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

It pains to see two of my friends, nasah and mantolives, fighting a duel over interpretation of history. There will always be different perspective and interpretations of these events. It is best to agree to disagree and move on to deal with the real enemies of progress and modernism in today`s world.

manto wrote

Ask any alim from deoband what he thinks of Mahmud Ghaznavi and he will tell you, that he considers him a hero. The antecedents for the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind were `Mahmud Ghaznavi, Shah Wali Ullah, Ahmed Shah Abdali`..

My criticism of certain of the ulama of deoband is well known and the Ahle Sunnat supporte the Pakistan Movement BUT these three illustrious names are heroes for ALL Muslims not just deobandis. They are certainly my heroes and also Allama Iqbal`s heroes as he has praised them in his poetry and his books.

Only so Kemalists, atheists, agnostics, modernists, and other such folk will not consider these above 3 names as heroes for the Muslims. Akbar is and was hated by all traditional Muslims of Indo-Pak. In fact I am sure a vast majority of Muslims in India and Pakistan will hate him to this day.

``Jadd e man Akbar, akbar neest- akfar ast!`` --these are the words of Hazrat Aurangzeb Alamgir which are in Persian and mean, ``My grandfather Akbar is not akbar [ar: great] but akfar [ar: the biggest kafir]!``

If it wasn`t for people like Sayyidina Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi -may Allah be pleased with him!--and Shah Wali Allah Muhaddith Delhvi (may Allah be pleased with him) real Islam in Hindustan would have been swallowed up by Hinduism under the guise of Unity...and Pakistan would never have come into being...

Though the Ahle Sunnat ulama voted in favour of Pakistan and supported Jinnah they made it clear they were voting for an Islamic State...

Dear Nasah,

I have no desire to quote you anywhere... you are neither impartial nor balanced. I am afraid I can`t argue with someone like you who is utterly closed up, illogical and set in his prejudices and biases, that he is unable to recognize right from wrong... If despite their anti-women stances, their own charter quoted in my last post, their openly expressed hatred for Hindus, their clearly opportunistic aims and objectives in supporting the Congress Party, and their hatred for all things modern, you describe the JUH to be more progressive than Jinnah, League and Aligarh Modernists... then I am sorry your logic is warped.

Your blatantly arrogant statement about Jinnah can`t change the facts. No less a person than your first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru has called Jinnah one of the most progressive Muslim leaders of the time in his book ... history has accorded the title of `advocate and best ambassador of hindu muslim unity` to only one man, and he was certainly not from Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind... and Bulbil-e-Hind, Sarojini Naidu definitely didn`t praise Madni...


Honestly it pains me greatly to learn of your affection and admiration for me. I would rather you had the same contempt for me that you share for the founding fathers of my country... because while I like being called `secular` and `progressive` .... obviously the meaning of those words is totally different for you. Clearly my `progressive` role models like Allama Iqbal, Jinnah, Sir Zafrullah Chaudhry, Mian Iftikharuddin, Abul-Hashim, Khaliquzzaman, Agha Khan and Faiz are not progressive to you since they were part and parcel of the Pakistan Movement ...

---

No matter how much fellas like Nasah will distort history ... the fact remains the Muslims were divided into two camps... one camp was a cross section of the Muslim society the western educated barristers, former Congressites, Aligarh educated Youth, businessmen, intellectuals, poets, socialists, capitalists, feminists and Sufi saints... In this camp all sects were represented, there were shiites, Ismailis, Agha Khanis, sunnis, ahmadis, pervaizis, and barelvis .... and this camp had the close support of the scheduled caste hindus... this camp is the league camp and hence according to Nasah `backward`...

The other camp was the camp of conservative deobandi and ahle-hadith ulema. They hated the Hindus but considered British to be even bigger kafirs... they considered all Shiites and Ahmadis to be Kafir... and they wanted to set up Shariat courts all over India.. they did side with the Congress because for some weird reason the Congress leadership made the biggest blunder of coopting them instead of supporting the league, which had an identical manifesto to the Congress... that blunder cost Congress dearly... the women hating, khilafatist, traditionalist, orthodox, exclusively deobandi Muslims are according to Nasah `Progressive`.

