Muslims in India

10 years ago Sachar committee published some starkling facts about conditions of Muslim in India. through a detailed district/region by region analysis they found that Muslims were worse off than SC, ST and other marginalized communities.
It is unlikely that the current regime will be setting up a second committee to analyze if the situation has bettered or deteriorated. Are we closer or farther away from our goal of communal harmony and holistic socio-economic development? Hence I was loudly thinking:
1. Are there more avenues for socio-economic development? Is the economic disparity lessen over the past decade?
2. Are the goals of healthcare, access to public welfare programs really reaching the masses?
3. Are the minorities still being cornered and forced to live in enclaves/ghettos? Are more Muslims than Hindus dying in communal violence even today?
4. Is the problem of access to credit, technical education and entrepreneurship being solved?
5. Are they still discriminated against in industry, public employment schemes?
6. Is the next generation being equipped to be proud of being part of India?
Providing sufficient avenues for pursuit of happiness or economic development has been the cornerstone for any diverse multi-cultural society to achieve harmony. Khalisthan movement was solved by strategic affirmative action to achieve economic development of the region. North Western India today is the most prosperous and peaceful region in the country. India has the largest Muslim population in the world and continuing to ignore them is just a ticking time-bomb. For the country to really progress, people from all walks of the society should prosper with it.



Guest post from T.R.Ramaswami
The recent terrorist attacks and the fact that no information or intelligence is forthcoming from the local Indian Muslim population is indeed a matter that needs to be examined. There was no India/Hindu/Muslim concept till the 19th. century. Many are not aware that Mohammed Ghazni, one of the most reviled persons by some political parties, had an army that was one-third Hindu with half a dozen Brahmin Generals. However history books are doctored to hide this. In the 1430s, King Devaraya II of the Sangama dynasty that ruled Vijayanagar held a council meeting to find out why his army did not do well against the Muslim Bahmani kingdom. The conclusion was that Muslims were not allowed to join his army. He immediately changed the rules. In fact after Ashoka the most renowned ruler of India is definitely Akbar and he never salted away wealth in Islamic countries like “patriotic” Indian leaders today do in Swiss Banks.
The Indian Muslim divide goes back nearly 200 years. It was in 1837 that the British introduced English and removed Persian which was, from around 1300, the official language of the rulers in India. Overnight Muslims became jobless and even powerless and to some extent they felt that the Hindu majority had a role to play in this. The British killed two birds with one stone. One – they brought in their language (which perhaps they may be regretting now) and two they strengthened their divide and rule policy. The seeds of the Muslim League and partition were sown in 1837. The next blunder was made by Mahatma Gandhi. In 1919 when the Caliph was removed he unnecessarily supported the Khilafat movement. Even Islamic nations were not worried about the Caliph. This gave the Indian Muslim an extra-territorial identity, and in the very next year one of the worst communal killings – the Mopallah Rebellion in Kerala took place.
Partition was the next event. Although it is stated that it took place on the basis of religion, the truth is that it was a result of the egos of Nehru and Jinnah. If it was on the basis of religion then it was not clean. Nehru did not want 40 million Muslims to leave India as otherwise Pakistan would have been justified in asking for more territory – ie Kashmir. It was contiguous to Pakistan and had a Muslim majority. But Nehru did not want his Kashmiri Pandits to become refugees, while he hardly was concerned about the Punjabis, Sikhs and Sindhis. We therefore had an unnecessary sham partition. To woo Muslims the “secular” agenda was formulated which became a political vote catching formula. A few castrated posts like President, Vice President etc were also thrown to the minorities. Not a single Muslim officer was recruited into the intelligence forces by the “secular” Congress government from 1947 to 1977. To further strengthen the minority vote bank, at the cost of the country, millions of Bangladeshis were allowed to remain in India as Mujibur Rehman refused to take back anyone who came before 22nd.March 1971. In fact an agreement which was not then revealed was signed. Many state governments bordering gave these refugees ration cards and voter status provided they left that state. The descendants of these refugees could well be the local links for the brains located in Pakistan and Bangladesh. We are seeing the results of all the above in the last 15 years.
There seems to be mistaken notion that the link between religion and terrorism is something recent. Far from it. Religious terrorism is as old as religion itself. First there was only one religion – the oldest – Hinduism. Was Hinduism a peace loving religion? Not if you go by its two most well known epics – the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. In both there are wars whose duration and numbers involved were substantial. The next was Judaism. But Hinduism and Judaism were separated by vast distances and it would be interesting to know when they came to know of each others existence. Buddhism, Jainism and Zoroastrianism came about almost simultaneously. While there was probably no religion in Iran then, we do not know whether the birth of Buddhism and Jainism was entirely peaceful.
The non-violent transformation of Hinduism came during Ashoka’s reign. Within 200 years came the first invasion by the Kushans. It was around this time that Christianity came into existence. There is no history to show that there was any organized violence on the basis of religion till 600 AD. In any case Christianity spread to the west – to Europe and did not encounter Hinduism till 1498 AD. It is only after the birth of Islam, whose meager adherents found that everyone beyond Saudi Arabia already had a religion – hence forced conversion to your God was the only method to spread the name of your God. It was the first religion to have a term for “religious war”. And it was to counter Islam that the first religious wars – the Crusades – were fought in the 11th. and 12th. centuries. It was only after Spain and most of Europe was freed from Islam that Christianity started looking for other areas – Asia and the Americas. Unable to counter the Christian kingdoms Islam turned east towards Central Asia and India.
Religions have had strange relationships in the last two wars – Germany had an Islamic ally in the First World War – Turkey and a Buddhist-cum-Shinto ally in the second war – Japan. Germany’s main foes in both wars were all Christian nations. Islamic nations were protected by Christian allies – but that is only because of a new dimension in religonomics – oil. Thus we now have a strange balance – with the militarily and economically strongest being Christian nations who depend on the oil on which Islam literally sits! Both with about 2 billion adherents. India, with its Hindu majority and more Muslims than all Islamic nations except Indonesia (which ironically was once Hindu) and China with Shintoism are the balancing items in this act. Is God laughing?
– T.R.Ramaswami



This is a guest post be T.R.Ramaswami
How many blasts have taken place in the last 15 years? – Here is the list which may not be complete but still sufficient – Mumbai (1993), Coimbatore, Lucknow, Jaipur, Varanasi, Mumbai (2006), Malegaon, Hyderabad, Delhi, Kabul, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, New Delhi (2008), Malegaon (2008), Modasa, Assam.
However we find that all the attention has been directed only to the Malegaon blast and we hear nothing about the rest. Why? Because the Malegaon blast was an unsecular blast. All the other blasts were evidently secular according to Secular Maataji, whose temple is said to be located somewhere in New Delhi.
Recall how netas and even the media scream that terrorists have no religion. Now how does this tie up with the plea that Mohammed Afzal should not be hanged during Ramzan? Here is a case where the police have been able to produce evidence to convince the court of his guilt. Now letting him go would be a blow to the police. And since he is a man convicted of a terrorist act, ipso facto he has no religion and Ramzan has no meaning for him. If secularism is so important, then why did such considerations not come into play when the Sankaracharyar of Kanchi was arrested on Diwali day, the most auspicious religious festival of Hindus? Evidently secularism is the art of boot-licking the minorities to garner votes.
I write with reference to Mr. Balbir Punj’s article “A 17-year 48-act farce” (Asian Age 4 Dec 2009). Mr Punj is right – Muslims and Christians are able to do in Hindu majority India what they will never be able to do in each other’s country and even in their own country. India is secular not because that word is there in the Constitution but because the majority are Hindus. Secularism has become “suckularism” because certain political parties, particularly the Congress suck up to minority vote banks because they ejaculate votes every five years. Let the Congress answer one question – if Jinnah wanted a separate country for Muslims, as is taught in school history, why were all Muslims not sent to Pakistan? That’s because Nehru was worried that if this was done then Pakistan may have got Kashmir and he did not want his Kashmiri Pandit jathwallahs to become refugees. He did not mind Sikhs, Sindhis and Punjabis being thrown from their lands.
