Betrayal or Pragmatism? Why Madanis of Deoband Praised RSS & Modi

[PaulSimon]

Betrayal or Pragmatism? Why Madanis of Deoband Praised RSS & Modi
ADITYA MENON

The leaders of the two factions of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind – Maulana Arshad Madani and Maulana Mahmood Madani – have recently made conciliatory statements regarding the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Narendra Modi government.

Maulana Arshad Madani recently met RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat and praised him. Here are excerpts from his interview to The Quint after the meeting:

• “Bhagwat ji has an organisation (RSS) which is a very strong organisation. In my opinion, there is no one else like him in India.”
• “RSS is capable of doing away with their idea of Hindu Rashtra”
• “If the RSS is soft with us, why should we not be?”

Also Read : RSS May Shun Hindu Rashtra Idea: Jamiat Head on Mohan Bhagwat Meet

Maulana Mahmood Madani has also made a number of statements in favour of the RSS and expressed his support to the Modi government on issues such as Kashmir and the National Register of Citizens:

• “I feel that RSS has tried to show kindness/liberalism of late. This is a golden opportunity and must be welcomed for interactions.”
• “NRC should be conducted across India to know how many intruders are here.”

• “Kashmir is ours, was ours and will always be ours. Whatever is India’s stand, we are with it.”

There are different ways of looking at the statements made by the two scholars. Some say that this is part of the tussle between the two Madanis for control of Jamiat and that both of them are now competing for the government’s patronage. They are both from the family of Jamiat founder Mahmood Hassan and of its former president Husain Ahmad Madani.

Professor Hilal Ahmed of CSDS said that Jamiat doesn’t represent Muslims and he accused Mahmood Madani of communalising issues like Kashmir and NRC.

Mohammad Asif Khan, who documents hate crimes against Muslims in India, accused the Madanis of peddling the Hindutva narrative.

However, it is important to understand the Madanis’ moves from a broader perspective and two aspects in particular: first, from the prism of the Jamiat’s own ideology and second, from the larger challenge that Muslims in India face presently.

Also Read : ‘Kashmir Integral Part of India’: Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind on Art 370

What Jamiat Stands For
Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind is the primary organisation representing scholars belonging to the school of thought prescribed by Darul Uloom at Deoband in Uttar Pradesh.

Though Deobandis are a minority among Indian Muslims – according to certain estimates, around 15-20 percent Indian Muslims identify themselves as Deobandi – they are more centralised than the more numerous Barelvis.

As a result of this relatively more centralised nature, Jamiat exercises control over the largest network of mosques in India. Compared to other Muslim organisations, Jamiat has historically enjoyed much greater clout vis-a-vis political parties and the government.

Muttahida Qaumiyat

The main concept driving Jamiat’s political ideology is that of Muttahida Qaumiyat or “composite nationalism” that was laid down by Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani in 1938 in his book Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam.

The idea behind Muttahida Qaumiyat was in opposition to the belief that Hindus and Muslims constitute two different nations – which was the credo of Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s Muslim League at that time.

As per Muttahida Qaumiyat, different religions were not seen as different nationalities. Rather nationality was seen as being linked to a territory, where both Muslims and non-Muslims share the same nationality. Muslim and non-Muslim communities living in this territory could share attributes such as language, ethnicity or culture.

The Example of Madina

Husain Ahmad Madani invoked the example of Madina under Prophet Muhammad to sanctify the concept of Muttahida Qaumiyat. According to him, Muslims and Jews of Madina shared a similar sense of common nationality during the Prophet’s era under the Treaty or Constitution of Madina.

Similar to the Treaty of Madina, the Jamiat after Independence put forward the idea that Muslims and non-Muslims have entered upon a mutual contract – or Mu’ahadah – in India, since independence, to establish a secular state. The Constitution of India represents this contract and every Indian Muslim must uphold the Constitution as part of this Mu’ahadah.

The Jamiat’s belief was that Muslims have a better chance of following their practices and personal laws in Congress-ruled India than under the Muslim League’s Pakistan. Jamiat’s leaders saw the Muslim League leaders as non-observant Muslims and expected the Congress to be more tolerant of Muslim personal laws.

However, the Jamiat’s concept of Muttahida Qaumiyat did not go uncontested from within the Muslim community. Deobandi scholars like Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi and Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani both argued that Muttahida Qaumiyat as well as Husain Madani’s invocation of Madina’s example, are not backed by Islamic scriptures. Usmani later formed a breakaway faction of the Jamiat – Jamiat Ulam-e-Islam – and supported the creation of Pakistan. Husain Ahmad Madani’s ideas were also criticised by individuals like Muhammad Iqbal and Jamaat-e-Islami founder Syed Abul ala Mawdudi.

Also Read : PM Modi, Declare Your Minority Policy: Jamiat President Madani

Madanis’ ‘Practical’ View
The efforts of Maulana Arshad Madani and Maulana Mahmood Madani to reach out to the RSS in today’s time, are in some ways an extension of Husain Ahmad Madani’s Muttahida Qaumiyat. They have also gone against the concept, which we shall discuss later.

The two scholars have rightly recognised that just as the Congress represented Hindus when Husain Ahmad Madani put forward the concept of Muttahida Qaumiyat, the community is represented by the BJP today. Therefore in their worldview, any negotiation with Hindus has to be with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat.

Mahmood Madani’s letter praising Modi after his victory in the Lok Sabha elections this year and Arshad Madani’s meeting with Mohan Bhagwat must be seen in this context. The Jamiat recognises that it can no longer deal with Hindus through “secular” parties like Congress and Samajwadi Party, it has to be done through the BJP and RSS. This is an objective reality and beyond a point, the Madanis can’t be blamed for acknowledging it.

