[Reader-list] What if Jaswant was a Muslim

[Rajendra Bhat Uppinangadi]

Dear Javed,

     and all,

     as a matter of fact, your post reminds of words of a scholar who
studied and still studying and teaching humanities at reputed university,
the words explain human nature of being a social animal, and also survival
instincts and ofcourse the urge to be powerful in the society.

   In the landmass inhabited by all living beings, in any walk of life, if
we observe, the following facts stand out very clearly.

1. In work place if you have any person from one region, he will try his
best to get some more from his region to his place of work. Once the number
becomes sufficiently large, the person and set of people with him, become
the leaders of this group. As the number grows, the group begins to see
dissent, then, the individuals start aligning themselves on the different
aspects, like caste, faith or some other cultural aspects, the example that
comes to my mind is those of individuals from Kerala, popularly called as
mallus.

Once the opportunities at gulf countries gave substantial livelihood to
many, the first to rush to gulf were from this region, doing any type of
work, janitors, toilet house keeping etc, initially all grouped as
malayalis, later as the number grew, it became bodies of Muslim malayalees,
nairs welfare etc. Even in muslim malayalis the group further split as
malabari muslims, or bearies, and other muslims, and the issue was of
leadership and being in the tv limelight for this hardworking individuals,
as we see even in power corridors of Newdelhi, Manmohan wants his Montek,
menon wants his mallu countersparts in seats of power. !

 Even in groups of individuals following one faith, when it comes to
leadership, the divide begins on the lines of subsects, shias and sunnis,
wahabis etc, altimately, it is power to control the group that matters even
in civilised society.

 Shahruk and his craving for publicity, the feel of self importance, is
subject matter of joke in tv shows in western world after his "detention"
for few minutes for security checks, as the sponsors were of dubious nature
according to some media reports.Shahruk started with imitation of whomsoever
was iconic, starting with Dileep Kumar, later took on Big B, now, efforts to
debunk yesterday heroes of tinsel town, is obivious for his urge to be
Badshah of today as winds of resistane for him at box office is visible and
clear.!

More of the thesis tomorrow.!