-YLH

my dear YLH -- I was just kidding -- I have not insulted you -- I have a lot of affection and admiration for you and for your scholarship -- and expressed it many times in previous posts -- actually I have told you that one day I want to see you as the secular prime minister of a democratic Pakistan .....

the thing that really surprises me that after I have been posting on Chowk for the past two years -- you think that I am an apologist for a retrograde medieval religious organisation like Jamiat -- that prevailed upon an inexperienced Gandhi kid to make a mess of Shah Bano case -- do you think I support Muslim Personal Law?

-- the trouble is that you don`t read other people post unless you have to start a fight with them.

As I said I agree with whatever you say about the regresive Islamic religious organizations like Jamiat or Jamaat in Pakistan or in India -- they partly or solely ARE responsible for the backwardness of Muslim masses in both India and Pakistan -- their hold on Muslims is a barrier of Himalayan proportion against modernization of muslims masses.

to remind ME as to what the Jamiatis did or do to women is an insult to your intelligence and mine as well -- by now we all know what these religious organizations stand for vis a vis women - secular education sciences etc etc.

what I was trying to correct the notion that the Islam of 40`s was not as virulent and extremist as it is today --

it even tried to keep religion out of politics -- separate Islam from the state -- opposed Islam as the basis of creating Pakistan -- had some of the most cordial relations with the Hindu community -- and they were indeed progressive enough to fight the British Colonials -- not as Jehadis -- but with the mainstream means availble to them at the time --side by side with the Hindus and the Christians --

when you look back considering the Islamists of today -- that coming from a fundamentalist religious organization in 40`s -- was just amazing --

they certainly were NOT fanatics -- they were more level headed and progressive than Mr. Jinnah (and I know now that`s going to raise your temp) to realize with the Indian National Congress -- that mixing Islam with Politics is a dangerously flammatory explosive cocktail -- that will explode one day -- and burn one day both the bartenders as well their clients.....

that is why I wrote that sentence that the Jamiatis of 40`s were more `secular` that many of us Hindus and Muslims of today....

and you can `quote` ME now -- anytime anywhere you like to do so..:-) .......... as an `impartial` authentic eyewitness of one of the most DISGRACEFUL periods in the history of that gorforsaken subcontinent -- the partition of 1947......

Mantolives, Nasah

It seems clear that Muslim views were as complex and multifaceted as Hindu ones. That makes it much easier to look ahead and not be enslaved to any one particular past. The two of you also appear to agree on the kind of future you would like to see for both Pakistan and India. IMHO, that is the most important factor.

(Just in case you choose to ignore this post as you have done so before I am reposting #107 for your benefit, though I know I won`t find a proper answer from you... just more insults, a side of you which we have been exposed to many times.)


Nasah

That post was intellectual dishonesty at its worst. It seems that an `old man` like yourself is completely devoid of any integrity whatsoever... and I explain how:

`my bookish lad YLH -- I did not change my entire tone`

Wonderful... Now we are back to the regular insults... if you can`t prove something then you make up insults. First of all we don`t know if you really were an `eye witness` as you claim to be and secondly It is an important fact that those who are in the heat of the moment are too prejudiced by their own perception to come up with a dispassionate analysis.

``Abdussattar Ghazali (Islamic Pakistan Illusion & Reality)``

You are trying to pass this off as a book ... This is NOT a book... it is an Internet Website and even this which you are now trying to pass off as scholarly work reaches very similar conclusions to what I am saying... that the Ulema who wanted Muslims to remain orthodox were opposed to the Muslim League for being `too westernized` were opportunist enough to stand by the Congress Party despite their latent hatred for Hindus.

`every tom dick and harry`

Yes I suppose books and articles by Ayesha Jalal, Wolpert, Khushwant Singh, Kuldip Nayyar and Wilfred Cantwell Smith are not much of a historical source... wonderful. While the website historian Abdussatar Ghazali`s quotes out of context are .... Brilliant Nasah ... Brilliant I say.

