In today’s Indian discourse, the word ‘Qaum’ is often used loosely, frequently equated with religion. When people speak of Muslims as one Qaum, Hindus as another, and Christians as a third, the underlying assumption is that Qaumiyat—the sense of belonging to a Qaum—is based on faith.

Yet, in its true and historical meaning, Qaum does not refer to religion at all. It refers to ethnic or national identity. To understand this distinction is to grasp one of the most misinterpreted concepts in the modern subcontinent.

The word Qaum originates from Arabic and appears repeatedly in the Quran. It is used when God recounts how prophets were rejected and mocked by their own Qaum, even as they continued to guide them.

The prophets would address their people as “Ya Qaumi"—O my people. This term included everyone from believers to disbelievers, idolaters, and skeptics.

If Qaum referred only to believers, then the prophets would never have addressed their entire community as “my people". The Quranic narrative is clear: the prophets identified with their Qaum by ethnicity and shared heritage, not by shared belief.

Prophet Hud, for instance, belonged to the tribe of ‘Ad. Yet, he did not restrict the term Qaum to his followers alone.

Prophet Noah (Nuh) did not call only his eighty faithful companions on the Ark his Qaum. Likewise, among the Israelites, there were two factions—those who followed Moses and those who followed the magician Samiri. Both, however, were part of the same Qaum: Bani Israel.

Even Prophet Muhammad was an Arab, and so were his fiercest opponents—his uncle Abu Lahab and Abu Jahl. Their enmity did not alter their shared Qaumiyat. They were all part of the same Qaum—the Arab nation.

The modern world provides numerous parallels that reinforce this idea. Egypt’s Coptic Christians—then forming about 8 to 10 percent of the population—stood united with their Muslim compatriots during the 1973 October War against Israel for the liberation of Sinai.

Though Jesus was an Israelite, Egypt’s Coptic Christians chose to side with their nation, not their religious lineage. They fought for their Qaum—their Egyptian identity—over any distant religious association.

Similarly, in Pakistan, the national anthem is officially called the Qaumi Tarana. If Qaum were meant to denote a religious community, then Pakistan—home to Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians—would never use such terminology. The word Qaumi in this context clearly represents nationality, not faith.

Even the Palestinian struggle is fundamentally a Qaumi issue rather than a purely religious one. It is, in essence, a conflict between the descendants of Bani Ismail (the Arabs) and Bani Israel (the Jews).

Turkish Muslims, for example, have no direct conflict with Israel because they do not share that particular Qaumi lineage. Notably, George Habash, a Christian Arab, founded the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—fighting for his Arab Qaum against Israel, not for his religion.

When India’s right-wing voices pose the provocative question—“Are you Indian first or Muslim first?"—many in the Muslim community react defensively. Yet, when examined logically, the question holds historical relevance.

The prioritisation of religious Qaumiyat over national identity led to the tragic partition of India, giving birth to Pakistan and later Bangladesh. The wounds of that division still bleed in Kashmir.

The question seeks clarity: when........

© News18