Also Read : India is the Best Country For Muslims, Says Maula Mehmood Madani

Muslims’ Dilemma
The Madanis’ overtures to the BJP and RSS are the product of a larger dilemma in the Muslim community: how to survive the onslaught of Hindu majoritarianism.

Put simply, since Independence, Indian Muslims have mostly counted on “secular Hindus” to keep “communal Hindus” at bay. Politically, this translated to overwhelming support for “secular” parties like Congress, Janata Dal and its breakaways, BSP, Left etc instead of “Muslim” parties.

With most of these parties being decimated by the BJP, largely due to the consolidation of Hindu votes behind Modi, Muslims have now been forced to reconsider their strategy.

There are now elements within the community who say that the way out is to reach out to the BJP and RSS .

It’s not just the Madanis. Muslim elites like former Union minister Arif Mohammad Khan, businessman Zafar Sareshwala and educationist Firoz Bhakt Ahmed have consistently been saying that Muslims must not consider the BJP as an untouchable. The BJP too sent a clear signal on the kind of Muslims it wants, by rewarding Khan with a Governor’s post and making Ahmed and Sareshwala chancellors of the Maulana Azad National Urdu University.

The more common approach is giving issue-based support.

Legal scholar and Vice Chancellor of NALSAR Faizan Mustafa, wrote in a recent article that people need to listen to RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s views on reservation.

On the abrogation of Article 370, the support for the Modi government was even more widespread with several Muslims ranging from senior journalist Shahid Siddiqui to social media influencers like Zainab Sikander and Tehseen Poonawalla praising the government’s move.

Like the Madanis, the common refrain among such sections is to “take a practical view keeping in mind the existing reality in India (read dominance of BJP and RSS).”

However, this isn’t entirely a practical view.

Also Read : Dear Muslims In Modi’s India: Embrace Politics, Don’t Shun It

Where Madanis Have Gone Wrong
Despite Madanis and a few other Muslim elites “engaging” with the BJP and RSS and supporting them on certain issues, the latter have hardly taken any steps towards addressing the concerns of Muslims.

Where the Madanis seem to have deviated from the concept of Muttahida Qaumiyat is by forgetting the fact that the contract to establish a secular state was a two-way agreement and not just from the side of Muslims.

The BJP and RSS may not be officially declaring India as a Hindu Rashtra but many of their decisions do dilute India’s existence as a secular state and go against India’s contract with minorities. For instance:

• Hate crimes against Muslims have only increased in the past few years with the BJP doing little to prevent them. BJP leaders garlanded those involved in the lynching of Alimuddin Ansari in Jharkhand and honoured one of the killers of Mohammad Akhlaq in Western Uttar Pradesh.
• The Citizenship Amendment Bill seeks to provide citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from neighbouring Muslim majority countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. This is discriminatory and defines Indian citizenship in opposition to Muslims.
• The increased emphasis on cow protection means that the BJP and RSS are willing to prioritise the beliefs of Hindus over the dietary choices of others. Cow vigilantism goes a step further as it subordinates even the rule of law to the will of Hindus.
• The Triple Talaq law criminalises a practice among Muslims even though it was declared null and void by the court.
• The BJP gave a ticket to an individual like Pragya Thakur, who is accused of being involved in the Malegaon Blasts in which several Muslims were killed. She also praised Nathuram Godse, the killer of Mahatma Gandhi.
• The abrogation of Article 370 showed that the BJP and RSS are quite willing to tinker with the Constitution to push their ideological aims. The Constitution represents the Jamiat’s Mu’ahadah and attempts to tinker with it need to be taken seriously by the outfit.

These examples make it clear that the BJP and RSS aren’t quite working to preserve secularism. And we haven’t even begun discussing BJP leaders’ statements targeting Muslims or calling for a Hindu Rashtra. The next step could well be Uniform Civil Code, which would take away what Jamiat values most – freedom in the sphere of personal law. Or a nationwide NRC, which could potentially harm Muslims the most.

Jamiat and Muslim elites need to work towards holding the government accountable on the preservation of secularism and Muttahida Qaumiyat, instead of appeasing the Sangh and strengthening the march of majoritarianism in India.

Also Read : A Hindu Rashtra Is No Less Than a Saffron Pakistan: Julio Ribeiro

(The Quint will no longer be on WhatsApp, owing to changes in its policies regarding news publishers. You can now get the latest news updates on our Telegram channel. For handpicked stories every day, subscribe to us on Telegram.)


https://www.thequint.com/news/polit...han-bhagwat-narendra-modi-article-370-muslims

 

[war&peace]

Betrayal..

 

[pakpride00090]

Appeasement of Hindus by Indian muslims have a very long history. These deobandi folks were against Pakistan and are still against Pakistan. But the good thing is , in due time they will realize their mistakes , just like the way IOK muslims have realized their mistakes.

Perhaps , a little reading of RSS literature and golwalker's views would help these indian muslims gain a little clarity of what BJP/RSS wants. Or maybe , they already know it and are happy to live as second-class citizens , subservient to Hindu majority.

Cheers to more lynching and discrimination. Just like IOK kashmiris didn't bulge in 1965 and 1999. These indian muslims wouldn't bulge until its too late. By then the ship would have already sailed. I wish these muslims , best of luck in being second class citizens.

 

[PaulSimon]

Betrayal..

Appeasement of Hindus by Indian muslims have a very long history. These deobandi folks were against Pakistan and are still against Pakistan. But the good thing is , in due time they will realize their mistakes , just like the way IOK muslims have realized their mistakes.

Perhaps , a little reading of RSS literature and golwalker's views would help these indian muslims gain a little clarity of what BJP/RSS wants. Or maybe , they already know it and are happy to live as second-class citizens , subservient to Hindu majority.