Over the past few days we heard a number of “secular” leaders mouthing inanities like how the “non- secular forces” have been defeated etc. The fact is that no party can claim to be secular, as the country itself is not yet fully secular. Secondly, if the carnage in Gujarat in 2002 was a non-secular act how about the slaughter of Sikhs in 1984. It appears that a Congress slaughter is secular while an RSS/BJP slaughter is non-secular. Incidentally will Mr. Manmohan Singh have the secular courage to ensure that some justice is done to those who lost their relatives in 1984. After all some of the alleged accused are now MPs in his own party.
At last terrorism is also going secular. The media has the courage to use headlines like “Hindu Terrorism”. Perhaps they will soon develop testicles to also write about “Islam Terrorism.” If all Muslims are not terrorists and terrorists do not have any religion then why is this rule also not applicable to Hindus? Maybe because we are secular. There is another aspect regarding the daily and front page publicity given to Col. Purohit. Evidently the ruling party is using it an election propaganda to check the BJP. It is also stated that the netas, bureaucrats and the police are using the issue to keep the armed forces silent on the Pay Commission issue. Perhaps the police and particularly the Mumbai police, which forms the ATS, need to be reminded that it was the army that held its pants up during the police mutiny in 1980. In fact the “coffee-table” book on the Mumbai police does not have one word on this as it would probably spoil the aroma.
But let me state something in defence of Hindu terrorism. I have no objection to the term provided the media also uses the term “Islamic Terrorism.” Looked at from one perspective this country has been subject to Islamic terrorism for more than 1000 years from the days of Ghazni. So what if Hindus have started retaliating? What riles the Islamic world and many Muslims in India is that even after ruling India for more than 600 years they were unable to convert more than 30% – the only country which they could not turn Islamic in entirety. Half of these converts went to Pakistan and Bangladesh. We made the mistake of not having a clean partition on the basis that is taught as history in schools – that Jinnah wanted a separate country for Muslims. If that is so then why are there more Muslims in India? That’s because Nehru did not want all Muslims to go to Pakistan. If they did then Jinnah would have been justified in asking for more land and ideally Kashmir should have been given to Pakistan with ALL Muslims. But Nehru did not want his Pandit jathwallahs to become refugees – which they are now.
To sum up we are paying for the biggest mistake in modern Indian history – that of Nathuram Godse – he shot the wrong man.
I write with reference to the letter “Not A Secular” by Mr. Shailesh Kumar (BS 8 July 2005). Mr. Kumar states that Jinnah was not a secularist although he did not want the clerics to have a say in the government. However Mr. Kumar seems to have forgotten that it was Gandhi who gave the Indian Muslim an extra-territorial identity by unnecessarily supporting the Khilafat movement. This incident, sometime in 1919, which involved the Caliph, was not even considered important by several Muslim nations. By this one act Gandhi made the Indian Muslim feel that he was a Muslim first and an Indian second. In fact, soon after came the Moplah rebellion in Kerala when several Hindus were slaughtered. Hence any incident anywhere creates an issue here even if several Muslim nations keep quiet. A case in example – the ban on Salman Rushdie’s novel.
Regarding Jinnah’s violent methods – if we had used violence to fight for our freedom, as advocated by Bose, we would have got it at least 25 years earlier and there would have been no partition. Gandhi’s non-violent method delayed independence and is the main reason for our “soft state” image.
I write with reference to the article “Need to recruit Muslims in Intelligence agencies” by Mr. Mobin Pandit. It may be pertinent to note that from 1947-1977, not a single Muslim was recruited in the higher ranks of the intelligence agencies by the so-called secular Congress government as they were considered “untrustworthy”. This has been revealed in several books by spooks who worked in these agencies. In fact it was Morarji Desai who changed the policy but since he was there only for a year, one wonders whether it was again changed thereafter.
As regards the Wahhabism and the Deoband School, it may be noted that more than 50,000 Indians, concentrated in Bihar and UP have given Arabic as their mother tongue in the census. This is not surprising and the history behind this is intriguing. It goes back to the 16th. century when Naqshbandi Sufism was brought to India by Sheikh Ahmed of Sirhind (1563-1624). Thereafter the lines connect to Syed Ahmad of Rae Barreilly (1786-1831) who was influenced by both Sheikh Waliulah of Delhi and Muhammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab of Nejd, Saudi Arabia. It was Syed Ahmad who was responsible for creating the Three Patna Families, whose descendants/followers are the foremost practitioners of Wahhabism in India. In fact, during British Raj, this group funded and maintained a terrorist group in the Mahbun mountain range, west of the Indus in the present Swat province in Pakistan. This group was called the “Hindustani Fanatics” who were planning a jihad which can only be launched from dar-ul-Islam (land of Faith) on the dar-ul-harb (land of the unfaithful). For more details one should read the superbly chronicled book – God’s Terrorists – The Wahhabi Cult and the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad – by Charles Allen.
– T.R.Ramaswami



Guest post from T.R.Ramaswami
All terrorist attacks in India except the Malegaon one are by Muslims. This has been confirmed by no less than a Muslim Minister in the Central Cabinet – Abdul Rehman Antulay. By stating that there was a conspiracy theory because those who were eliminated were investigating the only attack carried out by non-Muslims, he has confirmed that the other attacks were by Muslims. There is no need therefore to be apologetic or secular and state that terrorists have no religion.
However instead of the conspiracy theory it would be more necessary to investigate the “foolishness theory”. Without discounting the contributions made during their careers, let me submit that the three senior police officers died because their training was inadequate and they broke every security protocol possible. What was the Chief of the ATS, essentially a post event investigative body, doing on the ground, chasing terrorists in a jeep? Why were seven men packed, giving no room to manouvre, in a police jeep that can be identified miles away? Why was the best shooter, the one man with the best reflexes and maximum experience in encounters, driving? They were aware that the terrorists had AK-47s. What did they have? You cannot counter superior weapons unless you have a 4 or 6 times number of people. When you are inferior in weapons and number the only way to counter the opposition is to split so that the terrorists have to watch a wider range. With so many tactical errors it is no surprise that they were eliminated and in fact they did not even have time to draw their weapons, while the terrorists were able to pump three bullets into each. Television images show Karkare trying on a helmet, finding it unsuitable and removing it. Was he wearing one when he was hit? Unlikely.
Many are right stating that these were brave men. Yes, but what is bravery? Like all human attributes, bravery is a mixture of several ingredients – ego, foolishness, ignorance, desperation, etc. Your brain undergoes a chemical transformation that disables logical thinking. A “brave” man jumps in an enemy pillbox and eliminates 10 enemy soldiers. But the truth could be that he thought there were only 3. Would he have jumped in if there were 10? That’s why the army does not take into account your gallantry awards for promotion. There is also another maxim in the army – the bravest of deeds sometimes have no witnesses.
– T.R.Ramaswami



Guest post from T.R.Ramaswami
It is intriguing that terrorists are being identified by too many adjectives – “British Muslims of Pakistani origin”. Now should a terrorist be identified by his nationality or religion? And if it is nationality, should it be the present one or the past or even that of his parents, assuming that he held no other citizenship? Why does the media mix nationality with religion – because it suits the western media and even sections of the Indian media to do so. Why not just say that the terrorists were Muslims – regardless of nationality- or that they are British – regardless of his religion or past nationality? That would be really interesting, provided the media has the courage.
In fact if we carry this analogy a little further – are not all Pakistanis and hence the terrorists who come from there of Indian origin?
Remember the often repeated cliché that terrorists have no religion? Then why should the Government have a cease fire agreement during Ramzan, as reported in the media? Let us tell the Hizbul Mujahideen and other groups that there will be no cease-fire as Muslims themselves have said that terrorists have no religion. Hence Ramzan should not matter to them. If we accede to their request then we are hypocrites. Perhaps there may be more attacks on places of worship of other religions but wouldn’t that tell us who the terrorists are? Will the Government show some spunk at least now?
– T.R.Ramaswami