Muslims in India: Communalism vs. Backwardness-Minority Syndrome

This is a good article coming from an Indian Muslim. I wish all the Indian Muslims the very best of life in India.

However, the writer wrote: ``plain English, it means that the fundamentalist and opportunistic Muslim leadership has to be completely disowned by the Muslims. I think the Muslims of India have done that. ``

This has to be done by Pakistanis also.

An encouraging point to note is that the recently held mass anti-war protest demonstrations all over the `Christian lands` have made the fundamentalist Muslims of Pakistan weaker, as their stance of painting US lead war on Iraq as anti-Muslim has been put to death.

In India however, the fundamentalist and nationalist Hindus lead by the current Government are becoming stronger on the basis of their stance in Gujrat that will be replicated all over India.

Good article - sane advices.

But keep in mind that the social dynamics has a momentum of its own where external forces equally contribute along with the internal ones. You can corner a cat only for so long; in the end it comes for your eyes. The way the things are going, I see another Pakistan emerging from the womb of Hindustan. The division in 1947 was never fair......the unjust re-occupation of Kashmir, Junagadh, and Hyderabad by Hindus, right after the formula of partition was agreed upon, has spurred the wheel in a certain direction, and that direction is the emergence of another Pakistan. This wheel cannot be set to turn in reverse now. While the secular Hindus have burried their heads in the sand, the religious nuts have sensed what is coming their way....so they have started to react the only way they can - the uncompromising way. Please keep in mind that it took only 24 years from conception to realization of the idea of the existing Pakistan - the emergence of a new Paksitan may take a little longer (or shorter; Bosnia & Kosovo emerged in less than 10 years). But that is inevitable.

Today the Washington Post reports that the portrait of Savarkar (a founding father of the JSS) was hanged with much pomp and ceremony by the BJP in the halls of the Indian Parliament, alongside that of Gandhi. The paper reports that Gandhi`s murderer is known to have visited Savarkar`s house frequently, and there appears no doubt in many people`s mind that Gandhi was killed by Savarkar. Savarkar`s other contribution to India is the coining of the phrase ``Hindutva`` (hindu way). He condemned Indian muslims and christians for not regarding India as their holy land. No doubt this is a big day for the many hate-mongerers in India, and I can see Jay wetting his pants with delight in his cell. :-)
It is a sad day for all those in India and in Pakistan who wish to see peace and sanity and goodwill prevail in the subcontinent. That dream seems to move further and further away with each passing year...

Urstruly:

Please read my various Afghanistan related posts on Samina Shah`s Tunnel interactive board.

As regards this post of yours, another Pakistan can emerge in India if the Hindu nationalism continues unchecked. I believe that Indian seculars will be able to check it. However, if they don`t, this whole region will witness instability.

Since I am usually not able to mentally associate myself with short-term time frames, my long-term projection is as follows:

In case Indian Muslims are not treated properly, extremist Islamic parties in Pakistan will get stronger. So will be their desire for pan-Islamism. They will attempt to make our state weaker by pushing into India, especially if they are able to gain the sympathy of Indian Muslims. This may encourage India to attack Pakistan, which may lead to a civil war within India. Every Muslim is in it. Perhaps I am not able to explain it in English, but just imagine it can translate into every disenchanted Indian ethnic group for the other`s throat. Eventually, Pakistan`s unity may become questionable even though for a start there may be unity through pan-Islamism.

Good commsensical article. I agree that post-Babri the situation of the indian muslims in North India has become much more precarious and unequal. I am also glad to see an honest analysis of the 1985 Shah Bano case and Rajiv Gandhi`s two-faced comminalist strategy.

Unlike the pakistani posters who are under the impression that somehow pakistani islamists will be ``helpful`` to indian muslims (so far the ``help`` they have provided through the Kashmir jihad has come in quite handy for the RSS/VHP program!!), it is focussing on civil society and core indian values that seems much more helpful.

A new image of indian muslims as patriotic to the core (which they are but has little projection in the media) and deeply involved with the welfare of all their fellow citizens (muslim and non-muslim) is what is needed. We are all in this together (I mean indians, not bigots like Urstruly) and will sink or swim together.

The author writes:
[After the revolt of 1857, the British began to victimize the Muslims holding them as the arch conspirators of the revolt. Thereafter came a pro-Hindu tilt in the British policies. Educationally and economically, Muslims were already lagging behind the Hindus. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan started the Aligarh Movement in response to this backwardness of the Muslims.]

