A man with eyes that can flare up with fire ought to be in a rage. Instead, he talks about peace. I understand every word he speaks, but I cannot comprehend how he can be the kind of man he is. Asgharali Engineer is an Islamic scholar who questions many of its practices; he is a secularist who prays; a rationalist who has not lost touch with his emotions; an outcaste who does not suffer from the arrogance of an Outsider, though he has every reason to.

For speaking out against the stranglehold of the priesthood within his Dawoodi Bohra community, he has had to hear the choicest abuses, he has been beaten up, his house and office have been broken into and destroyed. Each time he utters something it is used against him. If the Syedna, the spiritual head, is ill, they blame Engineer for it.

How would a person in this position feel? There is a storm lashing around him and he stands like a rock, unshakeable and often unnoticed. He does not see the need to curse the waves…

F: You have not turned bitter. In fact, you have become even more sensitive…

AE: “I am fighting because I am sensitive to the suffering of others. Slaves themselves resented freedom because they were afraid of who would look after them when there were no masters to feed them, they began to value their liberty only later. Many people do not know they are suffering. Our struggle is to raise awareness and emancipate them.”

F: But dependency too can be emotionally satisfying.

AE: “It can also become exploitative. If you fall at the feet of somebody, you feel safe that you don’t have to think. Freedom means responsibility. Most people want to run away from it. A good guru or priest should make you independent.”

F: But the very idea of submission is not to question. I cannot keep testing a guru, to see whether he is right or wrong.

AE: “That means you are surrendering your power of reason. It should be the duty of a guru to make you start thinking. A child needs the support of parents to walk; they don’t cut off his legs. I am not against guidance…we are at different stages of development. You can be a guru in the negative sense by knocking out money, using people as instruments to realise ambitions. A positive guru develops you into a full-fledged human being. I am working for secular values and rational thinking.”

F: If forced into an ‘ism’, would you choose to call yourself a humanist?

AE: “I am a humanist but not in the sense of denying the role of religion. It is not a barrier. I do not deny the existence of god, I only put humanity above religion.”

F: If the human being is an important entity, then what role does individualism play when it gives an identity but can take away from the commitment to the larger society?

AE: “I am not an individualist in the Western sense …collectivity can become oppressive when it tries to dictate, the rights of the two should not clash. The individual cannot exist on his/her own and the collectivity should respect freedom of conscience, that is why the fight with the Bohra community. I do not deny its importance. My struggle is about the freedom of thought.”

F: You talked about the conscience -- how can we say that our conscience is necessarily right compared with the collective conscience of others?

AE: “There is some consensus about values among human beings…conscience itself is a product of collectivity and society; it is consciousness about goodness. When we challenge the ways of the priesthood, we are not challenging their values, in fact we are reinforcing them. When we affirm values, it hurts the interests of those who control freedom of conscience.”

F: Do you feel a specific ideology can become a constraint?

AE: “Yes it can. Ideology is meant for focusing on something. It is like constructing a road to facilitate walking to reach our goal. But it does not mean we ignore the terrain around…it may be rough, there may be hillocks on the way, a river. Ideologues claim that the entire truth is in their grip.”

F: Going by your analogy, would you say that Gandhiji’s ideology of non-violence ignored the terrain, for there were valid reasons for violence as well?

AE: “Why do we create a road? Because the terrain is rough. I can sink into a lake or be unable to climb a hill. So non-violence was that road. I am not de-emphasising the need for an ideology. A non-violent person has to be constantly aware of violence.”

F: But it can be a very lonely journey. When you were fighting the dogmas were you aware of the consequences?

AE: “Not to the extent that it could lead to such consequences. I was vaguely aware that I was going against the grain. I thought I would get people to respond because I was fighting for the truth, but people don’t respond just because you are fighting for the truth. They take their interests into account. I did not know I would suffer so much. But then I did not care.”

F: What was the suffering…the beating up?

AE: “Not only that. You can bear such attacks because physical wounds heal, but those on the soul are difficult to heal. Weapons are less harmful than words. The psychological torture that I suffered and continue to suffer is terrible. The kind of loose talk among the orthodox that I have sold myself, that I am an agent, that I am trying to destroy the community, I am an enemy of religion and the way some of my closest friends and relatives turned their faces away, that is more hurting.”

F: Then did you not want to question yourself when those you loved moved away, did you not wonder whether your truth was what you thought it to be?

AE: “Self-examination goes on. I would not have continued had I not been convinced, it wasn’t just my ego.”

F: How does a lonely hunter contribute to society?

AE: “History is full of instances of people who challenged the mighty forces of evil and they were not only fighting a lonely battle but were left alone to die. If somebody asked me about achievement I would have to talk qualitatively because my forces have depleted. So what? People who were swearing by my values finally succumbed. I have been ex-communicated”

F: What does this mean?

AE: “You are declared a non-Bohra, you are not allowed to meet your parents, your children, your marriage gets dissolved, you cannot meet your friends, relatives, you cannot take part in any community activity, or enter any holy shrine, I lose all those rights. But my family has stood by me”

F: But technically now your marriage is invalid, your children illegitimate?

AE: “Yes.”

F: Yet you believe in god?

AE: “Yes, because atheists blame religion when priests do wrong. Anything can be misused, whether it is nuclear power or a matchstick. So, how can I blame religion? Patriotism too can be misused, by misinforming others and eliminating people, so do we start hating the country? Religion helps you relate with the universe. Buddha was indifferent to the concept of god yet he gave us values.”

F: You talk about Islam in a modernist light. How valid is it to tamper with a whole body of work that has come through generations?

AE: “I am not taking away the historical legacy, but it should not become a burden. In a context it served a purpose at one time but times change and we should change and grow, and yet be proud of our legacy.”