Regards, Rajen.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: "Sherwani Mustafa" <sherwanimk at yahoo.com>
>
> ‘Mr. Jaswant Singh! What if you were a Muslim? –Dr. M.K.Sherwani
>
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ***
>
>     The real motive of Mr. Jaswant Singh in praising Jinah and
> asserting that Muslims in India were treated as ‘aliens’
> notwithstanding, he deserves all praise for bringing this reality
> before  full public glare. Demonizing Jinah, it is a historical fact,
> was a conspiracy hatched by Nehru and Patel to put the entire blame
> of partition on Muslims of India , so as to project them as a
> hallucination for unifying the divergent Hindu society. The Congress
> was successful in this venture and kept Muslims under psychological
> fear so that they would resign themselves to their subordinate status
> in Indian polity. It was the reason of this ugly legacy that political
> assertion by Muslims has always been branded as their pre-partition
> mindset. The Congress experiment was so successful that different
> so-called secular parties which emerged during the course of time
> also deliberately followed this experiment so as to perpetuate the
> Muslim status as a vote bank. Its impact  was so pernicious that the
> whole concept of ‘secularism’ has come to revolve around it directly
> or indirectly, and the community has always remained content with the
> false promises of ‘security’. Parties may come and go, Muslims may
> rush from one to another, but their fortune is unlikely to change
> except for a few doles off and on.
>
>              Mr. Jaswant Singh is fortunate that he is not a Muslim
> otherwise  he would have been prosecuted for sedition or associated
> with ‘Lashkare-Toiba.’ To make the point specific, I am producing my
> own article which had expressed almost the similar views, and the
> consequence was the 15 years ordeal with criminal prosecution under
> sections 124a( sedition) of Indian Penal Code. The fact itself speaks
> of how Muslims have been looked upon with suspicious eyes.
>
> ( This article was published  in Radiance Viewsweekly , Delhi in 28
> October- 3 November,1984 issue. On the basis of this article , the
> Government of India launched in 1985, criminal proceedings under
> sections 124a (sedition) and 505(b)  of Indian Penal Code. The
> Criminal case (State  VS Ameenul  Hasan Rizvi and others) numbering
> 159 of 1985 continued at Tees Hazari Courts, Delhi till 25 July, 2000
> .Besides myself, the other two accused were  the editor, Syed Ameenul
> Hasan Razvi  and Printer, Mohammad Iqbal Warakwala. After the
> acquittal , I wrote a book ‘SECUALR  HORROR -  A TRUE STORY OF
> FIFTEEN YEAR ORDEAL WITH  INDIAN SECULARISM’ in which I  narrated my
> harrowing experiences  during the trial of the case. It was published
> in 2002 by Pharos Media  and Publishing Pvt. Ltd., D-84, Abul Fazal
> Enclave,1, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi ,25. (<www.milligazette. com>online
> bookstore)
>
>
>
> Dr. Mustafa Kamal Sherwani, LL.D.
>
> Chairman,All India Muslim Forum, Lucknow , India
>
> sherwanimk at yahoo. com
>
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ***
>
> Secularism    vis-à-vis Hindu Chauvinism
>
> ************ ********* ********* *
>
>     When we talk of secularism  it does not denote the meaning  and
> definition  of a particular system  which carries the same connotation
>  and practice in all the states, characterized  by this word. What the
> essence of the word ‘secularism’ is, depends  upon a variety of
> factors  existing  in a particular state , e.g.  the composition of
> the society , the potentiality of  the minority groups and the
> prevailing international circumstances. To my mind the concept of
> secularism  presupposes  the existence of more than  one religious
> entities  otherwise  there can be nothing  towards which the state
> may show a secular outlook.
>
>             Human history has made it abundantly clear  and a
> free-lance  thinker does admit  that some societies adopt  secularism
> in  a real sense  of the word  without any fluctuations, and  some
> have to adopt it reluctantly  just for the sake of a safe survival  in
> the international community. For example, the  Islamic secularism ,
> though in the contemporary parlance termed as  theocracy, is the real
> manifestation  of what the secularism  in fact signifies, because it
> envisages a real responsibility  of the majority community  towards
> the religious freedom  and social and economic protection  of all the
> religious groups. One may easily witness this secularism  in all the
> states which have been declared  as Islamic  Republic. The  other
> category is very well represented  by our Indian  secularism  which in
> practice is  nothing short of Hinduism, and which in  turn is  the
> synonym of  Indian nationalism.
>
> Shrewd Via Media
>
>        In this context , if we dispassionately  analyze the  reasons
> which  compelled our national leaders , including a staunch  Hindu
> like Mr. Patel, to adopt secularism ,and  tolerate in India, such a
> large number of Muslims, especially when the country was partitioned
> on Hindu-Muslim basis , and Pakistan was declared a Muslim state , we
> may easily conclude that it was on account of circumstantial
> constraints  and not a voluntary act. Our national leaders were well
> aware of the fact  that there are so much inherent  contradictions in
> the Hindu society  that it was not and  can never be  united by
> common  fundamental religious principles, and , therefore,  the only
> device to introduce  a certain spirit of coherence in it  was the
> hypothetical  deterrence of Muslim  domination.
>
>               Thus ever since independence , the communal riots were
> engineered  with twin objectives, i.e. the subjugation of Muslims  and
> the initiation of the process  of unification amongst Hindus.As
> regards secularism, it rather thrust itself  upon the leaders  because
> India as a declared  Hindu state  could never survive  in the
> international community for two reasons. Firstly, Hinduism is a
