Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[joshvajohn]

Some of us fall into generalisation of Islam, Muslims and Terrorism and look at them as one and the same. To be frank 140-160 million Muslims possibly are in India. If they are all terrorists, India will not be a country by now. Majority of the Muslim communities themselves are caught between two groups - one group who promote a fundamentalist agenda to-who also hijack the whole community either at the tip of gun point or at the tip of emotionalism and possibly at times promote a terror agenda - second group is those non-Muslims who create fear about majority Muslims who do not sympathise with the previous group but simply wanted to survive by getting a job and earning a livelihood for them and families.

If one is a leader for whole of India, he or she is a president or pm for all people not only for one particularly religious community. In this sense the leader should be inclusive to some extent in terms of working towards development of all people and growth of this country. The leader cannot refuse a Karnataka turban because he is a Gujaratti. It is not that he must wear it rather if he is a chief minister it would be good if he wears it.

Democratic leadership is representational. The leader represents all people though he is elected by majority. For example if Mayawati is voted mainly by Dalits, it does not mean that she should serve only Dalits. She has a responsibility in fulfilling her role for the Brahmins or uppercastes who are also poor and who also need support. It is her duty to see that their poverty is also addressed.

Ofcourse, I am aware of the problems the Kashmiri Pundits are facing! No one can justify the Muslims in Pakistan attacking the minorities there. This is one of the reason that Pakistan is collapsing. Because afte r fighting minorities the next step is to fight within. If Islamcontinues this route, this is reaching its end soon as Christianity had reached its end in the West. Because of violence,hatreness, abuse of power, institutionised authoritarian religion, money, corruption, conflicts and so on have made any religion to reach its own end soon. At one may realise such negative elements of religion have led Westerner (majority) to be antireligious agnostic and mostly atheistic pluralists. Ofcourse some are religious. Such as non-religious materialistic people often want to succeed their own selfish motives as their goal of life.

For me if the leadership takes our country as a whole including all regardless of their religion, region and caste, then there will be peace and harmony and possibly an inclusive growth.

Ofcouse lasttime there were good things to say about Vajpayee governance.

[shivajisisodia]

Some of us fall into generalisation of Islam, Muslims and Terrorism and look at them as one and the same. To be frank 140-160 million Muslims possibly are in India. If they are all terrorists, India will not be a country by now. Majority of the Muslim communities themselves are caught between two groups - one group who promote a fundamentalist agenda to-who also hijack the whole community either at the tip of gun point or at the tip of emotionalism and possibly at times promote a terror agenda - second group is those non-Muslims who create fear about majority Muslims who do not sympathise with the previous group but simply wanted to survive by getting a job and earning a livelihood for them and families.

If one is a leader for whole of India, he or she is a president or pm for all people not only for one particularly religious community. In this sense the leader should be inclusive to some extent in terms of working towards development of all people and growth of this country. The leader cannot refuse a Karnataka turban because he is a Gujaratti. It is not that he must wear it rather if he is a chief minister it would be good if he wears it.

Democratic leadership is representational. The leader represents all people though he is elected by majority. For example if Mayawati is voted mainly by Dalits, it does not mean that she should serve only Dalits. She has a responsibility in fulfilling her role for the Brahmins or uppercastes who are also poor and who also need support. It is her duty to see that their poverty is also addressed.

Ofcourse, I am aware of the problems the Kashmiri Pundits are facing! No one can justify the Muslims in Pakistan attacking the minorities there. This is one of the reason that Pakistan is collapsing. Because afte r fighting minorities the next step is to fight within. If Islamcontinues this route, this is reaching its end soon as Christianity had reached its end in the West. Because of violence,hatreness, abuse of power, institutionised authoritarian religion, money, corruption, conflicts and so on have made any religion to reach its own end soon. At one may realise such negative elements of religion have led Westerner (majority) to be antireligious agnostic and mostly atheistic pluralists. Ofcourse some are religious. Such as non-religious materialistic people often want to succeed their own selfish motives as their goal of life.

For me if the leadership takes our country as a whole including all regardless of their religion, region and caste, then there will be peace and harmony and possibly an inclusive growth.

Ofcouse lasttime there were good things to say about Vajpayee governance.

I respectfully and regretfully completely disagree with you, JJ Sab. See it is like this.

1) Of course, ALL muslims are not terrorists. They couldnt be, even if they wanted to be. But hang a muslim terrorist and, I bet you, 99% of ALL muslims, will in their hearts oppose any kind of punishment for the terrorist, regardless of how henious an act he has committed against the Hindus or the Nation. For example, I dont think you will find a more liberal muslim and most unlikely terrorist than Omar Abdullah. Look what he is doing ? He is sponsoring a resolution to "not hang" Afzal Guru. So, the point is not that Muslims are ALL terrorists, no one is saying that. But I think what others are saying and I agree that most Mulsims are taught by Quoran to first be loyal to Islam and then to a Nation. Since India is not Dar-ul-Islam yet, even the most moderate muslims, with a very few exceptions such as Abdul Kalaam, cannot be loyal to India, when it comes to Indian interests vs any kind of perceived Muslim interests, even the interests of a Muslim terrorist. This is just a fact of life and we should never lose sight of that fact.

2) Of course, it is the duty of every government to look after the interests of all its citizens equally, when it comes to their material well being and freedoms. Even I, who am a big proponent of a Hindu State, would not want discrimination against Muslims in any arena, whether they be jobs or education or any area of civil life or anything else. The only exception I will make is in those areas where Hindu doctrine clashes with the Islamic doctrine and a decision has to be made on one vs the other, in which case, in India, I would go with the Hindu doctrine. So, no discrimination whatsoever, with that one exception, even though I fully realize that 99% of Muslims as per their religion cannot be loyal citizens of India for all practical purposes, when it comes to India vs anything Islamic.

3) Same theological constraints in professsing loyalty to India do not hold for Dalits or anyone else in India, not even Christians, although in practice, loyalty of Christians can also be legitimately questioned. But at least it is not a theological choice for Christians.

[joshvajohn]

Sivaji - you again play with the words - such as Muslims, Hindus and Christians. Not many would sympathise with the terrorist because he or she might kill people including Muslims. terrorism has no religion nor does it differentiates people when it kills. When minority feel vulnerable then some of their jobless young fellows get food and gun from the neighbouring country and are told that all Hindus are enemies and so go and kill them. You should understand that many of these terrorists who have killed in Mumbai or Parliament attach has their nationality either pakistani or Kashmir origin. Ofcourse Indian Mujahideen too have grown as terror group. For me they are still in minority and do not get support from majority Muslims. Among Muslims in India they have huge differences and diversities, if they have to solve by guns they would have killed one quarter of their own by this time. Many myths are created by media and vested political groups in India. You also give a few exceptions. Many muslims fall under this exception. It is totally wrong to generalise people into a monolithic group and create a phobia and ignorance about them. Many Muslims are generally nice people except that they often try to convert you to their religion very vigourously. If you have lived with them in many parts of India, You would know, though there are restrictions for love marriages with other religious folks.

Being loyal to India, what are you speaking? If they are not loyal to India why you have some muslim players giving their full energy for Indian cricket. because a few hyderabadi muslim fools wanted to support Pakistan then one would generalise that all muslims wanted to support green flag. It is like a few British Indians supporting India, then BBC would argue that all British born indians support Indian Team. I have seen British Born Indians came to India during the last world cup and supported England Team. so there are varieties possible and so no generalisation.

Christians not loyal - you have to see educational institutions across India where indian govt cannot go they have gone. Many Frs and Sisters have sacrificed their personal desires to offer a high quality education for children in India. You may then argue that their purpose was to convert people. Even Jeyalalitha studied in one of such schools and she was not converted. The church institutions have created enormous leaders in India though their intention of converting people was not achieved. So they even changed their mission to making a better civil society and better humanity because they have to get funding for better facilities.

During freedom movement many missionaries wanted Indian Christians to support the government but Indian Christians joined in many cases which you may find in the letter correspondence between Gandhi and K M George.

Muslims were at the forefront of freedom movement. People create myths to segregate and create ignorance. This was part of Huntington's thesis - clash of civilisations. Edward Said, a post colonialist had to refute this thesis and critiqued this under the title, clash of ignorance. you can read it online from the google search.

