So, when the Congress leadership, on January 10, 2024, in a carefully worded statement politely declined to attend the inauguration of the unfinished Ram Temple on January 22, 2024 at the north Indian town of Ayodhya, stating this was an RSS-BJP event, it drew the predictable Sangh-BJP driven diatribe. Never mind the fact that organised Hinduisms four Shankaracharyas have unequivocally announced their decision to skip Ram Mandir consecration ceremony in Ayodhya, and have, moreover stated that the event is being held ‘against the shastras.”

The Congress’ stand, belated as it may have been, was clear. Representatives would certainly pay respects individually at some later date but not on January 22. If there was a single issue that was left unsaid –the elephant in the room so to speak –is the sheer bloodshed and demonizing that has underlain the RSS-BJP-VHP campaign behind Ram temple and Ayodhya. It has never really been about religion or personal faith but the aggressive and violent methods used to galvanise a section of the population (at last count 37 %) to validate attacks on lives and properties of fellow Indians who belong to another faith, Muslims. 

“Kan kan mein vyape hai Ram, Mat Bhadkaon Danga lekar unka naam” was an evocative poster line in the mid 1980s coined by the Delhi-based Sampradayikta Virodhi Andolan in response to the violent “Garv se kaho hum Hindu hai. (Say with pride that we are Hindus)” (some Mumbaikars had come up with “Prem se kaho hum Insaan hai” at the time as well). The poster line says, Ram infuses all aspects of our lives, Do not instigate riots invoking His name. The poster line draws the single most crucial line of difference between say what Congress should be saying in response to the violent aggressive cries of the RSS-BJP: Spirituality and faith are personal, not always rational but true, organised, politicization of this, invoking violence and hate in the name of faith icons, is a recipe for disaster.

Is this language of outreach or inclusion –to an alienated and fractured population –missing from the present Congress response?

The fact that the RSS-BJP’s Narendra Modi-driven orchestrated event is being planned months before a general election (April-May 2024) when the present regime faces a population restless with rising prices, unemployment and sheer despair, has now put a peculiar onus on the Opposition on just how it calibrates its response. Especially so that this (response) does not further contribute to polarisation of voters, the only plank that gives the RSS-BJP unsurpassed success.

2024, New India, the regime’s aggressive posturing’s are also conveniently echoed by electronic media outlets, clearly aligned to government. That the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with its leadership has made no secret of its brazen motives behind the timing of the inauguration of the temple at Ayodhya, a town, always associated with the spiritual tale of Ram and Sita, the Ramayan months before poll dates is no secret. That the same media outlets have been sorely wanting in calling out this brazen misuse and manipulation is also a given. The Opposition therefore faces a particularly unfair and even shrill test, with no level playing field, when media and state agencies, together collaborate on this.

It was the Communist Party of India (Marxist) set the ball rolling on December 26, when in a public communication, the party through its general secretary, Sitaram Yechury, turned down the invitation, stressing that religion is a personal choice. “Our policy is to respect religious beliefs and the right of each individual to pursue their belief. Religion is a personal choice not to be converted into an instrument for political gain. Comrade Sitaram Yechury will not attend the ceremony despite receiving an invitation to do so,” he had said in a post on X. The very next day the Trinamool Congress leadership indicated to the media that chief minister, West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, would not be attending either. Banerjee has, since been vocal in criticizing the trumped up inauguration as a stunt being put on by a “desperate Narendra Modi.”

Will the average Hindu Indian see attendance or non-attendance as a slight of her or his faith? Does the average Indian Hindu endorse this brazen manipulation of the party in power (state) of religion and religious symbols for political gain?

It is well settled political knowledge that the BJP’s sharp rise in the electoral arena from two seats in in Parliament in 1984 to 85 seats in 1989 is largely due to a mobilisation or consolidation of a ‘all Hindu consciousness’ largely –but not only — focused around the campaign to build a Ram Temple at Ayodhya (that was also visceral and clear about its objective of demolishing a 450 year old Mosque, the Babri Masjid). This consolidation of the consciousness was equally pitched on the hysteria around ‘appeasement of the minority’ which is a misnomer when it came to economic, social and citizenship rights for Indian Muslims (the indicators were and are still pathetic) but more to do with symbolisms of religiosity and conservatism (of the minorities) that worked to re-enforce embedded societal prejudices. [1] The infamous Rath Yatra of 1989-1990 was preceded, accompanied and followed by concerted attacks on India’s minorities across the length and breadth of the country; several of these attacks took on the characted of “pogroms” with a heightened communal consciousness manifest in the anti-Muslim bias among India’s police force and law enforcement agencies. The project of Hindutva then, (unlike Hinduism) has always been about the re-fashioning of India into a majoritarian theocratic state and Indian society on hardened racial and ethnic speratives.

Coming back to the present, when the BJP sits with 303 sits in Parliament, and its scion at the top wishes to rake in all credit (including non-invites to Lal Krishna Advani former deputy prime minister and union home minister apart from being the maestro behind the 1980s Rath Yatra) for the grand temple in the name of Ram, is the Congress’ response wanting in depth and nuance?

All organs of the state have been employed, including the questionable move of providing “free” rail travel to “pilgrims” for a month (sic), all of which point to a near desperation in the nine and half year old Modi government to pull out all the stops behind this issue to beat the nagging anti-incumbency that threatens its vote.

