The Islamist and Hindutva Politics: Identities of Outlook and Objectives

``They expediently hijacked the so-called two nation theory of the Muslim League to build around it an elaborate rationale for transforming Pakistan into a theocratic state. Maulana Maududi, an erstwhile opponent of a separate state for the Muslims of India, arrived in Pakistan soon after partition to set himself up as the chief ideologue of the Islamists and their political agenda.``

Well said above Hassan Gardezi. I have been reading your work since the late 70`s or early 80`s (in The Pakistan Progressive) and am really glad to see you here on CHOWK.

The dark days of the Zia dictatorship may be behind us but is it not ironic that Pakistani Progressives today are placing their hopes of secularism on a military man?

What a mess Uncle Sam has left behind!

Ras

PS:Please keep on writing here

Dear Hasan Gardezi:

Welcome to the Chowk! We need scholars like you on this site. I hope, you will find time to interact as well.

I like the spirit of your article. I agree with you that the task of bridge-building ``will require a great deal of perseverance and moral courage.``

What measures do you propose to alleviate our perceived and/or real domestic social and territorial tensions/difficulties?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Hasan,

A warm welcome to chowk!

This is a well written, and well researched piece. From your articles, one gets the impression that in Pakistan, there was never an organized resistance to Islamists...not even from early Muslim leage leadership who were supposed to be the flag bearer of Jinnah`s vision of a secular, and democratic Pakistan. Why is that?

A well written, balanced & fair article.

http://www.latimes.com/news/front/20001228/t000123583.html

Here`s a related URL.

In Pakistan, today`s militant faithful see the entire world as the battlefield for their holy war. By ROBIN WRIGHT, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

Well written article.

``Yet, the Hindutva ideologues go out of their way to claim not only the Dalits, but also Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs and tribal people with animistic faiths into their in-group. Only the Muslims and Christians are strictly defined as the out-group.``

Would this be because Hindutva/Hinduism is not about religion but about a way of life (originating in India). Hence any native way of life that has its origins in India (Sikhism, Buddhism, tribal culture) can be assimilated into an Indianness (which is what Hindutva is about) whereas Islam and Christianity are clearly `foreign` religions.

It is interesting that at present majority fundamentalism is on the rise in both India and Pakistan. I would like to know if they are related or are they independent phenomena?

I think the Hindu fundamentalism in India has little to do with what is happening in Pakistan, but more to do with what they perceive to be historical inequities, injustices (appeasement etc) against the Hindu community.

Whereas, I think Pak fundamentalism derives at least some bit from what is happening in India, perceived oppression of Indian Muslims etc all complicated by the philosophy of jihad. I am really surprised to see fundamentalism in Pakistan. As a country that was created for Muslims and a negligible minority, their religious identity should now have been secure - their identity or religion is not under threat in Pakistan. If they perceive that India is out to destroy them etc, this could be handled militarily. Therefore, I can`t really understand why there should be Muslim fundamentalism in Pakistan.

Does this have to do with the innate `nature` of Islam as understood by its adherents?

Some differences that I see between Hindu fundamentalism and Muslim fundamentalism (in Pak):

Pakistani fundamentalism is backward looking and isolationist. It sees the non-Muslim world as the enemy, seeks to ban modern contrivances (movies, TV, cable etc) and requires strict adherence to the religion (prayer, mode of dress, beard etc).

Hindu fundamentalism is not isolationist - it is not particularly anti-west or anti other religions except to the extent of righting perceived injustices to their religion. They have not really required Hindus to follow a particular way of life or even be more religious.

The Muslim fundoos have at least read the Koran (it is another matter how many understand it). I can safely say the Hindu fundoos have not read the Bhagavad Gita or any of the Hindu sacred texts. This makes me feel the Hindu fundamentalism is more about grievances that can be addressed politically / legally (eg uniform civil code, Ram mandir, forced conversions) whereas Muslim fundamentalism in Pakistan can be addressed in only one of two ways - resist or give in.

Regards,

Layman

On the face of it, yes we both have our share of nuts, fanatics, wierdos and flakes. However, there is one big difference between our nuts and yours.

Your fanatics have set up a whole assembly line infrastructure to churn out jehadis to further their cause, that isn`t the case in India. Yes, they may run schools and have workouts in the mornings, but what the Sangh Parivar runs pales in every comparison. Even their schools have a secular curriculum though the twist comes in in terms of religious instruction and a selective interpretation of history. Your religious organizations and madrassahs seem to have borrowed techniques from Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan to ensure that the supply will always meet the demand.