Cheers to more lynching and discrimination. Just like IOK kashmiris didn't bulge in 1965 and 1999. These indian muslims wouldn't bulge until its too late. By then the ship would have already sailed. I wish these muslims , best of luck in being second class citizens.

They know that the ship has already sailed and Pakistan will no longer accept Indian Muslims into Pakistan. Hence they have reconciled to assimilate with rest of India.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Load of b.s. Christians will be next for assimilation by this Borg like entity called Hindutva.

Jinnah simply foresaw the lynchings, the rapistan, the violent protests in defence of rapists, the absolution of guilt for crimes against Muslims, the jayshreeram attacks, the need to do Pooja to be accepted as a "Muslim" in India, the pogroms and all the rest of Hindutva's manifest inferiority complex from centuries of Mughal rule. That is all there is to it. Bhaktistanis and their fanboys from Christian or Buddhist communities need to give up this b.s. that jinnah wanted an Islamic nation or a nation for muslims blah blah. He simply wanted a nation where Muslims would be SAFE from the above b.s. anyone was welcome to live in jinnah's nation, even Hindus, but they must understand that the Muslims of his nation are not obliged to engage in any of the aforementioned appeasement of Hindutva.

Once again, Pakistan was not intended as a "Muslim nation" but a nation of safety for muslims. Likewise, India was not intended as a secular nation, but rather as a nation where Hindutva could live out its repressed fantasies of dominance of others under a thin veneer of secularism. That veneer has eroded away permanently.

 

[pakpride00090]

They know that the ship has already sailed and Pakistan will no longer accept Indian Muslims into Pakistan. Hence they have reconciled to assimilate with rest of India.

Accepting or not accepting is a moot question. The important thing is that they have probably come to terms with their inferior position. This sucking up and appeasement policy is clear as day to anyone with objective mindset. To be honest , I don't blame them. When you have regular lynchings, rape , cow vigilantes and other forms of violence and discrimination happening against your community , together with state apparatus against you ; one needs to find ways to survive. If bashing Pakistan and changing Islam to look more palatable to Hindus will help their longevity , I say go for it.

But then again , one is missing the elephant in the room. The fact is even with all the appeasement, they will always be looked upon suspiciously and one never knows whether Hindu majority will accept them their appeasement or not.( case in point :Gujrat massacre , Kashmir genocide , rapes , cow vigilantes , discrimination and etc)

I am tilting towards "not" side , given the history of RSS/BJP and hindutva. Wish these Indian muslims , best of luck.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

The fact is even with all the appeasement, they will always be looked upon suspiciously and one never knows whether Hindu majority will accept them their appeasement or not.( case in point :Gujrat massacre , Kashmir genocide , rapes , cow vigilantes , discrimination and etc)

Bravo. Spot on. The first wave of arrests in Kashmir was of civilian elected officials who supported union with India. The Abdullah dynasty was slapped in the face, screaming "betrayal", "this is not my India" over the Hindutva back stab. Damn right this ain't your India because your India existed in your head. Once a Mughal, always a Mughal in the eyes of Hindutva.

Thanks Jinnah.

 

[PaulSimon]

Load of b.s. Christians will be next for assimilation by this Borg like entity called Hindutva.

Jinnah simply foresaw the lynchings, the rapistan, the violent protests in defence of rapists, the absolution of guilt for crimes against Muslims, the jayshreeram attacks, the need to do Pooja to be accepted as a "Muslim" in India, the pogroms and all the rest of Hindutva's manifest inferiority complex from centuries of Mughal rule. That is all there is to it. Bhaktistanis and their fanboys from Christian or Buddhist communities need to give up this b.s. that jinnah wanted an Islamic nation or a nation for muslims blah blah. He simply wanted a nation where Muslims would be SAFE from the above b.s. anyone was welcome to live in jinnah's nation, even Hindus, but they must understand that the Muslims of his nation are not obliged to engage in any of the aforementioned appeasement of Hindutva.

Once again, Pakistan was not intended as a "Muslim nation" but a nation of safety for muslims. Likewise, India was not intended as a secular nation, but rather as a nation where Hindutva could live out its repressed fantasies of dominance of others under a thin veneer of secularism. That veneer has eroded away permanently.

Christians for most part are already assimilated.

Christianity is the fastest growing religion in India.

Pakistan was created for the Muslims of the subcontinent. Only Muslims were allowed to vote in the elections. People from other religions never got to vote.

 

[pakpride00090]

Christians for most part are already assimilated.

Christianity is the fastest growing religion in India.

Pakistan was created for the Muslims of the subcontinent. Only Muslims were allowed to vote in the elections. People from other religions never got to vote.

I need to see an authentic source for that.

 

[PaulSimon]

I need to see an authentic source for that.

In fact not all Muslims of the subcontinent were allowed to vote. Only the rich Muslims got the vote.


Facts Don't Back The Argument That Most Indian Muslims Wanted Partition
86% of adult Muslims in British India did not even have the right to vote.

• 
  Rupa SubramanyaEconomist, commentator

BCCL


Was there overwhelming support for Pakistan among the Muslims of undivided India?

Lately, some in India have been asserting this. As evidence, they refer to statistics from the 1946 provincial assembly elections, in which the Muslim League captured 4.5 million of about 6 million Muslim votes. On the face of it, this would seem to suggest that 75% of Indian Muslims voted for the Muslim League and its demand for Pakistan.

This claim glosses over the crucial fact that the 1946 elections, based on the Sixth Schedule of the1935 Government of India Act, had a limited franchise, which means that only a small percentage of adults—those with money and property—were eligible to vote. In fact, only 3% of the population could vote for the Central Assembly and only 13% could vote for the Provincial Assemblies. That means only 30 million people could vote in assembly elections out of a total adult population of 120 million.