When it comes to leadership in India, the basic question is whether we want a peaceful India or shattered like Pakistan with bombs as everyday event?
whether we wanted growth inclusive or make some rich and forget rest to fight for food and fight as red or religious terror.

whether we wanted to be strong or being weaken by internal conflicts

[RamaY]

^ JJ ji,

You post above is full of loopholes. You are selling old-fashoned snake oil in the name of peace, compassion and prosperity.

I have few questions for you.

1. India has 85% of Hindu population. Why don't we see proportional conversions from minority religions to majority religions, if religious conversions happen out of knowledge, love and compassion?

2. How can you call it a minority insecurity, when the largest terrorism emanated from the states/regions where these so-called minorities are in majority, be it in NE or JK or Punjab or Red-corridor?

3. What is the proportion of religiously converted and (sic) secularized Hindus in the Christian convent educated, compared to Religious hindus after their convent education? Isn't it the sole contribution of convent education in india?

4. If 60 years of secular, pampered, and skewed promotion of religious minorities results in today's ghetto mentality in both Indian Muslims and indian Christians then what would it take to make these ideological slaves to see the purpose of Bharat. Please note that a presumably well educated and well achieved gentleman like Chacko Joseph thinks that the religious authority (these same guys argue that religion is personal prerogative) is granted and entrusted to a group of non-Indian phedophiles by their holy book; and their revelations tell him that singing VandeMataram is un-Christian. Do you agree with him?




3.

[shivajisisodia]

JJ Sab,

Most of the points you raised in your post which was in response to mine, Sir, were responded to in a much better way than I would be able to respond to them myself, by Ramay Sab.

However, my questioning of loyalty of Muslims have nothing to do with who cheers for who in cricket, Sir. That is kinda childish, Sir. I myself am a fan of the cricketing capabilities of certain Pakistani cricket players of my day, Sir.

No, what you failed to respond to, Sir, was the whole theological aspect of Islam and Koran, which commands a muslim to be loyal to Islam and not to any nation, unless the nation is run under Islamic law or Sharia, which in other words is called a part of Dar-Ul-Islam. India is thankfully, not yet, Dar-Ul-Islam, although it is well on its way to becoming one soon. I gave an example of this loyalty issue, a much more serious and potent example than cricket, where 90 plus percent of Muslims in India from all cross sections will have a problem with hanging Afzal Guru or Kasab. The proof is that they are still not hanged. What is the cause of delay ? Appeasement. And if an overwhelming number of muslims would have no problems with hanging of Guru for example, there would have been no appeasement and Guru would have met his 72 by now and probably totally drunk on the wine which he would have gotten in Zannat, which he was so deprived of, while on earth, on the command of Allah, via Koran.

[brihaspati]

joshvajohn ji,
I repeatedly talk of "mullahcracy" and theologians/religious leaders and religious institutions. The problem is not there with the aam follower minus the theologians and their institutional status.

The problem with these two in particular is the peculiarity of their text and dogma based doctrine, and the organized nature of their institutional propagation and expansion agenda. So that even if the aam follower has his own ideas/interpretations/implementations based on their pre-existing "Indic" roots and memes - it is the theologian of respective religions who consciously, deliberately [declared openly more in colonial times - and now declared more on the sly to selective audiences] implement a policy of gradual ideological subversion which is concretely aimed at replacement of the majority culture.

The problem with one particular ideology - in fact - in combination with its textual claims of infallibility and imposability - is that the theologians maintain, propagate, educate and instill or maintain the exclusive imperialist memes.

So as time goes on, those violent memes survive as latent ideas - sanctioned by the texts - and wait for opportune moments to strike. This is the reason we always find the violence getting up eventually as generations go by from initial conversion. The theologians and the religious institutions continue the brainwashing process which firmly and inseparably based on the textual claims - create the mindset that accepts violence as unavoidable/acceptable even if painful - to be unleashed on the unbeliever.

Yes large bodies remained non-participants in the 46-47 riots - wherever they were surrounded by vastly superior in numbers of "unbelievers", or where state protection was difficult to give immediately. But they did not prevent actively the rioters from their own communities - on the whole - especially where "jihad" was unleashed with relish by the faithful, and in most cases the underlying looting/landgrabbing/women-grabbing memes manifested. The Partition thread contains many such posts on incidents.

People often expressed surprise and shock at such manifestations from apparently "peaceful" and "neighbourly" pure-believers. The shock and surprise comes because some of us either knowingly, or out of genuine lack of knowledge - fail to talk about the role played by the texts in the hands of the theologians protected and maintained by their institutions - in keeping the genocidic memes alive.

I have encountered many from the community - who when pushed to the wall - say that, yes it was unfortunate and painful for the "other", but what can be done, that is the will of *****. The pain and trauma suffered was ordained by ****, and was necessary. These were long-time family "known" "friends", with whom my father had interacted for long times through his political networks.

Can you not see what the textual dogma and doctrine do - psychologically? The violence and the genocide and the imperialist agenda all lie beneath the top layer of ideological pretensions. As clearly stated in the textual urgings - these are meant to be kept hidden for the opportune moment - tactically.

Get rid of the theologians, and their supportive institutions, crush the institutional framework that interfaces with transnational religious interests, - and we can really, really live in peace - all as Indians. Its the dogma, the institutions, the organization and the theologian that stands between the "majority" and the "minority".

[RajeshA]

brihaspati garu,

Something for your consideration.

[KLNMurthy]

We should give some benefit of the doubt to the Omar Abdullahs that they are playing sectarian politics and not actually being traitors when they pass a resolution to let off Afzal Guru.

OA's act was a me-too after Jayalalitha got passed a resolution to pardon the LTTE terrorists who killed many Tamils in addition to Rajiv. It is the same LTTE that was after her blood in a previous JJ administration. Do we want to say that 'all' Tamils, while not terrorists, are at least condoning terrorism against India, since the TN resolution was unanimous? If not, on what basis should we justify not affording similar understanding for OA and the J&K assembly?

( I can actually thinkmof a basis: valley muslims are mostly enemies of democracy and the Indian state and we should fight them and crush them at every step. Therefore it is correct to discriminate against them and their reps. But I am one of a very tiny number who has this view. Until and inless the majority or the establishment adopts this view, we have no choice but treat them fairly and equitably).

[Pranav]

I gave an example of this loyalty issue, a much more serious and potent example than cricket, where 90 plus percent of Muslims in India from all cross sections will have a problem with hanging Afzal Guru or Kasab.

Not so straightforward - if you recall, there were a number of Muslims who did not want Kasab's colleagues' corpses to be buried on Indian soil.

On a general note, one needs to engage with the questions of how group identities are manufactured, strengthened, weakened, and dissolved. There are many entities engaged in hostile social engineering, with large annual budgets and generous government support. As a nation, awareness of these processes is only just dawning.

[Samudragupta]

Chinese agrression/claims aside this is the same GOI that dares not call a spade wrt paki terrorism and suddenly it has the balls to challenge China in its own backyard and without sufficient resources to back such a move.. Daal mein kuch kaala hain boss.
Either we are doing this at the behest of someone or the current dispensation have something nasty up their sleeve because they can't become patriotic overnight.
Probably both the former and latter are related.

Are they trying to destroy the Indian Army?

[ManishH]

even though I fully realize that 99% of Muslims as per their religion cannot be loyal citizens of India

And the remaining 1% probably passed your personally designed loyalty test ?

Probably you can educate us by giving corresponding figures for other religious minorities too

[SRoy]

Christians not loyal - you may then argue that their purpose was to convert people. Even Jeyalalitha studied in one of such schools and she was not converted. The church institutions have created enormous leaders in India though their intention of converting people was not achieved. So they even changed their mission to making a better civil society and better humanity because they have to get funding for better facilities.

Interesting. Direct proselytization did not yield dividends so use indirect means. Produce coconuts, instigate specific groups (Dalitstan anyone?), murdering Hindu social workers (Orissa), outright lies (fake Nun rape) etc. The list is long.

Muslims were at the forefront of freedom movement

Could you name atleast 5 muslim revolutionaries to support your claim?
There were lot of people involved in Freedom struggle from every walk of life and every community. But only a few were in forefront that provided the leadership and planning. Lets not manufacture history.

[vishvak]

For me if the leadership takes our country as a whole including all regardless of their religion, region and caste, then there will be peace and harmony and possibly an inclusive growth.

