THE WAY IT WAS: Confused about culture and purity —Mian Ijaz Ul Hassan
The poor and weak, regardless of their faith, have a greater sense of
togetherness. A rich man will seek out the rich and not let his son marry the
daughter of his poor brother. The rich and the poor of same faith and baradari
uphold different cultures. The transcendental definition of culture is factually
incorrect
An idle pursuit of culture is a pursuit of the uncultured. The cultured are
perpetually engaged — either through creative practice or collective labour
— in reinventing it to serve or express the needs of the times. Culture is a
product of social practice and conduct. It is the sum total of what a society
believes and aspires to and what it expresses in words and images.
Culture is not inert. It grows and develops. The social and material needs of
people and society impel it forward. A person is a product of an inherited
culture and simultaneously the means of its change. People are also a product of
the geographical environment in which they live since that determines what they
wear, eat and how they build their dwellings.
The Eskimos live in Igloos made of blocks of ice and go about their chores on
boats and sledges pulled by dogs. The Arabs live in tents woven of goat and
camel hair and go about their business on camels and horses. But an Arab and an
Eskimo are both fed on their mother’s milk. Both marry, procreate and teach
their children to fend for themselves and be useful members of their
communities. Both have blood flowing in their veins; experience a range of
feelings from love, joy and compassion to envy, hatred, anger and fear. These
attributes define their common humanity that we often forget. Cultures cannot be
exclusive.
A person, as stated earlier, is not a passive product of culture. He is also a
tool by which the culture develops and is often transformed. This definition may
not go down well with those who feel threatened by any kind of change. Left to
themselves they would try to stop the Earth on its axis — even turn it back.
Some of my countrymen are worried about the dramatic changes that are being
ushered in with modern means of information technology. We are being constantly
bombarded with images and ideas that make us raise an eyebrow, even blush. I am
all for individual freedoms as long as no one steps on my toes. Individual
freedom cannot be granted to bruise other people’s precious sensibilities?
Surely not!
At the same time should I not learn also to accept changes that are in the air.
In history, anyone who arrogantly or self-righteously stood his ground against
change either perished or was laughed out. Time has no patience for anyone. I
think it was Picasso who said that if you keep on looking back you are likely to
twist your neck. Aren’t some of us becoming a pain in the neck?
Recently there has been a debate in Daily Times on culture. Some writers were of
the view that benefiting from other cultures can be enriching, while others
argued that we should keep our culture pure. I wonder if a pure culture exists
anywhere. If Islam, and for that matter Christianity or Budhism, had insisted on
the purity of their respective cultures, than Islam would have remained the
preserve of the Quraish, Christianity would not have travelled beyond Judea and
Budhism outside Ayodhya.
Muslims have made considerable contributions to world culture, in the fields of
jurisprudence, science, mathematics, engineering, cartography, philosophy,
literature, art and architecture — to name a few. But not all the great men
who excelled in these fields were Arabs. The Moors built the great mosque at
Cordova and the Alhamra Palace. Jalaluddin Rumi who penned down the
Dewan-e-Shams-e-Tabriz and the Mathnawi was a Persian poet. Abu-Ali ibn Sina,
philosopher, physician, and natural scientist of Central Asia, played a
considerable role in spreading among the Arabs, and through them in Europe, the
philosophical and scientific heritage of the Greeks. Babur the founder of the
Mughal dynasty being a descendent of Taimur and Changez Khan was half Turk and
half Mongol. How impure can you get! Babur’s grandson, Akbar the Great,
married Jodha Bai, a Rajput princess and had Jehangir for a son. Jehangir a
Turkish-speaking Sunni, in his turn, married Nur Jehan a Persian-speaking Shia
widow. Let me not complicate matters any further. Suffice it to say that
Jehangir’s grandson Aurangzeb had more Rajput than Turkish blood flowing
through his veins.
While taking pride in the Taj Mahal, the architectural marvel of the Mughals,
let’s not overlook that the form of central dome, which rests on petals of an
Indian lotus flower, has a striking resemblance with a lotus bud just about to
open its fragrant eye. The two smaller copulas flanking the main dome are
entirely Rajput. Does that make the Taj impure? Many of the famous artists
working in the Mughal atelier were non-Muslims. They were instrumental in
synthesising the indigenous with the Central Asian and Persian traditions. Does
that make the school impure and any less our own?
The lesson to be drawn from history is that confident and vibrant cultures have
no hesitation in borrowing and seeking knowledge and inspiration from foreign
sources. Only weak and degenerating cultures insist on being exclusive. None of
the great religions was exclusive because then they would have ceased to be
universal. The Muslims of the world have an incredible diversity. They speak
different tongues; eat different foods and dress differently. They have their
separate arts, crafts and architectural traditions. Even their mosques are built
and embellished differently, except that they all face Mecca. The mosque in
Peking is so different than the Great Mosque at Samarra and the Badshahi Masjid
at Lahore.
In certain cultural aspects a non-Muslim can be closer to you than a Muslim.
Surely Lahoris would feel more at home in Amritsar and even Delhi, than in
Bahrain or in Tehran. If for no other reason than that it is easier to
communicate. Can there be a better reason? If you crack a joke at a Sikh
brother, he laughs. If you try to share a joke, even at your own expense, the
Arab brother doesn’t even understand. What is the fun? Should a culture not
have a sense of fun? Doesn’t the sight of our terrific South Asian mangoes
excite us greatly more than the dates, traditionally eaten by us as a ritual at
iftar?
Getting back to impurity, I ask, can there be a nation culturally more impure
than us? The vast majority of us are recent converts to Islam. The Jats, Gujjars,
Raos and Ranas, and the Butts in the Punjab alone are all indigenous people.
Most of them are also thriving across the eastern border as Sikhs and Hindus.
Some of my friends’ grandparents were Sikhs. Many Muslim Butts have Brahmin
ancestors.
The point is, it is not the purity or exclusivity but inclusiveness that makes
our culture unique in its diversity. It is always through friendly union that
new ideas are born. Cultures that are exclusive and inward-looking, peering at
the past for their raison de etre become frigid and perverse. From the historic
point of view it cannot be denied that Islam incessantly absorbed what came its
way and denied only that which came in a fundamental conflict with its vision.
That was the reason it spread at a gallop in parts of the world as far apart as
Africa, Europe and Asia.
Perhaps a better manner of looking at culture of a country and people would be
not to consider it from the perspective of what people believe but from their
social and economic status. All societies are segmented into classes and the
world divided into rich and poor countries. This, in spite of their common
religion, also applies to Muslim countries. The poor and weak, regardless of
their faith, have a greater sense of togetherness. A rich man will seek out the
rich and not let his son marry the daughter of his poor brother. The rich and
the poor of same faith and baradari uphold different cultures. The
transcendental definition of culture is factually incorrect. An integrated
culture cannot exist in societies divided into social groups with antagonistic
interests.
Pakistan is going through a phase where we need to pause and ask ourselves where
are we going. People have the right to go wherever they like but it is best not
to proceed backwards. No one should dispute over events that occurred far ago in
history. If some issues should have been settled differently there is little
that we can do about them now. Why fight about them today? Haven’t we enough
problems of our own today? Muslims are exploding bombs in mosques; fathers are
killing their daughters for honour; brothers marrying their sisters to the
Koran, poverty and disease prowl our streets, but some of us are insisting on
cultural purity.
Prof Ijaz Ul Hassan is a painter, author and political activist