Posts Tagged ‘partition of India’

June 15, 2008

 

Sunday, June 15, 2008

 

How MJ Akbar humours the Brahminical leadership over the small mercies of partition!

 

In his article: ‘How Pakistan insulates India from terror’, published in The Times of India’s Sunday Edition of today, June 15, 2008, author M. J. Akbar, bents over backward to convince India’s Brahmin leadership, that after all, given Pakistan’s existential dilemma with the more boisterous Muslim fundamentalists and extremists, India should count its blessings, that the partition, which was used by the Hindu establishment, against Indian Muslims, as their eternal sin, has turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as Pakistan has become a buffer state between India and the menace called Afghanistan/Pakhtunistan (the Taliban/Al Qaida country).

 

M. J. Akbar, however, correctly points out another blessing that the creation of Pakistan indirectly had gifted to India. British army, comprised of 50% Muslims, overwhelmingly the ‘martial race’ from the North, which, in undivided India would have been difficult to handle, if the Brahmins had mistreated Indian Muslims, as their record of last 60 years has anything to go by.

 

I would say, M. J, Akbar is rather hasty in his judgment. The menace from the north is yet to fully unfold and India cannot remain insulated from the storm, if and when it envelops Pakistan. Treatment of Indian Muslim should be taken up on its own merit, with due dispatch.

 

 

For Indian Muslims, another blessing of the sort should be evident. They will not have to fight a Brahminical or American war, as they are the neo-dhimmis in India, being kept out of the fighting forces.

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

 

 

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Daily/skins/TOI/navigator.asp?Daily=TOIM&login=default

 

 

How Pakistan insulates India from terror

 

By  M. J. Akbar

 

   A few days ago, the government of Pakistan abandoned a ceasefire pact with insurgents operating across the tribal Pakistan-Afghanistan border, reached by Pervez Musharraf but reasserted by his successors in power. On June 11, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, said in Washington that any future terrorist attack on his country would probably originate in this region, known by its acronym, FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas). This had become the most secure base of al-Qaida, he added, after the fall of the Taliban in Kabul.

 

   Why has al-Qaida become a cancerous bone in Pakistan’s throat, with the country neither able to digest it or spit it out? There is general agreement across different elements of the Pakistan establishment that swallowing this bone will infect the body politic beyond cure. But instead of surgery, there is a paralytic helplessness as al-Qaida and Taliban beliefs and prescriptions seep into street, village and towards the foot soldiers that form the core of any armed force.

 

   Both the army and newly elected democrats fumble when faced with a basic, if provocative, query: Why is Islamabad fighting America’s war against fellow Muslims? The overlap between Pakistan’s ‘national’ interest and the interests of the ‘Muslim Ummah’ has been further blurred in the northwest frontier by a shared ethnicity that has never recognized the Durand Line as a barrier between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

   Islamabad’s dilemma revives a question that raged on the sidelines of the Partition debate between 1940 and 1947: Could united India ever have a secure border on its northwest frontier? The Khyber Pass was the traditional “gate” to Delhi. Would the Muslims of the region, and their brethren in the united Indian Army, secure the gate or open it for any Muslim invaders? The British, it is commonly known, regretted the division of the British Indian Army much more than they regretted the partition of British India. Others were not so sure. Among them was Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, the great Dalit hero who considered himself neither Hindu nor Muslim and was thus above the growing bitterness between the two.

 

   The Secretary of State for India revealed a trifle reluctantly, the ethnic composition of the British Indian Army in the House of Commons on July 8, 1943: Muslims were 34%, Hindus 50%, Sikhs 10% and the rest 6%. But these were wartime statistics, when emergency recruitment had altered the traditional balance, or imbalance. It was believed that the Muslim proportion of the peacetime British Indian Army, driven by the “martial races” theory and the belief that Frontier Muslims were superior soldiers, might be as high as 50%. There was no question that the army of a united India would retain a high percentage of Muslims, largely recruited from the frontier; political pressure from Muslims would ensure as much.

 

   Would Muslim soldiers be immune to the lure of pan-Islamism? The Muslim League had resolved that the Indian Army should not be used against Muslim powers, conflating Indian and pan-Islamic interests. It was also recalled that during the Khilafat movement (1919-1922), Muslims displayed potentially explosive angularities. Maulana Mohammad Ali had invited the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India and conquer Delhi with the help of an Indian uprising.

 

   Dr Ambedkar argued that India was better off divided, because it could not remain a secure state with such confused loyalties at its porous crown. A new ‘Hindustan’ army, created out of the resources of divided India, would be untroubled by dual loyalties. Given that Pakistan has few answers to the incessant diet of bombs and suicide missions, we need only to pause and consider the havoc that a strong Qaida-Taliban movement would have caused across the cities of the Indian subcontinent if it had not been substantially, though not completely, insulated by the Indo-Pak border. Imagine the nightmare of an undivided India.

 

   Indian Muslims, who consciously opted for their motherland, paid a heavy price: they were not to be fully trusted with the defence of India. No one doubted their patriotism in the 1962 conflict with China, but during the 1965 Indo-Pak war, they were picked up arbitrarily and detained without trial by the Congress government of Lal Bahadur Shastri. The heroism of Havildar Abdul Hamid was treated as an exception. This prejudice was a major reason for minimal Muslim presence in the Indian Army and police services.

 

   The Indian Muslim mind shifted from a pseudo-glorification of the idea of Pakistan in the 1940s to fear, resentment and uncertainty over the next two decades. Bangladesh was the turning point; it was clinching evidence that Pakistan was not a paradise for Muslims, but the preserve of a regional culture and mentality that was not ready to treat every Muslim as an equal. Indian Muslims abandoned, completely, any residual temptation for Pakistan. This is not just my effort to be politically correct. There is evidence: the complete lack of interest that Indian Muslims have displayed towards the Kashmiri insurrection has puzzled and frustrated the self-styled “pan-Islamic jihadi” organizations who expected Indian Muslim support in the effort to terrorize the Indian state and people.

 

   When Indian Muslims get angry, they do so for their own reasons, not for Pakistan’s. Muslims born in free India are not ready to be victimized for the mistakes of their fathers. This is an assertion of equality, part of the confidence gifted to them by the unique democratic values of the Indian Constitution.

 

   The violent Sikh upsurge of the 1980s reminded India that there was more than one potentially hazardous minority, and that the politics of indifference could not be sustained.

 

   The most heartening image of contemporary India, to me, are the slightly funny pictures of young Muslims puffing their chests to meet physical criterion during periodic recruitment drives for the Indian Army or paramilitary forces.

 

   I wish Indian politicians would appreciate that the politics of patronage is no substitute for the politics of indifference. Patronage is essentially demeaning, and serves only small Muslim cliques who enrich themselves at the cost of the community. The Indian Muslim wants to be treated as an equal. He is waiting for the establishment to appreciate the true nuances of the term.

 

 

COMMENTS POSTED ON ‘INDIAN MUSLIM’ BLOGSITE

May 31, 2008

 

COMMENTS POSTED ON ‘INDIAN MUSLIM’ BLOGSITE:

 

Saturday, May 31, 2008

 

There is serious flaw in not considering within proper context, Maulana Maududi’s verdict on Muslims that remained back in India, after an ‘Islamic state’ is formed where their religion and their Islamic way of life was to be protected from the kind of discriminations that were the starting point of the demand for a separate state/province for Muslims.

 

MM was responding to a question, the notorious kind that journalists invariably ask, more for argument and less for information. MM’s sarcastic line of argument should not be interpreted to mean that he ‘advocates’ or ‘prefers’ harsh treatment of Indian Muslims by their new ‘Hindu’ rulers. He possibly was encouraging them to appreciate the quality of religious and social life they will enjoy in the new Islamic state of Pakistan and at the same time scaring them of the dire consequences of remaining back in ‘Hindu’ India. He was all for Muslims to migrate in the best tradition of our beloved Prophet (PBUH).

 

At that stage, neither MM not Maulana Israr Ahmed, could have imagined that India, at least legally as per its constitution, would not become a Hindu religious state; even though in practice it already had become a Brahmin dominated state. Religious freedom to some extant was available to Indian Muslims in British rule too. But the thought of British handing effective power to highly communalised Brahmin rulers of independent India, was naturally nightmarish to practically all Muslims across the board, in terms of new religious/political changes in the country.

