sceptical of the demonized account of Shiites in terms of pejorative term Rafidi.

The case, however, is that for the Kashmiri society, it was Dedmeri’s Tarikh that framed the historical vision into the past. In turn Shiite marsiya khawns premise the Shiite identity on faith and a negative portrayal of the Sunnis, as a rival community. I don’t think they need to be countered by someone from the Sunnis. We only need to keep in mind that it is not unique to Kashmir. Histories are written by those in power or framed to project a certain self understanding of events that helps survive at community level.

His key thesis is that “In Kashmir, the Shii- Sunni dispute originates within the politics of khanqah and the court and would result in production of texts under the patronage of these Sufis that not only seek to establish the spiritual supremacy of a faction but also obscure the other as heresy.” The book argues that Shittes and Sunnis have been evolving towards a reconciliatory or converging destiny. He doesn’t fish in the troubled waters of theology for this convergence. It finds conflict being influenced by or framed by non-religious factors. He sees it a reconciliation of cousins which has more secular factors to account for such as common other and business linkages.

He sheds no tears at the tragic developments in the chequered history of relationships but dissects them to unearth lesser noticed factors that explain them. He has noted almost all important facts and myths and folklore to clarify the problem of relationships. Anyway globalization and secularization have brought distant religions together, interfaith marriages and what not. Mob psychology and insights from anthropologists explain key issues and we needn’t labour over divergent theological and other factors.

Now Shiites were seen as a part of the same quom… “Unlike earlier references to Shi’i as Rafizi, that is to be found in eighteenth and nineteenth century Sunni-authored texts, we find, in this particular instance [tract published by Anjuman Nusrat al Islam], the use of respectful term Ahli Tashiyu, showing a marked degree of accommodation of Shii sensibilities.” (146) Iraniian revolution further cemented Shi’i-Sunni relations as Sunni-Shii bhayi bhayi slogan got currency. (157) Samir further notes that Bhutto’s assassination marks a watershed moment for how Kashmiri Sh’ii saw Pakistan.

He points out the paradox that Shiite cleric and leader Anasri’s victory was helped by Suunis but later interpreted as victory against Sunni candidate and riots ensued. (157) Gradually the Muharram procession transcended sectarian colour and became associated with the assertion of Muslim identity. (153) Dogra raj helped unite Shi’i n Sunnis.

Samir elaborates divisions within the Shia community and shows how “both the communities are navigating between strife and accommodation; originating from a sectarian outlook while trying to maintain an image of Muslim unity” (10). He notes that there is no mention of  Shaykh Hamza Makhdoom in Shiia texts but numerous times of  Shams ud-Din Iraki in Sunni texts.

There is no mention of Makhdoom in contemporary Sanskrit account either. (25) Samir asks, do then the works of Khaki and Hyder Tulmilui reveal a reworking of historical figure? The circle of Makhdoom effectively sought to challenge and circumvent the territorial sovereignty of the Shi’i sultans. (Khaki creates parallel honorific title Sultan al Arifeen).

Samir recalls key events of wiping out of Shiites, burning of Iraqi’s khanqah and his remains dug out and burnt by Mirza Haider. ‘In these early years of Sikh rule where the Sunni majority was being and feeling disenfranchised, the Shii could not be blamed for sensing an opportunity in imagining they could break away from the hold of Sunni majoritarinism. Or as they thought.”

Let us note such things from the book as have been largely forgotten in public consciousness

• Shiites and Sunnis shared meal in Dogra rule.
• Hindu ruler Gulab Singh essentialized Shiis andSunnis as belonging to a single community: the Muslims. (83)
• Myths of othering helped maintain social distance between two communities limiting interaction which could otherwise turn hostile. (86)
• Rioters had specifically targeted the business establishments in the city. (103) (Sectarian strife is disguised power interest of some people)

These are just a few points. One needs to read the book to read many illuminating facets of Shia-Sunni relationships and appreciate more political than theological factors at play behind the scene. Sectarianism serves none ultimately, and is a disservice to God. Once upon a time we could afford idle cooked tales justifying othering. Now we are better informed. We can’t imagine Kashmir and Islamic culture without contributions from Shiites.