A man is not defined by the circumstances of his birth but by his thoughts, actions, and their impact on the world. By Hamid’s own admission, what matters is not how or when a man is born, but what he thinks about, what he does, and how his ideas shape the world. In this sense, his short-lived life had an outsized impact, earning him a place in Ramachandra Guha’s list of 21 architects of modern India.
At first glance, the phrase ‘atheist Muslim’ may seem paradoxical. However, in his essay I Am Muslim, Hamid challenges this notion. He rejected the idea that Islam has fixed, immutable tenets and instead redefined what it means to be Muslim. To him, being Muslim was not about adhering to rigid doctrines but about being a steward of cultural heritage—its customs, institutions, and traditions. In his view, one did not even need to believe in the Prophet as the last and complete messenger of God to be considered Muslim.
Because he was born a Muslim, Hamid believed it was his responsibility to critique the flaws within his culture. Despite strong opposition and ostracization, he remained steadfast in his commitment to societal reform. In his essay Muslim Society, he launched a scathing critique of what he called the ‘middle-age ideological standpoint’ of Muslims. He argued that Islam has historically lacked a defining reformist figure, akin to Martin Luther in Christianity, leaving many of its tenets untouched and outdated. While reformist movements have emerged, they have struggled against deep-seated orthodoxy. Hamid asserted that unless the core tenets of Islam are challenged, true reform is impossible. He criticized the strategy of ‘using Islam to reform Islam,’ arguing that such efforts only serve to reinforce dogma rather than dismantle it. He believed that for the Muslim world to modernize, it needed to consciously break free from religious rigidity.
In his work धर्मनिरपेक्षता – पूर्वपीठिका आणि आशय (Secularism: Antecedents and Implications), Hamid emphasized secularism as the foundation of a modern India. This was not merely because most developed nations are secular but because a truly progressive republic must foster scientific temper and rationalism among its citizens. He argued that for Muslims, secularism required the state to withdraw from religious affairs rather than validate religious exceptionalism. He criticized the Indian state’s inconsistent application of secularism, pointing out instances where it upheld orthodox Muslim personal laws while passing reformist legislation for Hindus. For instance, Ulemas were consulted in shaping Muslim personal law, whereas no Hindu religious figure was consulted while drafting the Hindu Code Bill. Hamid warned that such duplicity only emboldened Hindu right-wing forces, who saw this as religious appeasement rather than principled secularism.
Hamid contended that Hindus must engage with Muslims about their role in Indian society. While there were progressive Hindu voices advocating for coexistence, he argued that liberal Muslims needed to reciprocate by encouraging reform within their own community. This, he believed, included integrating into mainstream Indian society—such as embracing the regional language in their state of residence. He stressed that India grants equal rights to all citizens, but these rights must come with a shared commitment to national integration and legal equality. He saw the adoption of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as a necessary step toward this goal.
However, modern discussions on the UCC have deviated from Hamid’s vision. Kapil Sibal noted in a 2023 Indian Express article that the current UCC debate is more about minority bashing than legal equality. This stands in contrast to Hamid’s idea of a UCC that transcends religious exceptionalism and ensures equal legal rights for all citizens. Hamid’s fight for a common code was, at its core, a fight for women’s rights. He argued that no nation can progress if half its population remains shackled by regressive traditions. He believed that social equality for women was inextricably linked to their economic empowerment and, by extension, the country’s development.
Education, he cautioned, is a double-edged sword. While it can foster critical thinking and reform, it can also reinforce rigid religious and cultural beliefs. The struggle for women’s rights, he argued, must be fought on this ideological battlefield. He was particularly troubled by the issue of Triple Talaq, which led him to stage a historic protest in 1966 alongside seven Muslim women—an act of defiance that was virtually unheard of at the time.
Hamid warned that by appeasing orthodox Muslim leaders for electoral gain, liberal Hindus were inadvertently fueling reactionary Hindu forces. Decades later, his words seem prophetic: the very Hindu society that once prided itself on reformist ideals now appears to be moving toward religious homogeneity. The increasing push for a Hindu Rashtra mirrors the communal politics that once led to the creation of Pakistan. Hamid’s question remains relevant: Do we truly want to bring this ‘sacred land’ into existence?
We are all shaped by our circumstances, yet we are also capable of transcending them. Being Sunni, Shia, or Ahmadi does not make one a better or lesser Muslim—just as there is no single way to be a Hindu, Buddhist, or Christian. Today, as uniformist ideologies attempt to construct a monolithic Hindu identity, we must remember that India has always been a nation of diversity. This diversity is both a strength and a challenge. To build a unified India, we must confront our biases, question our flawed perspectives, and strive for an inclusive society. Hamid’s life serves as a powerful reminder that progress is impossible without addressing uncomfortable truths. His unwavering commitment to reform remains a guiding light for those who seek a just and modern India.
Leave a Reply