F: If you want religion to be dynamic you have to rationalise it. That can become dangerous.

AE:“What is religion? I want to remove the chaff from the grain. For me it is not what it is for the common people. If you take away certain social customs, they think you have taken away religion. For me it means purifying it. For example, women’s position includes so many pre-Islamic customs that have become an integral part of the Shariat. I am fighting that. The triple talaq is not mentioned in the Quran. Of course, there is a controversy; some maintain that the Prophet approved of it. Even if he did, maybe he had social constraints.”

F: What about the Dark Face of Islam…what is jihad?

AE: “Jihad is misused by fundamentalists. The Quranic meaning is not meant for war at all, in the sense of killing. Jihad is nothing but making efforts to realise goodness in life.”

F: Who, then, is a kafir?

AE: “It is not one who believes in this form or that. Real ‘imaan’ is faith in humanity, so those who deny goodness are kafirs.”

F: Islam has this macho image. I suspect it is because there is no idol worship. Without something tangible to submit to, can the gun not become a potent idol for some?

AE: “I would not agree with you at all. Those who take to guns could do so due to deprivation, suppression, or historical legacy. The Afghans have lived through violence for centuries, by the Mughals, the Russians, their own people, so they have always had to fight for freedom…we cannot take away the context. But they legitimised it by using jihad, a religious sanction, so they could be seen as mujahids, fighting for Allah. And you cannot say there is nothing concrete. Muslims going to mausoleums have created a concrete concept. An abstract god may be difficult so they found alternatives. My personal belief is we should not bow to any object. But Islam was aware of this human weakness and fulfilled that need through Haj to kiss a stone. A stone is a stone but the vacuum was filled and it became the holiest object. I have performed Haj and seen the devotion of people braving stampedes only to kiss that stone.”

F: Then why is there a mental barrier against others practising idol worship?

AE: “It is not as much religious as political and cultural. That is because they have been taught. Quran says do not abuse others’ gods, they will abuse Allah. But most people do not believe in this…they feel their way is the only right one. This is to maintain religious hegemony.”

F: But when some maulvis were invited to perform ‘namaaz’ at a Ganpati pandal, some people said the place was desecrated.

AE: “That is narrow-minded people; you can pray where you want. You do not worship that idol there. Even here there are differences of opinion. The Sufi saint Mazhar Jaan Jana of 18th century Delhi believed that the Quran condemns bowing before deities because in pre-Islamic idol worship stones were considered god. But Hindus pray to god through that idol, which is a reflection of god. In Vedas god is nirguna and nirankara, that is, he has no attributes and no shape, that is the real belief of Hindus. As Muslims visit graves, so Hindus worship idols…”

F: I don’t agree with that Sufi saint. Ganesha and Lakshmi and the rest do represent something.

AE: “We are talking about beliefs, not how people do it.”

F: But how people do it is what religion becomes.

AE: “Among Muslims there is a cleavage among those who visit mausoleums and those who don’t. For me the essential idea of the religion is important. If you ask me, Hinduism is as much monotheistic. Dara Shikoh translated the Upanishads into Persian. In the Introduction he said if he found a concept of Unity of God outside Islam it was in Hinduism, He goes to the extent of saying that ‘The Hidden Book’ that Islam talks about is actually the Upanishad. The cultural clash is of hegemonic designs.”

F: Culturally, what is the role of the minorities in a majority state where they have to retain their identity and yet be part of the mainstream?

AE: “This demand to merge in the mainstream is fascistic. Who will define what the mainstream is? Will the RSS chief define it or the people of India? If it is left to the people then all are part of the mainstream. To protect one’s identity is a Constitutional right.”

F: Then why do Muslims form ghettoes – is it just insecurity?

AE: “If the communal riots had not taken place there would not be this ghetto feeling.”

F: But Bhendi Bazaar and Chandni Chowk have always existed.

AE: “That is true, but there was no exclusivism of Muslims running away from Hindu areas, Hindus running away from Muslim areas. So Bhendi Bazaar is only a community living in one area. It is different from refusing to open out to others, which is real ghettoism. At the level of feeling, it did not exist before the riots.”

F: People are very emotional about it. There is a sense of loss and fatalism. The masjid has become a symbol of social suppression. Can the Muslim intellectuals, who are considered elitist, represent the common person?

AE: “Muslim masses are now not in a state to take the consequence of politics. If there is a flare-up, the intellectuals will not be killed. The Muslim leadership too is restrained, because the common people need peace more. The construction of the temple will make them protest, they will be deeply hurt, but they may not physically resist.”

F: Could they become less assertive in other areas of life as well, may be even stop believing in themselves as important elements of society?

AE: “Potency does not mean being unnecessarily aggressive; one has to be wise. I believe the minorities need to have a strategy of survival because needless aggression when you cannot change the situation does not help. Wisdom is more important than saving some cultural symbol.”

F: Would that qualify then as some sort of intellectual slavery?

AE: “No, I am clear that the demolition was a violation of law and of a religious community. But if I cannot save it physically, it does not mean I have intellectually surrendered. We can assert that it was a condemnable act, but you cannot come out on the roads and throw stones.”

F: How can one community be expected to be wise in the face of an emotional onslaught from the other side?

AE: “It is very difficult. But somebody has to be restrained, that is also important. There should be someone to warn them of the perils of their behavior. On Dec 7, it became a leaderless mob, no leader to provoke or restrain them…so the young people took to the streets, and had to suffer.”

F: Have there been attempts to co-opt you by other religious forces?

AE: “Many people asked me to convert. I said my religious convictions remain. I am fighting the wrongs within my own community. And if I decide to convert I will lose the right to fight.”

(These are excerpts from an interview published in ‘Gentleman’ magazine.)