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

#48 vertex,

``Oh give it a rest. For one, I`m not even Pakistani.``


Congrats Romair!!

Yaar, you should at least inform, No. Citizenship papers all cleared. Proud Canuck now, eh?!

#48 vertex

[quote]
These movements are in lands that are viewed as ``Muslim`` areas, not only by the Muslims themselves but by non-Muslims as well.
[end-quote]

oh, yeah and how do ``muslim lands`` get defined? By murder and ethnic cleansing of minorities? Any region of the world where there are two or more muslims?

Silly statements of this sort expose your two-facedness and hypocrisy. You carefully ignore the roots of islamofascism (such as this Shah Walli Ullah and his many followers, even in this day) but you are happy to justify violence and murder for any muslim group that feels it should be independent. As Tom Friedman has aptly remarked, this sense of islamic superiority unsupported by fact underlies many of the conflicts that muslims face with their neighbors.

#43 by tahmed32 on November 12, 2003 12:39pm PT
saminshah #41 you write ``Two nation theory first propounded by Sir Sayeed Ahmedkhan


Arun Shouri`s book ``controvercies in modern india first published in 1991
this book dedicated som 60 page on Sir Sayeed and his lactures and with lot of references

Ref Urstruly #42

[They (JUH) were your allies for crying out aloud. You Hindus didnt even spare them. I hope now after 50 years JUH will be able to see why Pakistan was inevitable. And why another Pakistan is inevitable.]

In case you have forgotten, the other Pakistan is called Bangladesh.

saminshah #51 thanks. i googled shourie and see that he is a controversial bjp journalist. no wonder this is the first time i have heard anyone refer to sir syed referred to as anything other than a promoter of modern (british style) education among indian muslims.

#53 by tahmed32 on November 13, 2003 6:01am PT
for your kind information souri is now IT telecome and disinvestment minister of india.he is in BJP since some 6 years.he is most respected and named journelist for investigation in india.Just done more research on shouri on net and u believe it.And in this book he not told us Sir Sayeed told this or told that.He prove that with lot of raferences of Sir Sayeed`s lactures to muslims and lot of books write on sayeed by muslim authers.more than 60 page on sayeed.

First Sir Sayeed totaly against to Muslims Join in congress because he convinced that muslim have to be with british not against british.
Second he agrassively campaign for education for muslims but generally failed to get muslims to education
third in his lot of lactures he try to prove muslims and hindus are two defferant nations.

tahmed32:
Arun Shourie is perhaps the most intelligent hindutva ideologue. He is perhaps also the brightest minister in the Vajpayee cabinet. He has been in the BJP for the last few years but he established his reputation as a fearless journalist. His integrity is impeccable and respected by even his opponents.
I personally admire him for a number of qualities. He was one of the very few journalists who refused to buckle under Indira Gandhi during the Emergency. Public service runs in his blood; his father pioneered the concept of public interest litigation, which has brought about so many positive changes in India through judicial action. But what I remember most about him is his taking considerable risk to uncover massive rigging of the J&K assembly elections in 1984. He is perhaps the only Indian journalist to have won the Magsasay Award.
I have not read any of his books but they have been very controversial. But I do know that whatever he says, he backs it up with painstaking and detailed research. His big problem is that he is totally politically incorrect. He had Muslims up in arms with a book called religion of fatwas or some such controversial title. He wrote an unflattering biography on Ambedkar - the one icon no one can dare touch in India these days - and had dalits throwing shoes at him more than once.
Now to Sir Syed. No, he is not the only one who has credited him as the originator of the two nation idea. I have seen scholarly articles in Dawn doing the same. But one has to be careful in using a terminology which could mean different things to different people at different times. As a panjabi you would know how loosely we use the term ``qaum`` such as jat qaum, rajput qaum, sikh qaum, hindu qaum, bengali qaum and even angrez qaum. In other words, a hotch potch of ethnicity, language, religion, race, religion, etc.
Before Sir Syed, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs expressed their identities in local terms and religion was merely a matter of personal faith. But Sir Syed appealed to Indian Muslims as Muslims and gave them a political identity. This does not mean that he was thinking in terms of a separate country for Muslims. And while he called his college Muslim College, he did not restrict its admissions to Muslims alone.