While, several Congress leaders have wondered whether passing the “loyalty test” set up by the RSS-BJP had now become an essential qualification for being considered a Hindu. Since its declaration on January 10, the party has been trying to confront the BJP’s “anti-Hindu” slur over its refusal to attend the January 22 Ayodhya ceremony by citing the Shankaracharyas’ decision to skip the event for being held against what they consider scripture-mandated norms.

“The sycophants who are breathlessly screaming since last evening against the Congress should debate why all the four Shankaracharyas are not going,” Congress social media head and spokesperson Supriya Shrinate said. She asked: “Why was the Nirmohi Akhara, which performed the rituals for Ram Lalla for decades, side-lined?”

Significantly, top spiritual leaders of the Sanatan Hindu Dharma, Jagatguru Shankaracharyas, won’t be part of the ceremony to inaugurate the Shri Ram Temple in Ayodhya, The Struggle for Hindu Existence reported on January 7. This is a pro-Hindutva portal dedicated, it says, to protect and struggle for Hindus globally.

Yet, remaining mum on the Shankryacharyas, both spokespersons of the BJP aided by some media outlets have targeted the Congress leadership, accusing it of an “anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim mind-set.” They have displayed photographs of Congress leaders attending iftar events. Predictably, the BJP has also flagged a letter that India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, wrote rejecting an invitation to the inaugural ceremony of the refurbished Somnath temple in Gujarat.

Nehru had adopted a principled stance, underlining the need for the State to keep its distance from religion. However, today’s majoritarian India under the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi is unabashedly (and in a self-glorificatory fashion) projecting him the sole guarantor of “Hindu interests.” Modi and the mammoth party’s PR machine has been behaving as head priest of the State, laying the foundation stone for the Ram temple in Ayodhya and performing the required religious rituals. He is also going to be the main host at the January 22 ceremony, too.

It is, clearly more convenient for the BJP to target the Congress than the Shankaracharyas, who are widely revered in the country. BJP spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi on Thursday claimed that the difference between Mahatma Gandhi’s Congress and Nehru’s Congress was visible now.

He sought to argue that the Congress had abandoned Gandhi and his quest for “Ram Rajya”.The Mahatma’s perception of religion, however, was entirely different from the Sangh Parivar’s. Gandhi believed in the plurality of religions and abhorred any concept of the superiority of some races or religions. Stressing the need for equal respect for all religions, Gandhi had said: “While I believe myself to be a Hindu, I know that I do not worship God in the same manner as any one or all of them.” Gandhi had also insisted that the desecration of any temple, mosque or church amounted to a denial of God’s existence. In his Collected Works, there is a powerful definition of what Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi meant by RamRajya.

“By Ram Rajya I do not mean Hindu Raj. I mean by Ramarajya Divine Raj, Khuda ki Basti or the Kingdom of God on Earth” M. K Gandhi, Collected Works.

Meanwhile, Sonia Gandhi, the former president of the Indian National Congress and a consistent target of the supremacist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has recently become the focus of the RSS mouthpiece. The Organiser shares Sonia Gandhi’s 2016 letter to the Pope, a day after she declines an invitation to the Ram Mandir event. This letter is published on X, wherein the Congress leader reportedly expressed in the 2016 correspondence to the Pope, ‘if I had not been unwell, I would’ve been there to witness this sacred ceremony,’ referring to the canonisation of Mother Teresa. The Organiser is a weekly magazine affiliated to the RSS.

“If I had not been unwell, I too would have been there to witness this sacred ceremony, and to pay my humble homage to the woman who was the very embodiment of boundless compassion, mercy and grace,” she wrote. Hailing Mother Teressa, Sonia said that every citizen of India, “including our nearly 20 million Catholics takes immense pride and joy on the recognition by Your Holiness and the Catholic Church of Mother Teresa’s profound nobility of soul, purity of purpose, and service to God through service to humanity”.

X user Vinod Sharma, who is followed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and many other BJP leaders, shared the Congress’s old post with Sonia’s letter to the Pope, saying, “No such letter of joy and devotion, to any Hindu dharmguru about pran pratistha of Ram Temple. Religion becomes a personal matter for Sonia and Rahul, the moment they have to make a ‘Hindu’ choice that runs afoul of their personal Christian religion and Muslim vote bank.”

In a quick and sharp response, Parliamentarian Shashi Tharoor from Kerala at 8.15 a.m, Friday, January 12, was quick to counter this propaganda on ‘X’. Tharoor is also author of the much-acclaimed book, “Why I am a Hindu.”

“25 years ago, then Congress President, Sonia Gandhi, delivered this thoughtful address at the #National Youth Day function at the Ramakrishna Mission on January 12, 2009. It’s hard to imagine a more effective message about Swami Vivekananda’s teachings today. And good to recall that the INC’s identification with Hindu liberalism is not a reaction to events in the last ten years, but a long-held conviction.

[1] The vociferous demand for a special law for Muslim women’s divorce rights while Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister (1986) followed by the opening of the locks of the Babri Masjid for Hindu prayers (Shilanyas) where an inserted Ram idol had been placed in 1949 is seen as one of these acts; other responses to the male clergy from among the minority re-inforcing a religious identity label rather than enforcing social, economic and cultural rights of Indian Muslims are other issued left unresolved by the Congress.