[T]hese election results tell us only that a little more than 10% of the adult Muslim population expressed their support for Pakistan by voting for the Muslim League.

Putting these numbers together, the upshot is that out of a total of 94 million Muslims in India, according to the 1941 census, less than 7% had the right to vote, or about 14% of the adult population. This means that 86% of adult Muslims in British India did not have the right to vote.

Consequently, it is misleading to invoke 75% support for the Muslim League among Muslim voters in the 1946 assembly elections to infer that a similar percentage of Indian Muslims supported the party and therefore the cause of Pakistan. The truth is that these election results tell us only that a little more than 10% of the adult Muslim population expressed their support for Pakistan by voting for the Muslim League. Likewise about 4% of the adult Muslim population did not support the Muslim League.

The crucial point is that 86% of Indian Muslims did not have the right to vote, and we in turn do not have the right to infer they would have voted in the same proportion as those who were allowed to vote — which is the assumption you would have to make to infer 75% of Indian Muslims supported Pakistan.

BCCL
If anything, there are reasons to believe that the 75% support for the Muslim League over-represented the support among the general population. The reason is that the Muslim League's demand for Pakistan was a cause embraced by the Muslim elite, the very same people who were allowed to vote and were likely to gain economic and other opportunities from the creation of Pakistan. This is a fact that India's British rulers clearly understood. "[A] vote of the whole adult population or of the enfranchised population would be unlikely to provide the result that Jinnah requires," wrote Viceroy Lord Wavell to Lord Pethick Lawrence, Secretary of State for India, on 20 November, 1945.

Limited franchise in effect meant that only people with property or money, and educated professionals, had the right to vote. The large mass of people, of all communities, was simply disenfranchised.

Limited franchise in effect meant that only people with property or money, and educated professionals, had the right to vote. The large mass of people, of all communities, was simply disenfranchised. Enfranchising only the elite, as the British did, created elite leaders such as Nehru and Jinnah, neither of whom would likely have had mass electoral appeal under a truly democratic franchise had such a system existed in late British India. It's no accident that Nehru, Jinnah and other leaders of both the Congress and the Muslim League were Anglicized wealthy lawyers, landowners, merchants, or princes.

Anecdotally, there are many stories of upper middle class and upper class Indian Muslims, including erstwhile princes, who decamped for Pakistan in 1947 to land up in senior positions in the government, military, and corporate sectors. Such people, whom one might charitably call carpetbaggers, voted with their feet and chose Pakistan.

Likewise, like Hindus in what became Pakistan, a large number of Indian Muslims in partitioned border states of Punjab and Bengal migrated to West and East Pakistan respectively, arguably for self-preservation during the carnage following partition.

The real test for those who claim that Pakistan had mass support among India's Muslims would be to look at those provinces, such as the United Provinces and Bihar, which were not partitioned and in which Muslims were relatively safe during the post-partition violence. If indeed Pakistan had mass support, you would have expected mass migration from these provinces. Yet, there's no evidence of such a mass exodus. The census data tells us that the Muslim population of those provinces dropped by one to two percentage points between the 1941 and 1951 census. Even if you assume that all of those people went to Pakistan, this is hardly a mass exodus. The overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims in these unpartitioned provinces remained in India, whether by choice or by default.

Just like with the Muslim electorate, it were the moneyed and propertied elite Hindus who voted for the Congress and Nehru

The official Congress narrative claims that most Indian Muslims were loyal to India, the Congress and Nehru. We have no way of knowing if this is true. It's possible that some or many felt that staying on in India was the best option if only for pragmatic or logistical reasons. In the absence of representative surveys of mass opinion, we are not in a position to make any assertions about those who could not vote.

By the same token, Nehru was an elite leader who before partition arguably commanded relatively little grassroots support. Just like with the Muslim electorate, it were the moneyed and propertied elite Hindus who voted for the Congress and Nehru. We have no way of knowing if some other leader or even some other political party might have emerged as dominant had there been genuine universal suffrage, just as we have no way of knowing if an altogether different grassroots Muslim party might have emerged under a democratic franchise.

There's a peculiar cognitive dissonance among those who argue correctly that the Nehru-led Congress was an elite party operating under a system of limited franchise before 1947 but refuse to accept that absolutely the same logic applies to Jinnah and the Muslim League during this period. You can't say that Nehru was an elite leader and Jinnah had mass support, when both were operating in exactly the same political system before partition.

https://www.huffingtonpost.in/rupa-...hat-most-indian-muslims-wanted-pa_a_22488885/

 

[masterchief_mirza]

In fact not all Muslims of the subcontinent were allowed to vote. Only the rich Muslims got the vote.


Facts Don't Back The Argument That Most Indian Muslims Wanted Partition
86% of adult Muslims in British India did not even have the right to vote.

• 
  Rupa SubramanyaEconomist, commentator

BCCL


Was there overwhelming support for Pakistan among the Muslims of undivided India?

Lately, some in India have been asserting this. As evidence, they refer to statistics from the 1946 provincial assembly elections, in which the Muslim League captured 4.5 million of about 6 million Muslim votes. On the face of it, this would seem to suggest that 75% of Indian Muslims voted for the Muslim League and its demand for Pakistan.

This claim glosses over the crucial fact that the 1946 elections, based on the Sixth Schedule of the1935 Government of India Act, had a limited franchise, which means that only a small percentage of adults—those with money and property—were eligible to vote. In fact, only 3% of the population could vote for the Central Assembly and only 13% could vote for the Provincial Assemblies. That means only 30 million people could vote in assembly elections out of a total adult population of 120 million.

[T]hese election results tell us only that a little more than 10% of the adult Muslim population expressed their support for Pakistan by voting for the Muslim League.