Ofcouse lasttime there were good things to say about Vajpayee governance.

I am glad then that the idea of growth without appeasement is understood well.But even Vajpayee Govt. lost next elections.

There are many contradictions in India. People don't vote Modi for 'justice denied', riots, etc. These all claims are bogus. Modi can not 'deliver justice', it is the job of courts which courts are doing, except for occasional 5/10 year attempts in the Supreme Courts by NGOs at various steps.

On the other hand, the same voters do not point out that no one should play down burning of ladies compartment carrying Hindu pilgrims, or derailment of trains in the north east carrying Hindu pilgrims. In the north eastern states in fact, Hindu festivals are banned by certain groups and no one points that out. People vote of YSR in spite of knowing that YSR govt looted Hindu temples, a blatant anti-Hindu uncivilized act. But do voters look at YSR and ask for justice, for apologies for blatant anti-Hinduism? There are more such examples in other stats. A general acknowledgement of 'ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits however is all that could come from seculars.

Ethnic cleansing acts are also going on in Nagaland: http://www.tehelka.com/story_main47.asp ... _meant.asp

Mistreatment of Romas in Europe is world famous.

So the question is, how come secular people are against no-appeasement, but are able to overlook blatant anti-Hinduism in various states? Does it make out multi-cultural multi-religious society any better? Or is it that appeasement is just the way to hide a clear preferential treatments wanted at the cost of others in democracy, in religious manner?

Modi clearly said that Modi works neither for minorities nor majority, unlike moderate leaders all over the world who pander to EJs and Mullahs all over USA, Europe & the middle east. What is the exact problem here?

Indeed, the most likely scenario should be preferential treatment of Dharmic people in India, the land where the dharmic religions have hearth and nowhere else.

It is very strange that those who affirm religious protection of Christianity in Vatican or Islam in Mecca and Medina do not point out that the same should occur in India too, and indeed like to reduce strength of dharmic religions in India.

[joshvajohn]

Muslim freedom martyrs of India
http://twocircles.net/2009oct01/muslim_ ... india.html

ROLE OF MUSLIMS IN THE FREEDOM MOVEMENT-II
http://www.radianceweekly.com/268/7501/ ... nt-ii.html

From the above article - I quote -

Fanatic Hindutvawadis supported the British against Muslims and they repeated the British anti-Muslim stand. Researches have proved that all the propaganda were false. Regarding Mappilla freedom fighters of Malabar in Kerala, the British spread false statements of their being anti-Hindu. In fact, Muslims fought against the Hindus who helped the British against freedom fighters – both Hindus and Muslims. Muslim peasants and agriculturists agitated against the British for their inhuman laws and taxation policies. When the freedom movement reached a critical stage after World War I, Mappillas joined Congress freedom fighters. However, few persons joined the British, and freedom fighters turned against them. They included both Hindus and Muslims. Muslim freedom fighters attacked Muslims who supported the British along with Hindus. It was not communal at all.

Also look at
http://www.radianceweekly.com/267/7472/ ... ent-i.html

For any future leaders of India such a historical awareness is essential!

[joshvajohn]

Gujarat polls 2012: Mallika Sarabhai slams Narendra Modi's sadbhavna mission as farce
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/guja ... 51639.html

I am not sure whether Modi has an inclusive growth and care for poor Hindus in Gujarat. Why there are plenty of poor and marginalised Hindus living in slums and in poor conditions if he happen to be an ideal CM? Possibly there is a good growth but not an inclusive growth!

[SRoy]

JJ

^^

Are you even aware what website you have quoted as a supporting evidence? Tomorrow you post a link to stormfront on some issue and expect the forum to accept your seriously.

British being ant-Muslims is a bit of news to me. You would certainly find a way to explain reason for disproportionately higher number of Muslims in BIA, and I hope in similar fashion you will unearth some Anglo-Saxon trick that the Brits employed punish Muslims by instigating them to occupy PoK.

Truth is that the so called "fanatic Hindutwavadis" (a recent term applied to events long ago exposes the source behind your "proof") were the ones behind organization of logistics and communication during 1857 i.e. first known large scale anti-British movement. The Muslims at that point simply joined in the hope of restoration of the Mughal suzerainty.

PS: BTW, I'm still waiting for 5 names. Even my sarkari psuedo-secular CBSE history book didn't have such a list, so it might be a good addition to my knowledge base if 5 such mavericks really existed.

[SRoy]

Great going JJ, its gives me a great satisfaction when fake nationalists like you expose themselves.

[shivajisisodia]

And the remaining 1% probably passed your personally designed loyalty test ?

Probably you can educate us by giving corresponding figures for other religious minorities too

You are missing the point. It is not my personal loyalty test, but what it says in Koran. And most Muslims in today's world, including Indian muslims do not deviate much from literal interpretation of Koran, because there are strong disincentives for them to do so (such as Fatwas against them, isolation within their own communities and even death in a large number of cases). Look what happened to Taslima Nasreen or Salman Rushdie or any number of cases, that attempted to NOT deviate from literal Koran, but just chose to write about muslims and the prophet in ways that were not exactly to the liking of the hardcore.

I have already stated other religions such as Christianity do not have this strong stipulation within their religious books that prevents them from being a loyal citizen of their country without stopping from being good religionists. However, I have stated, in practice, because of the types of Christian groups that proselytize in India and the aggressive nature in which they do it, a lot of Christian's loyalty to the Indian nation is suspect too. I cannot give you a number, but it is much below 99% and much more than 20%.

However, fundamentally, though, the real problems of the Indian nation are not the disloyalty of Muslims (which is to be expected and taken into account) or Christians (less expected but worst case scenarios to be taken into account) or any other religionists. The worst problems of India can be attributable straight to Hindus and the native religionsists, who insist on being suicidal and fail to secure their own interests. The Hindus have become too psychologically damaged over the centuries, perhaps becuase of the traumas that they have suffered, perhaps for other reasons as well. This psychological damage has caused the Hindus to lose their survival instincts and they constantly act in a self destructive manner, one manifestation of which is to be perpetually quarrelsome amongst themselves for no reason and the other being extreme sensitivity to any kind of criticism when it comes from within (by other Hindus), while taking the criticism quite well when it comes from external sources. Clearly this lack of self perservation instinct causes Hindus to over appease minorities, over accomodate anti national people and ideologies, a total unwillingness to stand up openly for Hindu interests and causes and a total unwillingness to see any fault amongst minorities such as muslims in India. Another big manifestation of Indian's lack of survival instincts is Corruption.

By the way, the way we Indians treated Taslima Nasreen is a severe and permanent blot on us Hindus. It is also a glaring example of how we have lost our survival instinct. Only a self destructive society will treat its friends and an honest and rare writer who dared even to touch the subject of Hindu genocide and document it, in the shabby manner we treated her. You, ManishH probably dont even think of what happened to Taslima Nasree, she couldnt be further away from your thoughts. What is of concern to you, of course, is that people like me dont brand our muslims as "not totally loyal".

[vishvak]

Gujarat polls 2012: Mallika Sarabhai slams Narendra Modi's sadbhavna mission as farce
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/guja ... 51639.html

I am not sure whether Modi has an inclusive growth and care for poor Hindus in Gujarat. Why there are plenty of poor and marginalised Hindus living in slums and in poor conditions if he happen to be an ideal CM? Possibly there is a good growth but not an inclusive growth!

This is also why there is need for dharmic protection and affirmation, including reservations in India especially when India has to pay through the nose for oil, technology etc in global village, not to mention constant support to pakistan, from none other than likes of, again, rich Arabs, rich Europeans and rich USA.

No one in the whole world is going to do anything for dharmics so this is the need of the hour. Complete protection, encouragement and spread of dharmic religions from India & everywhere outside. In fact Hindus should approach UN for such mechanisms.