25 years ago today, then Congress President Sonia Gandhiji delivered this thoughtful address at the #NationalYouthDay function at the Ramakrishna Mission, New Delhi on 12th January 1999. It is hard to imagine a more effective message about Swami Vivekananda’s teachings today. And… pic.twitter.com/pGuvmMD69O

— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) January 12, 2024

Sonia Gandhi’s 2009 address invokes Vivekananda, “Vivekananda uniquely combined in himself the fiery national spirit of a patriot and the deep spirituality of a saint. He was a thinker and a doer, who endowed within himself the knowledge of the ancient, with the appreciation of the modern, the wisdom of the East and the science of the West, the sacredness of tradition with the necessity for modernity…. It is not just Vivekananda’s understanding and explanation of Hinduism that must be brought home to our youth. His emphasis on literacy and social renaissance is equally relevant… A few thousand graduates, he argued, could not be the basis of a great nation. Educating the masses was his constant refrain. This remains our country’s single greatest challenge as we enter the 21st century.”

Sonia Gandhi’s address may be read here:

[1] The vociferous demand for a special law for Muslim women’s divorce rights while Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister (1986) followed by the opening of the locks of the Babri Masjid for Hindu prayers (Shilanyas) where an inserted Ram idol had been placed in 1949 is seen as one of these acts; other responses to the male clergy from among the minority re-inforcing a religious identity label rather than enforcing social, economic and cultural rights of Indian Muslims are other issued left unresolved by the Congress.

Related:

Breaking: Religion a personal matter, BJP politicising Ram Temple: Congress declines invite to inauguration

The post Is the Congress anti-Hindu or anti Hindutva? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Brahmanbaria’s Nasirnagar upazila administration had allowed a meeting of Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat knowing full well they would demand justice for a Facebook post hurting Muslim sentiments.

An unruly mob broke away from those meetings and turned on Hindu inhabitants of the area vandalising about 100 homes and 10 temples. The attack left several hundred Hindus homeless and at 100 injured. Many have expressed fears of returning to their homesteads.

According to Nasirnagar OC, Md Abdul Kader, there were about 3,000 people at the meetings. “There were about 30-35 policemen.”
 

Supporters of Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat are seen with sticks on a Nasirnagar street in Brahmanbaria on Sunday, October 30, 2016 during an attack on local Hindu minority house and temples Dhaka Tribune
 

The sub-district’s administrative head, Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO), said he had given permission for a peaceful rally of pious Mulsims who would demand justice for debasing the Masjid al-Haram.

When asked about police deployment, however, UNO Chowdhury Md Moazzem Hossain said there had been no such incidents in Nasirnagar’s history. “So we did not bother with police deployment.”
He also said that he was not in charge of police deployment either, although UNOs are crucial to the administrative affairs of their areas.

Locals have reported that the meeting was announced in the area through megaphones on Saturday shoring up sentiments and informing those who were unaware of the FB post.

According to allegations, one Rasraj Das had put up a Facebook post depicting Shiva, the Hindu god of destruction, creation and regeneration sitting atop the Kaaba that Muslims face towards during prayers. Das was beaten up and handed over to the local police Saturday (October 29) afternoon.

His last FB post of 5:24am on Saturday, however, says that he was completely unaware of such a post and that his account had obviously been hacked. He begins the post, “Firstly I apologise to all Muslim brothers for someone had put up a photo from my account without my knowledge.”

He goes on to name a few people who had brought the matter to his attention since he had no idea following which Rasraj deleted the photo.

The police superintendent of Brahmanbaria Md Mizanur Rahman told Dhaka Tribune that the police were probing into such matters as whether certain specific quarters had incited the attack.

When asked about Das claiming innocence, the police super said, “Everything will become clear after investigations are over.”

He said the police were not keen on treating this incident as similar to that of Ramu in 2013, when Buddhist pagodas and holy sites were vandalised for a Facebook post apparently by one Uttam Barua, a Buddhist.

OC Abdul Kader said the meeting was organised by a platform claiming to be ‘all party pious Muslims’ and the Ahle Sunnat wal-Jamaat was a prime mover.
 

This Krishna Temple in Brahmanbaria’s Nasirnagar was vanalised during an attack on Hindu minority in the area on Sunday, October 30, 2016 Dhaka Tribune
 

A quarter of the locals has alleged that this attack was entirely incited to unseat the local five-time MP, Sayedur Rahman.

A press statement of the district unit of ruling Awami League has demanded removal of UNO Moazzem and OC Kader for their negligence.

According to the police, Rasraj Das has been booked under the ICT Act, while two cases were lodged against 1,200 unnamed assailants on Sunday evening.

The police have so far detained nine persons for vandalism and communal violence. Currently there is a large deployment in the area with three platoons of border guards, over 200 policemen and RAB personnel.

This article was first published on Dhaka Tribune

The post Brahmanbaria temple demolition in Bangladesh: Nonchalant admin to blame appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Onwards to Sanjeli!

Let’s unite — to stop young, tribal women from being lured and kid napped. Let us unite to put an end to these unholy incidents of Hindu women being sold in Muslim countries  — Let’s respond to bricks with stones.

Onwards to Sanjeli!      Public meeting         Onwards to Sanjeli!
Date: July 7, 1998, Sunday afternoon, 3 p.m.
At Rein Bassera, Sanjeli
Leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and 
Bajrang Dal to address the meeting

A young, 18–year–old woman, Kanta, of Randhikpur, and another married adivasi woman  were seduced and kidnapped to some unknown destination by Muslim youths. We have no trace of them. This is not the first incident in our area. Whether it is Vandana from Bandibaar, or Ami and Surekha from Jhalod, or Varsha from Godhra. There have been innumerable such incidents of kidnappings and disappearances. For months and years, our sisters and daughters cannot be traced. Apart from that, tragic incidents like the suicides of several elders like Magabhai Ninama keep happening in our society.

Hindu young women are kidnapped and 
Hindu elders commit suicide
Hindu population on the decline
Produce more children by kidnapping young women
Add to Muslim population
A widespread conspiracy to add to the numbers of anti–Hindu,       anti–national  elements is at work throughout the country

For the establishment of Ram Rajya, it was the people alone who came forward to help Bhagwan Ram. Now too, adivasi  brethren will have to come forward and unite to destroy this conspiracy.

When there is a weekly village market what do these Muslim loafers do? How do these Muslim loafers behave with Adivasi women going to the river for river sand? Pretending to help, do you know how these loafers tempt and lure young adivasi women and their elders?
Without expecting anything from the police, the government, or any of the politicians who are only interested in securing our votes — come — let us save our sisters and daughters from the clutches of these yavanas (demons)  who sell them to the Arabs.

Vishwa Hindu Parishad — Bajrang Dal — Sanjeli

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 2000, Year 7  No. 60, Cover Story
 

The post Hate campaign the PM knows nothing about appeared first on SabrangIndia.

"I cultivate hope and I see it wither daily; Alas, what does it serve to water the leaves when the tree is cut off at its root."

— Rousseau

August this year will mark the completion of one year since the tabling of the Srikrishna Commission’s
report in the Maharashtra assembly. Just as the anniversaries of the Babri Masjid destruction have come and gone, it seems that for the victims of the riots, August 6 will add to the list of dates serving simply to rub in the fact that the government seems neither to remember or care. The major findings of Justice Srikrishna on the dubious role of the Shiv Sena and widespread police bias against Muslims during the riots were summarily rejected by the Sena–BJP run government of Maharashtra as "anti–Hindu" and "biased in favour of the minority community" on this day last year.

The government, however, did promise action on two fronts — re-examining the ‘A’ summary cases (cases labelled ‘true but undetected’ by the police and closed down) and investigations into the partisan conduct of police officials specifically named in the Srikrishna report. Two separate committees were set up to look into the two matters.

The committee set up under the additional chief secretary (Home) in October last year, to look into the cases of delinquent officers finally issued notices to the 31 policemen (consisting of 15 police officers and 16 constables) named by the report, only in March this year. With the transfer of K.C. Srivastava, the earlier additional chief secretary, matters have not got much farther in the past three months.

Deputy secretary (Home), Dr. Sagar told CC that 28 replies had been received to the 31 notices issued. Asked when the other three were due, he said that three had "probably" asked for extensions and "their replies should have been due some time ago." No fresh time limit has been set for receiving these replies. However, he did assure that if the replies did not come in by the last week of June, a second notice would be issued to those concerned.

"The committee is now reviewing the replies of the 28 officers after which they will consider what action is to be taken," said Dr. Sagar. He predicts that the committee will be able to complete its investigations and take decisions on the action to be taken by the end of next month.

The 1,358 riots cases closed under the ‘A’ summary category have seen even less progress. After the government accepted the Srikrishna Commission’s recommendations to review these cases, a committee was set up under the director general of police, Arvind Inamdar. It was only recently that the committee decided to reopen seven cases of murder. "981 cases are to be scrutinised", says DGP, Inamdar. "Out of these, we have received reports on a total of 834 cases. 147 cases are pending with the investigating teams and 390 cases are yet to be distributed."

Four teams have been set up to look into the cases. "It is extremely exhaustive work", Inamdar says in defence of the slow progress. "Besides, there have been several transfers this month. That has really stalled the work even further. I think we will have a meeting next week to discuss the matter." (No meeting was arranged, as the DGP then went on tour). The committee has also been considering setting up one more team consisting of retired police officers to hasten the work for at least a month now. But no step has been taken in this direction as yet.

About 60 per cent of the riot cases were closed down by the police under the ‘A’ summary category. Justice Srikrishna in his report had stated, "It must be impressed upon the investigating officers that every classification of a registered offence in ‘A’ summary (which can only be done by the court) is a certificate of failure and admission of inefficiency. Figures of such classification in ‘A’ summary must count for the demerit rating of investigating officers."

But Inamdar does not agree. "We will investigate each case," he told CC. If we feel there was a deliberate attempt to scuttle the case, then we will definitely look into the matter and decide what action is to be taken against the offending officer. However, there is no trauma attached to the investigating officers simply because the cases are to be reopened."

The odds are still very thin. These cases have simply been numbers in police files for the past six years. Since evidence in criminal cases is easily erased, there is relatively little that can be hoped to be achieved now. Says P. Sebastian of the Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights (CPDR), "Government committees are often just an eyewash. The findings are routinely ignored." He points out that the Sena government had conveniently ignored Supreme Court directions issued by Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy and K.S. Paripoornan, to institute an inquiry into the police atrocities during the riots in 1996, two years before the Srikrishna report was made public. As Sebastian says, "They have reopened seven cases now out of 1,358. That doesn’t even touch the tip of the iceberg! The whole thing is a fraud. Do you think they will actually do anything? They have forgotten all about it."

This is not simply a cynical review of the situation; rather it reflects the absolute lack of credibility the government has in the matter. What is crucial at this point is that whether the government pretends to have forgotten or not, people must remember. Pressure must be brought upon the government and regular reports on the progress of the two committees sought. "Then at least", says Sebastian, "we can move the court again on the basis that they are really doing nothing."

However, the judiciary has proved as slow as the government committees. Of the several petitions filed demanding that the Srikrishna report be implemented, the one filed by a group of organisations that have come together to form the Action Taken Committee for the implementation of the Srikrishna report did come up in the Supreme Court on May 14. "But nothing was resolved", says Advocate Muchchala, who is one of the petitioners. "The state government applied for an adjournment, which justice Hegde accepted and the case is now scheduled to come up for hearing again in the last week of July as the Court is closed for vacations up to July 12. Justice Hegde did say, however, that the matter should be disposed of as soon as possible."

It remains very doubtful that by August 6 next month — a full year after Justice Srikrishna’s report was placed before the state Assembly, any real progress will have been made.

Findings of the Srikrishna Commission

 

Excerpts:

From or about July 1992, the Bharatiya Janata Party orchestrated its campaign for construction of a temple at Ayodhya by holding Ram Paduka processions, Chowk Sabhas and meetings, using these occasions for delivering inflammatory speeches exhorting the Hindus to become united on the issue.

————————

The immediate causes of the communal riots on December 6, 1992 were: (a) the demolition of Babri Masjid, (b) the aggravation of Muslim sentiments by the Hindus with their celebration rallies and (c) the insensitive and harsh approach of the police while handling the protesting mobs which initially were not violent.

————————

From January 8,1993 at least, there is no doubt that the Shiv Sena and Shiv Sainiks took the lead in organizing attacks on Muslims and their properties under the guidance of several leaders of the Shiv Sena from the level of Shakha Pramukh to the Shiv Sena Pramukh Bal Thackeray who, like a veteran general, commanded his loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organised attacks against Muslims.

————————

The response of police to appeals from desperate victims, particularly Muslims, was cynical and utterly indifferent. On occasions, the response was that they were unable to leave the appointed post; on others, the attitude was that one Muslim killed, was one Muslim less.

————————

Despite knowledge of the fact that the force had been infected by communal virus, no effective curative steps were taken over a large period of time as a result of which communal violence became chronic and its virulent symptoms showed up during the two riot periods.

————————

As far as the causes for January 1993 phase of the rioting are concerned, the Commission does not accept the theory that it was merely a backlash of the Hindus because of the stabbing, Mathadi murders incidents and the Radhabai Chawl incident.

————————

There is no material on record suggesting that even during this phase (January 1993) any known Muslim individuals or organisations were responsible for the riots, though a number of individual Muslims and Muslim criminal elements appear to have indulged in violence, looting, arson and rioting.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 1999, Year 6  No. 51, Update

The post Justice delayed… appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Annexation of Kashmir through sponsored, armed insurgency is not the final goal of Pakistan. The final goal is the transfermation of Kashmiri Muslim society from its somewhat liberal outlook and life style to an absolutely conservative and orthodox Muslim society.

The model of this type of society is of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This model is being thrust on Kashmiri Muslims, and to an extent against their free will.

In the process, foreign Islamists — whom the Kashmiris call ‘guest mujahids’ — sponsored by Pakistan-based religious militia organisations, have two specific roles in the Valley. Firstly, as the soldiers of Allah, they fight a jihad against the Indian infidels, a duty, they say, is enjoined upon every pure Musalman. Secondly, they carry on a well-organised indoctrination programme aiming at converting local Muslim youth from a liberal to a conservative ideology, or from Kashmiriyat to pure faith.

Therefore, what is happening in Kashmir is its Talibanisation. It means reverting to the Islam of the days of Caliphs Omar and Usman. It aims at replacing coexistence by exclusivism, effacing all symbols of pre-Islamic culture, distorting history so as to sever established links between the ancient and the mediaeval and bringing about a sea-change in life style.

Madrassas (Islamic schools) are the cornerstone of propagation of orthodox Islamic ideology, and these have sprung in every town and village in Kashmir. Their curricula have changed from early crude anti-Hindu hatred to subtle distortion of the history of pre-Islamic times. From these institutions sprang a generation of closed-minded fanatics who are in the forefront of separatist struggle today. Though the National Conference governments in 1980s did visualise the consequences of the role of madrassas, yet it had neither will nor skill to restrain them. Finally the NC compromised its position following the execution of Z.A. Bhutto. 

