Sufi traditions evolved by the Muslim mystics over a long period of time in different historical conditions found their finest expression in poetic, literary and philosophic compositions. The traditions do have certain commonalities like shared faith and pursuit of spirituality but the ways to achieve the objective in real life are different and at times contradictory which spring from opposing conceptual frameworks of various Sufi schools. Sufi culture is underpinned by heterogeneous strands. The claim of homogeneity of Sufi phenomena by a number of so-called contemporary scholars is a politically motivated endeavour to make the whole thing, which has assumed sacred character, a palatable ploy to be used to persuade the people to look for peace and harmony without resolving the class contradictions and social conflicts that have with the passage of time grown more intense between haves and have-nots. Sufi movement in Muslim society and communities was consciously and subconsciously aimed at having an enlightened spiritual and ethical interpretation of Islam in response to the literalist and conservative views of the faith preached and enforced by orthodoxy with the support of upper crust of the Muslim elites.

Looking at the Sufism in historical perspective in the sub-continent, we find it defined by different schools (Silsilas) with diverse viewpoints. At the one end of the spectrum there were Sufis who were liberal and thus tolerant of diversity and plurality and at the other were those who looked conservative and thus were less tolerant. A natural corollary of difference in their viewpoints was that former resisted the established order, shunned the royalty and lived among the people. Two famous schools, Chishtia and Suharwardia are a good example to study. Chishtia were loved for their pro-people stance; social and spiritual. They lived like ordinary folks with little material possessions. They avoided the polluting touch of royalty and aristocracy. They had the moral courage to say no to the royal grants or revenue-free land (Madad-e-Muaash) when offered while their counterparts relished all such things. A brief comparison between Baba Farid Shakar Ganj and Bahauddin Zikria Multani can be very relevant as to what sets the different schools apart. Baba Farid, the towering figure, after being nominated as head of Chishtia Silsila moved from Delhi, the royalty-infested capital, to an ordinary town called Ajodhan (now Pakpattan) in Punjab. He was a very austere man and possessed almost nothing despite having followers in millions. After setting up his Khanqah (monastery) in a town surrounded by wild forests he, it is mentioned, called a meeting of his family and declared that henceforth smoke would not rise from his house implying that cooked food for the family would come from the common kitchen of the Khanqah. “I would not tolerate”, he is reported to have said, “that my family ate different food from what was dished out to my students, disciples and followers from the common kitchen”. Prince Dara Shikoh mentioned in his writings the kind of food that was usually available. Quoting Nizamuddin Aulia, Baba Farid’s successor, he said when ‘Delas’ (raw fruit of wild bush Karir), the food for the poorest of the poor, was prepared, ‘it was a sumptuous feast for the students and disciples. Baba Farid says: “Wood is my loaf and hunger is my dish

Those who enjoy buttered bread will suffer a lot”

He never accepted revenue-free land, grants or royal gifts. He, like Saint Francis of Assisi, lived in ‘sublime poverty’. He remained accessible to the people and his monastery was open to all; rich and poor, irrespective of caste, class and creed. In his life and poetry we see a humanist worldview that rejects the oppressive socio-political order and status quo.

Bahauddin Zikria Multani, the head of Suharwardia school, quite unlike Baba Farid was conservative and supporter of established oppressive order. Though a great scholar and learned man he lived like a lord and dabbled in power politics. Qazi Javed, a reputable scholar writes about him in his book ‘Punjab Ke Sufi Danshwar’: “He lived a life of luxury in Multan. His income was in millions which flowed from his estate, trade and royal gifts. No other Sufi of Punjab was so privileged to have such a life of leisure— the core of his teachings and thought was the defense of orthodoxy—“. Due to the association of Suharwardis with the royal court, ‘the Order after some time lost its independence. The next generation of its leaders were little more than puppets of the rulers’. One of the luminaries, Syed Jalaluddin Makhdoom Jahan Gashat exhorted the people to give unconditional support to the rulers of his time. So the political stance of the Order was reactionary. Interestingly, even today the decedents of Bahauddin Zikria are a part of power politics in Pakistan.