In his book Practices of the State: Muslims, Law and Violence in India (published by Three Essays Collective in 2024), Tanweer Fazal sheds light on the colonial legacies of the state and its effect on the Muslim community in contemporary India. He questions the innumerable instances where the policies, laws and ethical-moral order of the State are enunciated with various sectional implications for different social groups (p.12). In this context, Fazal asserts that the state is defined by not only how its regulations are made, but how these regulations are experienced by different social groups living within. Fazal speaks about the gaze of the state in the construction of one ‘Muslim’ identity or ‘Muslimness’, negating any other differences or diversity that may lie within a social group, shadowing the idea of ‘collective of communities.’ This ‘Muslimness’ is overdetermined by the State and the dominant public, leading to the epistemological production of an ‘unruly margin’ (p.17). This ‘unruly margin’ is further characterised as criminal, fanatic, seditious, violent, terrorist, ‘Bangladeshi’ (p.25) or a ‘Miya Muslim’ (p.58). The State becomes a state of exception (Agamben, 2005) and attempts to ‘civilise’ the ‘unruly’ through the use of violence and targeted moral regulations. These moral regulations are in fact a systemic structure of impunity, deeply ingrained in a colonial idea where the state is destined to carry forward ‘the white man’s burden’ (Kipling, 1929).
In this context, Fazal cites a few case studies where the state constructs ‘unruly’ Muslims through legal and extra-legal measures. First, Fazal examines Assam’s citizenship issues, highlighting the shift from jus soli, established by the Citizenship Act of 1955, to exclusionary practices targeting Bengali Muslims, particularly after the 1985 Assam Accord (p.27). He explores how movements like the All Assam Students Union (AASU) transitioned from material concerns to ethnic nationalism, fuelled by resource competition and the state’s political economy. Fazal dispels the myth and fraught history that immigration from Bangladesh or the ‘Bangladeshi body’ (p.33) is the primary cause of Assam’s socio-economic crisis, arguing that Muslim population growth stems primarily from poverty and lack of education, not a strategy to outnumber Hindus and the ‘indigenous’ population of in the state.
Second, Fazal discusses the legal and political handling of cow slaughter in North India, both during the colonial and post-colonial periods. He highlights how legal rulings on this ‘sensitive’ issue have fuelled Hindutva ideologies and been used to legitimise violence against Muslims, particularly during the last decade. Fazal particularly focuses on attacks by gau rakshaks (cow protectors) or gaurakshini sabhas (cow protection gatherings) targeting Muslims suspected of cow slaughter or trading (p.66). Additionally, he points out the rise in stray cattle in urban areas underscores the state’s inability to responsibly address the issue, further exacerbating tensions and violence.
Third, Fazal also examines the Indian state’s role in episodes of communal violence, focusing on the 1989 Bhagalpur riots. He argues that the state’s commitment to secular impartiality is often undermined by biased civil and police administration. Judicial commissions, like the one investigating Bhagalpur, frequently suffer from communal biases among officials, perpetuating a culture of impunity. Despite the stark disparity in victims, accountability was minimal, with police often complicit in the violence. Fazal’s analysis reveals the systemic biases that shape the state’s response to communal riots and violence (p. 113).
Lastly, Fazal examines the exclusion of Muslim and Christian Scheduled Castes (SCs) from affirmative action benefits, particularly reservations in education and employment. He traces this exclusion to the immediate post-colonial 1950 Scheduled Caste Order, which barred non-Hindu SCs from reservations, a policy rooted in colonial efforts to divide Hindu and non-Hindu castes (p.143). Despite compelling arguments by figures like P.J. Kurien and recommendations from various commissions such as the Pillai Commission (1964) and the Damodaran Commission (1971), the issue remains unresolved. Fazal illustrates how legal frameworks continue to reinforce exclusionary practices, perpetuating inequalities for Muslim and Christian SCs.
Had the book addressed the legal and non-legal aspects of Indian secularism it would have enriched this study further. The book nonetheless does a great job of unpacking the intersections of law, politics, and religion in constructing an ‘unruly’ or ‘other’ Muslim. Fazal’s work is a vital contribution to understanding how law and violence converge to shape the experiences of marginalised groups, emphasising the interplay between religion, caste, and national identity.
References:
Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception, translated by Kevin Attell. The University of Chicago Press.
Kipling, R. (1929). The White Man’s Burden: The United States & The Philippine Islands, 1899 (Kipling’s Verse). Doubleday.
***
Mamoon Bhuyan is a Doctoral Researcher in Sociology at the College of Business, Arts and Social Sciences, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Brunel, University of London.