A Take On Communal Violence In India

[jamahir]

That is a very good alliance, it should progress further.

I agree it would be a good alliance but for that two things need to happen :

1. At present the Naxalite movement is a legally banned movement so as I said in an earlier post, the Naxalites should begin peace dialogue with the Supreme Court, just like the FARC socialist guerrillas in Columbia had dialogue with the government. The Naxalites are a disciplined force comprising of idealist people and their thought will be beneficial to the Indian Muslims.

2. The Indian Muslim community should become represented by people like me, Naofumi, a few others on this forum, Shehla Rashid, Umar Khalid, Aamir Rashid etc. As you suggested, I ( and the above ) should present Indian Muslims with an alternative thought movement.

Indian Muslims need to make coalitions with other minorities

Yes, on a progressive platform where Indian Muslims and other minorities are not represented by individual minority parties ( one for Muslims, one for Christians, one for Dalits, one for Parsis etc ) but a platform which uses the suggestions of all minorities to work together towards a Progressive India. This is why I don't support Asaduddin Owaisi.

and even seek Chinese, BD and Pakistan help if necessary.

Well, that I will not recommend as that would legitimize the propaganda of the Hindutva types that most Indian Muslims are basically Pakistani agents who want to destroy India. Please note I am not demeaning Pakistan here.

It ll be disastrous for naxalites to align with muslims. The two ends of the twine don't match.

Why do you say that ?

There have been Muslims in the Naxalite movement. For example, recently I read in the newspaper about three Muslim youth in Kerala being arrested for supposed link with the Naxalites.

Also, if the Naxalite movement becomes a public organization many of the Indian Muslim intelligentsia will support them.

This article argues that Burqa was a middle class phenomenon; neither the elites used it nor the rural folks.

Your article has this :

A small middle class had emerged during the Mughal era - after the Emperor Akbar's reign in the 16th century - and the women belonging to that economic class began donning veils in the name of leading a pious life," Ali pointed out.

Maybe true, maybe not, but during the later part of the British Raj I am sure the Muslim middle class was more emancipated and eschewed the burqa. I will post about the female Urdu writer Ismat Chughtai :

Ismat Chughtai (21 August 1915 – 24 October 1991) was an Indian Urdu language novelist, short story writer, and filmmaker. Beginning in the 1930s, she wrote extensively on themes including female sexuality and femininity, middle-class gentility, and class conflict, often from a Marxist perspective. With a style characterised by literary realism, Chughtai established herself as a significant voice in the Urdu literature of the twentieth century, and in 1976 was awarded the Padma Shri by the Government of India.

Further from your article :

Experts say that statistics prove that the use of burqas and niqabs in South Asia has increased exponentially in the past three decades; hence the phenomenon is linked to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the region to a large extent. Be it the 1979 Iranian Revolution or the Afghan War in the 1980s, the foreign influences on the South Asian culture and politics cannot be overlooked, they stress.

I won't say for the past three decades. From my observation and @padamchen's testimony it has been a phenomenon of the last 15 or so years.

Further :

"The Saudi influence may have prompted more people in South Asia to wear the burqa. The Islamic political parties, too, have played a role in convincing the people that the purdah and piety are synonymous," Ali told DW.

I believe it is not so much as Saudi influence as the influence of the home-grown TJ movement which has risen greatly in the last 15 or so years.

Your analysis :

I hypothesize that what the religious organisations did was the equalisation of the religious knowledge of middle and rural and poor class, making a point for poor class that they can claim equal status with the middle class by observing purdah and hence being equal with them in religious piety.

I will agree.

Further :

In that context, those artists did not did much as they never wielded any influence on the poor class who was in the transformation phase.

Well, maybe writers like Ismat Chughtai were read primarily by the middle class and upper class but writers, directors and other film people, with their popular class outputs, surely would have reached the poor class too.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

2. The Indian Muslim community should become represented by people like me, Naofumi, a few others on this forum, Shehla Rashid, Umar Khalid, Aamir Rashid etc. As you suggested, I ( and the above ) should present Indian Muslims with an alternative thought movement.

No. It should be represented by someone like Ilyas Sharafuddin

 

[jamahir]

No. It should be represented by someone like Ilyas Sharafuddin

It is misguided people like him who have been the cause of non-enlightenment among Indian Muslims in the last 15 to 20 years.

Would you a Pakistani Muslim prefer to be represented by the Lal Masjid chief, Abdul Aziz ?

I think many Pakistanis would like to return back to the era of the "Enlightened Moderation" of Musharraf.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

It is misguided people like him who have been the cause of non-enlightenment among Indian Muslims in the last 15 to 20 years.

Would you a Pakistani Muslim prefer to be represented by the Lal Masjid chief, Abdul Aziz ?

I think many Pakistanis would like to return back to the era of the "Enlightened Moderation" of Musharraf.

But he is the best counter to Sanghis

 

[jamahir]

But he is the best counter to Sanghis

Please tell me how. In the few TV talks I have seen him participating in he didn't appear to me to be intelligent like say Shehla Rashid who has faced sedition charges.

 

[Naofumi]

Maybe true, maybe not, but during the later part of the British Raj I am sure the Muslim middle class was more emancipated and eschewed the burqa. I will post about the female Urdu writer Ismat Chughtai :

Her wiki page tells that she faced resistance in completing her bachelors, surely even a Burqa clad lady can complete even a PhD now. So, I don't think there's a reasonable parameter here to gauge anything here. Moreover, the same middle class produced the likes of Madudi, Shibli Nomani and the TJ movement itself.
Even the likes of Syed Ahmed were against women education - surely, we are in a much better position than the past.

I believe it is not so much as Saudi influence as the influence of the home-grown TJ movement which has risen greatly in the last 15 or so years.

TJ is itself an international organisation, many Arabs come and do Tabligh themselves. I have seen Tablighis from as far as Tatarstan, Russia doing Tabligh in my area. So, the international influence must not be discounted. Moreover, TJ is an offshoot of Deobadis who try to be I sync with the Saudis.

Well, maybe writers like Ismat Chughtai were read primarily by the middle class and upper class but writers, directors and other film people, with their popular class outputs, surely would have reached the poor class too.

I don't think any film ever put a strong message on it and moreover, the poor rarely take anything of value from the films anyways.

Please tell me how. In the few TV talks I have seen him participating in he didn't appear to me to be intelligent like say Shehla Rashid who has faced sedition charges.

He's a foul-mouthed stooge used by nearly all channels to show a radical side of Muslims.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1148464898290016256

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

He's talking about a micro-regional trend, I have some real life examples :-
One of my neighbour was a school teacher, her mother used to wear burqa but she didn't. Occasionally, she used a Chador or Hijab.
I attended a Muslim meeting - focused on education, the rooms for genders were separate but hardly 10% were in full donned burqa. Hijab, Dupatta and Chador were much more common.
Or alternatively, you can go to Jamia and see what percentage wears a full donned Burqa.

I think hijab is more in trend but burqa earlier was virtually absent among muslims but it gained huge tracts so both are gaining grounds albeit hijab is much popular choice while burqa can be said second choice . Also I am surprised to see so many muslims in south now a days donning burqa or hijab much more than in northern part. Someone I know is engaged with a girl from south the family of the girl is really well educated and ultra rich I was surprised to see all their family donning burqa . Also in bengal too only muslims from kolkata suburb mainly urdu or hindi speaking ones used to don burqa and all but it is now a trend among bengali muslims too though not as much but it is gaining tract.

I agree it would be a good alliance but for that two things need to happen :

1. At present the Naxalite movement is a legally banned movement so as I said in an earlier post, the Naxalites should begin peace dialogue with the Supreme Court, just like the FARC socialist guerrillas in Columbia had dialogue with the government. The Naxalites are a disciplined force comprising of idealist people and their thought will be beneficial to the Indian Muslims.

2. The Indian Muslim community should become represented by people like me, Naofumi, a few others on this forum, Shehla Rashid, Umar Khalid, Aamir Rashid etc. As you suggested, I ( and the above ) should present Indian Muslims with an alternative thought movement.



Yes, on a progressive platform where Indian Muslims and other minorities are not represented by individual minority parties ( one for Muslims, one for Christians, one for Dalits, one for Parsis etc ) but a platform which uses the suggestions of all minorities to work together towards a Progressive India. This is why I don't support Asaduddin Owaisi.



Well, that I will not recommend as that would legitimize the propaganda of the Hindutva types that most Indian Muslims are basically Pakistani agents who want to destroy India. Please note I am not demeaning Pakistan here.



Why do you say that ?

There have been Muslims in the Naxalite movement. For example, recently I read in the newspaper about three Muslim youth in Kerala being arrested for supposed link with the Naxalites.

Also, if the Naxalite movement becomes a public organization many of the Indian Muslim intelligentsia will support them.



Your article has this :

Maybe true, maybe not, but during the later part of the British Raj I am sure the Muslim middle class was more emancipated and eschewed the burqa. I will post about the female Urdu writer Ismat Chughtai :



Further from your article :

I won't say for the past three decades. From my observation and @padamchen's testimony it has been a phenomenon of the last 15 or so years.

Further :

I believe it is not so much as Saudi influence as the influence of the home-grown TJ movement which has risen greatly in the last 15 or so years.

Your analysis :

I will agree.

Further :

Well, maybe writers like Ismat Chughtai were read primarily by the middle class and upper class but writers, directors and other film people, with their popular class outputs, surely would have reached the poor class too.

Seriously Naxalites it is like throwing muslims under the bus , I am too much familiar with the communist ideology I used to support it but seeing the impact in real world as well as the theoretical part I discarded it wholeheartedly. It will not bring any tangible development but in the process it will create a group who will be confused with identity with much happiness from the sakhas cause they will fill the void in place of them.

 

[Naofumi]

It's Hijab.

Not Hizab.

Hijab and Burqa needs to be differentiated, Burqa may obstruct some functions but Hijab doesn't.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Oh so your family were in the border districts. They had no way of knowing which side of the border their lands would remain after Partition, or maybe they were too sanguine they would be part of Pakistan. Many people weren't sure that a Partition would even occur because the proposal for an actual Pakistan was accepted very late. Even until mid 1947, there were plenty of backers of a unified India. It was felt by them that Muslim League proposal for a Pakistan would eventually be defeated. Everyone basically underestimated Mr. Jinnah, but he was very resolute in his demands. And here we are, you have your own country!

Mahatma Gandhi made one of the historical blunders of his life by not stepping out of the scene; all the fasting he did made matters worse (later Nehru pleaded with him to step out of the scene and let him handle it.) He wanted a unified India even though it was no longer a possibility. Gandhi's idealism wasted many crucial months and possibly years, that would have given the families enough time to transfer smoothly. That's why it's not always beneficial to have good people in charge of a crisis. What you need is brinkmanship and level-headed practicality.

However, no one was expecting communal riots on that scale. It was really spontaneous. And as I said, the lack of policing and poor infrastructure/communication in 1947 meant the situation could not be controlled well.

Nehru did not get along that well with Jinnah on a personal level. Had there been more camaraderie between the two, maybe the transfer would have been smoother.

But the real villain of the haphazard Partition were the British authorities in charge. They were apathetic to any potential genocides ("let the brown people kill each other, who cares?"). Cyril Radcliffe only arrived in India on 8 July, 1947. Before his appointment, he had never visited India and knew no one in the country. The British thought that because he was so ignorant, he will be more neutral. But he really behaved like Donald Trump did during the current US Coronavirus crisis. He did not do any field surveys: in fact, the entire Radcliffe line was drawn in just a few hours during afternoon tea. And both Congress and Muslim League representatives were given exactly two hours to study it. After that, Radcliffe submitted his proposal without consulting anyone. And that was on August 9, 1947. He knew there would be a backlash later so he quickly burned all his research papers, and immediately departed India on August 15 itself.

Also, Mountbatten was more sympathetic to Congress cause. Nehru was on very friendly terms with him and his wife, Edwina (many BJP idiots argue that they had an affair but they were just good friends, nothing more. That miserable wretch, Narendra Modi, cannot attract even an ugly woman like this one.). In all fairness, Nehru tried his best to win more territories for the Congress just as Jinnah did for Pakistan. Nehru even wanted Lahore, but Jinnah wrested it away from him. It was really a chess match. There should have been more give and take on behalf of both parties. But Nehru was definitely a strong negotiator on behalf of the Indians. Also he was very patient and could play the long game. Against all odds, he waited until the end of 1948 to resolve Hyderabad and up to 1950 to resolve the Indian side of Kashmir. He waited until 1961 before the Indians could annex Goa from the Portuguese (first time in that slice of history when brown people fought against white people, and won without any contest!).

In hindsight, I think Nehru was too good for today's Indians. Given the current custodians of the country are illiterate mini fascists, they have benefited from the best leader we ever had. They are not worthy of the legacy he created, the India he had built through patience and hard work. Today's generation of Indians should be really getting down on their hands and knees and worship Nehru for his immense and sole contribution in building this nation. But instead his legacy is being befouled by the ingrates affiliated to the BJP/RSS.

Lastly I must say that the human toll of the tragedy was too much. While Pandit Nehru is my role model (I mainly salute the amazing work he did for independent India and its economy), his decisions have definitely caused disturbance in the lives of so many Muslims (although it has benefited many more people). I would like to apologize on his behalf to you, and families like yours. I am also in favour of someone from current Gandhi family apologizing to the Muslims uprooted from India. But maybe it will never happen because of obvious politics.

The British were partial to Nehru, but feared Quaid e Azam threat to involve other Muslim countries and even for jihad against the British. Their position was delicate all over the Muslim world, and that would have immediately caused their downfall.

Nehru was great for India, he won India lands which belonged rightfully to Pakistan. He and his supporters stirred the Sikhs against Muslims in Punjab, when we had lived together in peace for hundreds of years. He occupied 1/2 of Kashmir, which had a comfortable overwhelming Muslim majority. Indians should be doing puja to Nehru. However, you are not going to find any Pakistani who is going to praise Nehru.

