A Movement in Religious Nationalism: Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Hind

I didn`t write 33....

Now having read the article, I would like to suggest that we shouldn’t get caught up with communalist interpretations of history. I hope this will allay the fears of good-intentioned Hindus when I say that Shah Wali Ullah`s attitude is not exemplary of what a good number of Pakistani’s, at least those I know, feel towards their Hindu neighbors. Our problems are contemporary, not historical...let’s keep things in perspective.

I think I read what I wanted to read in this article.

I thought the author was a Muslim!! Wasn`t the JUH anti-Pakistan? So how come the Pakis are defending it?

``Quite a difference from the great Shah Walli Ullah (200 years ago) who called for the extermination of the infidel.``

LOL, repeating a deceptive argument doesn`t make it much more palatable. Fact is, no one really cares for Shah Walli Ullah`s letter to Ahmad Shah Abdali what`s-his-face anymore. That`s old news.

Also, it`s not clear if he was speaking in general, or if he was talking about a specific group of Hindu`s (the Marathas) that Muslims were in open conflict with. Oh, but I suppose the Hindu side was not thinking the same thing at all...no, they weren`t after the deaths of `foreign` invaders. Truth be known, the Hindu warrior Kings were thinking more along the lines that if anyone was going to use and abuse the Hindu peasantry, it would be Hindus themselves!

But let us bring up old historical figures and pretend like their relevant today, or even yesterday...jeez...clue in dude. If the JUH suppoerted Shah Walli Ullah`s alleged hatred of all Hindu`s, they wouldn`t even dream of having any kind of working relationship with them. Oh, but of course...the great conspiracy comes in here...no doubt us scoundrel Muslims are all just biding our time until the time is right. Conspiracy theories, got to love `em.

#24 vertex

Thanks for educating us by publishing an article from one of the largest newspapers written by one of India`s best-known and loved authors. I am really glad you rescued this article from obscurity. Where would we be with you?

WHat is the main point of this article, oh, neo-jihadist? That Sarvarkar in 1924 articulated a theory of hindu separatism. And what is the status of non-hindus in this horrible proposal: that they are not to have the same rights as hindus. Quite a difference from the great Shah Walli Ullah (200 years ago) who called for the extermination of the infidel.

Sarvarkar`s comments reflect his limited perspective and lack of knowledge of democracy. It is also characteristic of the 20`s and 30`s when authoritarian leaders were widely admired and western democracies all had deeply racist legal rules for their minorities. India has fully repudiated this aspect of Sarvarkar`s legacy.

But what I am left with is the following insight: in 1724 the great religous leader Shah Walli Ullah called for the genocide of his hindu neighbors. The extremist hindu response took 200 years to be formulated !! And it involved not responding in kind (murder for murder) but to restrict the rights of certain groups. I will not comment any further with the differences between the two positions.

For our imaginary ``homelands`` we destroy our present homes- we need to get out of this mass schizophrenia.

``This is the theme of Virendra Prakash’s Hindutva Demystified (Virgo). He writes: “Hindutva, as articulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and adopted by Hedgewar as the bedrock of the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), has little to do with the real, noble faith of the Hindus. It is a totally artificial construct, based on a motivated and unsustainable definition of ‘Hindu’. Coining a new definition of ‘Hindu’ to suit his objectives, Savarkar developed a powerful instrument to exploit the emotions and passions of the Hindus against the rest.”

I have discussed with my hindu intellectual friends in detail about the possibility of a Hindu polity, judicial system, Hindu economics, Police, Taxation and other civil laws and I have found that none of the experts were able to EVEN state a comprehensive piece of legislation which can make India a Hindu Rastra. All this made me infer that this thing called hindu rastra is a BOGEY, an election stunt, a FICTION and a pack of cards which does not even stand scrutiny even by a child. It is only the hindu competetive communalism which tries to immitate the Islami jehadi mentality frightens me only in terms of its mass madness that it can generate in the illiterates.
But the same sort of thing can be done with any idea of `negative-solidarity` which thrives upon the concept of `otherness``- color, caste, creed, language, region.
So the problem is more about ``identity`` as a secular citizen in a multi group nation state. It is an issue that the nation states can resolve through better democratic institutions, more sophisticated electoral systems, more citizen participation in governance, electronic governance, technology, better infrastructure and other public goods.
I firmly believe that all this non-sense about religion as providing basis for modern states is just a TOOL in the hands of those ELITES who have been marginalized in the modern economy and want to GRAB wealth using these religious imageries.

