Fascinating talk yesterday by my new friend here, a South-Asian historian. The question being, for me at least: why is the 'Ahmadiya question' a question at all?
So, why is it that that the usual fractious and bickering perspectives of various mullahs came down to this? Why (and how) did the rather obscure debates and polemics, the theological disputes, get translated into victimization at the political and societal level? Why, precisely, after all these years did it become a question at all, and for who?
A's point was quite interesting. Basically, irrespective of theological positions, when the rituals of two groups are so similar then there's a greater demand for making the lines of demarcation clearer, less porous. The historian has to look on, with some detachment, at the actual texts and look at the social and political context to try and work out how and why particular aspects of a text are highlighted or understood in a particular way at that very juncture in time. A didn't really do that. He described the changes but didn't offer an explanation as to why they might be occurring.
Of course, there's probably some deep psychological need to set oneself apart from the rabble, the impure (ethnic, economic, gender and religious distinctions would surely never have such force if they didn't appeal to something in our nature). But surely there's a distinct sociological explanation as well? For example, do class differences play a role here? Or could it be that with urbanization and the loss of the older, rural flags and markers, that greater level of intimacy and tribal warmth that meant we could tell who was who, there was a renewed sense of urgency in the desire for determining who was the saved and who was the damned?
And of course, there are political factors: why did the so-called liberal, secular PPP go ahead with it? Why did this become a political issue, something to be determined at the level of the state? And once at the level of the state is it inevitable that we get a singular view of things? Was it anything beyond a cheap shot at popularity (there are other fascinating and disturbing aspects to this: the role of Shia clerics in having the community declared non-muslims). Perhaps, my Indian friends will say, this is an inevitable consequence of setting up a homeland "for muslims". From then onwards the race is on to define who is the 'true' Muslim. Is Israel really any different in that respect?
~~~
Anyway, you came away from the discussion quite jaded; disappointed to recall that you live in a place that is so backward, regressive. Turn to your notebooks, as if you could blot out the slide to insanity, fanaticism, petty hatreds...
'It is not a matter of exclusivity and "purity" but of wholeness, wholeheartedness, unity, and of what Meister Eckhart's 'gleihheit' (equality) which finds the same ground of love in everything...
Freedom from domination, freedom to live one's own spiritual life, freedom to seek the highest truth unabashed by any human pressure or any collective demand, the ability to say one's own 'yes', one's own 'no' and to not merely echo the 'yes' and 'no' of state, party, corporation, army, or system...
Man has a responsibility to find himself where he is, in his own proper time and place, in the history to which he belongs.'
---Thomas Merton.