Vetex # 48,

``I saw it, and how you ``understood`` them. Sympathy for bigots makes you what?``

To put this matter at rest, please elaborate on how my statement about RSS using real atrocities commited in the past as a platform for their bigoted vision implies my sympathy for them.
I have tried to show you a contrast where, one bigot is using factual information to further a discriminating ideology and the other furthering a bigoted vision based on an ideology of being different than the rest of humanity by virute of belonging to islam. Eventually the result of both these ideologies is the same, dislike, distrust, discrmination etc. The modern ideology of jewish state is based upon their experience of holocaust in a big way. Which is to defend their interests. And yes holocaust was real. Although the ideology furthered by them today cannot be justified, only understood in terms of their traumatic experience. In the same way, RSS is trying to use the past as a tool to justify defending the interests of hindu community. I understand their grievance, but do not believe, that anything justifies atrocities to avenge past genocide. And hence my argument again, ``What arguments do the mullahs have in a nation where they have ruled and oppressed others to form a group/nation to protect their interests``.
By the same logic, Brahmins, the much maligned community in india, should have demanded a separate nation to safeguard their interests. Specially so in light of today`s reservation policy of the government discriminating against them in a big way. But do you even see a brahmin group formed to fight the government and protect their interests?
Why should they be punished for what their ancestors have done?
So here you have on one hand, muslims whose ancestors have persecuted the rest busy ``taking care of their interests`` today in light of imagined dangers, and the brahimns as the evil doers who should be punished without remorse for their ancestors` actions.
Hypocrites!!!

Adios

vertex#48
``there`s a reason why Pakistani youth are going to KASHMIR ``

Purely altruistic reasons of course. Their hearts bleed whenever they perceive ``injustice``. Thats why there are so many of them in Camp XRay. I`m still wondering why they aren`t in Tibet fighting the Chinese??

``it`s debatable if that`s part of your country, but you won`t let them decide...``

Right. We should follow Pakistan`s example and ``gift`` away something that doesnt belong to us to someone else(China). Or negotiate with people at gunpoint.

You know what, I totally agree. We should allow every crackpot with a gun in his hand to form a new ``country``. That`s real nation building. Don`t worry about these foolish banias. They`re just too thick-headed to understand real intellectuals like you.

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

Maharana

In order to understand people like Vetex you need to look at the case of South Africa. When power shifted into the hands of the majority blacks, some Africaner whites who had ruthlessly ruled over the blacks rushed to demand a separate nation (Volkstaat). They were arguing that their `interests` will not be protected in a black South Africa ruled by the blacks.

The only difference between South African whites and Pakistani Muslims was that international political conditions had changed by the time South African whites demanded their own country. So the white bogey that South African blacks and European whites were `two separate nations` was summarily dismissed.

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

dost mittar #55 thanks for the added info on shourie which certainly removed some of my ignorance of indian politics. i also looked up his website, and it did seem to me that he was more extreme in his views than i can relate to (for example, he presented some arguments on why babri masjid wasnt a mosque at all because people had not being praying there - this from a federal minister on an sensitive issue that is dividing two vast communities in india). but, things are not all black and white, and you are right in pointing out the positive things he did in india as well.

as for sir syed, what you say makes sense. too bad sir syed was so actively opposed by the maulvis, but he did seem to have had some impact - a number of people i know went to aligarh university. indeed, the fact that we had a muslim middle class at all (led by jinnah) indicates that sir syed`s efforts at spreading modern education among muslims were not entirely fruitless. i used to know some of his great (or great-great or something like that) grandchildren incidentally, who had moved to pakistan. they were all a very handsome family.

#61
It may interest you that Shourie also is an economist by training and was with the world bank for a long time. He returned to India in his late thirties-early forties and became a muckracking journalist.

shori`s critical book on ambedakar is ``worship of false god``
and other interesting book on fatwa is ``world of fatwa``

Rational faith ,

What you say is true. Unfortunately, in many regions of the world, muslims still would like to separate themselves from the others in the region and form a nation. Can the present muslim separatists in various parts of the world take lesson from the white afrikanners? The answer is obvious.
As I mentioned in my first post, pakistan has been created, great!! Now lets get on with our businesses as usual. But no, its kashmir now, tomorrow something else.
We`re living in an age where the absolutist tendencies of religions are being brushed aside for the sake of progress and welfare for humanity in general. Unfortunately, some sections of the world population do not wish to give up their discriminating ideologies. Personally i believe, such people are devoid of any purpose in their own lives and hence use the crutch of religion. Its fine by me. But when the same ideology creates violence to others, then, we have a problem at hand.

Adios