After the NC assumed power in 1996, more than 1,300 new madrassas have been opened in the Valley; many with boarding schools. These bastions of Sunni Wahhabi ideology are playing a crucial role in Talibanisation of Kashmir. After all, the Taliban had also sprung from the Pakistani madrassas, which are the model for their Kashmiri counterparts.

In order to legitimise the madrassas and their sectarian character, the state government has been deliberately criticising its own educational institutions as inefficient. Even the chief minister is on record having expressed adverse remarks on government schools. This was a ploy for indirectly conceding legitimacy of the parochial Jamaat-e-Islami institutions.

The support structure for Talibanisation is to be found in the mosques. The theory of separating religion from politics has never worked in Kashmir, or anywhere in the Islamic world. If the grapevine is to be trusted, the builder of a mosque gets 25 per cent of the total cost of building a new mosque. 

The money reportedly comes from the Wahhabi-oriented Kashmiri Sunni Muslim Diaspora in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, or directly from Saudi intelligence agencies through their Kashmiri conduits. The phenomenon of raising mosques throughout Kashmir valley is strikingly similar to the raising of mosques in Central Asian states after they became independent in 1991.

In early 1980s, Allahwale, the all-India level missionaries of Sunni Wahhabi faith, surfaced in large numbers in the Valley and got scattered throughout its length and breadth. They had withdrawn to their shell when militancy broke out in Kashmir. Today, the Allahwale have re-emerged in the Valley and are carrying out their Islamisation agenda — of course, an exclusivist agenda running contrary to the secular Constitution of India.

Another dimension of Talibanisation of Kashmir is the onslaught on its composite culture often labelled as Kashmiriyat. There is a massive campaign of distortion of place names, legends, traditions and history which has something definitely to do with the pre-Islamic period of Kashmiri history. More than 3,000 place names have been changed and adorned with Islamic epithets. 

Pseudo-historians are trying to rewrite the cultural and social history of Kashmir. A strong lobby has been created to sell the theory that the Kashmiri race is not of Aryan but Semitic origin and that its cultural manifestations are not its own and indigenous, but largely or even fully borrowed from Central Asia. The symbols of Kashmir’s spontaneous identity, like Nund Rishi and Makhdum Sahib are being discarded as non-exclusivist and therefore unacceptable. Kashmir Shaivism is being projected as the sequel to the rising Sufi philosophy in Iran and Central Asia with impact on early Hindu spiritualists of Kashmir. 

Thus the Kashmiri Muslim is being taught to reject his past. The idea has been borrowed from the practice in Pakistan where history begins with the advent of Muhammad Bin Qasim in A.D. 712. Prior to that there is a big blank.

In life style, a drastic change has been effected. Young and old grow beard and falling tresses, the style said to have been of the elders of Islamic faith. Kashmiris, old and young, all have adopted the Afghan/Taliban dress — a baggy shalwar, longish shirt half coat, round outward turned headgear and a square piece of cloth folded triangularly and thrown round the neck. This again is in imitation of the Taliban who believe it to be style of the early Islamic conquerors and warriors from Arab lands.

Even in their address and public dealings, there are marked changes. The phraseology is that of the puritanical Muslims. For example, instead of the traditional ‘Khuda Hafiz’ (meaning farewell) now ‘Allah Hafiz’ is said because the word Khuda is of non-Arab origin (Khotaay in Avestic means the Lord).

Any dispassionate observer will have no difficulty in confirming these ground realities. We need courage to speak honestly what we see on the ground. Kashmir has been thoroughly Talibanised. In doing so, Pakistan has realised its essential goal. The “liberation” of Kashmir, according to them, is a corollary to Talibanisation. It has to be remembered that General Pervez Musharraf, the chief executive of Pakistan said it clearly that Kashmir’s annexation could wait. What is of importance is making India weak internally.  

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999, Year 7  No. 53, Cover Story 2

The post Day of the ‘mujahid’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

British imperialists had entered the Indian sub–continent through the innocuous channels of trade
and commerce during the early part of the 17th century. Once they had set their feet firmly on the Indian soil under the protection and patronage of the Mogul emperors, it did not take them long to manifest their real political ambitions and sinister objectives of colonising India, taking fullest advantage of the political anarchy that prevailed in the country following the decline and disintegration of the Mogul power after emperor Aurangzeb.

In playing the subtle game of exploiting the age–old and intrinsic racial, communal and religious differences of different sections of the Indian people, the British excelled all the other European nations, such as the French, Dutch and Portuguese, who were also competing greedily with the British for establishing their own spheres of political power and influence in India. The British ultimately won, because of their superior strategy of "Divide and Rule", which throughout the colonial history of the British in India, they used very skilfully, ruthlessly and most unscrupulously in all their dealings with their opponents in the Indian sub–continent.

In the adventurous career of establishing their political hegemony throughout India, the British had encountered real challenges to their power only twice before the so–called ‘sepoy mutiny’ or the Indian rebellion (also described at times as India’s first war of Independence) against the British in 1857.

The first challenge was posed by Nawab Sirajuddaula of Bengal, who was eliminated without much difficulty by Clive in the battle of Plassey fought in 1757. Clive had, of course, succeeded through the intrigues and high treason of Mir Jaffar.

The second challenge, which was much more formidable than the first one, had come to the British from Tipu Sultan and his father Nawab Hyder Ali Khan of Mysore, whose kingdom at one time stretched over a vast area in Deccan, comprising not only the whole territory of the present day state of Karnataka, but also included sizeable portions of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra states.

Apart from fighting numerous battles with their other enemies, Tipu and his father fought four major wars against the British and their allies. So great were the military exploits and victories of Tipu and Hyder, and so crushing and humiliating were the defeats suffered by the British in the first two Mysore wars, that the British considered this Deccan Sultanate as a poisonous thorn in their side and spared no effort through treachery, intrigues and subversion to bring about the downfall of this Sultanate — an objective which they had failed to achieve on the battle fields otherwise.

To the national misfortune of India, the British succeeded in their efforts to kindle selfish ambitions and envy in the hearts of the Maratha rulers and the Nizam of Hyderabad; so much so, that they had joined with the British in forming an unholy common alliance against the Sultan. Encouraged by the British, the Maratha rulers and the Nizam suffered from illusions of false grandeur and glory and imagined themselves to be the legal heirs to the Mogul empire in India.

The courage and chivalry of Tipu Sultan on the battlefields earned from his friends and foes the title of the ‘Tiger of Mysore’ for the Sultan. It is said that the British feared Tipu so much — not only in India but also in England — that mothers used to frighten their children just by using the name of Sultan.

There are different versions about the role of Tipu Sultan in fighting the British in India. In some books of history pertaining to Tipu Sultan, written either by the British authors or other writers influenced by the British, the Sultan has been depicted as a Muslim religious fanatic, who was intolerant of other religions and persecuted their followers. It is alleged that hundreds and thousands of Hindus and Christians were either massacred or forcibly converted to Islam on the orders of the Sultan. Tipu is also alleged to have destroyed in his religious frenzy, scores of temples and churches.

Tipu and his father Hyder Ali have also been shown in some books as usurpers, who in their greed for power had deprived the legitimate Hindu Raja of Mysore of his throne and his kingdom. It is pointed out that with the fall of Srirangapatnam, the capital of the Sultanate, and the death of Tipu on the battle–field in the fourth war of Mysore in 1799, when the British bestowed the throne of Mysore to the Hindu Raja, the British acted most justly; in fact, they undid an act of grave "injustice" and "tyranny" perpetrated on the Raja and his Hindu subjects by Tipu Sultan and his father.

Taking into consideration the factors mentioned in the above paragraphs, it should be quite obvious that the various charges levelled against Tipu Sultan were totally baseless and were concocted by the British to fit into their strategy of ‘Divide and Rule’, with particular reference to the two major religious communities of India. It would, nevertheless, be necessary to establish the real truth on the basis of pure historical facts.

Late Mahmood Khan Mahmood of Bangalore, in his much celebrated biographical book on the history and times of Tipu Sultan, entitled Sultanate–e–Khudabad, after much painstaking research, with reference to both Hindu and foreign historians and writers, had with documentary evidence and proof refuted the allegations against Tipu as based on untruth. Modern historical research of the period has also shown the various allegations to be "historical myths" and fiction invented by the British and their henchmen to malign the Sultan with an avowed objective of sowing seeds of discord and hatred between Hindus and Muslims in order to strengthen and perpetuate the British Raj in India.

Tipu was undoubtedly a very pious and God fearing Muslim. It is recorded in his biography that when the construction of the great Jami Mosque at Srirangapatnam was completed, it was proposed by the learned scholars that the first inaugural prayers should be led by a pious person who had not missed even a single prayer since attaining the age of puberty. While there was reluctance and even some sort of consternation amongst the distinguished scholars and noblemen gathered on the great occasion for complying with his condition, one person stepped forward to lead the prayers, as required. This pious person was none other than the Sultan himself.

But Tipu Sultan’s religious nature and piety, as stated, did not prevent him from being kind, just and considerate to his non–Muslim subjects. In fact, he was liberal and generous to them as illustrated by the following events.

Even to this day, there are numerous Hindu temples in the Deccan which are enjoying the benefits of jagirs granted by the Sultan. It is noteworthy that once, in a war with the Marathas, the Maratha army had laid siege to the Sultan’s capital city of Srirangapatnam. Angered by their defeat, the Maratha troops, before their retreat, ransacked not only the populated suburbs of the capital, but also looted the famous temple of Sri Ranga in the vicinity of the city on the banks of river Cauvery. When this sad story of plunder of the temple reached the Sultan, he not only got the damage repaired, but also restored to the temple the equivalent of the wealth carried away by the invaders. His Hindu subjects gratefully acknowledged this act of generosity and liberalism on the part of Tipu. The holy temple itself is a standing monument to this day to Sultan’s religious liberalism and benevolence.

Tipu Sultan’s great respect and regard for the Shankaracharya of the famous Sringeri Mutt and his several munificent grants for this Mutt situated in his kingdom are well known.

Dr S. Radhakrishnan in his book, Present Crisis of Faiths, wrote:

"Tipu on many occasions requested the Sringeri Shankaracharya to offer prayers to God. Once, he expressed great pleasure at the Sahasra Chandi Japa performed under the guidance of the Shankaracharya for the welfare of his kingdom".

It is nothing but slanderous to attribute to Tipu Sultan, a man of such broad–minded religious liberalism and catholic out–look, narrow–minded religious fanaticism. Similarly, stories of mass conversions and massacres of non–Muslims are also without any foundation whatsoever.