[member_19686]

Muslim freedom martyrs of India
http://twocircles.net/2009oct01/muslim_ ... india.html

ROLE OF MUSLIMS IN THE FREEDOM MOVEMENT-II
http://www.radianceweekly.com/268/7501/ ... nt-ii.html

From the above article - I quote -

Fanatic Hindutvawadis supported the British against Muslims and they repeated the British anti-Muslim stand. Researches have proved that all the propaganda were false. Regarding Mappilla freedom fighters of Malabar in Kerala, the British spread false statements of their being anti-Hindu. In fact, Muslims fought against the Hindus who helped the British against freedom fighters – both Hindus and Muslims. Muslim peasants and agriculturists agitated against the British for their inhuman laws and taxation policies. When the freedom movement reached a critical stage after World War I, Mappillas joined Congress freedom fighters. However, few persons joined the British, and freedom fighters turned against them. They included both Hindus and Muslims. Muslim freedom fighters attacked Muslims who supported the British along with Hindus. It was not communal at all.

Also look at
http://www.radianceweekly.com/267/7472/ ... ent-i.html

For any future leaders of India such a historical awareness is essential!

This is an insult to the Hindu victims of Moplah Muslim genocide.

Frankly you disgust me by posting such propaganda.

Let me document the reality of the Moplah genocide.

I urge the readers here to check out "Moplah "Freedom" Struggle" section here which has scans of news reports that appeared in "The Times" as these events were unfolding:

http://www.sabha.info/history.html

A website documenting the atrocities that went on and the reactions of various prominent personalities of India like Ambedkar & Annie Besant to the events:

http://mappilalahala5113.blogspot.com/

Please carefully note what these third party people including Ambedkar say.

And a final link giving a bit more info on this tragedy:

The dangers of Turkey

This is just a brief distraction from our paleontological narratives to which we hope return. It is important for Hindus to observe Turkey. Some time ago in our discussion on Islamic potentates we had mentioned that Turkey sits on a cusp. Many thought that the forward-thinking Kemal Ataturk nearly liberated the Turks after more than a millennium from the clutches of the religion of peace. Some Turks even went as far as thinking that the Mohammedanism had been eradicated in Turkey. The Moslems in India were however ready to fight for the Khilafat (1919-1924 CE). The Osman Sultan Abdul Hamid-II sent a jihadi named Jamaluddin Afghani (a proto-version of the modern Islamic terror organizers) to seek help from the Sunni Moslems of India, who were the remnants of the Mogol empire. The idea of Jamaluddin was to unite Sunni Islam into a pan-Islamic Kilafat that would wage war on the West, i.e. its sister Abrahamism, the religion of love. This ideal of the Kilafat is still deep in the minds of the sub-continental Moslems. A poll conducted in the terrorist state of Pakistan revealed that over 70% of the people wanted a pan-Islamic Kilafat with Shariah. However, many of Jamaluddin’s Indian followers were having more proximal ideas. Their first and foremost concern was Jihad on the Kaffirs. Indeed inspired by the Turkish agents the Moplahs initiated a Jihad in Eranad and Walluvanad where Mohammad Haji raised the shashidhvaja (their lunaphorous banner indicates their lunacy) and declared these areas as part of the Kilafat under the above ghazi. They started a brutal massacre and ethnic cleansing of Hindus (over 100,000) in these regions of the Chera country, chiefly directed at nAyar-s and nambUthiri-s. If one reads the descriptions of these massacres they are mirror image of the Armenian massacres of the Turkish kilafat. The British government was initially clueless about handling the situation. Then they mobilized a Hindu force of World War veterans – the Malabar force and let it loose on the Ghazis. The brave Hindu troops massively retaliated killing up to 5000 Ghazis for the loss of 43 men. This crushed the Islamic Kilafat of the chera country. Some of them were captured and put into goods containers routed to Coimbatore and died of suffocation – a fitting punishment for the murderous Ghazis. However, the survivors were released after prison terms in Coimbatore and found their way back to Kerala where their descendents pose the latest threat to the country...

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... of-turkey/

[member_19686]

Christians not loyal - you have to see educational institutions across India where indian govt cannot go they have gone. Many Frs and Sisters have sacrificed their personal desires to offer a high quality education for children in India. You may then argue that their purpose was to convert people. Even Jeyalalitha studied in one of such schools and she was not converted. The church institutions have created enormous leaders in India though their intention of converting people was not achieved. So they even changed their mission to making a better civil society and better humanity because they have to get funding for better facilities.

During freedom movement many missionaries wanted Indian Christians to support the government but Indian Christians joined in many cases which you may find in the letter correspondence between Gandhi and K M George.

Muslims were at the forefront of freedom movement. People create myths to segregate and create ignorance. This was part of Huntington's thesis - clash of civilisations. Edward Said, a post colonialist had to refute this thesis and critiqued this under the title, clash of ignorance. you can read it online from the google search.

So where did these missionaries get the money to run these schools from?

Where did the Churches get all this land?

I will tell you from where, from British Christian grants which they usurped from temple lands.

The British Christians first destroyed the very accessible education system in India (as documented by Dharampal from their own records) which wiped out even basic literacy, then the missionaries were allowed to fill in the gap their masters created and claim that they were doing us a favor.

The missionaries wrote with glee about how all these British man made famines meant a rich harvest of souls because they got to baptise dying kids, all these writings are available in cold print to this day.

As for Indian Christian "loyalty", let me quote arch secularist Sanjay Subrahmanyam about the behavior of Syrian Xtians:

Between November 1502 and January 1503, Gama used Cochin as a central point at which information was collected and from which feelers were sent out. For instance, in the second hald of November, he was paid a visit by some men, who stated that they were representatives of the Christians of Mangalor and� several other places, a community allegedly numbering some 30,000 persons. They spoke amongst other things of the tomb of the Apostle St Thomas, and of their pilgrimages there; it must have been possible for the Portuguese of Gama's fleet to draw the connection between these Christians, and those described by Joseph of Cranganor. 82 Indeed, it would appear that these Christians were infact from Cranganor, and they seem either to have offered to submit themselves to D. Manuel (and thus to his representative, Gama), or at least to have proposed an alliance based on a common faith, giving Gama a red staff with silver ends, and three silver bells on it, as a ceremonial offering. This Christian network was also extended as far as the southern Kerala ports of Kollam and Kayamkulam, from which certain Syrian Christians arrived to see Gama at Cochin in mid-December. At their urging, Gama sent two ships there to lade spices, and then in early January, a third, the Leitoa Nova, on which our anonymous Flemish author voyaged. A letter of December 1504, written by a certain Matias, a Syrian Christian from Kayamkulam, to D. Manuel, claimed credit for this: 'Of the ships in which the Admiral came as Captain-Major, I arranged the lading for the two.' 83

82 For a discussion of these early relations between the St Thomas Christians and the Portuguese, see Luis Filipe F.R. Thomaz, 'A "Carta que mandaram os Padres da India, da China e da Magna Chinda" - um relato siriaco da chegada dos Portugueses ao Malabar', Revista da Universidade de Coimbra 36 (1991), 119-81, especially pp. 131-2; also Joao Paulo Oliveira e Costa 'Os Portugueses e a cristandade siro-malabar (1498-1530)', Studia 52 (1994), 121-78, especially pp. 126-36.

The career and legend of VASCO DA GAMA, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Cambridge University Press, Pg 324-325

KM Panikkar says in his "Malabar and the Portuguese":

More than this, they suggested to [Vasco da Gama] that with their help he should conquer the Hindu kingdoms and invited him to build a fortress for this purpose in Cranganore. This was the recompense which the Hindu rajas received for treating with liberality and kindness the Christians in their midst.

Please note that Syrian Xtians just like Parsis and Jews came as refugees from persecution and were given shelter by Hindus. They arrived in mid 4th century under a merchant named Thomas of Canaa which over time morphed into "St" Thomas, the Portuguese later added the blood libel that Brahmins killed this "Saint" when in reality he never even visited India. This is how they repaid the Hindu generosity.

Later when Tipu would unleash his Jihadist atrocities the Hindu ruler of Travancore would again shelter these Christian refugees along with Hindus in his kingdom even after this betrayal by their ancestors.

More loyalty:

To her Most Gracious Majesty Victoria, by the Grace of God, Queen by the Grace of God, Queen of Great Britain and Defender of the Faith

We, native Christians of the Province of Tinnevelly, in the English dominions, who, by means of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, and the Church Missionary Society, have embraced the Christian religion, in number of 40,000 persons, persume to approach the feet of your Gracious Majesty, with all humility and reverence, presenting this humble memorial….. Incalculable are the benefits that have accrued to our country from the English rule… We have heard with much sorrow that there are in these times many of the kingdoms of Europe revolutions and sanguinary wars; but we have heard also, with the greatest joy, that in happy England peace and prosperity prevail… Surely then, we who enjoy these inestimable blessings, under a Christian Government, are, above all our fellow subjects, bound to acknowledge to Your Gracious Majesty our obligations to be at all times unfeignedly thankful for them; and we would also entreat, with the confidence and humility of children, that Your Majesty, agreeable to the words of Holy Writ, “Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nursing mothers,” will graciously extend to us your care and protection…

(Pg 117-119, Missionaries in India by Arun Shourie)

Prithvi Narayan Shah the unifier of modern Nepal saw through the charade and expelled every missionary accusing them of being the sappers and miners for British Christian imperialism.

Japan did the same in 17th century under the Tokugawa Shogunate after the native Christian converts started to rebel, destroy Shinto-Buddhist shrines and show their loyalty to the Vatican.

As for your claim that Muslims were at the forefront of freedom movement, what a laugh.

The Muslim leadership and masses by and large sided with the British as long as Islamic interests were advanced. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan told Muslims bluntly to be loyal to the British. He wrote a long reply full of resentment to WW Hunter's book on Indian Muslims which pointed out that owing to their religion Muslims could not be expected to be loyal to any country.

If Muslims were at the "forefront", why don't you name all these Muslim revolutionaries hung or shot by the British.

I will start, Asfaqullah Khan who else...

The one community at the forefront and totally over represented among freedom fighters is the Brahmin community and I can name you a sample:

Rajguru, Phadke, Chapekar brothers, Anant Kanhere, Vanchi Iyer, Krishnaji Karve, Ram Prasad Bismil, Chandrashekhar Azad to name a few.

Valentine Chirol in his book "Indian Unrest" says about the Chitpavan Brahmins:

Amongst Chitpavans are to be found many of the most enlightened and progressive Indians of our times and many have served the British Raj with unquestioned loyalty and integrity. But amongst many others—perhaps indeed amongst the great majority—there has undoubtedly been preserved for the last hundred years from the time of the downfall of the Peshwa dominion to the present day, an unbroken tradition of hatred towards British rule, an undying hope that it might some day be subverted and their own ascendency restored. Not to go back to the exploits of Nana Sahib, himself a Chitpavan, and his followers during the Mutiny, or to the Ramoshi rebellion round Poona in 1879, it was in Poona that the native Press, mainly conducted by Brahmans, first assumed that tone of virulent hostility towards British rule and British rulers which led to the Press Act of 1879, and some of the worst extracts quoted at that time by the Government of India in support of that measure were taken from Poona newspapers. It was in Poona that some years later the assassination of two English officials by a young Chitpavan Brahman was the first outcome of a fresh campaign, leading directly to political murder. It was by another Chitpavan Brahman that Mr. Jackson was murdered last December at Nasik; his accomplices were with one exception Chitpavan Brahmans, and to the same sept of Brahmans belong nearly all the defendants in the great conspiracy trial now proceeding at Bombay.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/16444/pg16444.html

[vishvak]

Christians not loyal - you have to see educational institutions across India where indian govt cannot go they have gone. Many Frs and Sisters have sacrificed their personal desires to offer a high quality education for children in India. You may then argue that their purpose was to convert people. Even Jeyalalitha studied in one of such schools and she was not converted. The church institutions have created enormous leaders in India though their intention of converting people was not achieved. So they even changed their mission to making a better civil society and better humanity because they have to get funding for better facilities.

During freedom movement many missionaries wanted Indian Christians to support the government but Indian Christians joined in many cases which you may find in the letter correspondence between Gandhi and K M George.

Muslims were at the forefront of freedom movement. People create myths to segregate and create ignorance. This was part of Huntington's thesis - clash of civilisations. Edward Said, a post colonialist had to refute this thesis and critiqued this under the title, clash of ignorance. you can read it online from the google search.

So where did these missionaries get the money to run these schools from?

Where did the Churches get all this land?

I will tell you from where, from British Christian grants which they usurped from temple lands.

The British Christians first destroyed the very accessible education system in India (as documented by Dharampal from their own records) which wiped out even basic literacy, then the missionaries were allowed to fill in the gap their masters created and claim that they were doing us a favor.

The missionaries wrote with glee about how all these British man made famines meant a rich harvest of souls because they got to baptise dying kids, all these writings are available in cold print to this day.

Why even today various state and Indian Union Govt does give yearly grants to Christian schools as minority institutions.

About education etc. there is rather a strange picture in Kerala.
From Why Hindus Lag Behind In Kerala
A real eye opener, considering poor Hindus are more prone to conversions.

[member_19686]

Gujarat polls 2012: Mallika Sarabhai slams Narendra Modi's sadbhavna mission as farce
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/guja ... 51639.html

I am not sure whether Modi has an inclusive growth and care for poor Hindus in Gujarat. Why there are plenty of poor and marginalised Hindus living in slums and in poor conditions if he happen to be an ideal CM? Possibly there is a good growth but not an inclusive growth!

Context my friend, context.

Modi does not have a magic wand, even Singapore took about 3 decades to go from third world to first world.

Modi never claimed to have lifted everyone out of poverty and into first world living standards.

Why don't you compare how the poor are living in secular paradises such as WB to Gujarat?

Remember that Muslim fellow with hands folded during the riots and used as secular p*rn by the Indian media, he was taken to the secular paradise of WB by the commies. Guess what he went back to Gujarat and is now running his own business last I heard.

[joshvajohn]

One of my forefathers was the first one to revolt against British in the whole of India - Pulidevan. These small rulers were generous to give land to temple and to schools even when British missionaries asked for it without any payment at times. IF you happen to go any many schools Christian and government and other schools many would have their names as donated by them. This is particularly true of Southern part of India. Your argument of missionaries taking over temple land may be true in some contexts but generally many of those lands were donated by these local rulers. Because these people fought the British they were classified as 'Criminals' under British Indian law which was in force until 1963.

I can give many examples of those people who contributed to this nation loyally including my own distant uncle Rathinevel as Chief Justice of India.

First read the history properly. Previous generation had divided us in the name of religion and thus hatredness is grown but this does not need to continue into future. This is why I have been saying the older generation of leadership should go and younger generation without these negative attitude towards people of India should come to power. There can be exceptions!

Nelkatumseval was the headquarters of Puli Thevar, the first chieftain in India to resist the British.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puli_Thevar

For me any extremism is a threat to our nation. Only by having an inclusive growth this country will be strong and grow in every aspect.

[Pranav]

As for Indian Christian "loyalty", let me quote ...

As for your claim that Muslims were at the forefront of freedom movement, what a laugh.

While one should not be oblivious of the role of religion in politics, such generalizations only strengthen paradigm that has been imposed by foreign imperialist forces, don't you think?

[RamaY]

JJ garu,

Can you please explain the reasons for minority insecurity in India? Was there ever an organized or continual religious persecution by majority Hindus in India-proper starting from Afghanistan to Burma?

Where is this insecurity coming from? Is it their fear that a self-aware Hindu majority will demand retributions from the followers of religions of peace and love?

Who are these 'fanatic hindutvavadi' you are referring to?

[member_19686]

One of my forefathers was the first one to revolt against British in the whole of India - Pulidevan. These small rulers were generous to give land to temple and to schools even when British missionaries asked for it without any payment at times. IF you happen to go any many schools Christian and government and other schools many would have their names as donated by them. This is particularly true of Southern part of India. Your argument of missionaries taking over temple land may be true in some contexts but generally many of those lands were donated by these local rulers.

I can give many examples of those people who contributed to this nation loyally including my own distant uncle Rathinevel as Chief Justice of India.

First read the history properly. Previous generation had divided us in the name of religion and thus hatredness is grown but this does not need to continue into future. This is why I have been saying the older generation of leadership should go and younger generation without these negative attitude towards people of India should come to power. There can be exceptions!

Nelkatumseval was the headquarters of Puli Thevar, the first chieftain in India to resist the British.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puli_Thevar

For me any extremism is a threat to our nation. Only by having an inclusive growth this country will be strong and grow in every aspect.

I gave published sources with citations and all you could reply with were undocumented claims and wikipedia lol.

On top of that you want me to "read the history properly"?

You who tried to convert the Moplah murderers of Hindus into "freedom fighters"?

What does he (Puli Thevar) have to do with the topic, was he a Christian?

I hereby label the Muslims who chopped off Prof Joseph's hand in Kerala as freedom fighters against American imperialism in Iraq, if anyone disagrees with me they should "read the history correctly"...

[Pranav]

One of my forefathers was the first one to revolt against British in the whole of India - Pulidevan. ... There can be exceptions!

I gave published sources with citations and all you could reply with were undocumented claims and wikipedia lol.

Surasena, your sources may be valid, but that is a one-sided view. Reality is complex, we have to deal with the complexity. Individuals are subjected to conflicting forces. Have to agree with JJ on this one.

Let me repeat my previous remark:

As for Indian Christian "loyalty", let me quote ...

As for your claim that Muslims were at the forefront of freedom movement, what a laugh.

While one should not be oblivious of the role of religion in politics, such generalizations only strengthen paradigm that has been imposed by foreign imperialist forces, don't you think?

[member_19686]

As for Indian Christian "loyalty", let me quote ...

As for your claim that Muslims were at the forefront of freedom movement, what a laugh.

While one should not be oblivious of the role of religion in politics, such generalizations only strengthen paradigm that has been imposed by foreign imperialist forces, don't you think?

So you want allow blatant lies like "Muslims were at the forefront of the freedom struggle" to be allowed to be passed off as the truth?

I am happy to be corrected, if this was the truth then why doesn't anyone name some of these "freedom fighters"?

And no Moplah murders and rapists of Hindus don't become "freedom fighters" no matter what some Islamic or Communist rags say.

You didn't feel anything when the Moplah Jihadis were turned into freedom fighters but seem offended at my remarks because I spoke the truth.

[Pranav]

So you want allow blatant lies like "Muslims were at the forefront of the freedom struggle" to be allowed to be passed off as the truth?

Someone says "Muslims were at the forefront of the freedom struggle" and someone else says "Muslims are traitors". Both are simplistic and misleading.

Anybody saying "Muslim converts are XYZ" or "Christian converts are XYZ" is still trapped by the social engineering done by foreign imperialists, because they are thinking in terms of the imposed categories.

[This does not mean that one should not be clear eyed about the use of religion for political purposes.]

[vishvak]

I gave published sources with citations and all you could reply with were undocumented claims and wikipedia lol.

Surasena, your sources may be valid, but that is a one-sided view. Reality is complex, we have to deal with the complexity. Individuals are subjected to conflicting forces. Have to agree with JJ on this one.

Let me repeat my previous remark:

While one should not be oblivious of the role of religion in politics, such generalizations only strengthen paradigm that has been imposed by foreign imperialist forces, don't you think?

If I am not mistaken, entire barbaric colonial times were approved by European clergy in the first place. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1150577 .
So also, about role of religion in Politics, the religions like Islam and Christianity hava very strong political component.

[joshvajohn]

There are plenty of resources about Muslims' contribution to India's freedom struggle.
http://i-epistemology.net/attachments/9 ... ruggle.pdf

Taking only one source or one event interpreting it to suit you is very similar to those Christian fundamentalists who use their texts selectively for their advantage and selfish motives.

History has to be seen in two ways. one is to see it objectively, the problem with this objective look at it is that one can never get an objective history of the past except looking at from one's own perspectively or with a bias. In this sense it is not pure subjective but influenced by subjective outlook of those who wrote and those who read them from another context at another point of history. But second way of looking is to see it in a relevant way - how the history can be read in a way that is applicable to today's context. For me there should be a balance these two approaches.

In this sense for me I am selective in order to build relationship between Muslims, Christians and Hindus while making India as strong. You can also be selective to highlight those events that lead to hatredness among Indians though when we reach maturity we should know this side as well in order to correct ourselves.

[RajeshA]

Satyamev Jayate! Let Truth Prevail!

[member_19686]

There are plenty of resources about Muslims' contribution to India's freedom struggle.
http://i-epistemology.net/attachments/9 ... ruggle.pdf

Taking only one source or one event interpreting it to suit you is very similar to those Christian fundamentalists who use their texts selectively for their advantage and selfish motives.

History has to be seen in two ways. one is to see it objectively, the problem with this objective look at it is that one can never get an objective history of the past except looking at from one's own perspectively or with a bias. In this sense it is not pure subjective but influenced by subjective outlook of those who wrote and those who read them from another context at another point of history. But second way of looking is to see it in a relevant way - how the history can be read in a way that is applicable to today's context. For me there should be a balance these two approaches.

In this sense for me I am selective in order to build relationship between Muslims, Christians and Hindus while making India as strong. You can also be selective to highlight those events that lead to hatredness among Indians though when we reach maturity we should know this side as well in order to correct ourselves.

Nice going, let me quote from the link you posted:

The Faraizi and Other Freedom Struggles
Jamal Malik of the University of Erfurt, Germany, notes:
For a long time, the Indian revolt of 1857 was known as the “Sepoy
Mutiny.” This of course was from the perspective of colonial historiography, which later was challenged by nationalist historians of various camps,
who considered this event as a marker of the first war of independence.

I urge readers to check out the names it lists.

It lists Shah Waliullah, Barelvi among many other Jihadis whom joshvajohn wants to turn into freedom fighters, it says:

Thus, his first priority was to rejuvenate the social structure that had
been undermined by the loss of moral values and the pursuit of self-interest.
His approach was to address all sections of the community, beginning with
the ruling class. However, after meeting no success among the ruling elite,
he tuned toward the rich and powerful. After being disappointed by the
rulers in Delhi and Deccan, Walilullah approached Najib ud-Daulah (d.
1748), the ruler of Rohilkhand, to contact Ahmad Shah [Durrani] Abdali
(1723-73), the ruler of Afghanistan, whom he implored to fulfill his obligation as a Muslim ruler and defend India’s Muslims against the Sikh and
Marahata onslaught. Abdali asked Najib to create a united front of the independent Muslim states in northern India and Central Asia. Najib succeeded
in this undertaking, and these forces joined with Abdali’s forces to defeat the
Marahata Confederacy at Panipat (1761). Although this was not a lasting triumph, it provided a much needed period of relief from Hindu and Sikh
oppression

So he invited Abdali to invade India.

This is "freedom fighting"?

[Pranav]

So also, about role of religion in Politics, the religions like Islam and Christianity hava very strong political component. Please smell the coffee.

I am aware of it, and have already referred to it.

I am saying you have to go beyond the paradigm imposed by foreign imperialists. When you say "Christian converts are XYZ" you are (i) still trapped in the imposed paradigm and (ii) are failing to capture the complexity of the situation.

[member_19686]

I am posting more about these "freedom fighters" for readers interested in the truth, after all satyameva jayate is our motto:

Sirhindi ranks with Shah Waliullah as one of the topmost sufis and theologians of Islam. Referring to his role, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad has written in his Tazkirah that “but for these letters Muslim nobles would not have stood by Islam and but for the efforts of Shaikh Ahmad, Akbar’s heterodoxy would have superseded Islam in India.”9 Later on, when K.A. Nizami published a collection of Shah Walilullah’s letters addressed to various Muslim notables including Ahmad Shah Abdali, he dedicated it to Maulana Azad. The Maulana wrote back, “I am extremely happy that you have earned the merit of publishing these letters. I pray from the core of my heart that Allah may bless you with the felicity of publishing many books of a similar kind.”10 That should give us a measure not only of ‘Muslim Revivalism’ but also of many Maulanas who masqueraded as ardent nationalists in order to fight the battle for Islam from within the Indian National Congress.

APPENDIX

It is strange that most of the present-day Muslim scholars refuse to cite the actual statements made about Hindus and Hinduism by their heroes such as Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah while praising them to the skies as saviours of Islam in India. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Allama Iqbal are shining examples of this intriguing silence. The late Professor Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi published two significant books on the history of Islam in India - Ulema in Politics (1972), and The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent (1977). He has devoted many pages to Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah in both the books. But he has not cited a single sentence written or spoken by the ‘great sufis’ on how they looked at Hindus and Hinduism. I have no doubt that Nizami has also suppressed those letters of Shah Waliullah in which the latter has poured out his heart about kufr and the kãfirs. It is only Professor S.A.A Rizvi who has taken us into the secret chambers so to say. Professor Rizvi is a Shia. And the venom which characters like Ahmad Sirhindi have poured on Hindus and Hinduism is quite comparable to that which they poured out on Shias and Shiism.

Shah Waliullah also was full of the poison which goes by the name of Islam. But by the time be arrived on the scene, the situation for Islamic imperialism in India had become desperate. Forces of Indian nationalism had risen all over the country, and Islamic imperialism was on a fast retreat. I am reproducing some portions from those letters of Waliullah in which he is making frantic appeals to the swordsmen of Islam for retrieving the situation. It is significant that whole passages of the Persian originals have been dropped from the Urdu translations. Those passages contain the obscene swear-words of which every language of Islam is brimful.

1. Letter to Ahmad Shah Abdali, Ruler of Afghanistan

The presence of the kings of Islam is a great blessing from Allah… You should know that the country of Hindustan is a large land. In olden days, the kings of Islam had struggled hard and for long in order to conquer this foreign country. They could do it only in several turns…18

Every (Muslim) king got mosques erected in his territory, and created madrasas. Muslims of Arabia and Ajam (non-Arab Muslim lands) migrated from their own lands and arrived in these territories. They became agents for the publicity and spread of Islam here. Uptil now their descendants are firm in the ways of Islam…19

Among the non-Muslim communities, one is that of the Marhatah (Maratha). They have a chief. For some time past, this community has been raising its head, and has become influential all over Hindustan…20

…It is easy to defeat the Marhatah community, provided the ghãzîs of Islam gird up their loins and show courage…21

In the countryside between Delhi and Agra, the Jat community used to till the land. In the reign of Shahjahan, this community had been ordered not to ride on horses, or keep muskets with them, or build fortresses for themselves. The kings that came later became careless, and this community has used the opportunity for building many forts, and collecting muskets…22

In the reign of Muhammad Shah, the impudence of this community crossed all limits. And Surajmal, the cousin of Churaman, became its leader. He took to rebellion. Therefore, the city of Bayana which was an ancient seat of Islam, and where the Ulama and the Sufis had lived for seven hundred years, has been occupied by force and terror, and Muslims have been turned out of it with humiliation and hurt…23

…Whatever influence and prestige is left with the kingship at present, is wielded by the Hindus. For no one except them is there in the ranks of managers and officials. Their houses are full of wealth of all varieties. Muslims live in a state of utter poverty and deprivation. The story is long and cannot be summarised. What I mean to say is that the country of Hindustan has passed under the power of non-Muslims. In this age, except your majesty, there is no other king who is powerful and great, who can defeat the enemies, and who is farsighted and experienced in war. It is your majesty’s bounden duty (farz-i-ain) to invade Hindustan, to destroy the power of the Marhatahs, and to free the down-and-out Muslims from the clutches of non-Muslims. Allah forbid, if the power of the infidels remains in its present position, Muslims will renounce Islam and not even a brief period will pass before Muslims become such a community as will no more know how to distinguish between Islam and non-Islam. This will be a great tragedy. Due to the grace of Allah, no one except your majesty has the capacity for preventing this tragedy from taking place.

We who are the servants of Allah and who recognise the Prophet as our saviour, appeal to you in the name of Allah that you should turn your holy attention to this direction and face the enemies, so that a great merit is added to the roll of your deeds in the house of Allah, and your name is included in the list of mujãhidîn fi Sabîlallah (warriors in the service of Allah). May you acquire plunder beyond measure, and may the Muslims be freed from the stranglehold of the infidels. I seek refuge in Allah when I say that you should not act like Nadir Shah who oppressed and suppressed the Muslims, and went away leaving the Marhatahs and the Jats whole and prosperous.

The enemies have become more powerful after Nadir Shah, the army of Islam has disintegrated, and the empire of Delhi has become childrens’ play. Allah forbid, if the infidels continue as at present, and Muslims get (further) weakened, the very name of Islam will get wiped out.24

…When your fearsome army reaches a place where Muslims and non-Muslims live together, your administrators must take particular care. They must be instructed that those weak Muslims who live in the countryside should be taken to towns and cities. Next, some such administrators should be appointed in towns and cities as would see to it that the properties of Muslims are not plundered, and the honour of no Muslim is compromised.25

3. To Najibuddaulah

…There are three groups in Hindustan which are known for the qualities of fanaticism and zeal. So long as these three are not exterminated, no king can feel secure, nor any noble. The people (read Muslims) also will not be able to live in peace.

Religious as well as worldly interests dictate that soon after winning the war with the Marhatahs, you should turn towards the forts of the Jats, and conquer them with the blessings from the hidden (occult) world. Next is the turn of the Sikhs. This group should also be defeated, while waiting for grace from Allah.

…I appeal to you in the name of Allah and his Prophet that you should not cast your eye on the property of any Muslim. If you take care in this regard, there is hope that the doors of victory will be opened to you one after another. But if this caution is ignored, I fear that the wails of the oppressed may become obstacles in the way towards your goal.27

[brihaspati]

Puli Thevar and the polygar rebellion was a continuation of a much longer struggle that went from Deccan sultanate times. Its a different issue and the wiki link is not deconstructive as to the complexity of factors and motivations. But as relevant for this discussion - how is Puli Thevar's exploits relevant for a Muslim or Christian claim of fighting against British imperialism?! Frankly speaking this particular subcontext belongs more to the history threads. Bringing up the Moplah example is bad business fro this discussion. Origins in the medieval period and the lead up to the fiasco that broke up MKG's 20's attempt - have firm connection to the Moplah khilfat shenanigans. OT.

JJ ji, there are some posts on the Christian involvement in anti-imperialist struggle - in another specific thread. The historical story is not as straightforward as it appears. Exceptions can be used on both sides - but they do not necessarily support broad trends or hypotheses. If one exception can be used to prove loyalty - andother exception will be used to prove disloyalty. Deconstruction is a much more detailed effort.

[member_19686]

Now let us go onto "freedom fighter" Barelvi and the Faraizi movement:

JOURNEY FROM JIHÃD TO JEE-HUZÛRÎ
“It is obvious to your exalted self that the alien people from distant lands have become the rulers of territories and times, and the traders and vendors of goods have attained the rank of sovereignty. They have destroyed the dominions of the big grandees and the estates of the nobles of illustrious ranks, and their honour and authority have been completely set at naught… As soon as the land of Hindustan is cleared of the alien enemies and the efforts of these people [the Wahabis] result in the achievement of their objective, the ranks and offices of the state and government would be handed over to the seekers [of these], and the roots of their power and sovereignty would be strengthened.”1

This was the message which Syed Ahmad Barelvi sent to Raja Hindu Rao, brother-in-law of Maharaja Daulat Rao Scindia (AD 1795-1827) of Gwalior.

THE DOUBLE-FACED DECEIVER

In another letter, which he wrote to his contemporary Muslim magnates ran as follows: “My real object is the establishment of jihãd against the Sikhs of the Punjab and not to stay in the countries of Afghanistan and Yagistan. The long-haired infidels who have seized sovereignty over Punjab are very experienced, clever and deceitful… The ill-natured Sikhs and the ill-fated polytheists have gained control over the Western parts of India from the banks of Indus to the capital city of Delhi.”2

The second letter is found in this form in Sawãnih Ahmadî, a biography of Barelvi. But there is another version, preserved in Patna University Library, which reads as under: “My real objective is the establishment of jihãd and carrying of war into Hindustan and not to stay in the lands of Khorasan… The Christian infidels who have gained possession over India are very artful and deceptive… The ill-natured Christians and ill-fated Mushriks have gained control over the various parts of India stretching from the bank of Indus to the shore of the ocean which covers a distance of six months journey.”3

Obviously, this version was meant for the consumption of Muslim masses. It is on record that Barelvi was not only seeking monetary help from Hindu Rajas but also patronage for his followers who were operating from within India. Hindu Rajas, however, were not against the Sikhs. At the same time, he was seeking help from Muslim magnates, most of whom were against the Sikhs but allied with the British. Muslim masses alone were inimical to both. Many Muslim theologians have followed in the footsteps of the first Christian missionary, St. Paul, and tried to be ‘all things to all men’. Barelvi was neither the first such Muslim missionary nor the last. But he achieved a minor miracle when he remained convinced that it was the Sikhs and the British who were clever and deceitful. Such a combination of scoundrelism and self-righteousness is rare even among Muslim theologians and missionaries...

Barelvi was quite successful in setting up a network of centres in various cities of North India. He enlisted an impressive following, particularly among the upper class Muslims. He also collected a lot of money at the same time. He called upon Muslims to eliminate three kinds of excesses - firstly, those advocated by heterodox Sufis; secondly, those practised by the Shias; and thirdly, those ‘borrowed’ from the Hindus. Prof. Aziz Ahmad writes: “This last category was by far the most important, and was most vigorously denounced by Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi. It had included pilgrimage to Hindu holy places, shouting Hindu religious slogans, and adorning the tombs with lingams (Hindu phallic symbol), worship of Hindu deities, borrowing from Hindu animism, consulting Brahmins for good or bad omens, and celebration of Hindu festivals. Next came external Hindu manners, such as eating on leaves or keeping pig-tails or piercing women’s ears and nose to wear jewellery or shaving one’s hair and eyebrows in imitation of yogis or even dressing like Hindus.”5

Barelvi forgot that a majority of Muslims in India were converts from the Hindu fold, and that Islam sat rather lightly on most of them. This is understandable. After all, Barelvi was an Islamic missionary and not a historian of Islam in India. What amazes one is that even Muslim scholars in modern times have managed to forget that the ‘impurities’ or ‘excesses’ of Islam in India were not injected into it by Hindus from the outside, but were brought along by Hindu converts who were driven or lured into the fold of Islam by force or fraud. Nor has any Muslim scholar noted that it is these ‘impurities’ and ‘excesses’ which have prevented the total brutalization of native Muslims such as had always been and is being advocated by their Ashrãf (foreign) mentors.

To resume the story, Barelvi’s confidence in a jihãd against the British collapsed when he surveyed the extent and the magnitude of British power in India. He did the next best under the circumstances, and declared a jihãd against the Sikh power in the Punjab, Kashmir and the North-West Frontier. The British on their part welcomed this change and permitted Barelvi to travel towards the border of Afghanistan at a leisurely pace, collecting money and manpower along the way. It was during this journey that Barelvi stayed with or met several Hindu princes, feigned that his fulminations against the Sikhs were a fake, and that he was going out of India in order to establish a base for fighting against the British. It is surmised that some Hindu princes took him at his word, and gave him financial help. To the Muslim princes, however, he told the truth, namely, that he was up against the Sikhs because they “do not allow the call to prayer from mosques and the killing of cows.”6

Barelvi set up his base in the North-West Frontier near Afghanistan. The active assistance he expected from the Afghan king did not materialise because that country was in a mess at that time. But the British connived at the constant flow not only of a sizable manpower but also of a lot of finance. Muslim magnates in India were helping him to the hilt. His basic strategy was to conquer Kashmir before launching his major offensive against the Punjab. But he met with very little success in that direction in spite of several attempts. Finally, he met his Waterloo in 1831 when the Sikhs under Kunwar Sher Singh stormed his citadel at Balakot. The great mujãhid fell in the very first battle he ever fought. His corpse along with that of his second in command was burnt, and the ashes were scattered in the winds. Muslims hail him as a shahîd.

The scattered remnants of the Wahabis fought a few more skirmishes with the Sikhs. But they also met with no success...

Another movement on similar lines had flared up simultaneously in the Faridpur district of Bengal. This was the Faraizi Movement launched by Shariatullah who also had spent 20 years in Mecca and Medina. He had also declared that India under the British was a Dãr-ul-harb, and that Muslims should not observe Friday prayers and the two Ids till Islamic rule was restored. He also tried to ‘purify’ Islam of ‘un-Islamic accretions’ borrowed from the hated Hindus. And he also acquired a large following of fanatic Muslims in order to mount his jihãd against the British. But like his contemporary, Titu Mian, he also ended by spending all his spleen against the Hindus. Kaviraj writes: “As the followers of Shariatullah increased in numbers, and as they became too bold and overbearing, they carried their incursions against Hindu zamindars and committed acts of cruelty against Hindu families.”8 Shariatullah died in 1837 without achieving anything more spectacular. That was left to his son who had meanwhile returned from Mecca after a stay of several years.

Muhammad Mohsin, better known as Dudhu Mian (1819-1860), was a more full-fledged fundamentalist than his father. Professor Murray Titus writes that “Among other things, we are told that he insisted upon his disciples eating the common grass-hopper (phaDinga), which they detested, because the locust (tiDDi) was used as food in Arabia.”9 Dudhu Mian was convinced that Allah had entrusted him with the mission of restoring Islam in India to its pristine purity and bygone glory. That implied a fight against the British. But like his father, he also found that the unarmed Hindus in the countryside of Bengal were a far more attractive prey. According to Kaviraj, Dudhu’s followers were well-armed with swords, shields and a variety of other weapons. In April 1839, they raided 76 Hindu houses in seven villages. They committed atrocities on innocent Hindus, killed cows and broke the images worshipped by the Brahmins inside their homes. Later on, one of their victims was Kalicharan Kanjilal, a gomashta in a British-owned Indigo factory. Kanjilal was given the full treatment prescribed for kafirs in the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. The atrocities heaped on this poor and unoffending Hindu by a Islamic-cum-Communist ‘hero’ are described in detail in contemporary government records.

Finally, the British Indigo planters put pressure on the British government to bring the hoodlum to book. “He was charged with plunder in 1838, committed to sessions for murder in 1841, tried for trespass and for unlawful assembly in 1844, and for abduction and plunder in 1846. But it was found impossible to induce witnesses to give evidence, and on each occasion he was acquitted.”10 It was only in 1857 that he was put in jail without trial. He died there in 1860.

[joshvajohn]

Surasena, you are a quick reader and a good critic of these texts. But for me, history has to be read within that context at the time what people thought as freedom struggle. I do not deny the fact that a few Muslims, Christians made mistakes in the past. Even some Hindus too made mistakes in the past- in South India Chera, Chola and Pandya were all Hindus if they had not fougth among themselves one of the glorious history and culture of India would have been protected from any enemy army. It is essential to accept these mistakes at one level of learning and mutual relationship. By accusing all people by bringing them under one umbrella is not going to help anyone! It is time for my coffee but I will read responses with interest.

I like one of the Sanskrit prayer in every upanisad- which I tuned for my students - Saha nava vathu Saha navpunaktu Saha viryam dejasvinavi damasthu ma vidvia vahai (wrote out of memory so mistakes) which goes to say let us mutually nourish,learn and grow in strength is what we today should be asking for irrespective of religion, caste and language identities.

[vishvak]

There are plenty of resources about Muslims' contribution to India's freedom struggle.
http://i-epistemology.net/attachments/9 ... ruggle.pdf

Taking only one source or one event interpreting it to suit you is very similar to those Christian fundamentalists who use their texts selectively for their advantage and selfish motives.

History has to be seen in two ways. one is to see it objectively, the problem with this objective look at it is that one can never get an objective history of the past except looking at from one's own perspectively or with a bias. In this sense it is not pure subjective but influenced by subjective outlook of those who wrote and those who read them from another context at another point of history. But second way of looking is to see it in a relevant way - how the history can be read in a way that is applicable to today's context. For me there should be a balance these two approaches.

In this sense for me I am selective in order to build relationship between Muslims, Christians and Hindus while making India as strong. You can also be selective to highlight those events that lead to hatredness among Indians though when we reach maturity we should know this side as well in order to correct ourselves.

How is preferential treatment, protection and awareness of dharmic in India an issue of harredness for others?

I see little scope of maturity. Here are few examples:
The Popes Against the Jews
So is there a chance that other minorities in India do not have to face the issues as faced by any Hindus? I mean Jews, Parsis, Bahaais, etc.
Jesus and Gayatri Mantra - about usurping Hindu wisdom and religious symbolism, now even mantras, etc. in the name of religion.
Hinduism came from the BIBLE!
Silapathikaram - An Epic with Christian allegiance ?
Origin of Christianity in Madras
What is in name?
“The management had offered the inducement to reduce the fees if they adopted Christianity”

Such frauds on Hindus will continue regardless.

About this new generation, I think this could have come after Pope allowed Christianity to be expressed in various cultures, but see what is going on here. As also other things like the prince charming advising US officials that Saffron terrorists are more dangerous than LeT. I do appreciate the idea, but unless I see it happening it is just an idea.