Another difference is in the mindset of the poor. No poor parent in India is willing to sacrifice their children in the name of religion. All they want is for the kids to do better so they can be taken care in their old age. From what I`ve read, case in point--the sunday magazine cover story of the NY Times on the chattisingapora massacre--there is a halo over the waste of human lives for purported religious reasons--such as the jihad in kashmir.

Another problem/differentiatior in this comparison is the geographical context. Where are our nuts going to go and fight outside of India--Fiji or South Africe? On the other hand, because of Islam`s ummah belief, you seem to have adopted every strife as yours. So there is not just Kashmir, but Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo or wherever muslims are fighting people of other faiths--with the only clear exception being Xinjiang/Sinkiang.

``In reality they complement each other and facilitate the realization of common goals``

In other words they are in a deadly dance with each other (dancing partners) who are dragging entire populations to their death - the dance moves being dictated by their religions (common goals)?


This is a wonderful article - a much more positive and universal a message. Now it just remains to be seen how many can bear to read it or have the patience to do so. I hope this will engender some debate amongst the readers : muslims and hindus and christians to set aside their religious differences and come together as human beings. We must bond with each other not based on what we believer to be the truth but upon what we do. We are all good human beings who want peace and prosperity and a peaceful coexistance with everything around us: so lets all be friends? we don`t need borders and religions and races - we can use our imagination and become friendlier.

Must be wonderful being a professor - to be able to write in such an erudite manner.

re: layman #6

....

(Hindu fundamentalism) have not really required Hindus to follow a particular way of life or even be more religious.

....

Some nuts have recently agitated against celebrating the `Christian` New Year. Some others have have even tried to promote a regressive agenda under the rubric of the `proper` role of Hindu women in society. We need to discourage these attempts in every possible way.

This is an extremely objective article. You have tried to keep a balance.

While you are on the whole accurate, certain points may be clarified.

As far as Indian Muslims are concerned, they should understand that there are some points on which the Hindu people feel strongly about:

1) the Indian constitution permits muslims to have 4 wives, and Hindus to have 1. Any attempt to enforce uniform civil code is resisted tooth and nail by the `superislamic` fringe.(In actual practice, a few of both Hindus and Muslims practice polygamy).

2) the moderate Muslims keep quiet while the `superislamics` are extremely vocal. This is illustrated by

a)the reaction of the Muslim community to the awarding of maintenance to a divorced woman in the famous Shah Bano case.

b) Muslims react violently to Hindu boys marrying Muslim girls(observe the reaction of muslims to the movie `Bombay`) as if Islam is in danger.

Hindus are more ambivalent about the converse situation.

c) the vocal `superislamics` are extremely forthright in their support for Aurangzeb, whom the Hindus detest.

Glad to see an objective and well balanced articles by a person whose name is well familiar by many liberals, seculars or left leaning Pakistanis. I wish to see more writings from him at Chowk through active participation and articles.

As a person of Pakistani origin, I would be more worried about Islamic fundamentalists than Sangh Pariwar unless I see them as a larger threat to Pakistan than what India is generally perceived. Our understanding of Hindu Fundamentalism phenomenon is much more limited and such articles followed by interacts by knowledgeable Indians enrich our understanding. As I understand from the article and few interacts so far is that Sangh Pariwar is a menace but its limited success only in the Indian heartland coupled with secular constitution and, they, not being against modernity makes them less scary. Thus far it has not adversely effected India`s relationship with rest of the world and has not influenced Indian economy negatively. The Sangh Parivar is not an international phenomenon and even Pakistan has preferred to blame RAW rather than RSS or Sangh Parivar for being involved in the terrorist activities in Pakistan.

The Islamic Fundamentalism on the other hand is more and more becoming international phenomenon with serious adverse effects on Pakistan`s standing in the community of the world. It is effecting the economy because lenders are becoming less willing to lend. Pakistan will need borrowing for a long time to come because of budget deficits. Soon a time may come when lenders link lending not to raising tax base and raising gasoline or utilities prices but political demands of clamping down on terrorist networks (I hope they do), get rid of the basphemy law etc. A government refusing to do so or a government by the Islamic Fundamentalists will undoubtedly lead us from economic isolation to economic sanctions. Even bigger danger is extreme polarisation within military-the only institution thus far..............

India does not have to fear such consequences due to Sangh Pariwar. It is Indian Muslims or Indian Christians who might suffer from the Sangh Parivar phenomenon. If Pakistan becomes too worried about Indian Muslims then Kashmir is just a tip of the iceberg. Even a solution of Kashmir problem will not help is easing tensions between India and Pakistan.

Pakistan should be worried about Pakistan and Pakistanis before even thinking about Chineese, Indian, Chechen or Afghan Muslims.

fairdinkum: Do not provide me a reason to get even with you -:) How come you do not know the answer to such a simple question:

[From your articles, one gets the impression that in Pakistan, there was never an organized resistance to Islamists...not even from early Muslim leage leadership who were supposed to be the flag bearer of Jinnah`s vision of a secular, and democratic Pakistan. Why is that?]

The Islamic parties all over the world were the second line of defense against the spread of Communism until the end of cold war. Once in a while, an Islamic Party will become out of control-as in Iran and become anti-West more than anti-Communists. But JI, NU of Indonesia and Ikhwans of Arab world were sunni groups controlled by Saudi Royal family on behalf of West. These groups remained loyal (read slaves) to their masters until the master discarded them after the cold war. Maulana Maudoodi was a favorite of King faisal and his predesessor. Haven`t you seen the power of Saudis in Pakistan recently (Nawaz Sharif). Any of a number of pakistani governments including Ayub Khan would have crushed JI if it was not for Saudis and cold war plannings. The JI was again found useful by Yahya Khan during 1971 and Zia, Saudis and US following Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The JI is a chicken that laid golden egg every time they feed her. It is the poisonous yoke and egg white inside the golden shell that Pakistanis are left to eat.

Happy New Year friend!

``Your fanatics have set up a whole assembly line infrastructure to churn out jehadis to further their cause, that isn`t the case in India.``

Elect Sri Advani and Vajpayee a few more times, demolish a couple of mosques burn a few more churches. I am sure they won`t disapoint you.

It is the economy stupid! Yes tax structure is the root of ills in Bharat and Pakistan. RSS /JUI goons will continue their ascension to power in the future not because of religion or some bad history. This will happen because Baboos (the bureaucracy) has usurped all the power. These baboos using the front of political / military religious baboons are thriving by crushing masses with ever higher taxes.

Unfortunately Brahmins (both Hindu and Muslim versions) feel oh so comfortable with the baboos that they never raise a voice of dissention. Instead these Brahmins are always ready to hit the perceived threat from Atal or Sharif.

Hit at the root O Brahmin

Don`t get mislead by Shadows

Untouchable have been sufferin`

Take us to some baboo-free meadows

Very interesting article !

For now, I just want to point out that Veer Savarkar, who coined the word ``Hindutva`` accepted not just an Aryan Migration Theory, but an Aryan Invasion Theory; his followers today also believe that all that is irrelevant to Hindutva.

The Hindutva definition of Hindu, by the way is,

one who considers India to be his father/motherland and holy land.

The current Hindutva drive to find that the Harappans were a Vedic people is fuelled in part by motives described by the article, but also as a way to assert a difference from Western and ``secular Indian`` scholarship.

-Arun Gupta

A very good article. It lacks just one thing, the proportionality. It says that Pakistan fundamentalist are ahead of Hindu fundamentalist, but I am not sure how much ahead. It also paints a postive future for India than Pakistan.

One thing to look for is proportionality. In other words, what percentage of people are being educated with this fundamentalist history?

100%? Or say only the one going to certain kind of schools (or in India say some state)?

What is the approximate percentage of such people in both country? In what direction is the percentage moving?

The percentage and the direction will to an extent reflect what is their in future.

re rajanjua

``Elect Sri Advani and Vajpayee a few more times, demolish a couple of mosques burn a few more churches. I am sure they won`t disapoint you.``

Sorry to disappoint you, but that will never come about. Given whatever antics and tricks our clowns will come up with, it is bound to fail as others have pointed out before--because Hinduism is not evangelistic in nature. Hindus don`t see the merits of dying for the cause of religion. On the other hand, don`t you have all those fools who gladly go after alleged martyrdom and a heaven full of virgins?

How many hindus do you think will lay their lives based on speeches by their preachers? There are no local preachers--only politicos like Thakeray. On the other hand, you not only have more than your fair share of rabid frothing idiots, but also street preachers who lead the front lines. The ones who fall for the crap spewed out by our Thakerays tend to be the goonda element of society--not the average religious person.

The essential problem in India and Pakistan is the economy. If people are busy and doing well, god enters the picture only in the form of a ``thank you`` note. If things are hopeless, as they are, religion unfortunately becomes the opiate of the masses. India is only a couple of notches above and has more resources, so the level of sclerotic damage is not as bad as it is in Pakistan.

And finally, if Vajpayee and Advani want to be elected a few more times, they`ll probably have to temper their views even more because as it is, the BJP isn`t much without the NDA whose other members don`t really buy that religion crap. It is essentially an anti-congress platform.

I hope you notice the unintended irony in your reply..``Elect Shri...`` It sure is nice to have a functioning democracy, warts and all, because we have the luxury of changing our leaders if they take the wrong direction.