The various battles fought by the Sultan were of political rather than religious nature. He fought not only against the Marathas and British but also against the Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of Arcot. Of course, the Sultan had to suppress with an iron hand, rebellions by sections of people, who included not only Hindus and Christians, but also Muslims. All this was done in the business of ruling the kingdom and was not done as persecution of non–Muslims.

It may be mentioned here that when the Sultan saw that some Christian converts were often being used by the British missionaries as fifth columnists and agents of the British imperialists to subvert his kingdom, he took suitable punitive action against such agents of the enemy in the interests of his state. It is meaningless to characterise the Sultan’s action as "religious persecution".

As for the charge of usurping the throne and kingdom of the Hindu Raja, it would be relevant to narrate that before the advent of Hyder Ali Khan on the scene, the ‘Raja’ and his ‘Kingdom’ existed only nominally. After the disintegration of the Vijayanagar Empire, the ‘Raja’ who was a vassal of the Vijayanagar rulers had declared his ‘independence’. The Raja’s ‘kingdom’ comprised the town of Mysore and some 33 villages around it. Hyder Ali Khan, whose ancestors had migrated to the south from Bijapur, had joined the service of the Raja of Mysore, and risen to the rank of army commander. Tired and disgusted by the intrigues of his scheming courtiers, the Raja himself had handed over power to Hyder Ali Khan. It was Hyder Ali Khan, who, through his military genius and statesmanship, extended the frontiers of this tiny and obscure ‘kingdom’ to a great Sultanate of national and international reputation. Even after becoming a Nawab, Hyder Ali Khan, and later his son, Tipu Sultan, continued to give full protection to the Raja and his family and granted privy purses and allowances for their maintenance with honour and dignity befitting their royal status. This development was given a mischievous Hindu–Muslim communal twist by the British in order to gain their selfish political ends in India.

Coming to the positive side of the role played by Tipu Sultan, he may aptly be ranked amongst the first and foremost of the national heroes and martyrs of India, who laid down their lives so that their country and countrymen may live in freedom with dignity and honour.

It was Tipu, who with his rare far–sightedness had planned for the development and progress of ‘swadeshi’ trade and industry (particularly cottage industries). He also made pioneering efforts for developing agriculture through a well–developed irrigation system. It may be mentioned here that when the foundation for the present Krishnaraja Sagar dam near the city of Mysore on the river Cauvery was laid, during the early part of this century, engineers were surprised to find at the site a stone tablet, which indicated that the Sultan had already laid the foundation of an irrigation dam on the same site over a century ago!

It was Tipu Sultan, who for the first time in Indian history, had realised that Indians could not hope to survive as a free people, if they relied solely on their old and traditional methods of warfare for facing the challenge posed by the British. He tried, therefore, to modernise his armed forces with the help of the French, which struck terror into the hearts of the British. To Tipu Sultan again goes the credit of discovering another unique truth that the secret of the British might lay in their naval power. In order to combat this foreign menace, Tipu had tried to build up a strong Indian naval force at Bhatkal and Mangalore on the Arabian coast in his kingdom. Realising the national and international aspects of the menace posed by the British imperialists in India, Tipu had even tried to enlist the cooperation and collaboration of the Caliph of Turkey and Napoleon Bonaparte of France. It was unfortunate that intrigues and subversion engineered by the British and their agents thwarted the efforts of the Sultan.

Amongst those who had betrayed Tipu Sultan, Mir Sadiq and Poorniah top the list. Mir Sadiq and Poorniah, who were the Prime Minister and Dewan of the Sultan respectively, had conspired with the British in destroying the Sultanate of Tipu.

Poorniah’s appointment by Tipu as his trusted Dewan — a post next in importance only to Prime Ministership — was another example of the Sultan’s benevolence and communal generosity towards his Hindu subjects.

Referring to the treachery of Poorniah, Mahatma Gandhi had once written that he felt ashamed that Poorniah, who had betrayed the Sultan, was a Hindu.

Poet Iqbal had condemned the treacherous role of Mir Jaffar and Mir Sadiq as follows:

"Mir Jaffar–e–Bengal, o Mir Sadiq–e–Deccan

Nang–e–Adam, Nang–e–Deen, Nange–Watan"

(Mir Jaffar of Bengal and Mir Sadiq of Deccan, they are a disgrace to mankind, disgrace to their religion and disgrace to their country!)

It is recorded in his biography that during the fourth Mysore war, when he was fighting the last and most fateful battle of his life, Mir Sadiq had approached the Sultan with the advice that he should come to terms with the British. Tipu Sultan is said to have retorted that it was better to live like a tiger for one day than live like a jackal for a hundred years.

By laying down his life for the freedom of his country, Tipu had exemplified by his supreme sacrifice what could be the best and most glorious in India’s history and national traditions of service and sacrifice.

It is rather unfortunate, and in fact a national tragedy, that notwithstanding his supreme sacrifices, the role of Tipu Sultan as one of the first and foremost national heroes, patriots and freedom fighters of India is yet to be recognised and appreciated in full by his country and country men.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999.Year 6  No. 54, Forum

The post A hero defamed appeared first on SabrangIndia.