You, and other Hindus, have no reason to apologize. You did not partake in the slaughter, you did not egg on the militias in Punjab. That is the fault of those who precipitated the event and lost themselves in bloodlust, and they are facing the judgment of God in the grave.

We Pakistanis are a sensible and rational people. After partition violence, it was the Muslims who were the first to forgive and extend the olive branch to Sikhs. Muslims in general do not carry hatred for long. We don't have that mindset. Not long after the slaughter, Sikh pilgrims started coming to Pakistan, visiting their old homes, staying with Muslim hosts.

Kashmir is painful because that slaughter is still going on, unabated.

Check out the movie "Jinnah" starring Christopher Lee, you will get an appreciation for Quaid e Azam's struggles and Pakistan's version of the partition.

 

[jamahir]

He's a foul-mouthed stooge used by nearly all channels to show a radical side of Muslims.

Yes, that is their idea. They will never invite well-spoken and intellectual Muslims like Shehla and Aamir Aziz because these Rubika and Arnab type of anchors will be defeated and can only counter by shouts of "That is sedition" and "Our soldiers are on the Siachen glacier".

By the way, Sharafuddin is the "media coordinator" of Zakir Naik's IRF and also sounds like Naik. Also, it sounded grating when he called out the name of the Messenger Muhammad in the Arab way. Why do they have to be so slavish to the Arabs ? And if they do look at Arabs why do they miss out on understanding the works of the Progressive Arabs ?

@Syed Hammad Ahmed.

surely even a Burqa clad lady can complete even a PhD now.

I stress again, all these big college degrees are of no use if they don't liberate a person from socio-economic oppression.

Moreover, the same middle class produced the likes of Madudi, Shibli Nomani and the TJ movement itself.

I agree that the modern TJ in India is a middle class movement.

TJ is itself an international organisation, many Arabs come and do Tabligh themselves. I have seen Tablighis from as far as Tatarstan, Russia doing Tabligh in my area.

I know that. The Nizamuddin, Delhi building is their world HQ.

And be careful. Russia has banned the TJ there, as have Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Even remotely socializing with these people may put you in trouble.

And if you consult the Wikipedia for TJ it will give you an idea of this movement, worldwide, having birthed some people who use it as launch pad to set up violent groups or do violent acts. So again, please be careful.

---

Lastly, thanks for the Syed Ahmad Khan. It made for an easier understanding of why he was like by the British Raj.

Seriously Naxalites it is like throwing muslims under the bus , I am too much familiar with the communist ideology I used to support it but seeing the impact in real world as well as the theoretical part I discarded it wholeheartedly. It will not bring any tangible development but in the process it will create a group who will be confused with identity with much happiness from the sakhas cause they will fill the void in place of them.

Please read this thread of mine from 2016 which is an article by Nadeem Paracha about Socialist activism among Muslims in previous decades ( from just before the Russian Revolution to later decades ).

 

[Naofumi]

I stress again, all these big college degrees are of no use if they don't liberate a person from socio-economic oppression.

They do. They make you realise your rights much more than than those who don't have them. The comparison should be with those who don't have degrees.

Why do they have to be so slavish to the Arabs ?

Petro-Dollars.

 

[jamahir]

They do. They make you realise your rights much more than than those who don't have them. The comparison should be with those who don't have degrees.

I dropped out in Class 12 and never went to degree college.

Petro-Dollars.

Yes, that too.

 

[Naofumi]

I dropped out in Class 12 and never went to degree college.

Comparison should always be on best vs best and average vs average.

Yes, that too.

That's the reason, they fund many religious movements like Ahl-e-Hadees and to a relatively lesser extent Deoband making these movements a carbon copy of Wahhabism.

 

[jamahir]

@Naofumi, I am going out to get chicken. Will reply later.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

Indians should be doing puja to Nehru. However, you are not going to find any Pakistani who is going to praise Nehru.

Both statements are correct. I think Nehru is hated more in present India thanks to all the Sanghis and Hindutvadis in charge.

But as they say "chand par thooknay say koi fark..." etc.

Some Indian Hindus can be basically ungrateful creatures in all matters. This is what I like about Muslims: they always express sincere gratitude if anyone does them any good as it is part of Islam. In my so many years of life, I am yet to meet any ungrateful Muslim. Hope it stays that way.

You, and other Hindus, have no reason to apologize.

As someone who considers Pandit Nehru his role model, I must.

Check out the movie "Jinnah" starring Christopher Lee, you will get an appreciation for Quaid e Azam's struggles and Pakistan's version of the partition.

I will. I am fascinated by Mr. Jinnah. I also invite you to read Discovery of India by Pandit Nehru. He built up this nation from scratch. Whether it will endure forever still remains in question: his famous "tryst with destiny" speech on India's independence was more than symbolic. Nehru wasn't really sure that India would survive after his death.