Putting these numbers together, the upshot is that out of a total of 94 million Muslims in India, according to the 1941 census, less than 7% had the right to vote, or about 14% of the adult population. This means that 86% of adult Muslims in British India did not have the right to vote.

Consequently, it is misleading to invoke 75% support for the Muslim League among Muslim voters in the 1946 assembly elections to infer that a similar percentage of Indian Muslims supported the party and therefore the cause of Pakistan. The truth is that these election results tell us only that a little more than 10% of the adult Muslim population expressed their support for Pakistan by voting for the Muslim League. Likewise about 4% of the adult Muslim population did not support the Muslim League.

The crucial point is that 86% of Indian Muslims did not have the right to vote, and we in turn do not have the right to infer they would have voted in the same proportion as those who were allowed to vote — which is the assumption you would have to make to infer 75% of Indian Muslims supported Pakistan.

BCCL
If anything, there are reasons to believe that the 75% support for the Muslim League over-represented the support among the general population. The reason is that the Muslim League's demand for Pakistan was a cause embraced by the Muslim elite, the very same people who were allowed to vote and were likely to gain economic and other opportunities from the creation of Pakistan. This is a fact that India's British rulers clearly understood. "[A] vote of the whole adult population or of the enfranchised population would be unlikely to provide the result that Jinnah requires," wrote Viceroy Lord Wavell to Lord Pethick Lawrence, Secretary of State for India, on 20 November, 1945.

Limited franchise in effect meant that only people with property or money, and educated professionals, had the right to vote. The large mass of people, of all communities, was simply disenfranchised.

Limited franchise in effect meant that only people with property or money, and educated professionals, had the right to vote. The large mass of people, of all communities, was simply disenfranchised. Enfranchising only the elite, as the British did, created elite leaders such as Nehru and Jinnah, neither of whom would likely have had mass electoral appeal under a truly democratic franchise had such a system existed in late British India. It's no accident that Nehru, Jinnah and other leaders of both the Congress and the Muslim League were Anglicized wealthy lawyers, landowners, merchants, or princes.

Anecdotally, there are many stories of upper middle class and upper class Indian Muslims, including erstwhile princes, who decamped for Pakistan in 1947 to land up in senior positions in the government, military, and corporate sectors. Such people, whom one might charitably call carpetbaggers, voted with their feet and chose Pakistan.

Likewise, like Hindus in what became Pakistan, a large number of Indian Muslims in partitioned border states of Punjab and Bengal migrated to West and East Pakistan respectively, arguably for self-preservation during the carnage following partition.

The real test for those who claim that Pakistan had mass support among India's Muslims would be to look at those provinces, such as the United Provinces and Bihar, which were not partitioned and in which Muslims were relatively safe during the post-partition violence. If indeed Pakistan had mass support, you would have expected mass migration from these provinces. Yet, there's no evidence of such a mass exodus. The census data tells us that the Muslim population of those provinces dropped by one to two percentage points between the 1941 and 1951 census. Even if you assume that all of those people went to Pakistan, this is hardly a mass exodus. The overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims in these unpartitioned provinces remained in India, whether by choice or by default.

Just like with the Muslim electorate, it were the moneyed and propertied elite Hindus who voted for the Congress and Nehru

The official Congress narrative claims that most Indian Muslims were loyal to India, the Congress and Nehru. We have no way of knowing if this is true. It's possible that some or many felt that staying on in India was the best option if only for pragmatic or logistical reasons. In the absence of representative surveys of mass opinion, we are not in a position to make any assertions about those who could not vote.

By the same token, Nehru was an elite leader who before partition arguably commanded relatively little grassroots support. Just like with the Muslim electorate, it were the moneyed and propertied elite Hindus who voted for the Congress and Nehru. We have no way of knowing if some other leader or even some other political party might have emerged as dominant had there been genuine universal suffrage, just as we have no way of knowing if an altogether different grassroots Muslim party might have emerged under a democratic franchise.

There's a peculiar cognitive dissonance among those who argue correctly that the Nehru-led Congress was an elite party operating under a system of limited franchise before 1947 but refuse to accept that absolutely the same logic applies to Jinnah and the Muslim League during this period. You can't say that Nehru was an elite leader and Jinnah had mass support, when both were operating in exactly the same political system before partition.

https://www.huffingtonpost.in/rupa-...hat-most-indian-muslims-wanted-pa_a_22488885/

Let's be clear. Jinnah could have made an executive decision for all I care. History and especially recent history is self evident of the fact that most Muslims did NOT see this Hindutva onslaught coming. Jinnah was ahead of his time. If he dragged us kicking and screaming across the border, I'd be damn grateful knowing what I know now.

As for Christian assimilation, if your identity is flexible, good for you. Why should I do Pooja for acceptance when my ancestors built your country?

Btw be under no illusions dude. If Muslims are gone from India and Christianity is as you say fastest growing in India, those sanghees will come for you. You can be as flexitarian as you like and do Holi, Pooja and the rest of it. They will still come for you. Keep turning the other cheek.

 

[PaulSimon]

Let's be clear. Jinnah could have made an executive decision for all I care. History and especially recent history is self evident of the fact that most Muslims did NOT see this Hindutva onslaught coming. Jinnah was ahead of his time. If he dragged us kicking and screaming across the border, I'd be damn grateful knowing what I know now.

As for Christian assimilation, if your identity is flexible, good for you. Why should I do Pooja for acceptance when my ancestors built your country?

Well we are not worshipping Hindus gods rather worshipping with Indian touch.


September 01, 2014 by Jacob Joseph

Indigenized Christian Worship in India

Some Considerations

One of the greatest challenges of the Indian Christian church is its Western heritage. Most mainline denominations follow a Westernized liturgy and music in their worship. When missionaries came to India they translated the Bible and their own hymns into the local languages for use in worship. But now even a century later, churches still use the same hymnal and the translated Book of Common Prayer for worship. In addition, the Indian church has largely adopted Western pews and postures, with newer generation churches increasingly adopting songs from Euro-American contemporary Christian music, making the worship of the church even more Western. With that in mind, I would like to propose in this article some possibilities toward further indigenization of Christian worship in India.1

WESTERNIZED WORSHIP AND MUSIC
Because of linguistic limitations, missionaries were not able to make a translation that fits well to the common use of the language. Problems in syllables and structures make it almost impossible for people to understand the texts of many songs. But over the years there have been no attempts made to retranslate the Book of Common Prayer or the hymns, or to create a liturgy that is relevant in the Indian context. Although many Indian Christians wrote songs reflecting their theology in Indian terms, churches rarely took the initiative to use them in worship. Use of the indigenized liturgies was limited to the seminaries and ashrams. The only musical instrument that was allowed in the church was organ; only the Catholic, Pentecostal and Charismatic churches attempted to use some of the indigenous musical instruments for worship. At Christmas time, churches in South India use hymns that talk about winter and snow—when the temperature is 80° F and the people have never seen snow!

WESTERNIZED POSTURE
Another significant aspect that the Indian church lost in worship was the posture of worship. In most Indian religions worshipers sit on a thick mattress spread on the floor. People sit on the floor, with their legs crossed, as an expression of their respect to their deity. During the time of prayer they kneel, with their heads bowed to the ground. But the Christian churches accepted the Western form of sitting on pews for worship. According to the Hindu tradition no one may enter the place of worship unclean or wearing sandals. But Christian churches do not emphasize these aspects in their worship. In the mind of an Indian these show a lack of respect and devotion to God.

WESTERNIZED LANGUAGE
Due to the limitations of the missionaries’ language understanding, the liturgies and the translated hymns do not match the common usage of the language. The language used in the church is much different from the common language. It is not unusual to see the Christians being mocked by people of other religions for the strange form of language that was used in the church. Dayanand Bharati, a leading Christian theologian, says about the language in church:

Where are Christians who can speak in languages familiar to the people? If a new believer ever goes to a church service, he cannot even understand the message, not to mention all the other activities of the church. If he wants to survive among them, then he must become conformed to their image in all the areas of his life. But the church will remain Westernized and will not be bothered about either the new believers or the common people yet to be reached with the gospel.2

WESTERNIZED PREACHING
Preaching in Indian churches is also influenced by the western heritage. Indian churches typically use an elevated pulpit or a preaching stand. In recent years, influenced by the charismatic preaching seen on international Christian television channels, the preacher tends to move around on the pulpit and preach very loud in his attempt to imitate the Christianity viewed on the television. But in Indian tradition, teachers of the scriptures sit on the floor on a slightly elevated place with the scripture open in a small book holder. The name of the Hindu scriptures, upanishads, is a word picture of this aspect of teaching in Indian context. Upanishad means the inner, or mystic, teaching. The term upanishad is derived from upa (‘near’), ni (‘down’) and s(h)ad (‘to sit’): that is, sitting down near. Groups of pupils sit near the teacher to learn from him. This does not match with today’s Christian preaching.

CHANGE OF FOCUS FROM EVANGELISM TO WORSHIP
I believe one of the greatest needs today is a change of focus in indigenization. Until now, the primary motivation behind indigenization was to attract more people to the church. That motivation has sometimes caused people of other religions to think that the Christians are faking something to make Christianity more attractive. Attempts at indigenization in the area of mission have given a negative picture of Christianity as a kind of “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”3

This attitude will change only if the church changes from its roots. Before attempting indigenization in missions outreach, the church’s worship must become indigenized. Over the years, churches used indigenous methods to evangelize the world, while keeping all the Westernized forms in the worship. In my opinion, the church should change for the sake of worshiping God in the language and culture of the people, not simply to attract more churchgoers. As American pastor John Piper says:

Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn’t. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over, and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity, but worship abides forever.4

To make the indigenization authentic and meaningful, the church needs to initiate radical changes from the center: that is, in their worship. Then indigenized missions will flow naturally from the indigenized worshiping church.

INDIGENIZATION FROM GRASS ROOTS UPWARD
If we look at the past indigenization movements in India, we note that they were primarily movements initiated by large denominations, many times still under Western leadership. In this way, “indigenous liturgies” were created for all of South India or North India. However, a country like India with 4693 people groups can never have one unified contextualized liturgy appropriate for the whole Southern States. It has to become an attempt of local churches under the leadership of local believers from the grass roots of the culture. Only people of each local region will know what is appropriate for them in worship.

WORSHIP POSTURE
Christian churches should consider returning to Indian heritage in their worship styles. Churches might leave their pews behind and follow the more typical Indian style of sitting on the floor and praying while kneeling. This worship posture may even draw the worshiper closer to the original meaning of the word worship as it is used in the Bible. The Hebrew word hištahªwâ, translated as “worship,” literally means “to bend oneself over at the waist.”5 I find it fitting to adapt worship posture from Indian traditions. This posture may be more acceptable to Christians as a way of remaining Indian, while showing their homage and submission to the Christian God. Bharati, for example, expresses his desire for an Indian style of worship posture after attending a Westernized worship service:

I often dreamed in this way—remove all the Western musical instruments, and also even the pulpit; spread a dari (thick carpet) on the stage, have one bhajan [one form of worship music in Indian tradition] team lead in singing beautiful bhajans; the, how we could all worship the Lord in spirit and truth!6

Expression of homage, devotion, and awe in the presence of God can be expressed by removing sandals and cleansing oneself before entering the worship space.7

LANGUAGE OF WORSHIP
The language of worship needs to become more culturally understandable, creating a new liturgy with awareness and understanding of aspects of Indian culture. Even if churches continue to use their Western liturgies—for example, based on the Book of Common Prayer—they can be translated into the common (vernacular) languages of the people.