I love ``identities`` which does not come from some book- all the more this makes it possible for me to invent and re-invent myself and my relations with the world and the universe- not some stupid concept of ``man as consumer of the nature`` stuff. I love to be a part of the innumerable community of societies and groups the world wide. My solidarity with my human beings is not defined by some stupid mullahs interpretation of what it should be. I love my colleagues in the modern Corporates- I feel great solidarity with them, I love my one ness with my fellow practitioners of classical music world over- I feel apathy with my stamp collector, my trekking frineds, my college fellows- all with whom I share EVEN A SMALL TRACE of my LIKINGS.
I love this modern democracy, its freedom, the expanse of science, the GUTS theory, the mathematical equations, the chemical reactions, the space, the geological discourse about this earth, the discourse about cloning, I love modern abstract arts, hermeneutics, Umberto Eco, Beetles, Derrida, Chopin, the Boeing 707`s, the escalators, my Laptop- I love this modern enlightened world-. A world that my mullahs can never think of sharing with me- and that is why I feel no solidarity with them, they are at worse obsolete pieces of baggage which my parents have dumped on me.

#20 anOrdinaryHindu

[quote]
What happened in the past should be judged by the standards of the past. What happens now should be judged by the standards of today.

Hadrat Shah Wali Ullah Muhaditth Delhvi rahmatullah alayhi did what he thought his god wanted him to do. We shouldn`t be too hung up on that.

But Hindus must carefully note the people who respect and admire these historical characters today.
[end-quote]

You have made the point I was struggling to articulate. Your last sentence is the most important. Those who venerate bigots and hate mongers of the past in today`s world are the real problem. It doesn`t matter if they belong to the VHP or the Ahle Hadith or the Catholic Church or the Communist party.

Hitler was admired in the 30`s by an enormous section of popular society throughout Europe. THere was even a politicial party in Britain that supported his ``vision``. Not all of these millions were fascists or murderers. But a hitler admirer today is a person who truly admires a perverse monster. Similar remarks apply to the hate monger Hadrat Shah Wali.

``Whether it was a Shahbano case or any other national issue like family planning or uniform civil code, JUH comes forward in communalising the Muslim psyche. Carrying the legacy of Islamic revival movement, the JUH also generated competitive communalism in Indian society particularly among the Hindus, and the on going conflict between Muslim communalism and political Hindutva as we see today is therefore the natural outcome of their Islamic communalism, which they are carrying since the days of freedom struggle.``

This stupid Competitive Communalism is responsible for the ills of this sub-continent.

`Bundchungal`.

haha. Now that`s a very innovative name.

Understanding pakistan

``The religio-cultural identity of Indian Muslims was always kept linked with Arabian identity by Ulama. This private identity became the sole identity of Indian Muslims, which never allowed inspiring Indian identity among them.``

No wonder the pre gaznavis and ghoris are the pak heros. At last the TNT has delivered a heaven for the indian muslims, They have the faisalabad, they are named tahmed bin urstruly, they have the ramadan now, the pakistanis are more beautiful and handsome, they have the true jihadic version of the religion.

What really puzzles me is what happened to the fellow freedom fighters of Jinnah, why they did not rise to power.

In india there is pension and support for the children of freedom fighters, is there a similar system in pakistan.

I know that no one will dare to answer these questions, just like the memeorial for abdus salam.

An article from HindustanTimes, quite informative.

http://147.208.132.202/news/181_4603,00300003.htm


Hindutva manufactured
Khushwant Singh
June 29

Ask any Indian or Pakistani: “Who first propounded the two-nation theory?” The immediate response will be “Mohammed Ali Jinnah”. Not correct. The first man to talk of Hindus and Muslims as separate nations was V.D. Savarkar who coined the word ‘Hindutva’ in a book with the same title in 1923. Other Hindu leaders who accepted the two-nation theory were Dr Moonje of the Hindu Mahasabha, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, founder of the Benares Hindu University, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bhai Parmanand and Swami Shraddhanand. Eminent Bengali writer Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay also supported the notion.

In Hindutva, Savarkar described Hindus as a nation because they acknowledged India as their fatherland and land of worship. Among Hindus he included Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs because their religions were of Indian origin but excluded Muslims and Christians because their religions came from outside. So he concluded that Hindus are a nation, while Muslims, Christians and Parsis are “communities or numerical minorities”.

The stream of Hindu separatism began to flow like the Paataal Ganga (underground Ganga) soon after the British overthrew the Mughal dynasty and established their rule all over India. It gathered strength from reviving and exaggerating memories of all the wrongs Muslim invaders had done to India: humiliations on battlefields, destruction of temples, imposition of the jazia tax and treatment of non-Muslims as lower than second-class citizens. Hindu warriors like Prithviraj Chauhan, Guru Gobind Singh and Shivaji who resisted them were portrayed as national heroes.

A general atmosphere was created that wrongs done by Muslim conquerors in the past had to be righted. The Indian Freedom Movement was as biased against the British as it was against Muslims. By the time the British decided to quit India, a significant proportion of Hindus felt that they should inherit the legacy of their forefathers, while the vast majority of Indian Muslims felt that they would have no future in the Hindu-dominated India. Hence the partition of the country into India and Pakistan.

