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

re: Arun Shourie
I admire Shourie. I believe he is one of the few incorruptible people in Indian politics. That fact in itself should elevate him to a high esteem in many people`s eyes. But, he has more to his credit, many of which i will not repeat here and have been highlighted by Dost Mitterji.
I used to read his columns in a website called www.indiaconnect.com until he became a federal minister and stopped writing in that column (or they stopped publishing his articles). His articles are painstakingly researched. His article on madrassa education in Pakistan appeared in the early 90s even before this became a big issue.
He is a guy to watch out for and has all the potentials for being a P.M.
I don`t think he is anti-Pak or anti-muslim just because he is in BJP. He just goes by his own evaluation of the problems, which are usually backed by facts and research.
Sridhar

maharana,

”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.”

Your attempt at giving credence to the re-workings of history by the hindutva types, and at the same time trivializing of any possible Muslim grievance or concern in a Hindu-dominated India shows your biases. Or are we supposed to deny the fact that the RSS and their likes aren’t tampering with history one bit?

No one is denying the brutality of some Muslim tyrants on the subcontinent, but the RSS is hell bent on portraying the entire Muslim presence as first, foremost, and possibly only an anti “hindu” exercise - to this day. Also, to bring that past up, defunct empires no less, to support contemporary political agendas is stupid. Your attitude is that at least there is some historical basis for their bigotry. That IS to some degree supporting their position. My argument is that history that old is irrelevant for our current relations. Is that really so difficult to see?

“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.”

Well so long as you insist that their ideology can no longer be justified, I somewhat agree. We can indeed sympathize with the sufferings of the Jewish people…however not to the extent that we point out that the Palestinians didn’t suffer the same amount, and so by default dismiss the Palestinian cause outright or pretend like they should have no issues and simply bend over and except Israeli domination.

“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.”

Genocide?!?! Do you know what the word means? Genocide is a systematic campaign to eliminate a people. No honest reading of the (yes, often brutal) history of Muslim rule on the subcontinent can lead to that conclusion. This is the kind of re-working of history I’m talking about.

“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’. “

They, themselves, personally? What arguments are necessary other than current concerns? Historical ones? And who says these sentiments are restricted to mullahs?

”By the same logic, Brahmins, the much maligned community in india, should have demanded a separate nation…”

Let them. I can’t speak for Brahmins…I am not a Brahmin. If they want my support, they have to convince me and I’ll judge (like all of us would) based on a bunch of criteria. If they are suffering, I will gladly help them out in their time of suffering, but I can’t guarantee support for any of their causes. Give them their own state, for all I care...

“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.”

Oh, let’s just invent arguments, whack down the straw man and call it a day. Nice.
And I love this generic “Muslims whose ancestors have persecuted”….business…hell, according to your reading of history my ancestors WERE persecuted, and converted to escape the living hell the evil doing Muslim hordes made India (from that previously pristine, just, heavenly, unified land)…that’s why I’m Muslim today…no? The RSS an imagined danger….ha ha….you’re a riot. And who the hell brought Brahmins into this?

Yes, Muslim rulers from time to time persecuted Hindus, (and other Muslims along sectarian/poltical lines, but we can’t let history get in the way of a good old fashion victim complex, can we?). But it’s interesting that your opinion of your ‘fellow’ Muslims is that of descendents of persecutors (like that has got anything to do with them, anyway), and not simply as ‘Indians’ …so much for unity.

You then later wrote,

“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… 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. “

Oh please. If anything is a bigger ‘discriminating ideology’, then I would say it is nationalism. What’s stopping me from making the same arguments about Hindus and Muslims vis a vis the former British Empire? Nooo…we pesky brownies wanted independence…spare me this human unity crap. You almost seem to be arguing against the concept of a nation altogether. If not, then at least bless us with your wisdom on who should and should not get their own nation.

rsridhar,

If Pakistan is kept together by the gun or the whims of a few, then I don`t want it to exist.
A nation should be for it`s people, not the other way around. Clue in dude...

RationalFailth,


“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. “

Before I begin, I want to make it clear that I support the right to self determination, but I am not making the claim that Muslims should give up on India and abandon it. Far from it. Just that it’s THEIR prerogative either way. Now…

Comparing the literal black and white issue of South Africa to the complexities of Muslim and hindu rule during the period of Muslim conquests shows the lack of historical depth these fascist types have.

Let’s not forget that you glossed over the fact that both Hindu and Muslim communities remained disjoint after British rule…where’s the comparison there? The idea was to forge a new Indian nation based, in large part, on these two communities from the territories that were controlled by the British (there was no ‘India’ per sae except this pre-1947). Now we have one community defining itself as de facto Indian, and the other (it seems – please do correct me if I’m wrong) viewed as “alien”. That comes across loud and clear in this article. What’s more, we have some people making demands on these aliens to effectively shed their Muslimness for some fictitious ‘Indian’ identity – ‘emotional’ integration, whatever the hell that means. It’s not enough that as a poltical entity Muslims are willing to work with Hindus, no…Muslims must cease to be Muslims and become Indians. Not just in political arena, but at the social level as well.

This very article proves how Islam is regarded as alien, were we have Muslims asserting themselves in a way that seems genuinely advocating cooperation with Hindus (and I would be the first to condemn the JUH if they in fact had ambitions to harm Hindus), and this is simply rejected as fanatical religious nationalism. In other words, anything to do with Islam is non-Indian – couldn’t possibly have anything to do with India, could it?. On the other hand, we have thinly veiled defense for the RSS types, who openly advocate hostility towards Muslims…and these guys are ‘Indian’ ultra-nationalists who apparently have some sort of legitimate historical basis for their hate – and even more ridiculous is that their views are somehow equivalent to those Muslims who regard themselves as a distinct community within India.

Emotional integration indeed. It seems like this integration is one way, where Muslims must integrate into a Hinduized India and Hindus are free to treat Islam like a foreign presence in their domain, to be tolerated only at a private level. Secularization of politics is one thing, the `secularization` of society is a different one…especially when this ‘secularization’ presumes the legitimacy of one relgio-cultural group in a region over the other.

The fact is, the Muslims talked about in this article supported India, and just because they had the ‘audacity’ to think that somehow they were a distinct community with different needs (which was more true at the time than now), they are somehow less Indian…traitors or usurpers in fact. The fact is these Muslims recognized the Hindu presence on the subcontinent as legitimate, and were willing to work along side them regardless on differences in view on how each should be governed.

The demand for the assimilation of Muslims is nothing more than the old-school politics of dominance that has been in the region for the longest while. It`s interesting that the view of Muslims is that of a people who have by and large created their own problem...so on the one hand we have half-hearted condemnation of the BJP types, but quickly we get stupid comments like (from the writer):

``In fact, they never made any assertive effort to define the role of Islam for relationship of Muslims with the Hindu-majority of India. In the absence of this fair play, their political Islam generated a negative doctrine of Hindutva against the Muslims.``

So even when muslims are targets/victims of hate, they in the end are somehow responsible. Wow...muslims `generated` the vitrolic varient of Hindutva...is their no end to the debauching of history?

#48 by vertex

``Here`s a radical thought: how about letting the Muslims decide if they want to stay or not! ``

Good idea. Let Mushy the dictator of Pakistan implement this concept in Baluchistan, Sindh and NWFP. But then, Pak does not even have a democracy. why talk of people`s rights? This is like a whore talking about chastity.
Sridhar

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

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

#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.

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.

=== 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

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.

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

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.

#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.