``The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan.``

I have repeatedly said that there was NOTHING `Islamic` or `theocratic` about the Pakistan idea. It is you who are saying it had a religious basis. It was a Political demand by a number of politicians who had now estimated that they would not get a fair share for their community. Whether they were wrong or right is another matter entirely. Pakistan was theoretically based on South Asian Muslim Nationalism, and not a religious doctrine ... that much is clear. The JUH, as is apparent from their charter, also believed in an Islamic nationalism... which according to them was not limited to Indian Muslims, but the Muslims of the entire world, and this was based on the religious concept of Ummah.


Here are some questions that You the `EYEWITNESS` to history have deliberately avoided:


1) What was the `Progressive` JUH`s view on women`s role in society?

2) What was the view of JUH on intermarriage? Why did its `brilliant progressive` leaders call Jinnah a Kafir for marrying a Parsi?

3) What was the view of JUH on Modern Education? Why had they been opposed to Sir Syed`s legacy and the Aligharh Educational movement?



Here is the `secular` and `progressive` Charter of the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind :

* To guide the followers of Islam in political and non-political matters from a religious point of view;

* To defend on Shariat grounds, Islam, centres of Islam (holy places of Islam and the seat of Khilafat), Islamic rituals and customs, and Islamic nationalism against all odds injurious to them;

* To establish and protect the general religious and national rights of Muslims;

* To organise the Ulama on a common platform;

* To organise the Muslim community and to launch a programme for its moral and social reform;

* To establish good and friendly relations with the non-Muslims of the country to the extent permitted by the Shariat-I-Islamiyah;

* To fight for the freedom of the country and religion according to the Shariat objectives;

* To establish Shariat courts to meet the religious need of the community;

* To propagate Islam in India by way of missionary activities in India, and foreign land

* To maintain and strengthen the bond of unity and fraternal relations (as ordained by Islam) with Muslims of other countries.



Hindu Muslim Amity:


It is true that the opportunist ulema from deoband, due to their latent Hatred for the Muslim modernists of the league, did endorse Congress`s politics for a brief period... but it was this political opportunism on the part of the Ulema for they were well known for their rabidly anti-Hindu views... Ask any alim from deoband what he thinks of Mahmud Ghaznavi and he will tell you, that he considers him a hero. The antecedents for the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind were `Mahmud Ghaznavi, Shah Wali Ullah, Ahmed Shah Abdali` .... whereas the League leadership was most impressed by the genuine Muslim hero of the time `Kemal Ataturk`. That alone should be an indication of where these two parties stood in their view of religion.

Here is what your Maulana Madni had to say about Hindus:

``If Dara (Shikoh) had triumphed, Muslims would have stayed in India but not Islam. Since Aurangzeb triumphed, both Muslims and Islam were here to stay`` (Muslim Politics in India - Hamid Dalwai, 1969, page 71). ``According to Maulana, the faith Dara followed was not genuine Islam because Dara wanted to tolerate Hindus. He did not insist on the rule of the Shariat. From the above views of Maulana it should be clear what kind of Islam a majority of ``Nationalist Muslims` subscribed to and what in the final analysis, their great goals were`` (ibid). For Madani ``all non-Muslims are the enemies of Islam and Muslims`` ( Muslim Nationhood in India - Safia Amir, 2000, page 179).


Like Wilfred Cantwell Smith points out the Ulema of Jamiat-e-ulema Hind were neurotically opposed to any social change... but according to Nasah mere support of the Hindus at one brief period in history made them progressive. Isn`t it ironic when their own charter talks not of `South Asian Muslim Nationalism` but of `PAN-ISLAMIC NATIONALISM`.

---

Also You accuse me of `rewriting history`: Please give specific references how I have rewritten history... Answer these questions:


1) Is it untrue that the League leadership at one point before the great parting of the ways was staunch Secular Indian Nationalist? Wasn`t Jinnah called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity?

2) Is it untrue that the Secular nationalist Leaders like Jinnah amongst Muslims were sidelined by the Khilafat Movement in 1920?