It is also important to develop indigenous terminologies to teach Christian doctrine. William Carey and his team developed Sanskrit terms for their biblical translation, providing a set of standard Sanskrit terms for the theological education of future generations.6 The contemporary church needs to continue to seek out these culturally relevant terms for theological concepts. Using Indian words to explain Christian doctrine will lead people to a better understanding of their faith, and that understanding will lead to clearer, more appropriate worship.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE WORSHIP SPACE
The architecture of the worship space is another area that might be indigenized. Today most of the mainline Christian worship spaces are imitations of Western structures, ignoring the significance of appropriate architecture altogether. Many churches do not have a theological understanding about the structure of place in worship. For the Hindu worshiper, temple structure carries great religious significance. Hindu temples are constructed according to very specific, intentional plans. Each aspect in the temple has some kind of religious significance. This architectural awareness could be adapted to Christian churches. What would it look like to have a Christian theological perspective on architectural design? St Mary’s Church in Nagercoil, South India, which claims a historical link to St Thomas, is an ancient example of the Christian adaptation of Hindu architecture.10

ROLE OF MUSIC
Music plays a very important role in the indigenization of worship. The church has tended to use Indian songs only for evangelism, and Western songs in their congregational worship. As I suggested above, I believe the idea of indigenization and change in the church should begin with the church’s worship, rather than specifically with its outreach to others. The common music styles of the people, such as bhajans and keerthans, could be given a place in corporate worship. This is the music that every Indian hears early in the morning from the temples. These forms, originating in the Hindu bhakti (devotion) traditions, are easily adaptable for congregational use. The leader sings one phrase of the song and the congregation repeats that phrase with the accompaniment of small cymbals. Many of the psalms and other biblical passages could work very well as bhajans.11 Many Christians in Indian cannot ever imagine Indian music being used effectively in worship, because they have never seen or experienced it. It is important to provide them with venues to experience worship with indigenous music and other art forms so that they can experience it for themselves.

Another musical possibility is the reconfiguration of the hymns into Indian musical forms. Hymns carry a rich theology from throughout the history of the faith, and they can be used effectively in Indian contexts by connecting them to indigenous melodic forms and adapting the lyrics appropriately.

ROLE OF READING THE SCRIPTURES
Preaching plays a very important role in making the gospel relevant to the people. Timothy C. Tennent talks about making the gospel culturally relevant:

[T]he gospel is not only linguistically translatable, it is culturally translatable. The gospel is not only delivered to us in the enscripturated text, but also in the proclamation and witness of a believing community, the members of which belong to a particular culture at a particular time in history.

Preachers should carefully consider the methods by which the gospel can be shared through culturally relevant terminologies. This can be done cautiously, lest extreme adaptation of cultural terms mislead people in wrong theological directions. Scripture plays a very significant role in Hindu temple worship. There are days throughout the week when Hindu worshipers read from the scriptures. Although Hinduism does not have preaching sessions as part of corporate worship, Christians could consider how to give importance to the Bible by devoting significant time to hearing it read.

WHOLE LIFE AS WORSHIP
Bharati, himself a convert from high caste Brahmanism, talks about Indian and Hindu attitudes to worship like this:

Worship is the pivot on which the entire spiritual life revolves, particularly for Hindus. They never worship just three hours [Sunday worship usually lasts three hours] in a week plus (bonus) one house prayer meeting.

This holistic concept of worship fits well with a biblical Christian understanding of worship in all of life. Indian Hindus are accustomed to pooja (prayers) early in the morning, at their homes or in the temple. This habit can become a part of the Indian Christian’s life as well.

Family plays a very important role in the religious life of India. Devoted Hindu families start their day by cleansing themselves and doing pooja in the small worship place built into their house. This concept also can be transferred well in Indian context by emphasizing the importance of family worship and prayer at their homes. In that way all of life can be emphasized as worship.

CONCLUSION
Indigenization of worship needs to proceed with caution, and with fidelity to the Bible. Lack of biblical and theological understanding can result in serious flaws. It is not an attempt to appear like other religions of the country or to compromise with other religious faiths. Bharati says, “Contextualization is not compromise, nor conforming to the image of the world, but rather allowing the gospel to become incarnate in the existing culture in faithfulness to the Bible.”14

Marva Dawn offers a good criterion to evaluate our attempts for indigenization: “We make use of the cultural forms, new and old, but we dare never let up in the struggle to make sure they are consistent with the ultimate eternal world to which we belong.” 15 That ultimate eternal world, according to Rev. 7: 9-10, includes a future of peoples worshiping God with the unique cultural gifts he’s given them. This is a future worth “worshiping toward” 16—a future in which all of India’s people groups will have a new song to sing before the throne of the Lamb.

https://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/article/indigenized-christian-worship-in-india

 

[pakpride00090]

In fact not all Muslims of the subcontinent were allowed to vote. Only the rich Muslims got the vote.


Facts Don't Back The Argument That Most Indian Muslims Wanted Partition
86% of adult Muslims in British India did not even have the right to vote.

• 
  Rupa SubramanyaEconomist, commentator

BCCL


Was there overwhelming support for Pakistan among the Muslims of undivided India?

Lately, some in India have been asserting this. As evidence, they refer to statistics from the 1946 provincial assembly elections, in which the Muslim League captured 4.5 million of about 6 million Muslim votes. On the face of it, this would seem to suggest that 75% of Indian Muslims voted for the Muslim League and its demand for Pakistan.

This claim glosses over the crucial fact that the 1946 elections, based on the Sixth Schedule of the1935 Government of India Act, had a limited franchise, which means that only a small percentage of adults—those with money and property—were eligible to vote. In fact, only 3% of the population could vote for the Central Assembly and only 13% could vote for the Provincial Assemblies. That means only 30 million people could vote in assembly elections out of a total adult population of 120 million.

[T]hese election results tell us only that a little more than 10% of the adult Muslim population expressed their support for Pakistan by voting for the Muslim League.

Putting these numbers together, the upshot is that out of a total of 94 million Muslims in India, according to the 1941 census, less than 7% had the right to vote, or about 14% of the adult population. This means that 86% of adult Muslims in British India did not have the right to vote.

Consequently, it is misleading to invoke 75% support for the Muslim League among Muslim voters in the 1946 assembly elections to infer that a similar percentage of Indian Muslims supported the party and therefore the cause of Pakistan. The truth is that these election results tell us only that a little more than 10% of the adult Muslim population expressed their support for Pakistan by voting for the Muslim League. Likewise about 4% of the adult Muslim population did not support the Muslim League.

The crucial point is that 86% of Indian Muslims did not have the right to vote, and we in turn do not have the right to infer they would have voted in the same proportion as those who were allowed to vote — which is the assumption you would have to make to infer 75% of Indian Muslims supported Pakistan.

BCCL
If anything, there are reasons to believe that the 75% support for the Muslim League over-represented the support among the general population. The reason is that the Muslim League's demand for Pakistan was a cause embraced by the Muslim elite, the very same people who were allowed to vote and were likely to gain economic and other opportunities from the creation of Pakistan. This is a fact that India's British rulers clearly understood. "[A] vote of the whole adult population or of the enfranchised population would be unlikely to provide the result that Jinnah requires," wrote Viceroy Lord Wavell to Lord Pethick Lawrence, Secretary of State for India, on 20 November, 1945.

Limited franchise in effect meant that only people with property or money, and educated professionals, had the right to vote. The large mass of people, of all communities, was simply disenfranchised.

Limited franchise in effect meant that only people with property or money, and educated professionals, had the right to vote. The large mass of people, of all communities, was simply disenfranchised. Enfranchising only the elite, as the British did, created elite leaders such as Nehru and Jinnah, neither of whom would likely have had mass electoral appeal under a truly democratic franchise had such a system existed in late British India. It's no accident that Nehru, Jinnah and other leaders of both the Congress and the Muslim League were Anglicized wealthy lawyers, landowners, merchants, or princes.

Anecdotally, there are many stories of upper middle class and upper class Indian Muslims, including erstwhile princes, who decamped for Pakistan in 1947 to land up in senior positions in the government, military, and corporate sectors. Such people, whom one might charitably call carpetbaggers, voted with their feet and chose Pakistan.

Likewise, like Hindus in what became Pakistan, a large number of Indian Muslims in partitioned border states of Punjab and Bengal migrated to West and East Pakistan respectively, arguably for self-preservation during the carnage following partition.

The real test for those who claim that Pakistan had mass support among India's Muslims would be to look at those provinces, such as the United Provinces and Bihar, which were not partitioned and in which Muslims were relatively safe during the post-partition violence. If indeed Pakistan had mass support, you would have expected mass migration from these provinces. Yet, there's no evidence of such a mass exodus. The census data tells us that the Muslim population of those provinces dropped by one to two percentage points between the 1941 and 1951 census. Even if you assume that all of those people went to Pakistan, this is hardly a mass exodus. The overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims in these unpartitioned provinces remained in India, whether by choice or by default.

Just like with the Muslim electorate, it were the moneyed and propertied elite Hindus who voted for the Congress and Nehru

The official Congress narrative claims that most Indian Muslims were loyal to India, the Congress and Nehru. We have no way of knowing if this is true. It's possible that some or many felt that staying on in India was the best option if only for pragmatic or logistical reasons. In the absence of representative surveys of mass opinion, we are not in a position to make any assertions about those who could not vote.

By the same token, Nehru was an elite leader who before partition arguably commanded relatively little grassroots support. Just like with the Muslim electorate, it were the moneyed and propertied elite Hindus who voted for the Congress and Nehru. We have no way of knowing if some other leader or even some other political party might have emerged as dominant had there been genuine universal suffrage, just as we have no way of knowing if an altogether different grassroots Muslim party might have emerged under a democratic franchise.

There's a peculiar cognitive dissonance among those who argue correctly that the Nehru-led Congress was an elite party operating under a system of limited franchise before 1947 but refuse to accept that absolutely the same logic applies to Jinnah and the Muslim League during this period. You can't say that Nehru was an elite leader and Jinnah had mass support, when both were operating in exactly the same political system before partition.

https://www.huffingtonpost.in/rupa-...hat-most-indian-muslims-wanted-pa_a_22488885/

I asked you for an authentic source and you quoted me a tweet from Tarek Fatah ???? Seriously. You lost all the credibility there.

Btw , from the article your posted.

The official Congress narrative claims that most Indian Muslims were loyal to India, the Congress and Nehru. We have no way of knowing if this is true. It's possible that some or many felt that staying on in India was the best option if only for pragmatic or logistical reasons. In the absence of representative surveys of mass opinion, we are not in a position to make any assertions about those who could not vote.

One one side , she assumed majority muslims didn't support muslim league . On the other hand , she is not sure. What do you want to say Lady ?

 

[PaulSimon]

I asked you for an authentic source and you quoted me a tweet from Tarek Fatah ???? Seriously. You lost all the credibility there.

I am not sure I understand. I did not paste any tweets.

 

[pakpride00090]

I am not sure I understand. I did not paste any tweets.

The first line.
Click the word "some" after the word lately.