This is a myth that has been circulating now for 150 years.All that happened in 1857 was that the Moghul Emperor, whose writ did not run outside the Red Fort in Delhi, was finally dispossessed of his title of Emperor and sent off into exile in Burma. Unable to collect revenues from the governors of various provinces, the various Moghul emperors had handed over revenue collection to the British in exchange for an annual income stream. Thus Bengal was handed over to the British to do as they pleased in return for 5 million pounds annually. The emperor was willing to hand over all of India in return for 50 million pounds

Ahmadzai

I agree with your assesment on all issues except one that ``India will attack Pakistan``. In my opinion, from now on an armed conflict is not possible - the most they can do is to amass their army at our borders like they did last year and kept it there for a year. Hindu religious nuts who are currently ruling India are crazy but definitely not stupid.

Zafar sahab,

You write, ``...secularism as officially promoted in India alienates both Hindus and Muslims. Hence, a positive acceptance of diverse identities rooted in religion as enunciated by Gandhi has better prospects for national integration than secular principles.``

So in order to receive legitimacy in the eyes of a state that barely grudges them the right to exist, Muslims must continue to be Muslims? What Javed Akhtar says sounds a little naive because when you think about it, is it really a religious identity (which is exceedingly difficult to contain within a nationalistic context given the diversity Islam enjoys in its practitioners) the Sangh Parivar and its adherents are reacting to or perhaps a set of politically convenient labels, carefully construed to protect the interests of a particular group? Is the problem not within the political structure itself that allows such blatant discrimination to go by unchecked?

Is it really about Hinduism? Has Hinduism really seen a resurgence with the advent of the Sangh Parivar or has the ideology merely spawned off another nationalistic militancy, as gruesome as the Nazis`?

And who can say that once the Muslims have been removed, or ethnically cleansed or whatever passes for the murder of innocent people, the same politicians (or political ideology) will not turn against another community (maybe the Sikhs) for whatever twisted purpose?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The author writes:
[After the revolt of 1857, the British began to victimize the Muslims holding them as the arch conspirators of the revolt. Thereafter came a pro-Hindu tilt in the British policies. Educationally and economically, Muslims were already lagging behind the Hindus. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan started the Aligarh Movement in response to this backwardness of the Muslims.]

This is a myth that has been circulating now for 150 years. All that happened in 1857 was that the Moghul Emperor, whose writ did not run outside the Red Fort in Delhi, was finally dispossessed of his title of Emperor and sent off into exile in Burma. Unable to collect revenues from the governors of various provinces, the various Moghul emperors had handed over revenue collection to the British in exchange for an annual income stream. Thus Bengal was handed over to the British to do as they pleased in return for 5 million pounds annually. The emperor was willing to hand over all of India in return for 50 million pounds but the British weren`t ready nor did they have the military power or administrative apparatus to run all of India. In modern parlance, Bahadur Shah`s ancestors were trying to outsource or privatise a state function called tax collection because the earlier contractors such as the Nawab of Bengal and the Nizam of Hyderabad did not keep up their end of the contract. In case you Fakhrs missed it, the Nawabs and the Nizams were Muslims but it is the Infidel Englishmen who faithfully paid his annual rent until you Fakhrs alongside Hindus rose up in revolt in 1857.

It is not as if only the Muslims lost to the British. The Peshwas of Poona had lost power to the British and the Doctrine of Lapse as propounded by Lord Dalhousie, Governor-General of India, said that when a ruler died without issue, the state would lapse to the British. Several smaller Hindu kingdoms were absorbed into British India by this leading to the famous battle of Jhansi.

If you really think that the Moghul Emperor in 1857 exercised any real power, you need to read the history of India or look at a historical map of India. The Mahrattas were already knocking at the doors of Delhi with the Scindias in power at Gwalior and having taken over all of Western and Central India away from the Moghuls. History records that the much-vaunted emperor was usually dressed in dirty rags because even the rent paid by the British was either stolen by the courtiers or was spent on wine and opium. The history of succession to the Delhi throne after Aurangzeb, where some ruled for a few months and others were stabbed to death in the Durbar Hall by courtiers, ought to eliminate any suggestion of even the legitimacy of Bahadur Shah II as a direct descendant of Aurangzeb let alone Emperor of India.

So, the only Muslims dispossessed were the courtiers and hangers-on at Red Fort. To claim that the entire Muslim community was discriminated against by the British is a blatant lie.

Let me quote from the Introduction to ``The Indian Musalmans`` by W. W. Hunter. The book itself was published in 1871 but the introduction by Bimal Prasad is of recent origin. He says:

{Some recent studies, based on solid research, have convincingly shown that the picture of Muslim backwardness in education and employment has generally been overdrawn.....In Bengal and the Punjab, where the bulk of Muslims were agriculturists, they were, of course, backward, but this was not the case in areas like Madras, Bombay and UP. Thus in Madras between 1871-2 and 1881-2, while the number of Hindu boys going to school doubled, that of Muslim boys quadrupled. in 1885-6, one out of every 64 Muslim boys and one out of every 76 Hindu boys were in school. According to the 1901 Census, Muslims constituted 6.5 per cent of the Madras Presidency, but Muslim pupils constituted 9.7 per cent of the school-going population. Muslims were, of course, backward in higher education, but the same was true of all Hindus except Brahmins in the Bombay Presidency. Except in Sind, where the Muslims were mainly agriculturists and quite backward in education, the percentage of Muslim pupils was higher than the percentage of Muslim population. Thus in 1881, Muslims formed only 10 per cent of the population of Gujarat but over 12 per cent of the pupils. Similarly, in the Deccan, they formed only 5.4 per cent of the population, but 6.5 per cent of the pupils. Again, except for Sind, literacy among Muslims was more widespread than among Hindus. In UP, Muslims were ahead of Hindus at all stages of education, including higher education [1].}

Bimal Prasad was a professor of history at Jawaharlal Nehru University, which is known for other historians who claim that Hindu kings, not Muslim Sultans, demolished the temples of Northern India. Since you Fakhrs have the tendency to believe the latter story, you then have to believe Bimal Prasad too. In fact, Bimal Prasad at least has Indian Census figures to back his claim compared to Romila Thapar and other left-wing Hindu apologists.

Bimal Prasad goes on to say {The subject of Muslim share in government employment has been dealt with more thoroughly in an articles by Zafarul Islam and Raymond L. Jansen, published in a reputed journal in Pakistan. They categorically state that `the Muslims fared far better than has been alleged. That the Muslims were nearly excluded from ``Civil Employ`` is obviously untrue.` [2]}

References:

[1] Aparna Basu, Education and Political Development in India, 1898-1920, pp.147-150.

[2] Zafarul Islam and Raymond L. Jansen, `Indian Muslims and Public Service`, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan (Dacca), Vol IX, no, 1, June 1965, pp. 85-149.

But keep lying. That would enable the Indian Muslim to wallow in self-pity and ask for hand-outs for the Haj pigrimage so that at least his life hereafter would be better as opposed to actually buckling down to do an honest day`s work.

Zafar:

Re: “Consociational Model of Democracy” can you asnwer some questions?

---who is promoting this?
---what kind of support this has (a) in states and (b) nation wide?
---who grants and caliberates the `veto`?
---does this not impugnes the Constitution?

rgds,

t

Ref tahmed32 #4

[Today the Washington Post reports that the portrait of Savarkar (a founding father of the JSS) was hanged with much pomp and ceremony by the BJP in the halls of the Indian Parliament, alongside that of Gandhi.]

The only difference is that in Pakistan you hung the picture of that other criminal Mohammed Ali Jinnah on Aug 14, 1947.

Hindus are slow to learn.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Surprise, surprise. All the posts are from Pakistanis so far about an internal affair of India by the same people who object to Jay for keep poking finger in the internal troubles of Pakistan.

India has finally accepted two-nations-theory under BJP that Pakistan accepted and propagated since 1947. According to TNT, since Pakistanis are made up of one nation - the Muslims, Indians should be the other end of two-nation theory - the Hindus. Any problem, my fellow Pakistanis? We don`t teach devnagri or gurmukhi alphabets in Pakistan because of TNT, so India should also honor their part of TNT to stop teaching arabic alphabets at public`s expense.

All I can hope from India, on humanatarian grounds, to not treat Muslims the way we treated Hindus and Sikhs during 1947. I suggest more humanatarian solution. Take away their identity. Nothing works better in turning a group of people khassi (impotent) than taking away their language. Take away their arabic lexicon and your problem will be mostly solved. We tried with Bengalis but it backfired. However, it is working fine with rest of Pakistanis.

Re: #1,


The anti-war protests in ``Christian Lands`` have not weakened the fundamentalists as much as at should have. The Jamaat e Islaami has changed its stance to ``The clash of civilizations theory was created by America to make Christians and Muslims fight, and rule the world.``
I`m half way through an essay on this political somersault by the fundamentalists for some local and national urdu dailies.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts