3:41 pm - Thursday October 18, 2018

Beyond Jinnah , Gandhi and Nehru : A History of Muslim Separatism In India – 1

Beyond Jinnah , Gandhi and Nehru : A History of Muslim Separatism  In India

Rajiv Upadhyay


I unfortunately find that in Indian Media  as well as else where , muslim separatism which resulted in creation  of Pakistan is viewed from the narrow prism of Jinnah , Gandhi , Nehru , Patel and Cabinet Mission etc .
It is so myopic !
Hindus in India ,after seventy years of independence, have started wondering that today that why with 3 lakh mosques with blaring loudspeakers in India compared to 180000 in Pakistan and 250359 in Bangladesh ,with 170000 subsidized haj pilgrims in India compared to 1,79,000 in non subsidized hajis in Pakistan and 1,24,198 in Bangladesh, with madarsas in India having increased from 88 in pre partition period to 5 lakh now ( study by Mittal ), with average muslim in India having two years more life and more income than average muslim in Pakistan and knowing that in hindu India they will be twice as rich after twenty years than muslims of Pakistan or Bangladesh , why Kashmiri muslims expelled Pandits and allegedly want to be a part of Pakistan . Why Indian muslims deny their common hindu  heritage of pre conversion period by opposing Ram temple at Ayodhya .Why till liberation of Bangladesh so many in Delhi’s walled city supported Pakistani cricket team .FS 7 AKBAR
In short one may ask why should separate identity and anti Hinduism be the basis of muslim politics in India ?
It is a hard truth that Muslim politicians like muslim businessmen or scholars were no match to Hindu counter parts and their backwardness in pre partition period or earlier was and still continues to be due to the  inherent lack of matching ability in all fields except motor skills and fighting war . Their tallest leader Jinnah was no match to master strategist Mahatma Gandhi . His urban constitutionalism could have never got us the independence . His or Liaqat Ali Khan’s vision of Pakistan was no match to Nehru’s vision of India.Same is true of muslim industrialists who were no match to Birla, Tata or Jamna Lal Bajaj. Muslims had no Ramanujam , Jagdish Bose , CV Raman .
Due to this deep sense of inequality Indian muslims were made to fear that they will suffer from  discrimination in hindu dominated India. Not only that the discrimination in hindu domination bogey was a myth .It created an unnecessary ‘ Islam / Muslim Under Siege or danger  mentality .’
 It carefully hid the fact that Indian muslims were always discriminated even in muslim rule . Even today in Saudi Arabia and gulf countries muslims from Indian subcontinent are called ‘Maskin’ ie people living on alms .In Delhi Sultanet era Indian muslims were called ‘ Ajlaf ‘ while foreign muslims from Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan were called ‘ Ashraf ‘ . The famed equality of muslims was itself a myth because sweeper class was no better after conversion and was called ‘Aryal ‘. The plight of Indian muslims can be judged from the fact that Meena Kumari the most successful actress of her time was denied conjugal rights by her husband Kamal Amrohi because she was not a Syed like him .
Ziauddin Barani, the 14th century political thinker of the Delhi Sultanate recommended that the “sons of Mohamed” (i.e. Ashrafs) be given a higher social status than the low-born (i.e. Ajlaf). His most significant contribution in the fatwa was his analysis of the castes with respect to Islam. His assertion was that castes would be mandated through state laws or “Zawabi” and would carry precedence over Sharia law whenever they were in conflict. According to Barani, every act which is “contaminated with meanness and based on ignominity, comes elegantly [from the Ajlaf]”.. Barani also developed an elaborate system of promotion and demotion of Imperial officers (“Wazirs”) that was primarily based on their caste.[5][6] ( wiki )
So next question is that why , how and when did this anti Hinduism originate and became the basis of politics in India  ?
Before we get overwhelmed by the seeming anti Hinduism of Indian muslims,  we must realize that it is a global problem and could as well be asked by Christians in west. Its origin lies in classification of human beings into three groups
1.Momins ,              the followers and thus pursuing the right path and bound by Ummah .
2.Kaffirs ,                the non muslims  to be converted or killed
3. Ahl e kitab ,        a small group of people with holy book ie Christians and jews who can live in Islamic lands as Dhimmis ( protected people ) by paying the additional tax Jiziya
There are only two types of land
1. Dar al Islam             land of islam and thus peace ie Pakistan.
2. Dar al harb              ie land under war to be conqured ie British or the present India  .
 ‘Dar al sulah               there is a small third variety  the land under a treaty .
But the Banu Qurayaza jews of Mecca living as Dhimmis were massacred and children and women distributed as slaves on some scuffle during the life time of prophet  . Sindh , a Dar al sulah under Brahmanabad treaty became Dar al harb soon after Muhammed Bin Kasim’s death.
There is only one religion ie
la illah illahlah Muhammed Rasoola allah , meaning there is no god but alllah and Muhammed is his paigambar.
with such non ambiguous division and wonderful clarity one has to deal with muslims knowing fully well that at the end one is only a kaffir living in Dar el harb like hindu in India , Chritian in Germany or Jew in Israel.
The man who dared to change it was Akbar . After prolonged discussions in his ‘ ibadat khana ” on good aspects of various religions he made a new religion by combining the best part of all religions ie  ‘Din e illahi ‘ . It was a voluntary religion and could attract only nineteen followers till his death .
The rest  of us are still wondering how the superior principles of Akbar who was almost secular in the end and had removed Jiziya and tax on hindu pilgrimage, were  overturned so fast that in just fifty two years after his death he was followed by Aurangzeb , the pious muslim king ( !) who earned his living by stiching skull caps , but was amongst the cruelest Mughal  kings who not only killed his brothers and imprisoned his father but whose intolerance ultimately destroyed the Mughal  empire , so carefully built by Akbar .muslim separatism 6 AbulFazlPresentingAkbarnama
To understand how ‘anti Hinduism ‘ became an article of faith after the death of Akbar one must begin by  studying the principal contributors in evolution of the rabid anti Hinduism  thought  .The undisputed leaders principal thinkers and philosophers were
1. Khalifa Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi ( 1564 – 1624) , destroyed Akbar’s legacy of tolerance and co existence.
2.Shah Wali Ullah ( 1703 – 62 ) ,              a hardliner who saddened by the rise of Marathas  invited Abdali
3. Syed Ahmad of Rai Bareily ,                 who launched jihad against Ranjit Singh and was killed in battle .
4. Muhammed Qasim Nanauti and Rasid Ahmad Gangohi     who established Deoband Madarsa in 1866.
5. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan ( 1817- 1898 )    who established AMU ( Mohammeden Anglo Oriental College)
6. Muhammed Iqbal ( 1876 – 1938)           the philosopher behind the creation of Pakistan
7. Mohammed Ali Jinnah (1876 – 1948 )   the undisputed General and the creator of Pakistan
Each of them had a role in evolution of anti Hinduism as a plank of muslim politics in India . But they were all charismatic and brilliant individuals who were only victims of a thought process that is imbibed in every child .
Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi ( 1564 – 1624) , The Adi Shankaracharya after Akbar’s Din- e- Ilalhi muslim separatism 3 sheikh sirhindi