3) Didn`t Nehru bypass the Muslim League which in 1937 had a mirror image manifesto as the Congress Party?

4) Did the Deobandi Ulema (your favorite progressive JUH) not oppose women`s participation in Politics?

5) Did the Deobandi ulema not criticize Jinnah and his ilk for being `Kemalist` in their thinking?


Please do inform me where I have `re-written` history through the works of Ayesha Jalal, Wolpert, Khushwant Singh, Kuldip Nayyar, and Wilfred Cantwell Smith? I am curious to know... but ofcourse I expect you to just repeat this lie as you have been repeating others on this board.

-YLH

Errata

post 110 (General):
That is `Ghazali` not Niazi

Post 109 (General):
The words great and progressive should be in quotation marks.

FURTHERMORE:

(Note to Nasah bhai/uncle ... the following is Quoted from YOUR OWN SOURCE `Abdussatar Niazi`s Islamic Pakistan illusion or reality`)


``The Ulema thought in terms of a glorious past and linked it unrealistically to a nebulous future of Muslim brotherhood. This more than anything else damaged the growth of Muslim nationalism and retarded the progress of Muslims in the sub-continent.[22]

The nationalist Ulema failed to realize this simple truth and eventually found themselves completely isolated from the mainstream of the Muslim struggle for emancipation. Their opposition to Pakistan on grounds of territorial nationalism was the result of their failure to grasp contemporary realities. [23] They did not realize that majorities can be much more devastating, specifically when it is an ethnic, linguistic or religious majority which cannot be converted into a minority through any election.[24]

The Ulema, as a class, concentrated on jurisprudence and traditional sciences. They developed a penchant for argument and hair splitting. This resulted in their progressive alienation from the people, who while paying them the respect due to religious scholars, rejected their lead in national affairs. While their influence on the religious minded masses remained considerable, their impact on public affairs shrank simply because the Ulema concentrated on the traditional studies and lost touch with the realities of contemporary life.[25] ``

Finally ... Why was Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind opposed to making of Pakistan ?

The great leader and progressive alim of the JUH, Janab Syedana MAULANA HUSSAIN AHMED MADNI SAYS:

`It is non-Muslims who are the field of action for this tabligh (propagation and conversion activities) of Islam and form the raw material for this splendid activity... we are opposed to the idea of limiting the right of missionary activities of Islam within any particular area (by creating Pakistan). The Muslims have got a right in all nooks and corners of India by virtue of the great struggle and grand duty to maintain that claim and try to widen its scope instead of giving it up``

(Maulana Madni, 1945)

Note: This quote is reproduced from Indian Nationalist Muslim author, Hamid Dalwai`s book `Muslim Politics in India`

At Partition:

There was one party amongst the Muslims, the Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind, successors of Shah Wali ullah and Syed Ahmed Sirhindi, who considered Akbar to be the worst thing that ever happened to Muslims, and Ahmed Shah Abdali the best thing, whose leadership and ideology historically had been opposed to modernity, who had opposed the Modernizing efforts of Sir Syed, had criticized the Young Turks` Revolution and then the Kemalist Revolution in Turkey, openly incited hatred against Christians and therefore the British, condemned all things western or European, forced women inside the houses, were opposed to any and old participation of women in politics, who stopped Muslims from acquiring trade and commerce skills, and who agitated for a world wide Islamic Khilafat which would dominate the non-muslim world.

According to Nasah they were progressive simply because they opposed the League and sided with the Congress, while League leadership which was the inheritor of Sir Syed`s modernist legacy, educated in the west or Aligarh, who were originally allied with the Congress but had moved away from it, who wanted Muslims to acquire modern education and learn the skills of trade and commerce, who repeatedly put up Turkey as an ideal model for the Muslims to follow, who brought Muslim women to the forefront of politics... were backward, simply because after 20 years of experience, and negotiations they had decided to follow Iqbal`s idea... which was of a Modern South Asian Muslim Majority Republic within or without India.


-YLH

Nasah,

That post was intellectual dishonesty at its worst. It seems that an `old man` like yourself is completely devoid of any integrity whatsoever... and I explain how:

`my bookish lad YLH -- I did not change my entire tone`

Wonderful... Now we are back to the regular insults... if you can`t prove something then you make up insults. First of all we don`t know if you really were an `eye witness` as you claim to be and secondly It is an important fact that those who are in the heat of the moment are too prejudiced by their own perception to come up with a dispassionate analysis.

``Abdussattar Ghazali (Islamic Pakistan Illusion & Reality)``

You are trying to pass this off as a book ... This is NOT a book... it is an Internet Website and even this which you are now trying to pass off as scholarly work reaches very similar conclusions to what I am saying... that the Ulema who wanted Muslims to remain orthodox were opposed to the Muslim League for being `too westernized` were opportunist enough to stand by the Congress Party despite their latent hatred for Hindus.

`every tom dick and harry`

Yes I suppose books and articles by Ayesha Jalal, Wolpert, Khushwant Singh, Kuldip Nayyar and Wilfred Cantwell Smith are not much of a historical source... wonderful. While the website historian Abdussatar Ghazali`s quotes out of context are .... Brilliant Nasah ... Brilliant I say.

``The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan.``

I have repeatedly said that there was NOTHING `Islamic` or `theocratic` about the Pakistan idea. It is you who are saying it had a religious basis. It was a Political demand by a number of politicians who had now estimated that they would not get a fair share for their community. Whether they were wrong or right is another matter entirely. Pakistan was theoretically based on South Asian Muslim Nationalism, and not a religious doctrine ... that much is clear. The JUH, as is apparent from their charter, also believed in an Islamic nationalism... which according to them was not limited to Indian Muslims, but the Muslims of the entire world, and this was based on the religious concept of Ummah.


Here are some questions that You the `EYEWITNESS` to history have deliberately avoided:


1) What was the `Progressive` JUH`s view on women`s role in society?

2) What was the view of JUH on intermarriage? Why did its `brilliant progressive` leaders call Jinnah a Kafir for marrying a Parsi?

3) What was the view of JUH on Modern Education? Why had they been opposed to Sir Syed`s legacy and the Aligharh Educational movement?



Here is the `secular` and `progressive` Charter of the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind :

* To guide the followers of Islam in political and non-political matters from a religious point of view;

* To defend on Shariat grounds, Islam, centres of Islam (holy places of Islam and the seat of Khilafat), Islamic rituals and customs, and Islamic nationalism against all odds injurious to them;

* To establish and protect the general religious and national rights of Muslims;

* To organise the Ulama on a common platform;

* To organise the Muslim community and to launch a programme for its moral and social reform;

* To establish good and friendly relations with the non-Muslims of the country to the extent permitted by the Shariat-I-Islamiyah;

* To fight for the freedom of the country and religion according to the Shariat objectives;

* To establish Shariat courts to meet the religious need of the community;

* To propagate Islam in India by way of missionary activities in India, and foreign land

* To maintain and strengthen the bond of unity and fraternal relations (as ordained by Islam) with Muslims of other countries.



Hindu Muslim Amity:


It is true that the opportunist ulema from deoband, due to their latent Hatred for the Muslim modernists of the league, did endorse Congress`s politics for a brief period... but it was this political opportunism on the part of the Ulema for they were well known for their rabidly anti-Hindu views... Ask any alim from deoband what he thinks of Mahmud Ghaznavi and he will tell you, that he considers him a hero. The antecedents for the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind were `Mahmud Ghaznavi, Shah Wali Ullah, Ahmed Shah Abdali` .... whereas the League leadership was most impressed by the genuine Muslim hero of the time `Kemal Ataturk`. That alone should be an indication of where these two parties stood in their view of religion.

Here is what your Maulana Madni had to say about Hindus:

``If Dara (Shikoh) had triumphed, Muslims would have stayed in India but not Islam. Since Aurangzeb triumphed, both Muslims and Islam were here to stay`` (Muslim Politics in India - Hamid Dalwai, 1969, page 71). ``According to Maulana, the faith Dara followed was not genuine Islam because Dara wanted to tolerate Hindus. He did not insist on the rule of the Shariat. From the above views of Maulana it should be clear what kind of Islam a majority of ``Nationalist Muslims` subscribed to and what in the final analysis, their great goals were`` (ibid). For Madani ``all non-Muslims are the enemies of Islam and Muslims`` ( Muslim Nationhood in India - Safia Amir, 2000, page 179).


Like Wilfred Cantwell Smith points out the Ulema of Jamiat-e-ulema Hind were neurotically opposed to any social change... but according to Nasah mere support of the Hindus at one brief period in history made them progressive. Isn`t it ironic when their own charter talks not of `South Asian Muslim Nationalism` but of `PAN-ISLAMIC NATIONALISM`.

---

Also You accuse me of `rewriting history`: Please give specific references how I have rewritten history... Answer these questions:


1) Is it untrue that the League leadership at one point before the great parting of the ways was staunch Secular Indian Nationalist? Wasn`t Jinnah called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity?

2) Is it untrue that the Secular nationalist Leaders like Jinnah amongst Muslims were sidelined by the Khilafat Movement in 1920?

3) Didn`t Nehru bypass the Muslim League which in 1937 had a mirror image manifesto as the Congress Party?

4) Did the Deobandi Ulema (your favorite progressive JUH) not oppose women`s participation in Politics?

5) Did the Deobandi ulema not criticize Jinnah and his ilk for being `Kemalist` in their thinking?


Please do inform me where I have `re-written` history through the works of Ayesha Jalal, Wolpert, Khushwant Singh, Kuldip Nayyar, and Wilfred Cantwell Smith? I am curious to know... but ofcourse I expect you to just repeat this lie as you have been repeating others on this board.

-YLH

my bookish lad YLH -- I did not change my entire tone -- you want to rewrite history by quotations from books -- but they still do not mean they are true -- you can prove any point by some quotes from any number of articles from any number of books by any Tom Dick Harry writer -- still they don`t prove that is the history --

a glimpse of history that I gave you was an eyewitness history -- u r too bookish to appreciate that rare priviledge...:-)

any way

to `prove` `My Point` -- something you love to do with the `written words` of others -- that the Jamiatis WERE progressive in terms of Hindu Muslim amity and in terms of opposing creation of Pakistan based on religion in 40`s -- here is a `quote` from a book by a Pakistani writer about Jamiatis of India:

``“The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan.

Its president, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, who was also Mohtamim or principal of Darul Ulum Deoband opposed the idea of two-nation theory, pleading that all Indians, Muslims or Hindus were one nation.

He argued that faith was universal and could not be contained within national boundaries but that nationality was a matter of geography, and Muslims were obliged to be loyal to the nation of their birth along with their non-Muslim fellow citizens.

Maulana Madani said: ``all should endeavor jointly for such a democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis are included. Such a freedom is in accordance with Islam.`` [14] He was of the view that in the present times, nations are formed on the basis of homeland and not on ethnicity and religion.[15] He issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims from joining the Muslim League.``

Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani accepted the doctrine of Indian nationalism with all enthusiasm and started preaching it in mosques.

This brought a sharp rebuke from Dr. Mohammad Iqbal. His poem on Hussain Ahmad [16] in 1938 started a heated controversy between the so-called nationalist Ulema and the adherents of pan-Islamism (Umma). ”
Abdussattar Ghazali (Islamic Pakistan Illusion & Reality)......:-)

those who live by quotes die by quotes.....:-)

Nasah,

So now you have changed your enite tone... now JUH is not what you are arguing for, but instead it is your own `dismay` at the `league`. Sadly you haven`t even tried to argue your case. Simply because you say something doesn`t mean we have to accept it. If those were really your assertions about the Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind, shouldn`t you have proved it through some facts ... Yes it was strange that the religious forces decided to side with the Congress at that point, but it doesn`t prove in the least bit that they were in favor of Hindu Muslim amity. That entire concept is alien to the Deobandi ideology, and the article proves it convincingly.

As for the leaguers... most of them had been part of the Congress Party, and you yourself know that Mohammed Ali Jinnah is the only politician to be called `Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity`... infact the league leadership consisted of most of those western educated non-religious Muslims you talk about and claim to be representative of... why did they turn from that to a separatist demand, there already has been a lot of discussion on it. Have you had the opportunity to read Ayesha Jalal`s `The Sole Spokesman`?

The answer lies in the divorce between the modernist Muslims and Hindus at the onset of the Khilafat Movement. For better or for worse, Gandhi coopted the extremist muslim religious element in his freedom struggle, and alienated the educated Muslim political elite. This alienation was complete in 1937 when the very secular Nehru went over the top of the moderate Muslim League and made alliances with the fanatical religious elements of Jamiat-e-ulema-hind.

If I am quarterbacking post-game in the adoration of the `father of the nation`, why don`t you prove me wrong by quoting some facts?

-YLH

Maharana,

I need not check any references since i know the history of hindukush is speculative. The reference I cited is truthful in its assessment, which in part acknowledges as a possibility your interpretation. No amount of tail chasing can change that.

It is telling, though, that the hindutva types (again, you’ll find that crap littered over the web) add that the name of the mountain was chosen by Muslims to remind Hindus of their pending fate. This is complete nonsense, and there is no factual basis to support any possible motivations for naming mountains, if indeed Muslims were the one who called these mountains Hindu Kush. This reading of history is added for obvious reasons...

``Not so. Indian history books do not echo RSS propaganda on any such legacy of muslims.``.

Oh, I know. Its not Indian ``propaganda`` I`m interested in. My qualms are with the RSS types and those who would make excused for them. I am not of the view that India is a lost cause! Far from it! Curious, do you think I am misusing the term hindutva? What does that term mean to you? I’m curious because you seem to think I’m attacking India...

vertex,

``Specific (alleged) incidents ``

Please go through the list of references i`ve provided in #86 about hindukush before you jump to ``alleged``. If that does not satisfy you, some US university history websites will enlighten you. Quoting one encyclopedia which is in contradiction to other researched and published works is not a proof of alleged incident. Bible is included in the list of non-fiction best-sellers. But there is no evidence of its authenticity as a historical document in any researched and published works.

``What is a reworking of history is to suggest that this is the sole legacy of Muslims on the subcontinent.``

Not so. Indian history books do not echo RSS propaganda on any such legacy of muslims. ``Reworking of history`` would be if education boards and universities in india would include RSS version as part of history. As an example of reworking look into pakistani history books. In india and elsewhere, there are groups like KKK, neo nazi`s etc who put up crap on websites. That does not become ``Reworked history``.

Adios

Manto if you want some `lavish praise` from me I would be glad to give it to you -- my point in stating the reality of religious politics involved in prepartition days on the Muslims side was the one I described --

Jameatis were all those you describe they were BUT -- strange as it may sound -- during that historic moment in the history of the subcontinent -- the religious forces of reactionary Islam were on the side of Hindu Muslim amity and were full partners with Hindus in the fight for Independence -- and totally opposed to the creation of Pakistan -- whereas the so called enlightened ones -- had no intention to take on the British -- were sitting on the fence -- some were even helping the Britsh to quel the rebellion --

and most darkly were using Islam and the Hindu Hatred to the hilt for political purposes -- this is what I saw 56 years ago and tried to point out the strange dichotomy of Muslim politics... from my point of view...

you can do all the Monday morning quarterbacking you want -- attribute all the precious secular qualities to Jinnah and the Muslim League -- in adoration of the father of your country --

but as we the secular non-religious Muslims of India knew and saw to our toatl dismay at that time -- that the sword of Islam that was unsheathed by the Muslim League to divide the country and carve out two quarters of a loaf -- of a country -- under so much bitterness rancor and hatred -- will be first raised against your own head --

and the result is right there -- before us -- how Islam the bane of politics in Pakistan tore up Pakistan into pieces...despite such an `enlightened leadership` under Jinnah.....:-)