 

In the event, even though India is still highly communalised, its legal system, its constitutional safeguards to a large extent, give Indian Muslims a fair chance to rise up and even govern the country, if they can play the political game according to the new rules of the game. If a US or Israel can organise and manage a peaceful ‘regime change’ without firing a single shot; who has stopped the Muslims to get their due in their own land.

 

The problem with Muslims and especially with the Indian Muslim in the context of present discussion is that they just do not have what it takes to assume the role of the leader of the nation or nations. A shift of focus from the clamouring about immediate bread and butter issues to the higher level of resolve to help humanity at large could possibly bring in much better results. Islam at this juncture has so much positive to contribute to the world, that it will be a big mistake if we the Muslims should squander our energy and intellectual assets to fight internecine one-upmanship.

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com

 

 

Indian Muslims <http://indianmuslim.in&gt; 

 

Maulana Maududi’s Terrifying Vision for Indian Muslims

 

Posted: 30 May 2008 06:49 PM CDT

 

Maulana Maududi’s estranged disciple and Tanzeem-e-Islami chief Dr. Israr Ahmed appearing on the Jawabdeh program of GEO television in 2005 made some startling remarks about Indian Muslims. According to a published report of the program in the liberal Daily Times he reportedly said the following:

 

 In an Islamic state non-Muslims would be second-class citizens. He said if India decided after that to declare all Muslims second-class citizens then that would be right too. He said Muslims had fought in India on the claim that they were a different nation. There was no harm if India considered its Muslims a separate nation.[1] 

 

Dr. Israr Ahmed’s lack of concern for the protection of the rights of India’s Muslims is hardly surprising when looked through the prism of the views of his mentor Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi. Both were comfortable with a possible political scenario in India where the nation’s Muslims were reduced to second class citizens.

 

In the often cited Munir Commission report Maulana Maududi emphatically said in reply to a query that he will have no problem if Indian Muslims were treated on par with the Malechas or “untouchables.”  He was asked the question, “If we have this form of Islamic government in Pakistan, will you permit the Hindus to base their constitution on the basis of their religion?” He reportedly replied, “I should have no objection even if the Muslims of India are treated in that form of Government as shudras and malishes and Manu’s laws are applied to them, depriving them of all share in the Government and the rights of a citizen. In fact, such a state of affairs already exists in India.”[2]

 

But the venerable Maulana later on denied making such a statement. In a letter to Dr. Nejatullah Siddiqi, he wrote:

 

There is a fair amount of distortion in things attributed to me in Munir Report. Actually, I did not say that Manu’s Dharma Shastra be introduced in India, and that I would concur with the treatment of Muslims as Mleccas and Shudras. In fact these were [Justice Muhammad] Munir Sahib’s own remarks which he attributed to me. His question was: “If you want an Islamic government, would you then agree if a Hindu government is formed in India, where Manu’s Dharma Shastra would be introduced.” What I had told him [Justice Munir] was that it is up to Hindus to decide what they wanted to do and what they did not want to do. They will not ask us what form of system they would establish. Our task is to work according to our belief and faith wherever we have the option. As to India , there the Hindus will do whatever they want to whether we agree with them or not.”

 

Despite the denial there are at least two other instances where the Maulana made known his contempt for Indian Muslims?  A booklet titled Jamaat-e-Islami Ki Dawat contains a speech made by Maulana Maududi on May 10, 1947. In it he says:

 

It appears now certain that the country will be partitioned. One portion of India will be given to the Muslim majority and the other will be controlled by the non-Muslims. In the first part (Pakistan) we shall mobilize public opinion to base Pakistan’s constitution on the Islamic laws. In the other part we will be in a minority and you (Hindus) will be in a majority. We would request you to study the lives and teachings of Ramchandra, Krishnaji, Buddha, Guru Nanak and other sages. Please study the Vedas, Puranas, Shastras and other books. And if you cull out any divine guidance from these, we would request you to base your constitution on this guidance. We would request you to treat us exactly on the lines of the teachings of your religions. We would raise no objections. [3]

 

Further evidence of Maulana Maududi’s disdain for Indian Muslims is evident from his following answer to a question regarding the permissibility of a Pakistani male citizen marrying an Indian Muslim female:

 

Answer: As far as I know the Quran’s derivative is that there can be no relations of inheritance and marriage between the residents of Darul Islam and Darul Kufr…From now on there should be no marital relations between Indian and Pakistani Muslims.”[4]

 

This shows that the Maulana not only disregarded the plight of Indian Muslims but also considered them unequal to Pakistani Muslims.

 

It is the good fortune of Indian Muslims that the founding fathers and the present rulers of   India did not heed the calls of Maulana Maududi or an Israr Ahmed. As it is the nation’s imperfect democracy has relegated the community to the most backward status. One can only imagine what would have been the scenario if a theocracy was imposed upon them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_4-10-2005_pg3_3

 

[2] Report of the Court of Inquiry …to Enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953. (Lahore: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1954), p.228. Cited in Dr. Omar Khalidi’s ‘Between Muslim Nationalists and Nationalist Muslims: Mawdudi’s Thoughts on Indian Muslims. (New Delhi: Institute of Objective Studies, 2004)

 

[3] Cited in S.E.Hasnain’s Indian Muslims: Challenges & Opportunities (Bombay: Lalvani Publishing House, 1968) pp.51-52.

 

[4] Mahnama Tarjumanul Quran, September 1951. Cited in Khalid Waheed Falahi’s Hindustan Mein Zaat Paat Aur Musalman.  p. 357.

 

 

Mumbai Taxi Driver : COMMENTS POSTED ON INDIAN EXPRESS WEBSITE

April 13, 2008

Sunday, April 13, 2008

 

RE: http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/296025.html

 

PERMANENT ADDRESS MH-01-JA-454 By SWAPNIL RAWAL

 

 

COMMENTS POSTED ON INDIAN EXPRESS WEBSITE:

 

The story of Taxi Driver is more poignant as his life has been conditioned by a Government that is on one hand insensitive to his existence as a common citizen, while on the other hand devises various legal measures to make his life more miserable. And all this in the name of the welfare of the people! An unalloyed Kafkaesque situation!!!

 

As a member of the Muslim minority, who are doomed to suffer for the sin of supposedly ‘dividing the nation’, he is completely cut off from any welfare measure that Government introduces to provide for the ‘below poverty line’ of its citizenry, be that for food or shelter. He is out, as he is a Muslim. He is out as he is Uttar Bharati. He is out as he does not have a home address, so no voter or ration card. He is not eligible for any of the various Government Housing scheme, again as he does not have a house in his name. Leave it to the wily bureaucrats to devise ways and means to see the unwanted are marginalised. A new danger that looms over his head of the serious risk of his taxi and himself being attacked by ‘MNS’ or “Shiv Sena’ hooligans, who themselves are not the original inhabitants of Mumbai/Bombay, but are now claiming the city as their own.

 

Moinuddin Shaikh travelled to a Gulf country to earn a better living, leaving back a dismal disjointed family to survive in a rat-race stricken city. He is among millions who are still in the Gulf countries and who had remitted and are still remitting, billions back home. Indian Government has no organised scheme to offer them social support, if and when their lives are disrupted due to various breaks in life cycle of a Mumbai resident. Government has never come around to organise some Gulf Returnee scheme to rehabilitate the returnees to a full life of local opportunities; even though they had at one time helped the country when it was heavily dependant of their foreign remittance.

 

A very interesting fact disclosed in the life story of Moinuddin Shaikh and his son, is the appearance of a ‘Madarsa’ as the relief centre for the uprooted. His son will not only be accommodated, fed, clothed but also will be educated; thus taking the entire burden off the head of the father, who could barely survive on some footpath of Mumbai. Here the Madarsa is not the matter of choice. It is the means of survival of his son and millions like him. The Madarsa is a fully community supported welfare measure. This same Madarsa has been demonized by the US and Israel as the hotbed of conspiracies against the West. 

 

The worst part is that those in authority are fully aware of the whole set of handicaps imposed on an Indian Muslim by the communalized ruling class, and in fact are rejoicing sadistically in their devilish schemes to impoverish and disenfranchise 200 million Muslims of India. And they want to die and disappear without even raising a sigh. However, this slow working genocide is not being noticed by the rest of the ‘international community’. Hope is still high that the opening to the world of India as a new power on the block, will expose India’s dreary pockets of hateful crimes inflicted on its own citizenry and the very international friends who are goading the ruling class to target Muslim in line with the current anti-Muslim hate wave, may turn their tables against their partners in no times; the tide is bound to turn.

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

 

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

 

www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com