India could have declared itself a Hindu State since over 80 per cent of its population was Hindu and all its neighbours had declared themselves religious States: Islamic (Pakistan), Buddhist (Sri Lanka and Burma) and Hindu (Nepal). But under the influence of Gandhi, Nehru, Azad and others, it chose to pursue a greater ideal: a modern secular State where all religious communities would enjoy equal rights.

It was too good to last. What in Nehru’s time were parties of marginal importance, drawing inspiration from Savarkar’s concept of Hindutva — the RSS, the Hindu Mahasabha, the Jan Sangh, the Shiv Sena, the Bajrang Dal — gathered strength and became the main opposition to secular forces. After indulging in mosque-breaking, church-burning and attacks on missionaries, they went on to perpetrate pogroms.

They have become the rulers today. However, their days are numbered because an increasing number of Indians have come to realise that if India is to survive as a nation and march forward, it must remain one country, reassert its secular credentials and throw out communally-based parties from the political arena.

This is the theme of Virendra Prakash’s Hindutva Demystified (Virgo). He writes: “Hindutva, as articulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and adopted by Hedgewar as the bedrock of the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), has little to do with the real, noble faith of the Hindus. It is a totally artificial construct, based on a motivated and unsustainable definition of ‘Hindu’. Coining a new definition of ‘Hindu’ to suit his objectives, Savarkar developed a powerful instrument to exploit the emotions and passions of the Hindus against the rest.”

Virendra Prakash is a product of Harvard University, a civil servant who held important positions in the government of India. He retired as chief secretary and later headed Delhi’s first finance commission. He knows the Sangh parivar like the back of his hand.

What happened in the past should be judged by the standards of the past. What happens now should be judged by the standards of today.

Hadrat Shah Wali Ullah Muhaditth Delhvi rahmatullah alayhi did what he thought his god wanted him to do. We shouldn`t be too hung up on that.

But Hindus must carefully note the people who respect and admire these historical characters today.

Maharana,

``In this statement is the seed of pathetic mentality seen worldwide. Muslims first, humans last.``

Give it a rest. When talking about politics, EVERYONE is something else first, human second. Grow up. Is the writer of this article talking about human unity, or hindu-Muslim unity? Is the writer of this article talking about a global human identity (which doesn`t exist anyway), or the formation of an Indian nation? What kind of lame argument is this?

``I can understand RSS using this argument and the FACTS of genocide perpetrated by many islamic invaders alongwith destruction of temples and forceful conversions to further their bigoted vision.``

There, you said it. Feel any better? You sympathize with fascists...you`re a closet fascist. Let it out, and be known. Just don`t pretend you`re all nice and tolerant like.

Yes, yes, many Islamic invaders were responsible for a horrible genocide against the peace loving Hindu people who had no army to even defend themselves....oh wait...no, Hindus actually put up a fierce resistance at times, and...what`s this? Many hindu rulers ended up co-operating with the conquering hordes and were in part responsible for the subjugation of (an already subjugated) `India`. And what do we have here? Oh yes, the fact that Muslims couldn`t have maintained control over India without co-operation from Hindu rulers...oh my...this history thing can get mighty complicated, no?

But what gets my goat is that several centuries later, we still have these RSS idiots whining about it l...jeez...I pray we Muslims don`t whine about the loss of the Ottoman Khalifah and French/British colonialism for that long...I personally have reached my tolerance limit. But now the Americans are starting their own imperial franchise...oh great....at least another 50 years of whining...damn.

``Pray inform us about the argument of your dear mullahs for the need to safeguard their interests in a nation that was ruled by them for centuries.``

Centuries that were, at the time, a century or more ago. Are you telling me that when the British were leaving, Muslims were about to re-establish their dynasties over India? No, they weren`t. And from what the writer tells us, the JUH would have been content with their own Muslim areas in a federated India. I`m sorry, but that, despite some allegedly unsavory characters involved with the JUH, is not that big a deal. They were wary of a polity dominated by Hindu`s...what`s your problem with this? Most muslims at the time were....

``Why was it so difficult for the same community to live like brothers with the rest after
independence.``

What?!?!? Are you telling me that Hindu`s regarded the Muslims amongst them as ``brothers``? What was it about the partition carnage that makes you think that? Yeah, I love you brother, here...let me toss your children into this lovely bonfire...(and before you spaz out, do make note that the above sentance makes no mention of a specific religion...but then again, I suppose Hindu`s were the victims again, and only Muslims committed the violence...is that a FACT as well?). Don`t give me this hindu-muslim bhai-bhai business...is this what they teach you in school?

Maybe this is why you feel something like betrayal...you were taugt to beleive that Hindu`s looked at Muslims as siblings, but in turn did not return the ``love``. Well, forgive me if I don`t buy into your mythology. Trust me, the reality was different.

``When in power, it crushes the non-ummah, but in minority pleads about human rights and safeguarding its ``own interests`` or else demands separate nation.
I hope such people get a planet of their own and let this world breathe better.
Adios ``

Well, how about their own country? That is, after all, what they wanted...and in some sense, got. Yet, you guys still feel betrayed by TNT?