> territorial concept, and as a religion has nothing to offer in the
> international arena  in order to compete with other dominant
> religious philosophies of  the world, i.e. Islam and  Christianity,
> and secondly,  as a theocratic state  it could not survive  in the
> wake of the overwhelming  Muslim population and  the oil-rich  Islamic
> states in the world. Thus, the only  way open to our national leaders
> was to discover  a shrewd via media  which could, on the one hand,
> make Hindu philosophy as the  salient feature of  the Indian
> administration,  and ,on the other, use the pretext of secularism  to
> show its credentials in the outside world.
>
>        It was from this viewpoint that  secularism was adopted  as a
> hypocritical measure , and the nationalism was sought to be
> interpreted  in the context of Hinduism. As a part of this strategy,
> the Muslim culture was gradually sought to be eliminated , though
> religious freedom to the extent of prayer  was accorded, and  the
> Muslims were looked upon  with suspicious eyes  as the symbol of
> disruptive forces  and anti-national elements. Whenever there are
> reports of  conversions  of Hindus to Islam in a voluntary manner – a
> practice which is guaranteed by  the Constitution – a lot of hue and
> cry is  raised against it , saying that the foundations of Indian
> secularism  are based upon the Hindu majority. Besides,  in every
> department and  at every place , there is so much depiction of  Hindu
> culture, either by way of idols of gods  and goddesses  or otherwise ,
> that even a cursory glance  makes one believe  that India  is not a
> secular but  a Hindu state.
>
>          In other words, what is done  by a Hindu or  under the
> nomenclature of  Hinduism, howsoever anti-national it may be , is
> brought within the precincts of nationalism, but whatever is done by a
> Muslim , howsoever replete with nationalism it may  be,  is bound to
> be branded as  anti-national : thus leading to an inevitable
> conclusion  that nationalism and Hinduism  are the two facets of one
> single phenomenon , and communalism and anti-nationalism  are the
> inseparable ramifications of Islam.
>
>          Muslim heroes are always condemned  as foreign invaders, and
> Hindus who revolted against  the well-established  Muslim
> administrations  are heralded as nationalists  who gave up their lives
> for the preservation of Indian nationalism. If the South Indian Hindus
> oppose Hindi , it is a regional problem, and if a Muslim does it , he
> is a communal element. If Professor  Vasudeo Singh  vociferously
> criticizes his own  party’s decision  about Urdu, he remains as much
> faithful to the party and the nation as ever, but if a Muslim Minister
> or legislator  even praises the government’s decision  in this regard,
> it is interpreted  by the persons like Mr. Balraj Madhok  as the
> Muslims’ reversion to  the pre-partition  policies.
>
>           If the Hindus of South  burn the effigy of Ram  and worship
> Ravan, it is nothing but the regional differences  in Hindu rituals ,
> but if a Muslim makes  even a fair comment in these sensitive matters
> , it is his attempt at destroying  the Hindu culture. If Hindu
> scholars  produce misleading historical facts  to convince the masses
> that Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar  were built by Hindu rulers, they are
> praised  for their wonderful research work, but  if a Muslim dares to
> present  the correct picture , he is pooh-poohed  as the supporter of
> those  who allegedly  ruined the Hindu society  and its culture.
>
>         If the same trends continue, the time is not far off , when
> shocked by  the  overwhelming  rush of Hindu  devotees  to the mazars
> of Muslim sufis , some  brilliant Hindu scholar  may startle the
> nation  by proving through his  astonishing research work  that the
> great saints  like Khwaja  Moinuddin  Chishti of Ajmer, Hazrat
> Nizamuddin Auliya  of Delhi , Haji Waris Ali Shah  of Deva, Hazrat
> Shah  Mina of Lucknow and many others  were in fact Hindus  and their
> names were changed  under the Muslim rule.
>
>             Apart from the above , the developments in Punjab may
> well establish  that the sophisticated arms  allowed into golden
> temple  and nothing else done  by the Sikhs  was termed as  a
> separatist or secessionist  activity  till the time  they did not
> vehemently  assert  that they are non-Hindus . Once the government was
> convinced  that by saying that  Sikhism was  totally distinct from
> Hinduism, the Sikhs really  mean business , the separatist tendencies
> could no longer be tolerated . Paradoxically , the government and
> Hindu masses  are still bent upon  inculcating into the minds of Sikhs
>  that they are Hindus , and their secessionist trends are being
> brushed aside  as a momentary aberration  of one of the two  real
> brothers  against  the other.
>
>            Not only this , the dismissal of Farooq Abdullah’s
> ministry  was hailed all  over  the country , and the opposition
> parties raised voice  against it  just for the namesake, because
> fortunately or  unfortunately, he happened  to be a Muslim. This may
> just be contrasted  with the similar fortune  of Mr. N.T.Rama Rao
> which triggered off the nation wide outcry, resulting into his
> reinstatement. The controversial  and the most sensitive cow tallow
> scandal  was hushed up and given a silent burial  as the persons
> involved in it  were the Hindus , the great devotees of cow. God
> forbid, had there been even the remotest  association  of Muslims in
> it , the country would have certainly  witnessed  nation wide
> communal riots.
>
>           In view of the above facts, no impartial observer can evade
>  the logical  conclusion that  under the garb of secularism, India is
> a Hindu state, and  Hinduism is a symbol of nationalism . Therefore,
> it is my  humble suggestion  that either  India be declared  a Hindu
> state  or secularism  must be observed  and practised  in its letter
> and spirit.
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>




-- 
Rajen.