What seeks to create this state of exile is a theme that can be explored in relation to Nazir Ahmed’s Ibn-ul-Waqt, as well as Edward Said’s reflection as to it. On the one hand, Said seems to say that modernity creates exile as a by-product in a sense, “our age- with its modern warfare, imperialism, and the quasi –theological ambition of totalitarian rulers- is indeed the age of the refugee, the displaced person, mass immigration”. This is in a way elaborated when Ibn-ul-Waqt tries to adopt the English ways, which are synonymous to rationality and modernity, but which essentially make him an outsider, and out of place.
On the other hand there is religion, which according to the explanation that Hujjat-ul-Islam gives, also creates exile. This is especially true for the Muslims of India , or rather a true Muslim, who neither belong to India, and in a sense not completely to the world either. He looks towards Arabia, yet that is not his home either, in the sense of tradition and belonging.
Moreover nationalism as well creates the exile, in a clearer more obtrusive way. This is also apparent in the book, whereby a rising Indian, or Hindu nationalism means that all other categories are displaced, exiled, whether they be Muslims, or Bengalis perhaps.
Thus however, it seems to be that any categorization of sorts, which seeks to create boundaries, such as who comprises the nation, who are in fact true Muslims, are essentially ‘Other-izing’. However do modernity, imperialism, nationalism, and religion inherently create ‘Others’ or exiles, or do they accept some and reject others? In any case if this means that any identity formation results in some form of exile, then how is one to be formed while avoiding the other? This, to me, is a crisis, which in the same way as the book ‘Ibn-ul-Waqt’, is without a resolute conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment