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

Reading articles like this shows how seeming nonsense like TNT was, in the end, not so nonsensical and possibly required. It seems like the writer has taken arugments FOR TNT, and

This article is nothing short of more hindutva nonsense in the garb of a seemingly pro-secular stance. Of course Muslims are going to look after their own interests, and continue to do so. The JUH was a Muslim organization based in what is now India, not an Indian organization for Muslims. There is nothing wrong with that. And fact is, even if it was for benifit of their own community, they did play a role in formation of India. Anything else is worthless emoting over the issue.

If roles were reversed, would Hindus act any differently? Would they want to be dominated by Muslims again, or have seperate polity to run their affairs as they see fit?

Newsflash to clueless writer: politics is about pure convenience and opportunism. The writer probably believes this himself, but sees somthing wrong when Muslims have the same views. The writer seems to want Muslims to disentigrate as a community for the sake of being ``indianized``, or rather ``hinduized`` - fancy words for ``dominated``. Fat chance...

Just look at this nonsense:

``these fanatic clerics never thought to instill among the members of their community a sense of pride in India`s culture, heritage and unity in diverse faiths.... otherwise tolerant and liberal Hindu society. ``

Woo-hoo-hoo...and I suppose Hindu sages are imploring their followers to do what the writer wants Mullahs to do? I suppose by India`s culture, heritage and diversity we need to EXCLUDE Islam which, no matter what you say, is indeed looked on as `foreign` or `alien` to India by hindu facists, or I would even say most Hindus. Hindu-Muslim unity...as if.

Hindu`s would only accept Muslims as former Hindus, never as Muslims. Easy for Hindu`s to demand a secular polity, since they have no history of religious inspired polity, nor do they have any fears of being dominated by another community. A secular polity, then, IS a Hindu polity.

Hindu and Muslim used each other to evict the British. But for some bizzare reason, Hindus insist on having Muslims submit to a secular polity, but at the same time want them to cease having any affiliation with an identiy that goes beyond India. I think this is more of a revenge thing than anything else. Perhaps they get kicks from dominating the once dominator.

As far as a ``tolerant`` hindu socieity, give it a rest. Read the news. In any case, the different between the ``tolerant`` and the ``intolerant`` when talking about suggested threats to one`s society is that one find excuses for their hatred, while the other is simply more open about it. So, to cover for hatred of Muslims, the `tolerant` need to invoke terrorism or Jihadi`s and the need to fight them. The ``tolerant` then carry out actions to this end that make the terrorist seem tame. Wonderful...

Hindu`s like to point to their amorphous philosophy as proof-positive of it`s tolerance...fundemantlism is an impossiblity they argue. True, maybe they can`t make enough sense out of their own religion to act on it, but that`s not to say they are prevented from knowing that Muslims are different enough to show chauvanism towards them. Hindu fundemantalism is not what worries Muslim minority in India, it`s Hindu chauvanism and Hindu facism.

Bund Chungal: An excellent, well researched article which destroys many myths of the history taught to us in India. The article also provides genuine insight today into our relations with Pakistan, or rather what component of Pakistan we would like to deal with.

It reaffirms my conviction that Gandhi made the wrong choice by choosing to deal with Ali Brothers rather then Jinnah. History would have been different if Jinnah had challenged Gandhi for the leadership of all Indians rather then being satisfied with the leadership of Muslims alone. But again, maybe Indians were not ready for the leadership of Jinnah at the time.

Bund Chungal: An excellent, well researched article which destroys many myths of the history taught to us in India. The article also provides genuine insight today into our relations with Pakistan, or rather what component of Pakistan we would like to deal with.

It reaffirms my conviction that Gandhi made the wrong choice by choosing to deal with Ali Brothers rather then Jinnah. History would have been different if Jinnah had challenged Gandhi for the leadership of all Indians rather then being satisfied with the leadership of Muslims alone. But again, maybe Indians were not ready for the leadership of Jinnah at the time.

This article is a clone of

http://mumbai.indymedia.org/newswire/display/107/index.php

with author Rajat Sharma.

This is a very good article, especially the factual parts. I do think it is much to kind to Gandhi and other Congress leaders who consorted and supported islamic fundamentalists.

Shah Wali Ullah stands out as a specially troubling figure. WHen you read about figures such as these, Naipaul`s theories and the general questions about muslim converts suffering from some kind of ``Stockholm Syndrome`` become quite relevant.

Here is some of what I learnt about Shah Walli Ullah (all of it is from Pakistani sources, so please don`t screaming RSS, RSS at me):


http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A021

[quote]
Shah Wali Ullah tried to reconcile the basic differences amongst the different sections of the Muslims and considered the government as an essential means and agency for regeneration of the community. He wrote to Ahmad Shah Abdali; ``...give up the life of ease. Draw the sword and do not to sheath it till the distinction is established between true faith and infidelity...``.

His efforts resulted in the defeat of the Marhattas at the hands of Ahmad Shah Abdali and Najib-ud-Daula, in the third battle of Panipat in 1761.
[end-quote]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EC12Df01.html
[quote]
In the 18th century, Shah Wali Ullah wrote a letter to Shaikh Ahmed Sarhandi, alias Hazrat Mujadded Alf Sani, and the Mughal monarch, suggesting and advising Hindus to either embrace Islam or be ready for execution, said Dr Mubarak Ali. Shah Wali Ullah also invited Nadir Shah of Iran and Ahmad Shah Abdali of Afghanistan to invade India when the Mughal monarchy became weak after Aurangzeb. Shah Abdul Azizi and Shah Ismail, both sons of Shah Wali Ullah, were hardliners. Ismail and Shah Ahmed Badhshah started an armed struggle against the then non-Muslim ruler and refused to join with Hindus and other religious communities. Maulana Abdul Hai was another pioneer of jihad in central India. Haji Shariat Ullah also supported jihadi activities in Bengal and did not include non-Muslims in his struggle.
[end-quote]

Overall, this is a sickening story. Without in any way excusing their violent ways, it provides a background for the history of hindu revivalism (RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal etc).

When the RSS spokesman says that the british merely interrupted a war between fundamentalism islam and hindus, it now makes a whole lot more sense to me.

Bundchungal:

That has to be, flat out, THE funniest ID I have ever seen on Chowk. Bravo.

Regards,
Irfan Hamid.