Adi Shankaracharya vs Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi ( 1564 – 1624 ) had the most profound and long lasting impact on the ‘Resurgence or Regression’ or the ‘ Evolution or Devolution’ ( depending on view point ) of Islam in the Indian subcontinent . He did to ‘ Din e Ilahi ‘ what Shankaracharya did to Buddhism in India . If open Shastrarth was the favourite method of Shankaracharya , writing letters was the favourite method of Sirhindi . He wrote some 467 letters which are available in book form as ‘Maktubat-i Imam-I-Rabbani ‘. His influence continues till date . He is considered a sufi saint and is almost worshipped by the hardliners of Islam in India.’ He not only opposed Akbar in court who tolerated him but he was jailed for two years by Jahangir when he refused to do ‘sajda’ in court to king .He is also accused of enjoying execution of of Sikh Guru Arjan by Jahangir ( letter no 193) He opposed the Akbar’s favourite concept of ‘wahadat – al – wujud ( Unity of being ) ‘. Other concept of ”sulh e kool’ ( peace with all) also did not find support .He instead supported total orthodoxy , advocated strict application of non changing Shariah laws in the entire empire. Akbar was under the influence of two of his nav ratans ie Abu Faizal and Faizi who were liberals . Jahangir did not support ‘Din e Ilahi ‘but otherwise continued Akbars tolerant policies towards hindus . Shah Jahan too realised the political benefits of winning over the hindu trust .Aurangzeb instead was a disciple of Sirhindi’s son . I am giving Engineer Asghar Ali’s article on Sirhindi in the end . Finally it was Sirhindi’s orthodox thoughts which won in the end as every where else in all ages . Shah Walli Ullah ( 1703-62) Next to Sirhindi , it is Shah Waliullah of Delhi , a prominent Sufi scholar who had a profound impact on muslim thinking on India . His father was in the team that framed the laws of Aurangzeb in ‘Fatwa e Alamgir ‘. While reformers in other religion try to interpret script

We will understand contribution of each of them in the next post .
Filed in: Articles

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply