Jamiat in Jeopardy: Uncle-Nephew Strife Splits LeadingIndian Ulema Body

Jamiat in Jeopardy: Uncle-Nephew Strife Splits LeadingIndian Ulema Body
By Yoginder Sikand

The recent split in the Jamiat ul-Ulema-e Hind, theleading body of the Indian Deobandi ulema, hasreceived considerable coverage in the Urdu press. Mostof those who have written on the subjected havelamented the split and have called it entirelyavoidable. Many commentators have labeled it simply asa fall-out of a nasty struggle for power between thePresident of the Jamiat, Maulana Arshad Madani, andhis nephew and the Jamiat's General-Secretary, MaulanaMahmud Madani, both of whom have traded heated chargesagainst each other of being allegedly engaged inanti-Jamiat activities.'If God forbid, the Jamiat has split, then itsconsequences would be no less hurtful for the Muslimsof India than the partition of the country', writesAziz Burney, editor of the Urdu "Rashtriya Sahara",obviously somewhat exaggeratedly. Another notedcommentator on Muslim affairs, Shahid ul-Islam,comments that, 'The split in this great 90 year-oldorganisaton bodes ill for the Muslims and is a matterof great shame for them'. 'The message that goes outto the public from this', he says, 'is that Muslimleaders do not care at all for Muslim unity, and thattoo, at a time when Muslims all over are under attackand thus need to be united'. Likewise, writing in theUrdu "Hindustan Express", Shahabuddin Saqib notes that"While the Jamiat seemed to be promoting Muslim unity,inside personal rivalries have divided theorganisation' . In an equally caustic lament, MuftiMukarram Ahmad of the Fatehpuri Masjid in Delhi,opines that the split in the Jamiat suggests that'Division and strife have become the special featureof this [Muslim] community. None is willing tocooperate with others honestly and with goodintentions'. Critiquing those who were quick tosuspect an 'external' or non-Muslim hand behind thesplit in the Jamiat, the Mufti firmly asserted, 'Thisis simply a fight for power and pelf'.The split in the Jamiat, lamentable though it is, isnot entirely unexpected. Nor is it something novel.Strife began brewing between Arshad Madani and MahmoodMadani soon after the death of the President of theJamiat, Asad Madani, last year, with each of themcontending to take his post. But this is not the firstsplit in the Jamiat, it should not noted. The firstdivision in Jamiat ranks occurred way back in the1960s. This centred around two Maulanas contending forthe post of President of the organisation: Mufti Atiqur-Rahman Usmani and Maulana Fakhruddin, the Shaikhul-Hadith of the Dar ul-Uloom Deoband. At that time,Asad Madani (brother of Arshad Madani and father ofMahmood Madani) was the President of the Uttar Pradeshunit of the Jamiat. It is said that he backedFakhruddin in the presidential election and played akey role in defeating Atiq ur-Rahman. In turn, Atiqur-Rahman claimed that the elections were not fair. Hepointed out that the Majlis-e Muntazima orAdministrative Council of the Jamiat had appointed himas Acting President, although he had declined this.Consequently, he refused to accept defeat. It is saidthat a large section of Jamiat leaders were actuallyin his favour. Following this, Asad Madani took overthe Jamiat's office, forcing Atiq ur-Rahman to formhis own separate Jamiat. He appointed one Mufti Ziaul-Haq as President, who later migrated to Pakistanand settled there, and soon his wing of the Jamiat wasrendered defunct.This tussle is also said to have been one of thereasons for the growing differences between QariMuhammad Tayyeb, then rector of the Deoband madrasa,and Asad Madani. Qari Tayyeb is said to have supportedMufti Atiq's candidature, perhaps one reason beingthat he was related to him. Following this, QariTayyeb sacked Asad from his teaching post at Deoband.Mutual acrimony between these two senior Deobandileaders finally led to the split in the Deobandmadrasa itself in 1980, when Asad Madani's supportersmanaged to shunt Qari Tayyeb out of the madrasa (withpolice and Congress help, so it is said), forcing himto set up a parallel madrasa in Deoband, headed by hisson Maulana Salam Qasmi.The Jamiat split again in 1988, when Asad Madani, whoby then had become the President of the organization,dismissed Maulana Sayyed Ahmad Hashmi from the post ofGeneral- Secretary. The reason, some say, was thatAsad Madani was allegedly apprehensive of Hashmi'sgrowing popularity. Another reason was that Hashmi hadalso become a Member of Parliament, which Asad Madanialready was, having been nominated to the Rajya Sabhaby the Congress. Asad Madani argued that the Jamiatcould not have two Members of Parliament from twodifferent political parties. Consequently, Hashmi wasremoved from the Working Committee of the Jamiat,following which he formed his own Milli Jamiatul-Ulema-e Hind, which proved to be simply aletter-head organization. The Jamiat split yet againsoon after, in the early 1990s, when a senior Jamiatleader, Maulana Fuzail Ahmad Qasmi, founded his ownself-styled Markazi Jamiat-e Ulama-e Hind after he wasaccused of embezzlement of funds allegedly got fromabroad.That the Jamiat has split yet again should thus comeas no major surprise, simply because it is no noveldevelopment. Numerous ulema-led groups in India havewitnessed such splits, and these have been primarilyover questions of struggle for power, pelf andleadership and not over ideology. Despite the emphasison consultation (shura) in normative Islam, manyulema-led organizations are dictatorially- run, withpower and access to resources concentrated in thehands of a single supreme leader and his coterie, whooften include his close relatives. Succession to thepost of leadership is often decided by this smallcoterie, not democratically, and this has given riseto what critics who condemn as the n-Islamic practiceof hereditary succession. This is certainly the casewith the Jamiat today, with leadership of theorganization being sought to be restricted to thenarrow circle of the Madani family. In this, ofcourse, the Jamiat is hardly unique. The sameprincipal may be seen to be at work in succession tonumerous madrasas as well, although these are meant tobe community-instituti ons and not private concerns,being funded by money donated by members of thecommunity.As long as power and resources remain concentrated inthe hands of a single supremo and his small circle offamily and supporters, accountability to therank-and-file or the community at large is given shortshrift, succession is limited within a certain'ruling' family and the principle of shura is givenmere lip-sympathy to, the personality cult or, as itis called in Urdu, 'shaksiyat parasti' (literally'personality worship') that is so characteristic ofmany Muslim religious organizations cannot becontained. And, inevitably, splits and dissensionswill continue to occur unabated, as the Jamiat case sotragically illustrates.