Quantcast
Channel: thinking through
Viewing all 287 articles
Browse latest View live

Lalita's Story: Pakistani 'Hindus' are Kafir of course, but their young women are a different matter

$
0
0
Lalita was a young college girl in Karachi (Sindh) when she was abducted at gunpoint by Salman and his Islamist friends, writes Dr. Shershah Syed in an Urdu piece published in HumSub online magazine on 13 April 2018.

She was then forced to ‘convert’ to Islam and ‘marry’ Salman while friendly Mullahs and their lawyers worked overtime to ward off the legal consequences of their crime and to try to ensure that the young woman is prevented from meeting her family ever again.

After her forced ‘marriage’, Lalita is made to give birth to a child even as the womenfolk of her captor’s household think of her as someone who had slyly ensnared their son and brother, writes Dr. Syed who is a well known obstetrician and gynaecologist of Pakistan.

He is the president of the Pakistan National Forum on Women’s Health (PNFWH) which is known for its work on women’s reproductive health and rights.

He has written 10 books, the latest being a collection of short stories.

Dr. Syed is based in Karachi in Sindh province which houses most of Pakistan’s ‘Hindus’ and also accounts for most of the cases of ‘forced conversions’ to Islam, especially of young women, including minors.

A Dawn report of Nov. 2016 cites a study (published in July 2015) that said, “At least 1,000 girls are forcibly converted to Islam in Pakistan every year.”

In Feb. 2018, The Express Tribune said: “Every year, hundreds of Hindu girls are forcibly converted to Islam after being kidnapped by unidentified persons usually with the connivance of the local police.”

Daily Times said in Sep. 2017: “Religious institutions are pivotal in promoting” Hindu girls’ “sham conversions to Islam”.

I have translated Lalita’s story from Urdu to Hindi in a way that most of the original wording has been retained.

Here is the story.
------

http://www.humsub.com.pk/122461/shershah-syed/

आशिक़ नौजवान, हिन्दू लड़की, गुमराह मौलवी और मजबूर बाप 

(डॉ. शेरशाह सय्यद, 13 अप्रैल 2018, ‘हमसब’ मैगज़ीन, पाकिस्तान)

“मुझे फांसी मिल जाती तो अच्छा था.” उसने बड़े दुःख से मेरी तरफ़ देखते हुए कहा था. 

उसके लहजे में दर्द और उसकी आँखों में उदासी थी -- ऐसी कि जिसे देख कर देखने वाला भी उदास हो जाए.

वो अपने बाप के साथ आया था, जो मुझे सीधे-सादे से आदमी लगे -- दुबले पतले, सर पर जाली वाली सफ़ेद टोपी, तराशी हुई दाढ़ी, और आँखों पर क़ीमती फ़्रेम वाला ऐनक।

मुझे डॉक्टर हमीद ने फ़ोन करके उनके बारे में बताया था और कहा था कि वो उसे लेकर आएंगे।

हमीद का शुमार शहर के उन गिने-चुने डॉक्टरों में होता था जो न सिर्फ़ इलाज करते हैं बल्कि मरीज़ और मरीज़ के ख़ानदान के साथ क़रीब के ताल्लुक़ात भी रखते हैं। 

पूरा ख़ानदान हमीद का मरीज़ था. खाते-पीते लोग थे; कराची की सब्ज़ी मंडी में आढ़ती का काम करते थे.

सलमान ने किसी हिन्दू लड़की का अपहरण किया था. उस से शादी की थी, जिस के बाद एक बच्ची भी पैदा हुई. वह हिन्दू लड़की एक दिन भाग गई थी. 

मैंने क़िस्सा तो सुन लिया था लेकिन मेरा ख़याल था कि मैं मरीज़ और उसके ख़ानदान की ज़बान से ही सारी बातें दोबारा सुनूँ तो बेहतर होगा।

मुझे अंदाज़ा हो गया था कि पूरा ख़ानदान किस क़िस्म के ज़बरदस्त दबाव का शिकार होगा.    

वे सब ही दबाव के शिकार थे. उन दोनों को बुलाने से पहले मैं उसके बाप को बुला कर उनकी बातें सुन चुका था. उन्होंने मुझे बताया कि वो कई दफ़ा ख़ुदकशी करने की कोशिश कर चुका है. अब उसे हर वक़्त किसी न किसी की निगरानी में रखना पड़ता है. 

घर में भी उस पर नज़र रखनी पड़ती है कि कहीं वह बावर्ची-ख़ाने से छुरी निकाल कर अपने आप पर वार न कर डाले।  

कमरों के दरवाज़ों की चिटखनियां निकाल दे गई हैं कि कहीं वो किसी कमरे में बंद होकर अपने आप को फांसी न लगा ले। 

हर वक़्त उस के साथ एक मुलाज़िम रहता है.

इकलौता बेटा और उस का ये हश्र; किसी ने सोचा भी न था. माँ और बहनें हर वक़्त आँसू बहाती रहती हैं. 

“न जाने किस की बद-दुआ या नज़र लगी है कि यह सब कुछ हो गया हमारे साथ.” उन्होंने बड़े दर्द भरे अलफ़ाज़ में पूरी कहानी सुनाई थी.

वे पूर्वी पाकिस्तान से लुटे-पुटे कराची आए थे. पूर्वी पाकिस्तान में अच्छा कारोबार था. बिहार से वे लोग पश्चिमी पाकिस्तान के बजाए ढाका चले आए थे. वहाँ ही उनके बाप ने मेहनत की और आहिस्ता आहिस्ता कारोबार जमाया था. 

छोटी उम्र से वो अपने पिता के साथ उन का हाथ बटाने लगे थे. देखते ही देखते उन्होंने वो सब कुछ हासिल कर लिया था जिसकी हर आदमी कोशिश करता है. 

"पूर्वी पाकिस्तान में सब कुछ मिला था हम लोगों को. बड़ी मेहनत की थी हमारे ख़ानदान ने. सुबह से शाम तक काम करते थे और अल्लाह ने उस का फल भी दिया। अच्छे पैसे कमाए। दोस्त, अज़ीज़, रिश्तेदार सब की मदद भी की. मकान भी बनाया। सोचा भी न था कि रुत ऐसे बदलेगी कि सब कुछ ख़त्म हो जाएगा।"

बांग्लादेश तो एक बड़ा देश बना मगर न जाने कितने छोटे छूटे 'देश'तबाह हो गए. बच्चे यतीम हो गए, बीवियाँ बेवा हो गईं, और अपने जवान बच्चों की मौत का मातम करते हुए माएँ अपना आपा खो बैठीं। 

बहनें भाइयों को याद करती हैं और भाई अपनी बिछड़ी हुई बहनों के बारे में डरावने ख़्वाब देख देख कर न जाने कैसे ज़िंदगी गुज़ार रहे हैं. 

“क्यों होता है ऐसा ? कुछ सालों के बाद वही कहानी दोहराई जाती है.” उन के लहजे में पीड़ा थी.

“शुक्र है हमारे खानदान की दोनों जवान लड़कियाँ - मेरी दोनों बहनें - अग़वा नहीं हुईं बल्कि गोली का निशाना बन कर मर गईं.” 

“मैं, मेरी माँ और मेरे वालिद उनके लिए फातहा पढ़ लेते थे; उन्हें याद कर के रो लेते थे. अब मैं भी उन्हें याद करता हूँ तो यही सोचता हूँ कि वे कहीं जन्नत में सुकून से रह रही होंगी। मैं उनके बारे में सोच सोच कर परेशान नहीं होता हूँ.”

मुझे इस तरह की कहानियाँ सुनने का शौक़ था. मेरा विचार था कि मरीज़ों और मर्ज़ को समझने के लिए और उसके बाद इलाज करने के लिए ज़रूरी है कि ऐसे विवरण को इकट्ठा किया जाए; उस की छान-बीन की जाए तो बहुत सारी मनोग्रंथिओं को खोलने और समझने में मदद मिलती है. 

मानसिक रोगियों का इलाज उन गुत्थियों को खोले बिना संभव नहीं है.  

मेरा ध्यान अपनी ओर पाकर उन्होंने फिर कहना शुरू किया था कि जो कुछ भी हुआ दोनों तरफ़ से हुआ - क्या बिहारी, क्या बंगाली, क्या फ़ौजी, और क्या मुक्ति-बाहिनी। कोई भी इंसान नहीं रहा था. 

"वहशत, दहशत, दरिंदगी और ज़ुल्म के दर्जे नहीं होते हैं, डॉक्टर साहब, जैसे चोरी और बेईमानी के दर्जे नहीं होते हैं. चोर को जानते-बूझते हुए चोर न समझना, बेईमान की बेईमानी की हिमायत करना, चोरी और बेईमानी से ज़्यादा बड़े जुर्म हैं.”

“जुर्म चाहे बड़ा हो या छोटा, जुर्म तो जुर्म ही होता है. इसी तरह से ज़ुल्मो सितम, वहशत, दहशत, दरिंदगी की हिमायत किसी भी वजह से की जाए वह भी वहशत, दहशत, दरिंदगी ही कहलाएगी।"

"न जाने क्या हो गया था लोगों को. पाकिस्तान को बचाने के लिए एक भी बंगाली का क़त्ल नहीं होना चाहिए था और बँगलादेश बनाने के लिए एक भी बिहारी को मारना नहीं चाहिए था."

"काश किसी लड़की की इज़्ज़त न लूटी जाती; काश किसी को भी क़त्ल नहीं किया जाता। क्या ज़रुरत थी इन सब चीज़ों की?"

उन की बात में वज़न तो बहुत था मगर हक़ीक़ी दुनिया में तो ऐसा नहीं होता है. 

लोग वर्चस्व के लिए लड़ेंगे, क़ौमें एक दूसरे का गला काटेंगी, एक दूसरे की माँओं बहनों की इज़्ज़त लूटेंगी। कभी क़ौमियत के नाम पर, कभी मज़हब के नाम पर, कभी मुल्क बचाने के लिए, और कभी अपने अहं की संतुष्टि के लिए. 

इंसान तो यही करते रहे हैं. इतिहास तो यही बताता है. मेरे मन में भी इस क़िस्म के विचार आते रहते थे. 

“दो बहनों का दुःख ले कर और सब कुछ ढाका में छोड़ कर मैं अपने परिवार के साथ नेपाल के रास्ते कराची पहुँच गया था और कराची के औरंगी टाउन में ज़िंदगी वैसे ही शुरू कर दी थी जैसे मेरे बाप ने ढाका में शुरू की थी. वहाँ मैं उन का हाथ बटाता था; यहाँ उन्होंने मेरा हाथ बटाया। यहाँ बहुत जल्द अल्लाह की महरबानी से हम लोगों को सब कुछ मिल गया.”

“मैंने वही काम यहाँ की सब्ज़ी मंडी में शुरू कर दिया. यही एक काम मुझे आता था जो मैं अच्छे तरीक़े से कर सकता था. फिर औरंगी टाउन छोड़ कर गुलशन इक़बाल जा बसने में बहुत देर नहीं लगी हमें.”

“मैंने अपनी बेटियों और बेटे को पढ़ने में लगा दिया था. बहुत मेहनत की थी उनकी माँ ने उनके पीछे.” 

“बांग्लादेश में सब कुछ उलट गया था हमारा और हमारे जैसे लोगों का. मैं शायद क़िस्मत का धनी था. शायद मेरी क़त्ल होने वाली बहनों की दुआएं थीं मेरे साथ कि मेहनत करने का मौक़ा मिल गया और मेहनत से खोई दौलत भी वापिस आ गई.” 

“मगर कई ख़ानदान तो ऐसे तबाह हुए कि आज तक उस तबाही से बाहर नहीं निकल सके हैं.” 

“मैने सोचा था कि मैं अपने बच्चों को पढ़ाऊँगा - इतना पढ़ाऊँगा कि कल अगर दोबारा वही सब कुछ पाकिस्तान में हुआ जो बांग्लादेश में हुआ था तो उन्हें संभलने के लिए वह सब कुछ नहीं करना पड़े जो मुझे करना पड़ा है.”

“सेठ तो कंगाल हो सकता है, मगर पढ़ा लिखा आदमी कंगाल नहीं होता है.” 

ये कह कर वो ख़ामोश हो गए, जैसे कुछ कहने के लिए सही अल्फ़ाज़ का चुनाव करना चाह रहे हैं. 

फिर मेरे कुछ कहने से पहले ही उन्होंने दोबारा कहना शुरू किया.

"शायद मुझ से ग़लती हो गई. तालीम के बावजूद जो कुछ हुआ वो मैंने सोचा भी नहीं था. ये मेरा बेटा बिलकुल ठीक-ठाक था. इसे मैंने कारोबार भी सिखाया और तालीम भी दिलाई। ये काम भी सही करता था, मगर न जाने क्यों और कैसे ये सब कुछ हो गया हमारे साथ."

उन की आँखें झिलमिला गईं और आवाज़ भर्रा गई.

“मेरा बेटा एक शरीफ़ आदमी था. मेरी आँखों के सामने बड़ा हुआ था. ज़ाहिर में कोई ख़राबी नहीं थी उसमें। मेहनती था, काम करता था. स्कूल, कॉलेज, यूनिवर्सिटी में पढ़ा था।“

“इलाक़े के मस्जिद में नमाज़ पढ़ता था, रोज़े रखता था. सारे दोस्त उसके मज़हबी थे.”

“मैं आज तक नहीं समझ सका कि उसे ऐसा करने की क्या ज़रुरत थी. कोई ज़रुरत नहीं थी. ख़ानदान में, ख़ानदान के बाहर, दोस्तों में, रिश्तेदारों में, ख़ुद हमारे मोहल्ले में बहुत सारी ख़ूबसूरत लड़कियां थीं.”

“हम लोग खाते पीते लोग थे; कुछ कमी नहीं थी. जिससे चाहता उससे शादी हो जाती उसकी, मगर वो एक हिन्दू लड़की पर आशिक़ हो गया.”

“मैंने, उसकी माँ ने, उसकी बहनों ने, किसी ने भी नहीं सोचा था कि ऐसा हो जाएगा और इस तरह से हो जाएगा।"

“शुरू में तो मैंने कोई ख़ास ध्यान नहीं दिया। ऐसा हो जाता है; आप किसी को पसंद कर लेते हैं. चाहते हैं कि उससे आपकी शादी हो जाए, वो आपको मिल जाए. मगर ज़िंदगी में वो सब कुछ तो नहीं होता है जो आप चाहते हैं."

फिर आप सब्र कर लेते हैं. भूल जाते हैं. ख़ास तौर पर ऐसे हालात में जब सारी मुहब्बत एकतरफ़ा हो, जब मज़हब, ज़ात, फ़िरक़े का फ़र्क़ हो.” 

"एक दिन मैंने उसे समझाया था कि हम लोग मुसलमान हैं और वो एक शरीफ़ हिन्दू घराने की शरीफ़ सी हिन्दू लड़की है जो तुम से शादी करना भी चाहे तो नहीं कर सकती है क्योंकि उसके माँ-बाप कभी भी राज़ी नहीं होंगे।"

“फिर सबसे बड़ी बात ये थी कि ललिता ने तुमसे साफ़ साफ़ कह दिया है कि उसे तुममें कोई दिलचस्पी नहीं है. फिर तुम ऐसी ज़िद क्यों कर रहे हो जिसका कोई फ़ायदा नहीं है. मैंने और इसकी माँ ने बहुत समझाया था इसे. इसकी माँ तो रो दी थी इस के सामने।“

"'मैं उसे मुसलमान बनाऊँगा। वो मेरी बीवी बनेगी। मैं उसके बिना नहीं रह सकता हूँ.' - इसने बार-बार अपनी माँ से यही कहा था. ये समझना ही नहीं चाह रहा था कि ललिता और ललिता के ख़ानदान को इसमें कोई दिलचस्पी नहीं थी. 

"वे हिन्दू लोग थे और हिन्दू रह कर अपने ही तरीक़े से ज़िंदगी गुज़ारना चाहते थे. वे लोग कराची के पुराने सिंधी थे. खाते पीते, ख़ुशहाल व्यापारी, और अपने काम से काम रखने वाले लोग."

“बेशक वो एक ख़ूबसूरत लड़की थी. मेरे बेटे को अच्छी लगी होगी। लेकिन इसका मतलब ये तो नहीं था कि ये उसका अपहरण कर लेता। हाँ डाक्टर साहब, इसने उसे अग़वा कर लिया अपने दोस्तों की मदद से. इसने उसे कॉलेज से घर आते हुए ज़बरदस्ती रास्ते में पकड़ कर अपनी गाड़ी में डाल कर अग़वा कर लिया था.” 

"मुझे बाद में पता चला कि इसने पैसे ख़र्च किए थे उसके अपहरण पर. वो चीख़ी, चिल्लाई थी, मगर हथियारों के ज़ोर पर वो सब कुछ हो गया जो कराची में होता रहता है, जो सिंध के छोटे बड़े शहरों, क़स्बों में हो रहा है."

"हर कोई देख रहा है, समझ रहा है; फिर भी हम सब देखते रहते हैं, कुछ नहीं कहते। क्योंकि हममें न तो नैतिक साहस है, न जुरअत है, और शायद इसे बुरा भी नहीं समझते हैं - उस वक़्त तक जब तक ये हमारे अपने साथ नहीं हो जाता."

“कुछ न कहना, कुछ नहीं करना, एक तरह से हिमायत ही तो है इस अत्याचार की.” 

मैंने नहीं सोचा था कि कहानी इतनी पेचीदा होगी और मौलवी टाइप का ये आदमी इस तरह की बात करेगा।

कोई भी अपने बेटे को बुरा नहीं कहता है, बुरा नहीं समझता है, ख़ास तौर पर ऐसे मामले में जब मज़हब का नाम लिया जाता है, जब मामला हिन्दू मुसलमान के दरम्यान का है. मुसलमान कैसे ग़लत हो सकता है? ये तो मुमकिन ही नहीं था.

"मुझे तो बहुत बाद में पता चला जब ललिता के बाप की तस्वीर अख़बार में छपी थी. उस का ब्यान था कि उसकी बेटी को अग़वा कर लिया गया है. मेरे बेटे का नाम था कि इसने अग़वा किया है और उसे मुसलमान बनाकर उससे शादी कर ली है."

"ये सब कुछ एक आलिम (इस्लाम पढ़ा हुआ व्यक्ति) के हाथों हुआ था बड़े सुनियोजित तरीक़े से. एक बड़े से मदरसे में ये जिहाद किया गया था एक निहत्थी, मासूम, छोटी उम्र की हिन्दू लड़की के ख़िलाफ़।"

“मेरा बेटा इतना घटिया हो जाएगा, ये मेरी कल्पना में भी नहीं था.”

छः महीने तक कुछ भी नहीं हुआ - ललिता का बाप पुलिस स्टेशन और बड़े अफ़सरों के दफ़्तरों के चक्कर काटता रहा.

"प्रेस क्लब में 'हिन्दू पंचायत'वाले प्रेस कांफ्रेंस करते रहे. कुछ भी नहीं हुआ. मेरे बेटे और उस मौलवी का वकील बहुत बड़ा वकील था. इसकी गिरफ़्तारी से पहले ज़मानत पर ज़मानत होती रही."

"वकील ने कुछ ऐसा चक्कर डाल दिया था कि पुलिस वाले जानते बूझते हुए भी ललिता को वापिस नहीं ला सकते थे."

"ये दोनों एक 'सुरक्षित'जगह पर रह रहे थे. ये कैसा सिस्टम है जिस में मज़हबी बुनियाद पर बेबस लड़की अग़वा हो जाती है, रुपयों से ख़रीदा हुआ वकील क़ानून से खेलता है, और जज इंसाफ़ मुहय्या करने में बेबस है." 

"मैंने इसे समझाने की कोशिश की थी, मगर ये नहीं समझा। मैं तो एक बाप हूँ; मेरी बेटियाँ भी हैं. मुझे अंदाज़ा था कि ललिता के बाप पर क्या गुज़र रही होगी। उस की माँ कैसे सोती होगी, कैसे खाती होगी, कैसे रोती होगी।
मैं सोचता था और मुझे भी नींद नहीं आती थी; ज़िन्दगी का मज़ा ख़त्म हो गया था."

"साल नहीं गुज़रा था कि एक दिन ये ललिता को लेकर घर आ गया; इसके साथ पुलिस थी, मौलवी टाइप गार्ड थे. कुछ मौलवी थे. ये सब अदालत से आए थे. ललिता ने जज के सामने इक़रार किया था कि वो मुसलमान हो गई है; वो अपने शौहर के साथ अपनी मर्ज़ी से अदालत आई है, और अपने माँ-बाप के पास वापिस नहीं जाना चाहती है."

"मौलवियों ने फ़तवा दिया था कि ललिता - जिस का नाम 'फ़ातमा'रखा गया - अब अपने काफ़िर माँ-बाप से नहीं मिल सकती है क्योंकि वे उसके लिए 'ना-महरम'हैं." ('ना-महरम': जिससे, इस्लामी क़ानून के अनुसार, नज़दीकियां निषिद्ध हैं और पर्दा करना उचित है.) 

"मैंने उसे बख़ुशी क़ुबूल कर लिया था. वो छः महीने की गर्भवती थी; वो मेरे बेटे के बच्चे की माँ बनने जा रही थी. मेरी बीवी और मेरी बेटियों ने भी उसे क़ुबूल कर लिया था, गो कि दिल से वे यही समझती थीं की ललिता ने सलमान को फंसाया है और उसे पागल कर दिया है."

"मैं बिल्कुल भी ऐसा नहीं समझता था. मेरा दिल कहता था कि उसके साथ मेरे बेटे और उस के दोस्तों ने ज़्यादती की है. मैं उसकी मदद करना चाहता था.”

"मैंने उसकी आँखों में ख़ौफ़ के साये देखे थे. वो नाज़ुक और बहुत ख़ूबसूरत लड़की थी. बहुत कम वक़्त में उसके साथ बहुत कुछ हो गया था." 

"मेरे बेटे ने न जाने कैसे बहुत बड़ा जुर्म और ज़ुल्म किया था. उसे अग़वा किया था, ज़बरदस्ती उसे अपने माँ-बाप से जुदा कर दिया था, उसे मजबूर करके उसका मज़हब तब्दील कराया था, उससे ज़बरदस्ती शादी करली थी."

"ये बातें समझने के लिए बहुत तालीम और समझ की ज़रुरत नहीं है. उसकी बड़ी, स्याह आँखों में ख़ौफ़ की कैफ़ियत सब कुछ बता रही थी."

"मुझे अंदाज़ा हो गया कि उसने डरावे में अदालत में बयान दिया था ताकि वो उस पनाह-गाह से निकल सके. वो गर्भ से ज़रूर थी मगर मुझे पता था कि उसका बलात्कार हुआ है. न वो मुसलमान हुई है, न उसे मेरे बेटे से मुहब्बत है, और न ही वो माँ बनना चाहती है."

"वो हैरान-परेशान थी; डरी हुई थी; उसके साथ जो कुछ भी हुआ था वो माफ़ी के भी क़ाबिल नहीं था."

"मैं सोच भी नहीं सकता था कि मेरा बेटा, मेरा ख़ून, ये सब कुछ करेगा, डॉक्टर साहब।"

मैंने बहुत कम ऐसे बाप देखें हैं जो अपनी औलाद के जुर्म का बोझ उठाते हैं. मैं ध्यान से उनकी बात सुन रहा था और सलमान की फ़ाइल पर लिखता भी जा रहा था. 

"वो बड़ी भोली सी लड़की थी - सलमान से ख़ौफ़ज़दा। उसे देखते ही मेरी आँखों में आँसू झलक आते थे. मैं अपनी उन दो बहनों के बारे में सोचता था जो बांग्लादेश में क़त्ल हो गई थीं. उन बेटियों के बारे में सोचता जो कॉलेज में पढ़ रही थीं कि अगर उनके साथ यही सब कुछ हो जो ललिता के साथ हुआ है तो क्या होगा।"  

"मेरी बेचैनी का अंदाज़ा सलमान नहीं कर सकता था. वो खुश था कि ललिता उसके क़ब्ज़े में थी. उसे अपने मज़हबी दोस्तों की हिमायत हासिल थी. उसका ख़याल था कि उसने ललिता को मुसलमान करके जन्नत कमा ली है. उसके मौलवी रहनुमा और दोस्तों का यही ख़याल था."

"जल्द ही मैं दादा बन गया. नन्ही सी बच्ची - जिसे उसने कोमल का नाम दिया था - को देख कर झूम उठता. उसे चूम कर मुझे उसके नाना का ख़याल आता और फिर मेरा दिल भर आता."

"डाक्टर साहब, आप अंदाज़ा नहीं कर सकते कि मेरे दिल पर क्या गुज़री थी. मैं कुछ नहीं कर सकता था सिवाए दुआओं के. उस दिन अशा की नमाज़ पर मैंने दुआ की थी कि मेरे बेटे को हिदायत मिले। वो ये सब कुछ न करे जो वो कर रहा था." 

"(पर) मैं कुछ भी नहीं कर सका। न उसे बदल सका, न उसके दोस्तों को बदल सका."  

"एक दिन मेरे दफ़्तर ललिता के वालिद आ गए. बिमल कुमार नाम था उनका. पचास से ज़्यादा उम्र नहीं होगी उनकी, मगर वक़्त ने बूढ़ा कर दिया था उन्हें। उन्हें नहीं पता था कि ललिता माँ बन गई है. वो तो सिर्फ़ ये कहने आया था कि वो जो हुआ उसे नहीं बदल सकता, मगर वो चाहता है कि वो और उस की बीवी ललिता से मिल सकें।"

"मैंने कमरे का दरवाज़ा बंद कर के अपना दिल उसके सामने खोल कर रख दिया। मैंने उसे कहा कि मैं सलमान का बाप ज़रूर हूँ, मगर उसका तरफ़दार नहीं हूँ. मैंने उससे माफ़ी मांगी कि मैं कुछ कर नहीं सका. सलमान ने जो भी कुछ किया वो ग़लत था और अब जो भी कुछ हो रहा है सही नहीं है. मुझे अपनी मजबूरी पर रोना आया था."  

"उसने मेरे हाथ थाम कर कहा कि वो समझ सकता है कि मेरा कोई दोष नहीं है. 'बस आप उसे ये कह दें कि हम उसे भूले नहीं हैं. उसकी माँ, उसकी बहन, उसका भाई, उसकी नानी, उसकी दादी, सब उसके लिए रोते हैं. रोते रहेंगे। वो जहां भी है हमारी बेटी है, हमारी बेटी ही रहेगी'।"

"मैं ललिता को बताना चाहता था कि उसका बाप मुझसे मिला है. मैं मौक़े की तलाश में था कि कब मुझे फ़ुर्सत और ऐसा वक़्त मिल जाएगा कि मैं उससे अकेले में बात कर सकूं।"

"सलमान की कड़ी नज़र थी उसकी तरफ़ और मुझे कई बार संदिग्ध लोग मकान के आस-पास नज़र आते थे. ज़बरदस्ती मुसलमान बनाने वालों ने हमारे मकान पर नज़र रखी हुई थी. मैं चाहते हुए भी उसकी मदद नहीं कर पा रहा था."

"मैं दिल से चाहता था कि वो वापिस अपने माँ-बाप के पास चली जाए. दीन, ऐतक़ाद और मज़हब में ज़बरदस्ती नहीं होती। अग़वा करके शादी करना किसी भी मज़हब में जायज़ नहीं हो सकता।"

"मुझे अफ़सोस इस बात का भी है कि इसकी माँ भी इसकी हामी हो गई थी. ममता अपनी जगह पर सही है, लेकिन मेरी समझ में नहीं आता था कि ये कैसी ममता है जो अपने बेटे के लिए हर बात जायज़ समझती है."

"मैं सोचता हूँ, डाक्टर साहब, कि हम लोगों में कोई बहुत बड़ी बुनियादी ख़राबी है. पहले तो वो इस बात के ही ख़िलाफ़ थी कि सलमान किसी हिन्दू लड़की से शादी करे. और अब वो न सिर्फ़ उस अपहरण को भी जायज़ समझती थी बल्कि इस मामले पर बात करने को भी तैयार नहीं थी."  

"मैं ये अच्छी तरह से समझ रहा था ललिता न मुसलमान हुई है और न ही सलमान को अपना शौहर समझती है. वो एक मुसलमान, एक बीवी की ऐक्टिंग  कर रही थी. उसने अपने ख़ानदान को बचाने के लिए अपने आप को क़ुर्बान कर दिया था. मैं उसकी डरी हुई आँखों में पढ़ रहा था कि वो सिर्फ़ मौक़े के इंतिज़ार में है."

"मैं उसकी मदद करना चाहता था क्योंकि उसकी ज़िंदगी और उसकी बहाली में ही हम सब की बहाली थी. मुझे पता था कि सलमान भी ये समझता है कि ललिता को हासिल करके भी वो उसे हासिल नहीं कर सका है."

"यही वजह थी कि उसका रवैया आक्रामक हो गया था. वो अपने तंग-नज़र मज़हबी दोस्तों और रहनुमाओं के साथ रह कर बदल गया था. अपने आप को ही सही समझता और अपने अहं की संतुष्टि के लिए कुछ भी कर गुज़रता। इससे बड़ी और ख़राब बीमारी कोई नहीं है."

"न जाने क्यों उस रात कैसे मेरी आँख खुल गई थी. मैं अपने कमरे से उठकर फ्रिज से पानी लेने के लिए जा रहा था कि मैंने ललिता को देखा। वो बच्ची को हाथों में संभाले खुले हुए दरवाज़े से बाहर निकल रही थी."

"पता नहीं क्यों मैं समझ गया था कि वो घर छोड़ कर जाने की कोशिश कर रही है. मैं दबे पाँव उसके पीछे गया. मैंने पहली और आख़िरी दफ़ा उसे गले लगाया, अपनी पोती को शायद आख़िरी दफ़ा चूमा इस उम्मीद के साथ कि वो जहां रहे ख़ुश रहे।"

"ललिता ने भी मेरे हाथों को ज़ोर से पकड़ा। उसकी आँखों में आँसू थे. मुझे नहीं पता है कि मेरे घर के गेट से बाहर वो रिक्शा कैसे और कब से खड़ा था. वो तेज़ी से बच्ची को लेकर रिक्शे में बैठ गई."

"मैं गेट को बंद किए बिना ख़ामोशी से अपने कमरे में आकर लेट गया और दुआ करता रहा था कि ललिता निकल जाए; कोई उसे रोके नहीं।" 

"सुबह हुई तो घर में वही कुछ हुआ जिस की उम्मीद थी - शोर शराबा, ग़ुस्सा, और बहुत से मौलवियों की आमद. मुझे लगा कि अब एक बार फिर से क़ानूनी और मज़हबी जंग शुरू हो जाएगी।"

"मगर कुछ नहीं हुआ, सिवाए इसके कि उसी दिन ललिता के बाप के घर पर पुलिस का छापा पड़ा जिसमें कुछ भी बरामद नहीं हुआ. ललिता वहाँ नहीं थी."

"दस दिन के बाद ललिता के बाप ने थाने से अपनी शिकायत वापस ले ली और अदालतों से अपना मुक़द्दमा ख़त्म करने की दरख़्वास्त दे दी. मुझे इत्मिनान सा हो गया था कि ललिता महफ़ूज़ है."

"एक दिन ये बहुत ग़ुस्से में मेरे ऑफ़िस आ गया. इसके साथ दो और नौजवान थे. इनका बात करने का ढंग बता रहा था कि ये सब एक ही सोच रखते हैं जिसके मुताबिक़ एक हिन्दू लड़की को मुसलमान बना लेना एक मुबारक काम है."

"'हम उसे वापस ले कर आएंगे। समझा क्या है उन हिन्दुओं ने! हम मुसलमान हैं,'वग़ैरह वग़ैरह। ये सब कुछ बड़े ज़ोर ज़ोर से कहा था उन लोगों ने."

"मैंने उन्हें समझाने की कोशिश की: 'वो अपनी मर्ज़ी से तुम्हें छोड़ कर गई है. वो तुम्हें अपना शौहर नहीं समझती। इस वक़्त न जाने कहाँ होगी। शायद भारत चली गई हो. जो हो गया, सही या ग़लत, उसका इलाज मुमकिन नहीं है. अब आगे बढ़ने का वक़्त है'."

"मगर ये बात उनकी समझ में नहीं आई थी. मेरा दिल जैसे बैठ गया. ये कौन लोग थे?"

"मैं मज़हबी आदमी हूँ, अल्लाह पर यक़ीन रखता हूँ, मुसलमान हूँ. मैं तो सोच भी नहीं सकता कि मैं किसी से ज़बरदस्ती करूँ और ज़बरदस्ती भी ऐसी..... मुझे पहली बार अपने बेटे को देख कर घिन आई."

"वे लोग मुझ से बेकार की बहस कर के चले गए. उसी शाम को एक आदमी बिमल कुमार का एक ख़त मेरे बेटे के नाम दे कर गया. लिफ़ाफ़ा बंद था. मैंने उसे खोलना मुनासिब नहीं समझा। घर आकर इसे अपने कमरे में बुला कर लिफ़ाफ़ा दे दिया।"

"इस ने ख़त खोला, खोल कर पढ़ा, दोबारा पढ़ा, और ज़ोर ज़ोर से रोने लगा. ख़त उसके हाथ में था."

"मैंने कुछ नहीं कहा. दिल तो मेरा चाहा कि उसे तसल्ली दूँ, मगर न जाने क्यों मैं ऐसा कर नहीं सका. शायद मेरे अंदर इसके ख़िलाफ़ ग़ुस्सा था. फिर भी मैंने उसका हाथ पकड़ लिया था."   

"आहिस्ता आहिस्ता इसकी हिचकियाँ रुक गई थीं और ये ख़ामोशी से दीवार को तक रहा था. मैंने इसके चेहरे पर नज़र डाली तो इसने बिमल कुमार का ख़त मुझे थमा दिया।"

"बेटे हमेशा ख़ुश रहो. तुम्हें मैं बताना चाहता हूँ कि ललिता हिन्दोस्तान चली गई है, जहाँ उसकी मासी ने उसका रिश्ता भी तय कर दिया है. अब वो कभी भी अपने पुरखों के देस सिंध-पाकिस्तान नहीं आएगी। उसके होने वाले शौहर और उनके परिवार ने उसे बच्ची समेत क़ुबूल कर लिया है. मैं प्रार्थना करता हूँ, तुम भी दुआ करो, कि वो हमेशा ख़ुश रहे. मैं चाहता हूँ कि तुम भी ख़ुश रहो."

"मुझे और मेरे ख़ानदान को तुमसे बड़ी शिकायत है. मेरी बीवी न जाने तुम्हारे बारे में क्या क्या कहती रहती है और न जाने कौन कौन सी बद-दुआएँ देती रहती है. मैं सिर्फ़ दुआ करता हूँ कि वक़्त के साथ उसके ज़ख़्म भर जाएँ और वो भी सब कुछ भूल जाए. मेरे घर वाले कहते हैं कि तुमने माफ़ न करने वाला जुर्म किया है; तुमने हमारे ख़ानदान का सुख चैन छीन लिया; तुमने मेरी मासूम बच्ची के साथ जो कुछ किया है माफ़ कर देने के क़ाबिल नहीं है. मैं पिछले कई महीनों से इसी बारे में सोचता रहा हूँ, रातों को जागता रहा हूँ, लेकिन मैंने अपनी बीवी बच्चों को कह दिया है कि मैंने तुम्हें माफ़ कर दिया है."

"मेरे ख़याल में माफ़ करना तो वही होता है जब नाक़ाबिले माफ़ी को भी माफ़ कर दिया जाए."
-बिमल राय

"ख़त मेरे हाथों में कपकपाने लगा. मेरे दिमाग़ के बहुत अंदर किसी जगह पर जैसे अलफ़ाज़ थर्रा रहे थे. 'नाक़ाबिले माफ़ी को भी माफ़ कर दिया जाए.'" 

इस ख़त के बाद से, डॉक्टर साहब, ये कहता है कि इसे मर जाना चाहिए, कि इसे फाँसी दी जाए -- फाँसी।" 
----------------- 

This post has the following Web-links in the order of occurrence.

1. http://www.humsub.com.pk/122461/shershah-syed/

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shershah_Syed

3. http://pnfwh.org.pk/about-us/

4. https://www.dawn.com/news/1298369

5. https://tribune.com.pk/story/1632537/6-more-and-more-muslims/

6. https://dailytimes.com.pk/116289/forced-conversions-of-pakistani-hindu-girls/
------


PHFI fails to respond to govt notice on my complaint; instead sends me "legal notice for defamation"!

$
0
0
Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) has failed to respond to a health ministry letter dated 09 April 2018 which asks it to "give a suitable reply" to me "directly" as regards my complaint against PHFI (registration No. PMOPG/E/2018/0081416).

Instead, PHFI has sent me a "legal notice for defamation" (dated 02 May 2018) for filing this complaint and for writing articles about PHFI since 2011.

What a transparently vindictive (and stupid) way to try to evade responding to a complaint against you and answering questions that media has every right to raise!!

I filed this complaint on 21 Feb 2019 at the PMO which forwarded it to the health ministry where it is being dealt with by Under Secretary Pradip Kumar Pal.

My complaint was based on information a former top official of PHFI shared with me about a massive bank swindle in PHFI which wiped out the entire Rs 65 crore of grant that the Manmohan Singh government gave this entity in 2006.

Health ministry acted on my complaint by first asking PHFI -- through a letter dated 16 March 2018 and file-numbered A-11035/3/2016-Trg-Part (1) -- to "provide para-wise reply along with supporting documents to all the allegations raised by Kapil Bajaj to this ministry within 10 days".

I received no response to this letter (let alone a "para-wise reply") until today (09 May 2018), either directly from PHFI or via the health ministry!

This letter (addressed to PHFI) had been copied to me; along with this copy I had also received a letter that was addressed to me, urging me to provide "documentary evidence" to substantiate my complaint.

So I submitted to the health ministry a set of 17 documents through an email dated 02 April 2018 and another set of two documents through an email dated 09 April 2018.

As I said, I have received absolutely no response to that 16 March letter despite submitting all documents substantiating my complaint to the health ministry.

The health ministry again wrote to PHFI on 09 April 2018 -- through a letter file-numbered A-11035/3/2016-Trg-Part (1) -- asking it to "examine the matter" (i.e. my complaint along with documents I submitted), "take appropriate action and give a suitable reply to the applicant directly under intimation to this ministry".

The picture below is a scanned copy of this letter dated 09 April 2018.

Have I received any "suitable reply" from PHFI "directly" in compliance with this letter?

No. Absolutely nothing.

Far from complying with health ministry's letter, PHFI has instead send me a "legal notice for defamation", through law firm 'Khaitan & Co LLP', which alleges that I have been "defaming" it through my writings since 2011 and have filed the complaint "to amplify the imputations" made against it.

It's interesting that PHFI mentions the year 2011, the year I started writing articles in which PHFI figured.

That's the year I published a series of four articles on PHFI in Sucheta Dalal's Moneylife with active participation of PHFI through its Chairman N. R. Narayana Murthy and President K. Srinath Reddy!

I had then a very long email exchange with PHFI Chairman Narayana Murthy. I used the information provide by Murthy and PHFI President through that email exchange in that series of four articles published in July 2011 in Moneylife.

Since PHFI now accuses me in its "legal notice" of publishing "defamatory content" since 2011, does it mean that PHFI now thinks that its Chairman Murthy and President Reddy were "defaming" there own organization by participating in my articles published in Moneylife in 2011?

This series of four articles -- which includes responses that PHFI Chairman Murthy and President Reddy sent me to my questions through that email exchange -- can still be read on Moneylife website on the following links.

I have also pasted at the bottom of this post just a few portions of my long email exchange with Mr. Narayana Murthy in which he not only personally answered my questions, but also sent answers (to my questions) provided to him by PHFI President Srinath Reddy.

(a) Will PHFI be any different under Narayana Murthy?

(b) Will PHFI become transparent and accountable under Narayana Murthy?

(c) Mr Narayana Murthy, PHFI reply to questions about the authority and functioning of the organisation

----------------------

A few portions of my email exchange with PHFI Chairman Narayana Murthy in July 2011

From: kapil bajaj <bajajk74@gmail.com>
Date: 12 July 2011 18:10
Subject: An urgent matter about PHFI
To: nmurthy@infosys.com

Dear Mr. Narayana Murthy,
I am a Delhi-based journalist who had worked for a year with PCRF. I had met you in Nov. 2009 in Delhi while you participated in a meeting of the RTI awards jury.

It's an irony that you have accepted the chairmanship of PHFI, which has no public character and does not submit itself to RTI and CAG audit despite being run on hundreds of crores of public funds.
--   -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- --

Regards,
Kapil Bajaj
--------------------------------

From: Narayana N. R. Murthy <nmurthy@infosys.com>
Date: 12 July 2011 18:15
Subject: Re: An urgent matter about PHFI
To: kapil bajaj <bajajk74@gmail.com>


Dear Kapil
Thanks for your mail. I have just accepted the position and have not yet met the President of PHFI. Therefore, i cannot comment on the issues you have raised.
Please raise specific questions and i will take thrm up with the authorities and request them to provide answers.

Warm regards
Narayana Murthy

Sent from my iPhone
------------

From: Narayana N. R. Murthy <nmurthy@infosys.com>
Date: 18 July 2011 01:24
Subject: RE: Pls respond to my queries on PHFI
To: kapil bajaj <bajajk74@gmail.com>


Dear Kapil,
Here are my answers to your seven questions you asked in your previous mail. The rest will be answered once I get the details from the President’s office.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Warm regards,
Narayana Murthy
---------

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Narayana N. R. Murthy <nmurthy@infosys.com>
Date: 23 July 2011 at 17:29
Subject: FW: An urgent matter about PHFI
To: kapil bajaj <bajajk74@gmail.com>

Dear Kapil,
Here are answers to your questions.
Warm regards,
Narayana Murthy
-----------------------------







 


Media often invokes "moral police" while acting itself as the most hypocritical "moral police" all the time!

$
0
0
If I take this Lallantop video on face value, then it seems that browbeating, verbal abuse, threats, and physical violence that the young man and woman were subjected to were not only wrong but also criminal.

So Lallantop is right in pointing out that what the young man and woman experienced was tyranny of a crowd of people.

But Lallantop gets carried away (as is clear in the video starting from 6:00) by its own self-righteous tone in beginning to maralize and criticize the Uttarakhand police.

Given Lallantop's own narration of what police officer Rathod told their reporter, I find nothing wrong in police's conduct in involving the young woman's parents.

The 'morality' that Lallantop is preaching here is not only stupid and unrealistic, but also hypocritical.

A law is supposed to be -- at least on paper -- codified morality, and a law enforcement agency has perforce to go by a kind of conventional moral code that the legal system represents, more or less.

That's one of the reasons we see police behaving mostly in ways that some unrealistic self-styled "progressives" would perceive as conventional and behind the times.

Informing young woman's parents has little to do with her being a woman, or being a Hindu, or being an adult.

It's simply a common sense thing to do and a right thing to do from the point of view of the police.

A person finds herself in trouble and the police informs her nearest relatives about it.

I am a journalist myself (who has also worked for India Today Group to which Lallantop belongs) and I don't think there are even a few journalists around who too would not like their closest (such as parents) to be informed of any trouble they might get into.

(A number of journalists, however, pose as someone they are not and pretend to favour ideas and principles that their actual lives have nothing to do with. The person anchoring this video is most likely someone who belong to this category.)

If anyone is acting like "moral police" here, it's Lallantop, not the police.

Having seen a number of videos anchored by Vishal, I think this guy is the most self-righteous and morally most dubious in terms of unwarranted moralizing among all Lallantop anchors.

He (and the rest of the media) betrays his hypocrisy by repeatedly invoking the "Sikh" status of the police officer who helped the "Muslim" young man from being beaten up, even claiming that this video has become very popular among "Sikhs".

Vishal's shamefully intentional insinuation is easy to spot: "Hindus" here act as a mob out of sheer bigotry (including police officer Rathod who has been portrayed as sounding like a hide-bound Khap Panchayat), a "Muslim" is an innocent victim, and a "Sikh" is the heroic rescuer of the "Muslim" victim.

(Building an entirely stupid and false Hindu-Muslim-Sikh narrative with repeated and actual use of words "Hindu", "Muslim" and "Sikh" and thinking oneself some kind of "progressive". What an irony!)

The pejorative way in which the Lallantop anchor invokes Khap Panchayats shows his ignorance.

I don't think he has ever tried to look at Khap Panchayats in any way other that in which they have been portrayed by the media, i.e. as a stifling community of men enforcing their hide-bound worldview on their larger communities.

Unwarranted moralizing completely mars what could have been a balanced piece of reportage by Lallantop.
------------------------

This post contains the following Web link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwvSILF7PEQ

(Lallantop video: Gangandeep Singh, a Sikh Sub-Inspector in Uttarakhand Police saved a Muslim from mob lynching in Ramnagar.)


Bharatiyata is an amazing cultural matrix; it never produced the ethnocidal concept of 'religion'

$
0
0
The mind-bogglingly diverse culture matrix -- that has been mislabled as 'Hinduism the religion' on the lines of 'Christianity the religion' or 'Islam the religion' -- has always been the ultimate haven for syncretism, pluralism, cultural autonomy, cultural imagination and creativity, peaceful co-existence -- in which totalitarianism,  intolerance and coercive homogenization have had no place.

This amazingly diverse cultural matrix -- harbouring an ever expanding range of thinking, Dharmas, Panths, Sampradayas, Gyan Margs, Bhakti Margs, etc. -- has long been allowed to be undermined and brutalized by the colonial-imperial ideologies of Judeo-Christianity and Islam.

These colonial-imperial ideologies of Judeo-Christianity and Islam openly, brazenly and foolishly reject 'syncretism' which is actually the fundamental element -- the oxygen -- of all human cultures and communities found on Earth.

Rejecting 'syncretism' is as idiotic as saying that 'I reject the air' which words you can't utter without breathing the same air. That's why rejection of 'syncretism' is also a pretense; you can't actually do it, you can only pretend to be doing it.

In rejecting syncretism, Judeo-Christianity and Islam reveal themselves to be dangerous 'ethnocidal' weapons that threaten all kinds of peaceful co-existence in human communities and culture.

(While Judeo-Christianity openly uses the word 'syncretism' in rejecting it, Islam rejects 'syncretism' by branding it as 'Shirk', an Arabic word that has been employed as an ethnocidal weapon.)

It's these pernicious ideologies of Judeo-Christianity and Islam that should get this vile label of 'religion' -- and not the amazingly diverse cultural matrix that lives, breathes and celebrates syncretism.

The ethnocidal concept of 'religion' (a term that applies only to Judeo-Christianity and Islam) is the poison pill for all cultural autonomy and diversity found on Earth.
By seeking to supplant cultural autonomy with heteronomy, the concept of 'religion' actually chokes cultural freedom, diversity and creativity, thus threatening the conditions for continued human existence on Earth.

That is because 'religion' openly rejects and anathematizes 'syncretism' which is the guarantor not only of peaceful human co-existence, but also of cultural autonomy and creativity.

It's painful to see Indians -- who for centuries have enjoyed the blessings of this amazingly diverse cultural matrix -- not being able to distinguish the ethnocidal and fraudulent concept of 'religion' from 'culture' which represents the wholeness of human life, nothing excluded.

'Religion' is an impostor because it seeks madly to reify belief' -- as if belief is not something abstract like a thought with no physical existence, as if it's not something non-material, non-measurable, subtle, internal, personal, as if it's not something that's unformed or partly formed most of the times and is liable to change/develop, and is often unascertainable or inexpressible.

'Religion' pretends as if 'belief' is something as material, physical, concrete, measurable, expressible and unchanging as a gravestone that a person must be made to carry with themselves all their lives and thereafter.

'Religion' is an impostor because it seeks increasingly to trap wide swathes of human populations in this delusion that each and every human who is part of those populations has a SINGLE belief or creed -- an obvious impossibility and absurdity.

'Religion' is an impostor also because it pretends as if routine sexual reproduction represents a growth in the number of 'believers' -- for example the so called 'Christians' beget children who are labelled 'Christians' and the so called 'Muslims' beget children who are labelled 'Muslims'. 

Bharatiyata never produced anything that remotely resembles the pernicious and fraudulent concept of 'religion'.

In our Bharatiya families, nobody bothers what you 'believe' in. So you can have any 'belief' you like.

Nobody in Bharatiya families is foolish enough to pretend as if 'belief' is some kind of a club membership that can be displayed on the members' shirts like identical, factory-produced badges. 

Bharatiyata has nothing whatsoever to do with 'religion'.

There is no such thing as 'Hinduism the religion'. (There can't be because 'religion' is a colonial-imperial and ethnocidal concept which India never produced.)

Use some other word. Say 'Bharatiya Sanskriti' which includes everything we have: Dharma(s), Pantha(s), Sampradaya(s), Gyan marg(s), Bhakti marg(s), etc. 

If you are a sensible Indian, you should reject the ethnocidal concept of 'religion'.

Let's stop the misnaming and mislabeling of our great cultural traditions and thought-streams as 'religion'.

Let's all reject and shun 'religion'.
----------------

You will find a reflection of the above ideas in the following article published recently in DailyO.

This article contains the excerpts of book on Lahore authored by a Pakistani Haroon Khalid, and talks particularly about the Valmiki community in Pakistani.

On Pakistan's Independence Day, presenting an excerpt from Haroon Khalid's new book Imagining Lahore: The City That Is, The City That Was (Penguin Viking) which showcases one of the most famous cities of the subcontinent, delving into Lahore's undivided past, its traumatic Partition — and its vibrant, yet tumultuous present.

A huge mural adorned one of the walls of the veranda — Valmiki, with his flowing white beard and his hair in a knot atop his head and a halo in the background, flanked by his two cherubic students, Lav and Kush. A hermitage stood in the background, where Sita, after her banishment from Ayodhya, is believed to have been given refuge by the sage Valmiki. 

A river flowed behind it, ringed by mountains... a few local narratives suggest the site of Valmiki’s hermitage as the banks of River Parsuni, an ancient name for the Ravi.

These folk narratives suggest that Lav, Valmiki’s disciple and one of the sons of Lord Ram and Sita, founded the city of Lahore. The city came to be known as Lavapuri, the city of Lav, eventually becoming Lahore.
...

At Lahore Fort, close to the Alamgiri Gate that faces Badshahi Masjid, there is a little temple dedicated to Lav, the founder of Lahore. On the opposite wall there is a cross at the centre with a picture of Christ on one side and Mother Mary on the other. Of the two rooms that are situated within the veranda, one is reserved for Valmiki, with his statue covered in a saffron shawl. The other houses several deities of the Hindu pantheon — Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesh, Durga, Kali, Lakshmi, Saraswati.

Facing the veranda is an open courtyard with a berry tree in one corner and a small room at another, used by the temple’s caretaker. Overlooking the courtyard are the tall buildings of Anarkali Bazaar. The entrance is a little gate with a saffron flag at the top, identifying it as a temple. Known as Neela Gumbad Mandir, after a blue-domed, Mughal-era mausoleum that is in its vicinity, the Valmiki temple is the only other functional temple in the city besides the Krishna Mandir at Ravi Road
...

It now serves as the community centre for the descendants of thousands of Valmiki Hindus who stayed back, braving the riots of Partition.

I first went to the temple in 2010, when I was working on a book to document religious festivals of the minorities around Punjab. In the courtyard of the temple, I was greeted by a handful of elderly men, part of the committee responsible for its daily functioning. 

Every evening they arranged a small puja attended by mostly just them. The temple, however, would transform during a religious festival... Holi, Diwali, Navratri, Krishna Janmashtami and several other Hindu festivals were celebrated here, but the grandest of all was Valmiki Jayanti, the birth anniversary of the sage.

Many of the devotees were Muslims and Christians... I met Azad Chowdry and his children, Yashwa and Teresa. While Azad played the tabla, his twelve-year-old son, Yashwa, played the harmonium and sang. Occasionally he was accompanied by Teresa. 

They were a Christian family but here they were, at a Valmiki Hindu temple, singing bhajans and preparing for Valmiki Jayanti. Sitting next to them and listening attentively was a professional flautist, Musharraf Ali, a Muslim. He was not a regular visitor to the temple but he would make it a point to attend on Valmiki Jayanti. Despite his religion he also identified as a Valmiki, similar to Azad and his family who were Christian Valmikis.

The religious identity of most of the devotees... reflects a certain degree of fluidity, impossible to imagine in a post-Partition environment. Most of them identified as Christian on official documents yet retained their Valmiki association. Many had ‘Muslim’ names that further complicated their religious identity. Only a handful of them could be identified as Hindu by name.
...

Deep within the community of Shahdara, on the western side of the Ravi, I interviewed an old widowed woman, Mary. At the time of Partition, she was a little girl living close to the canal. She was a Hindu Valmiki, named Vidya by her parents. She told me how, when they were playing on the banks of the canal, they saw a dead body floating in the water. She immediately ran to her mother to tell her... Her mother purchased a cross, put a thread through it and hung it around her neck. In that one gesture, she had ceased to be Vidya and became Mary, an identity that she clung to ever since.
...

These dual religious identities are in evidence at the Neela Gumbad Mandir where there is a mural of Valmiki on one wall and Jesus Christ and Mary on the other. While Valmiki Jayanti and Janmashtami are celebrated by hundreds of devotees, Christmas and Easter witness an equal number of devotees. The temple of Valmiki swiftly becomes the temple of Christ whenever required.

What brought together these different threads of religious identity at the temple was one common caste identity. Valmiki Hindus are part of the Dalit community ... At the temple, I interviewed Khem Chand, an old man in his eighties, who had changed his name to Shams Gill after Partition following his conversion to Christianity... The social exclusion continued after Partition, even though Khem Chand officially became Shams Gill and all the upper-class Hindus from Punjab migrated to India.
...

Once, when he... was having a cup of tea at a little dhaba outside Lahore, the Muslim vendor of the stall forced them to pay for the cups as well when he found out about their identities, for they had been rendered impure and would have to be thrown away. The Muslim converts did not fare much better. Low-caste Hindus who converted to Islam are known as ‘Musali’ or ‘Deendar’ in Punjab and are in many ways still treated as untouchable. Many households where they work keep a separate set of utensils for them.
...

In the years following Partition when, particularly in Punjab, notions of patriotism were at their peak, any association with a Hindu past was taboo... Pakistan’s antagonistic relationship with India... made the situation even worse. Various Hindus and Sikhs... had to hide their identity or disappear temporarily during the 1965 and 1971 wars. In 1992, as a reaction to the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, hundreds of temples were ransacked, including this one.
...

With the arrival of Pervez Musharraf... the state, an ally in the ‘war on terror’, was desperate to project a softer image of the country... Hindus... who had hidden their identities for decades began reclaiming their original names. Religious festivals... once again came to be celebrated.

The Valmiki temple at Neela Gumbad was also witness to this transition. Many Muslim and Christian Valmikis... were back... Sage Valmiki... held a particular significance for them... he was the deity of the Dalits, irrespective of their new religious identity. He himself was a Dalit who defied his caste when he became a sage. He became the most important sage, the adi-kavi or the first poet, who composed the Ramayana — its first ever written rendition.
...

Valmiki for them represents a rebellion against caste hierarchy which continues to haunt them despite conversion. United by their shared experience of untouchability, hundreds of Christians, Muslims and Hindus continue to revere Valmiki, making this little temple in the heart of Lahore a unique symbol of almost a forced religious syncretism... one of the last reminders of what the social fabric of the city used to be before it was ripped apart by the riots of Partition.
-----------

This post contains the following web-link.

https://www.dailyo.in/arts/pakistan-lahore-independence-day-14-august-ramayana-muslims-islam-hindus-valmiki/story/1/26048.html


Madan Lal Pahwa was undeserved victim of hatred, not bearer of 'circle of hate'; a monstrous crime was committed against him and justice was never provided

$
0
0
Using the words "circle of hate" -- as this old Outlook article (published 02 Feb. 1998) does -- for a man, 20 of whose family members were brutally massacred before his very eyes (without him having ever been provided any justice) is an act of cruelty bordering on mental sickness!

If there was ever a human being in this world who best exemplified being made the undeserved victim of an inferno of diabolical hatred, it was Madan Lal Pahwa, much of whose family was wiped out in the ethnic cleansing carried out by savages who thought a 'Sacred Land' for Muslims ('Pakistan') could be created by killing and raping some of the innocent and ancient inhabitants of the same land.

Just a teenager when he'd had to suffer this horrible atrocity, Pahwa was the innocent and undeserving victim of hatred, not the bearer of "the circle of hate".

Absolutely nothing -- not even his conviction in the conspiracy to kill Mahatma Gandhi -- takes away from the fact that the criminal British colonialists, the genocidal campaigners for 'Pakistan', and Gandhi and others who submitted to the will of the colonialists and whose decisions upended the lives of millions of Indians, not only allowed a monstrous crime to take place against Pahwa (and lakhs of others like him) but failed even to try to set up a system to provide justice.

Pahwa spent 18-20 of the most youthful years of his life in jail after being convicted of involvement in the conspiracy to kill Mahatma Gandhi.

He died in the year 2000 without ever being provided even a semblance of justice for the brutal killing of his family members in Partition violence.

For that, people responsible for running the Republic of India should hang their heads in shame!

There is only one thing that the Outlook article shows emphatically -- that Madan Lal Pahwa was the epitome of human courage, fortitude, and the capacity to struggle against savage and unwarranted hatred and injustice, that he was, in fact, among the toughest of Indians who have ever lived.

The way he has been portrayed in a negative light here by Saira Menezes, the writer of the Outlook article, is shameful and disgusting.

Read more about Pahwa in this Wikipedia entry.

What is horrible about this Wikipedia entry is that it does not even make a cursory mention of the wipe-out of Pahwa's entire family.

Could anyone imagine a greater and crueler omission than this?

Also see this YouTube interview (from 16:31 minute to 18:43 minute) that Keshu Multani conducted with Raghuveer Singh Warraich who had lived with Madan Lal Pahwa in Jalandhar jail where the latter was serving a 20-year sentence.

Warraich says in this video that Pahwa would recount his involvement in Mahatma Gandhi assassination case to other inmates.

Pahwa would say, according to Warraich, that he was a juvenile when his name was included in the "parcha" (FIR) and that if he had not been a juvenile, he too would have been hanged like Nathu Ram Godse.

(Bear in mind that the interview with Warraich is not about Pahwa and the latter's name has only incidentally and casually been taken. In fact, Keshu Multani, the interviewer, does not seem to have any idea who Madan Lal Pahwa was. The interview is in the nature of an informal chat in which Warraich, 87, reminisces about his life in pretty casual language.)

Pahwa used to be a great player of volley ball, Warraich says in the video.

Also read this Mumbai Mirror report (of 25 Jan. 2008) to have an idea of the misery, the neglect, the loneliness, and the penury, which marked the life of Pahwa's widow Manjari (then 80 years of age) who, I guess, must have since died, even though I have not been able to find any report confirming her death.

This report too makes no mention of the massacre of 20 members of Pahwa's family in Partition violence.

I wonder if the judge who convicted Pahwa actually mentioned the massacre in his verdict.

I believe that given the life-shattering atrocity that a mere teenager had had to suffer, no fair-minded person would ever take the name of Madan Lal Pahwa without mentioning the crime that was committed against him - and without mentioning the fact that he was never provided justice.

Whitewashing the atrocity that was committed against Pahwa's family by linking it with his later deeds is an obvious act of injustice.

It's a shame that while he was made to suffer for his later actions, nothing was done to compensate for what was done to him much earlier.

Pahwa's life portrays India as a society brutalized by British colonialists and Islamic savages, robbed of any capacity to even come up with any concept of justice that is not externally imposed and that could have given its own people a modicum of human dignity.

Manjari's fate reinforces this impression -- that India not only continues to deny justice to its own people, but to be savage to them.
---------------

The following Web links have been used in this post.

1. https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/i-regret-i-wasnt-the-man-to-kill-gandhi/204997

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EleCOZvg0Xg

3. https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other/gandhi-assassination-conspirators-widow-ill/articleshow/15780256.cms

तकफ़ीर से मुसलमानों की मुसलमानी बढ़ाता पाकिस्तान

$
0
0

भारतीयउपमहाद्वीपकावहभू-भाग, जिसे1947 मेंपश्चिमीपाकिस्तानबनादियागया, 'विभाजन'सेपहलेसेहीघना'मुसलमान'था. यहीकारणभीबतायागयाथाइसभू-भागको'पाकिस्तान'करनेका.

यहपर्याप्तनहींथा. इसलिएइसभू-भागको1947 मेंहीग़ैरमुस्लिमोंसेलगभगख़ालीकराकेऔर'मुसलमान'करदियागया.

आजयहभू-भाग (विकिपीडियाकेअनुसार) 96 प्रतिशतसेभीअधिक'मुसलमान'है, पर1947 सेलेकरआजतकपाकिस्तानका'मुसलमानऔरमुसलमानीबढ़ाओ'आंदोलनजारीहै.

पाकिस्तानीलेखकजमशेदइक़बाल-- जोएकविकास-सम्बन्धीसम्प्रेषणविशेषज्ञऔरप्रशिक्षककेअतिरिक्तशांतिऔरसद्भावनाकेलिएकामकरनेवालेकार्यकर्ताभीहैं -- लिखतेहैंकिपाकिस्तानमेंमज़हबकोइतनेसस्तेदामोंबेचागयाहैकियहअज्ञानीजनताकेहाथमेंभीनंगीतलवारबनगयाहैजोकिसीभीअभागेकीगर्दनपरचलसकतीहै.

यहतलवारचलीभीबहुतहैपिछले8-10 सालोंमें, विशेषकरउनपाकिस्तानियोंकीगर्दनोंपरजो'मुसलमान'हीकहलातेथे.

जमशेद इक़बाल के इस लेखकेअनुसारकिसीव्यक्तिकेबिस्तरपरलेटनेकीदिशा, किसीआदमीकीदाढ़ी-मूँछकीतराश, किसीकाकुछऐसाकहयाकरदेना(यानाकरना) जिसेमज़हबकेअपमानकेरूपमेंदेखाजासके -- कुछभीउसकी'मुसलमानी'कीपरीक्षाबनसकताहैऔरपरीक्षककोईभीअन्यव्यक्तियालोगोंकाजमघटहोसकताहै.

ग़ैरमुस्लिमोंकीभांतिअपर्याप्त'मुसलमान'समझेजानेवालोंपरभीप्रायः'काफ़िर'काठप्पालगायाजाताहै.

(एक'मुसलमान'कादूसरे'मुसलमान'को'काफ़िर'क़रारदेना'तकफ़ीर'कहलाताहै. 'काफ़िर'और'तकफ़ीर'दोनोंशब्द'कुफ़्र'सेबनेहैंजिसकाअर्थलियाजाताहै'इस्लामकेख़ुदाकोनामानना'.) 

प्रस्तुतहैजमशेदइक़बालकाउर्दूमेंलिखायहलेखजोपाकिस्तानकी'हमसब'ऑनलाइनमैगज़ीनमें 19 जुलाई2018 कोप्रकाशितहुआ.

इसलेखकायहाँदेवनागरीमेंलिप्यंतरणमात्रकियागयाहै; उनशब्दोंकेअर्थजोहिंदीपाठकोंकेलिएबहुतअजनबीहोसकतेहैंकोष्ठकोंमेंदिएगएहैं. 

इसलेखकाशीर्षकएकलोकप्रियनज़्मकेअंतिमशेरसेलियागयाहैजोइसप्रकारहै.

"जानेकबकौनकिसेमारदेकाफ़िरकहके
शहरकाशहरमुसलमानहुआफिरताहै"

यहनज़्म - जोएक पाकिस्तानी वेबसाइट के मुताबिक़ मुल्तानकेशायरजलीलहैदरलाशारीनेलिखीहै- इसलेखकेअंतमेंदीगईहै.  
-------

जानेकबकौनकिसेमारदेकाफ़िरकहके

जमशेदइक़बाल, 19 जुलाई 2018, 'हमसब'मैगज़ीन (पाकिस्तान)

जबपहलीबारमौजूदा'हेअरस्टाइल'इख्तियारकरनेकीग़र्ज़सेनाईकेपासगयातोवहमेरीहिदायातग़ौरसेसुननेकेबादफ़रमानेलगाकिअगरमैंमतलूबा(इच्छित) स्टाइलकीबजाएउसकीमर्ज़ीकास्टाइलऔरदाढ़ीरखलूँतोमुझेभीसवाब(पुण्य) होगाऔरउसेभी.

मैंनेअर्ज़की: 'अगरमुझेगुनाहऔरसवाबकामसलालाहिक़होता(पापऔरपुण्यकीदुविधाहोती) तोमैंकिसीनाईकेपासनहींकिसीमुफ़्तीसाहबयाआलिम--दीन(दीनयामज़हबकाविद्वान) केपासजाता।सर--दस्त(फ़िल्हाल) मुझे'बाल'बनवानेहैं; इसलिएआपकेपासआयाहूँ. आपवहकुछकरेंजोमैंआपसेकहरहाहूँ. याफिरयहकामछोड़ें, किसीमदरसेमेंदाख़िलालेंऔरमुफ़्तीबननेतकऐसेमश्वरोंसेपरहेज़करें।' 

नाईयहसुनकरख़ामोशहोगयाऔरमेरेसरपरफ़ोमलगाकरउस्तराचलानेलगा. मगरज्यूंहिमेरीउसकेचेहरेपरनज़रपड़ीतोशदीदसर्दीकेबावजूदख़ौफ़सेमेरेपसीनेछूटगए. मैंसामनेशीशेमेंदेखरहाथाकिवहतेज़धारउस्तरेसेमेरेसरकीशेवकररहाहैजबकिउसकेचेहरेकारंगग़ुस्सेसेलालहोचुकाहै.

मुझेअपनीग़लतीकाएहसासहोचुकाथाकिमैंनेबाततोग़लतनहींकी, मगरबातकरतेवक़्तज़मान--मकान (समयऔरस्थान) सेबेख़बरज़रूरहोगयाथा.

वहजितनीदेरमेरेसरपरउस्तराचलातारहामेराकलेजाहलक़मेंअटकारहा. क्योंकिऐनमुमकिनथाकिवहउस्तरेकेएकवारसेमेरासरदोटुकड़ोंमेंकाटदेता, मेराभेजासामनेशीशेपरजागिरता, औरतौहीन--मज़हबकेमुर्तकिब (मज़हबकाअपमानकरनेवाले) किसीशख़्सकाक़त्लकरकेवहअमरहोजाता।

यहसोचकरमैंमज़ीद (औरअधिक) डरगयाकिअभीतोदाढ़ीबनातेवक़्तउसनेमेरेगलेपरभीउस्तराचलानाहै.

मैंनेफ़ौरनउसेएंगेजकिया, बातोंमेंलगाया, सामनेपड़ेमोबाइलपरमुल्ककेमारूफ़(जानेमाने) उलमा--करामकेसाथ (मज़हबकेविद्वानोंकेसाथ) अपनीतसावीर(तस्वीरें) दिखाईं।उसकेकामऔरसैलॉनकीतारीफ़कीऔरएकआधहल्की-फुल्कीबातकी. तबकहींजाकरउसकाचेहरामामूलपरआया.

इससेमिलताजुलतावाक़याजिसकाशिकारमैंनहींकोईऔरहोसकताथाउनदिनोंपेशआयाजबमैंनौजवानोंकेहफ़्ता-वारतरबियतीरेडियोप्रोग्राम (साप्ताहिक, प्रशिक्षण-सम्बन्धीरेडियोप्रोग्राम) मेंएकमाहिरकीहैसियतसेशरीकहुआकरताथा.

मुझेयादहैउसरोज़मैंमुक़र्ररावक़्तसेकुछपहलेपहुँचकररेडियोस्टेशनकेकिचनमेंरखेडिस्पेंसरसेपानीपीरहाथा, जहाँएकनौजवानबावर्ची (रसोइया) चायबनानेमेंमसरूफ़था.

सफ़ाईकरनेवालालड़का - जोसिर्फ़सुबहकेवक़्तदिखाईदेताथा- उससेबातेंकररहाथा.

मैंनेपानीलेकरपीतेहुएसुनाकिसफ़ाईवालालड़काबावर्चीकोबतारहाहैकिआजसुबहजबवहसफ़ाईकरनेकेलिएपहुँचाहैतोरेडियोस्टेशनकाएकचपड़ासी - जोस्टेशनमेंहीरहताथा - क़िब्ला (मक्कामेंस्थितकाबाकीदिशा -- जिसओरमुसलमानमुँहकरकेनमाज़पढ़तेहैं) कीतरफ़टाँगेंकिएसोरहाथा.

यहसुनकरबावर्चीआगबगूलाहोगयाऔरकहनेलगा: "पक्काजहन्नुमीऔरलानतीहैयहशख़्स! तुम्हेंपताहैक़िब्लाकीतरफ़टाँगेंकरकेसोनेकीक्यासज़ाहै? अहादीस (पैग़म्बरमुहम्मदकेकथनों, कर्मोंयाआदतोंकावर्णनजिससेमुसलमानमार्गदर्शनलेतेहैं) मेंआयाहैकिजिसेभीक़िब्लारुख़टाँगेंकरकेसोतेदेखोउसकीटाँगेंकाटदो."

उसनिजीरेडियोस्टेशनकेमालिकचूँकिमेरेअच्छेदोस्तहैंइसलिएमैंनेगिलासरखकरहिम्मतकरकेबावर्ची-पेशामुफ़्तीसाहबसेपूछलियाकिक्यावहमुझेउसहदीस ('अहादीस'काएकवचन) केअल्फ़ाज़औररेफ़रेन्सवग़ैरहदेंगेजिसकीरौशनीमेंवहफ़तवादाग़रहेहैं.

इसपरवहआएँबाएँशाऐंकरनेलगा.

मैंनेसफ़ाईवालेलड़केकोसमझायाकिआपमुहब्बतसेउसेसमझादेंकिक़िब्लाकेरुख़टाँगेंकरकेनासोयाकरे; सख़्तीऔरतशद्दुद (हिंसा) कीकोईज़रुरतनहीं।

इससेमिलताजुलतातीसरावाक़यातबपेशआयाजबमैंकराचीसेएकतरबियतीप्रोग्राममेंतरबियत-कारकेफ़राइज़सर-अंजामदेकर (प्रशिक्षककादायित्वनिभाकर) सह-पहर (तीसरेपहर) कोघरपहुँचनेकेबादथकावटकीवजहसेकुछदेरकेलिएसोगया.

अभीआँखलगीहीथीकिघंटीसेमेरीआँखखुलगई. उसवक़्तघरमेंऔरकोईनहींथाक्योंकिबेगमबच्चीकोट्यूशनछोड़नेजाचुकीथी.

मेराघरबालाईमंज़िल (सबसेऊपरवालीमंज़िल) परथा; इसलिएमैंनेसामनेकेटेरेससेदेखातोएकमाँगनेवालाशी-मेल (ट्रांसजेंडर) दरवाज़ेपरखड़ामुझसेमददकीअपीलकररहाथा.

मैंनेनिहायतएहतरामसे(सम्मानपूर्वक) अर्ज़कीकिएकरातसेजागाहुआहूँ; घंटीबजाकरमाँगनाकोईअच्छीबातनहीं

मैंहैरानरहगयाकियहसुनकरवहमाज़रतकरनेकीबजाए (खेदप्रकटकरनेकीबजाए) चिल्लाचिल्लाकर, तालियाँबजाबजाकरकहनेलगा: "क़ुरआनपढ़ें - हदीसपढ़ें - ज़वालकेवक़्तसोना (सूरजकेउतरतेसमयसोना) कोईअच्छीबातनहीं।ऐसाकामतोकाफ़िरकरतेहैं, मुशरिक(ऐसेलोगजो- मुसलमानोंकेअनुसार- ख़ुदाकेएकत्वमेंकिसीऔरकोशरीककरें; अर्थातकाफ़िर) करतेहैं, हिन्दूकरतेहैं, दीनकेदुश्मनकरतेहैं."

यहसुनतेहीमैंकमरेकीतरफ़दौड़ाऔरबटुएमेंक़ाबिल--ख़ैरात (दानदेनेयोग्य) जितनीनक़दीथीहाथमेंलीऔरउसपरवारदी, जोअभीतकगलीमेंखड़ामेरेख़िलाफ़फ़तवेपरफ़तवादेनेमेंमसरूफ़था. मुझेख़ौफ़थाकिउसकेफ़तावा ('फ़तवा'काबहुवचन) सुनकरगलीमेंकिसीकेईमाननेभीआगपकड़लीतोमेरीसारीतामीर (सारीबनीबनाई) राखकाढेरबनजाएगी।   

यहाँइससेमिलतेजुलतेवाक़यातहर-एककेसाथपेशरहेहैंक्योंकियहाँमज़हबऔरउसकीतशरीह (व्याख्या) पहलेअमन-पसंदउलमा ('आलिम'काबहुवचन) केहाथसेनिकालकरफ़साद-पसंदोंकेहाथमेंदीगईऔरफिरउन्होंनेयहअमानतइतनीबेदर्दीसेइतनेअरज़ांनिर्खोंपर(सस्तेभावोंपर) हर-एकमेंबाँटीहैकिजोकुछभीनहींजानतावहमज़हबकेसिलसिलेमेंसबजाननेकादावेदारहोगयाहै.

जोअपनीमर्ज़ी, इरादेऔरइम्कान(संभावना) सेआगाहनहींवहमशीयत--ईज़दी(अल्लाहकीमर्ज़ी) कीकामिलतफ़्हीमका (पूरीसमझका) ज़ुअम (गुमान) रखताहै.    

मज़हबजिनसिफ़लीजज़्बात (नीचजज़्बातयाभावनाएँ) औरख़बाइस--बातिना(मनकीमैल) केख़िलाफ़ढालहोनेकादावेदारथाआजउन्हींजज़्बातऔरख़बाइसकेहाथमेंनंगीतलवारबनचुकाहैजोकिसीवक़्तकिसीकीगर्दनपरचलसकतीहै.

कोईहैजोहरएककेहाथलगीइसतलवारकोकौन--नियाम(म्यान) मेंडाले?

कोईहैजोइसेपिघलाकरदोबाराढालमेंबदलदे? 
(समाप्त)
---------

नज़्म 
कैसीबख़्शिशकायेसामानहुआफिरताहै
शहरसाराहीपरेशानहुआफिरताहै

एकबारूदकीजैकेटऔरनारा--तकबीर
रास्ताख़ुल्दकाआसानहुआफिरताहै  

कैसाआशिक़हैतेरेनामपेक़ुर्बांहैमगर
तेरीहरबातसेअनजानहुआफिरताहै

हमकोजकड़ाहैयहाँजब्रकीज़ंजीरोंने
अबतोयेशहरहीज़िन्दानहुआफिरताहै

शबकोशैतानभीमाँगेहैपनाहेंजिससे
सुबहवहीसाहिब--ईमानहुआफिरताहै 

जानेकबकौनकिसेमारदेकाफ़िरकहके
शहरकाशहरमुसलमानहुआफिरताहै  
------

यह पोस्ट 23 जुलाई 2018 को Lallantop.com में प्रकाशित हो चुकी हैइस पोस्ट में निम्नलिखित वेब-लिंक्स सम्मिलित किए गए हैं.

3. https://www.thelallantop.com/bherant/pakistani-writer-jamshed-iqbals-article-about-growing-intolerance-in-pakistans-muslim-community/
---------


मज़हब बदलवाने वाले चील कौओं की शिकारगाह

$
0
0
ताक़त से, धमकी से, या छल-कपट से किसी का 'मज़हब'बदलवाना ग़लत माना जाता है, पर इस खेल में शिकारी अपने शिकार पर और भी बहुत हथकण्डे इस्तेमाल करते हैं, जिन पर बातचीत और बहस होना ही दुर्लभ है, क़ानूनी इलाज ढूंढ़ना तो रही दूर की बात.
भारतीय उप-महाद्वीप लम्बे समय से ऐसी ही शिकारगाह रहा है. विश्वास न हो तो उन लाखों 'हिन्दू'और 'सिख'परिवारों से पूछ लो, जो विभाजन के समय मरे-मराए, अपनी इज़्ज़तें लुटाते पश्चिमी पंजाब, सरहदी सूबा, सिंध और बलोचिस्तान से यहाँ आये. 
यह लोग उजड़ने, लुटने, क़त्ल होने, अग़वा होने, और इज़्ज़त लुटने से बच सकते थे, अगर यह कलमा पढ़ लेते। जो बेचारे किसी कारण-वश वहाँ रह गए, उनमें से अधिकतर को यही करना भी पड़ा।
पश्चिमी पंजाब और सरहदी सूबे में -- जहाँ सिर्फ़ 71 साल पहले लाखों 'हिन्दू'परिवार बस्ते थे -- आज एक भी 'हिन्दू'परिवार ढूंढ़ना मुश्किल है.
पूरे पूरे ज़िलों, शहरों, सूबों की पूरी पूरी 'मज़हबी छटनी'ऐसे ही थोड़ा हो जाती है!
पाकिस्तान में विभाजन से लेकर अभी तक यह 'छटनी'जारी है. 
जैसे, पाकिस्तानी पेपर 'डॉन'की 04 जुलाई 2018 की एक ख़बर के अनुसार, सिंध के बदीन ज़िले में तो एक SHO ने ही लोगों को कलमा पढ़वा दिया! रिआज़ अहमद नामक इस पुलिस वाले ने न केवल एक भील परिवार के सात सदस्यों को अपने थाने की मस्जिद में मुसलमान बनवाया बल्कि उन्हें 'लिफ़ाफ़ा'देते हुए फ़ोटो भी खिंचवाई और भविष्य में भी इस्लाम की ऐसी ही 'सेवा'करने का ऐलान किया! 
पेश है पाकिस्तानी लेखक जमशेद इक़बाल के उर्दू में लिखे एक आर्टिकल का देवनागरी लिप्यंतरण, जिसमें 96 प्रतिशत मुस्लिम आबादी वाले इस देश में ग़ैर-मुस्लिमों पर सामाजिक दबाव की और विदेशी फंडिंग से मज़हबी असहिष्णुता फैलाने की एक झलक मिलती है.
-----------------------
ग़ुस्से का सयाना: दर्पण बना ओसामा 
जमशेद इक़बाल, 02 सितम्बर 2018, हम सब मैगज़ीन (पाकिस्तान)

क़स्बे के इकलौते हिन्दू ख़ानदान का चश्म-ओ-चराग़ दर्पण अंग्रेज़ी सरकार की आख़िरी निशानी कैनाल रेस्ट-हाउस में मुलाज़िम था.

रेस्ट हाउस सरकारी था मगर एक ताक़तवर सियासी घराने के इस्तेमाल में था जिस का इकलौता बेटा मेरा दोस्त था. इसलिए मैं जब भी बग़ल में किताबें दबाए रेस्ट-हाउस में दाख़िल होता तो दर्पण गुनगुनाता हुआ लॉन में मेज़ कुर्सी ले आता, दिन में दो बार चाय पिलाता, और एक बार अपनी सुरीली आवाज़ में कोई गीत सुनाता।

सर्दियों के दिन थे. मैं दिन चढ़ने से ग़ुरूब-ए-आफ़ताब (सूर्यास्त) तक रेस्ट-हाउस में इम्तिहानों की तैयारी करता और इस दौरान अगर मुझे बिस्कुट वग़ैरह की ज़रुरत होती तो वह ऊँचे सुर लगाता, बालों को फूँकें मारता, ज़िग-ज़ैग साइकिल चलाता यूँ जाता और वूँ हाज़िर हो जाता।

कोई दो हफ़्ते तक तो यह मामूल रहा, लेकिन बाद में अचानक मुझे महसूस हुआ कि जैसे दर्पण पहले वाला दर्पण नहीं रहा. उसे चुप सी लग गई थी. उसने गाना तो क्या गुनगुनाना भी कम कर दिया था.

उसके चेहरे पर ऐसा कर्ब (पीड़ा) था जो किसी ऐसे शख़्स के चेहरे पर दिखाई देता है जिसका किसी प्लास से नाख़ुन खींच लिया गया हो.

मैंने एक-आध बार उसकी तकलीफ़ की वजह पूछी तो उसने किसी घरेलू मसले का कहकर टाल दिया।

फिर मैंने देखा कि दिन-ब-दिन उसकी संजीदगी और ख़ामोशी बढ़ती जा रही है; मगर एक रोज़ जब मैं रेस्ट-हाउस पहुँचा तो उसका चेहरा तो मामूल से ज़्यादा उतरा हुआ था, मगर वह ख़िलाफ़-ए-तवक़्क़ो (अनपेक्षित) बाँहें खोले मेरी तरफ़ बढ़ा, मुझे गले लगा लिया, और फिर चंद लम्हे बाद पीछे हट कर कहने लगा: "अब आप मुझे गले भी लगा सकते हैं. मैंने धर्म बदल लिया है. अब मेरा नाम दर्पण नहीं 'ओसामा'है."

यह सुन कर मुझे उसके चुप रहने की वजह यह समझ आई कि वह कोई बड़ा मगर तकलीफ़-देह फ़ैसला करने की तैयारी कर रहा था -- कोई ऐसा फ़ैसला जिससे दुःख से भी बड़ा कुछ होता है.

मगर उसने यह कैसे सोच लिया कि अगर वह धर्म न बदलता तो मैं उसे गले न लगाता? हमने होश संभाला तो उसके ख़ानदान को क़स्बे में आबाद देखा और किसी ने भी उनका धर्म बदलने की कोशिश नहीं की; किसी ने भी उन्हें हिन्दू होने का ताना नहीं दिया।

हम बचपन में इस ख़ानदान के बच्चों के साथ होली दीवाली मनाते रहे, और उसके बच्चे हमारे साथ ईद.

मगर क़स्बे में बैरूनी फंडिंग (विदेशी फंडिंग) से बनने वाली एक मस्जिद तामीर होने के बाद इस ख़ानदान को धर्म बदलने का कहा जाने लगा था.

लेकिन फिर भी उसने यह कैसे सोच लिया कि अगर वह मुझे गले मिलने की कोशिश करेगा तो मैं उसे दुत्कार दूँगा?  

यह सब ख़्यालात उस वक़्त मेरे ज़हन में आये जब वह मेन बिल्डिंग में मेरे लिए चाय तैयार कर रहा था.

चंद लम्हे बाद वह चाय लेकर आया और पूछने लगा कि मुझे उसका नया नाम कैसा लगा.

मैंने कहा नाम तो अच्छा है मगर मुझे हैरत क्यूँकर हो जब हर घर से एक 'ओसामा'निकल रहा है. मैंने हल्के-फुल्के अंदाज़ में उसे बताया कि मैं जिस निजी स्कूल में पढ़ाता हूँ उसकी हर एक क्लास में कोई पाँच से छः 'ओसामा'नाम के बच्चे हैं.

'अब तो मरहूम वालदैन (माँ-बाप) को दाइमी सवाब (चिरस्थायी पुण्य) पहुँचाने का नुस्ख़ा भी यही है कि अपने बेटे का नाम ओसामा रख लें; यहाँ तक कि हमारे हमसायों (पड़ोसियों) ने अपने बच्चे रावल का नाम ओसामा ही रख लिया है.'

'हम हर घर से भुट्टो के निकलने का ख़्वाब देखते रहे मगर निकल ओसामा रहा है.'

'और फिर तुम्हें यह किस ने कह दिया कि अगर तुम धर्म न बदलते तो मैं तुम्हें गले न लगाता? तुमने यह कैसे सोच लिया कि मैं किसी ओसामा को तो गले लगा सकता हूँ, दर्पण को नहीं?'

मैंने बहुत प्यार से उसके कन्धों पर थपकी देते हुए कहा, मगर मेरी बात सुन कर उसका रंग बदल गया और वह साइकिल लेकर रेस्ट-हाउस से निकल गया.

मैंने पहली बार उसे गुनगुनाते बग़ैर और बालों पर फूँकें मारे बिना सीधी साइकिल चला कर जाते देखा।

मुझे वक़्ती तौर पर अपनी बात पर उसका रद्द-ए-अमल (प्रतिक्रिया) समझ न आया और जब आया तो मैं किताबें उठा कर फ़ौरन घर चला आया.

घर पहुँचा तो ज़ुहर (तीसरे पहर) का वक़्त था. मैं खाना खाने के बाद एक बार फिर पढ़ने बैठा तो मुझे महसूस हुआ कि मेरा ज़हन दर्पण के ग़ैर-मुतवक़्क़ा रद्द-ए-अमल पर मर्कूज़ है (अनपेक्षित प्रतिक्रिया पर केंद्रित है) और मुझे किसी वाक़ये का इन्तिज़ार है.

मैं उसके रद्द-ए-अमल के मुहर्रिकात (कारणों) पर अभी ग़ौर कर ही रहा था कि घर के मेन गेट पर धम धम की आवाज़ सुनाई दी. कोई ज़ोर से दरवाज़े पर दस्तक दे रहा था.

मैं फ़ौरन बाहर निकला और क्या देखता हूँ कि वह ओसामा जो अभी कल तक दर्पण था बैरूनी फंडिंग से बनने वाली मस्जिद के मौलवी और कोई सात नमाज़ियों के साथ मेरे घर के सामने मौजूद था. अब दर्पण के चेहरे के साथ उसकी आँखें भी लाल हो चुकी थीं.

मैंने उसकी बजाए मौलवी साहब से उनकी आमद (आने) की वजह पूछी। इस दौरान ओसामा उछल उछल कर मुझ पर हमला करने के लिए आगे बढ़ता रहा; नमाज़ी उसे रोकते रहे मगर उसकी आँखों में आँसू थे.

जब उसे अच्छी तरह जकड़ लिया गया तो मौलवी साहब ने पहले तो उसे दर्पण से ओसामा बनाने की दाद तलब की और फिर यह बताया कि ओसामा इसलिए ग़ुस्से में है क्योंकि मैंने उसे यह कह दिया है कि मज़हब बदलने का कोई फ़ायदा नहीं।

यह सुनकर मैंने मौलवी साहब को सारा वाक़या सुनाया तो उन्होंने पहले तबस्सुम फ़रमाया (मुस्कराए) और फिर हुजूम को वहाँ से जाने का इशारा करते हुए मुझे कुछ दूर ले गए और बताया कि ग़ैर-मुस्लिमों के साथ मेल-जोल से परहेज़ और उनके साथ मिल-बैठ कर न खाने की हिकमत (बुद्धिमत्ता) यह है कि जब वह मज़हब तब्दील करें तो उन्हें पहली बार इज़्ज़त का एहसास हो. उस से पहले नहीं!

'अगर कोई उस से पहले उन्हें इज़्ज़त की सहूलत फ़राहम करता है तो इस का नतीजा वही निकलेगा जो मैं अपनी आँखों से देख चुका हूँ.'

मौलवी साहब यह हिकमत बयान करके चले गए, मगर मेरे नज़दीक दर्पण (ओसामा) के उस ग़ैर-मुतवक़्क़ा, संगीन, और ख़तरनाक रद्द-ए-अमल की वजह कुछ और थी.

मज़हब कोई भी हो मानने वाले को अज़ीज़ होता है. उसे यह छोड़ने पर मजबूर किया जाए और इज़्ज़त और मुहब्बत जैसी बुनियादी इन्सानी ज़रुरत को अक़ीदा तब्दील करने से मशरूत (आस्था बदलने पर निर्भर) कर दिया जाए तो इन्सान को नाक़ाबिल-ए-बर्दाश्त (असहनीय) दुःख होता है.

मैं आज भी यह समझता हूँ कि दर्पण को ग़ुस्सा मुझ पर या मुझ जैसों पर नहीं, उस हुजूम पर था जो इज़्ज़त और मुहब्बत देने के लिए मज़हब बदलने की शर्त रखते हैं.

उसने सारा ग़ुस्सा मुझ पर निकाल दिया क्योंकि ग़ुस्से का वह भी सयाना था.
-----------------------------

"Hindus and Sikhs looted and attacked Muslims in India with both hands... killing one million Muslims"

$
0
0
In Nov.2017, I posted this article written in Urdu by Pakistani writer Zunaira Saqib in which she drew a stark picture of the hate-filled propaganda against India and non-Muslims, particularly 'Hindus', which school-children in Pakistan are subjected to, day in, day out.

Zunaira Saqib has published on 06 Sep.2018 a follow-up on that article, citing a few instances of such propaganda contained in prescribed text-books.

A lot of such propaganda and falsehoods are included in 'Pakistani Studies,' which is a compulsory subject taught in all schools in Pakistan.

'Pakistani Studies' is known in Urdu as 'Mutaal'a-e-Pakistan' ('मुतालआ-ए-पाकिस्तान').

I have posted here the Devnagari transcript of Zunaira Saqib's follow-up article with explanations of some Urdu words and phrases and glosses to some references in the original text that Indian readers may not be familiar with.

Zunaira Saqib teaches management and HR at NUST Business School in Islamabad and also writes columns for newspapers and magazines. 
----
मैंने 21 नवम्बर 2018 को ज़ुनैरा साक़िब का एक लेख पोस्ट किया था, जिसमें इस पाकिस्तानी लेखिका ने अपने देश के स्कूलों में भारत और ग़ैर-मुस्लिमों के ख़िलाफ़ -- विशेष कर 'हिन्दुओं'के ख़िलाफ़ -- नफ़रतें फैलाने की समस्या की निशानदेही की थी.

ज़ुनैरा ने उस लेख का एक फॉलो-अप आर्टिकल लिखा है, जो इस महीने प्रकाशित हुआ है और जिसका देवनागरी लिप्यंतरण मैंने यहाँ पोस्ट किया है. कुछ उर्दू शब्द और पाकिस्तानी सन्दर्भ ब्रैकेट्स में समझाए गए हैं.  

-------

मुतालआ-ए-पाकिस्तान की आख़िरी किताब: सच क्या झूठ क्या

ज़ुनैरा साक़िब, 06 सितम्बर 2018, 'हमसब'मैगज़ीन (पाकिस्तान)

गुज़िश्ता तहरीर पर काफ़ी तनक़ीद हुई. (पहले लेख की बहुत आलोचना हुई.)

कुछ पढ़ने वालों ने कहा कि पाकिस्तान तो ऐसा नहीं है. कुछ कहने लगे हम भी स्कूल से पढ़ कर आए हैं; हम ने कभी ऐसा कोई टीचर नहीं देखा, हमारे साथ भी अक़लियतें (अल्पसंख्यक) पढ़ती थीं, उनसे तो कभी हम ने बुरा सुलूक होते नहीं देखा।

कुछ लोगों ने इलज़ाम दे डाला कि पैसे लेकर यह सब लिखा गया है और मुझे इंडिया या इसराइल हिजरत (प्रवास) कर जानी चाहिए।

अब हिजरत बन्दे ने करनी ही है तो कैनेडा या ऑस्ट्रेलिया की तरफ़ करेगा ना! इंडिया में कौन से लड्डू मिल रहे हैं? और इसराइल में तो आप को पता ही है हमारा दाख़िला ही ममनू (निषिद्ध) है.

बहर-हाल... फ़ैसला यह किया कि बजाए एक एक को जवाब देने के इस तहरीर में वह रेफ़रेंस दे दूँ जिस को देख कर शायद दोस्तों की आँखें खुल जाएँ।

अगर आपके हाज़मे के लिए यह तहरीर भी ज़ूद-हज़म (सुपाच्य) न साबित हो तो मेहरबानी फ़रमा कर यहाँ पर ही सलवातें सुना दीजिएगा (बुरा-भला सुना दीजिएगा); इनबॉक्स में एक एक करके जवाब देना मुश्किल होता है.

पाकिस्तान में इस्लामियात (इस्लाम का ज्ञान) और मुतालआ-ए-पाकिस्तान (पाकिस्तान अध्ययन) लाज़मी मज़ामीन (अनिवार्य विषय) हैं.

ताहम (फिर भी) अगर आप ग़ैर-मुस्लिम हैं तो आप के लिए इस्लामियात लाज़मी मज़मून (अनिवार्य विषय) नहीं है. आप इस की जगह Ethics यानि अख़लाक़यात (नीति शास्त्र) पढ़ सकते हैं.

बात तो बहुत अच्छी है, लेकिन क्या आप को पता है कि पाकिस्तान में कितने स्कूल अख़लाक़यात का मज़मून पढ़ाते हैं?

चलें आप की मालूमात के लिए अर्ज़ है कि पिछले साल KPK (ख़ैबर पख़्तूनख़्वा) की हुकूमत ने सूबे की तारीख़ में पहली दफ़ा अख़लाक़यात की किताबों पर काम शुरू किया है. इस से पहले अख़लाक़यात की किताब का कोई वजूद ही नहीं था.

यही हाल सिंध में है, जहाँ जामशोरो बोर्ड ने पहली दफ़ा अख़लाक़यात की किताब को निसाब (पाठ्यक्रम) में शामिल किया है.

यह है जनाब आप के सरकारी स्कूलों का हाल; जब किताब ही नहीं, निसाब ही नहीं तो बच्चों ने इस्लामियात ही पढ़नी है. मैं ख़ुद बहुत सारे तालिब-इल्मों (छात्रों) से मिली हूँ जो कि किसी और मज़हब से ताल्लुक़ रखते हैं लेकिन चारों क़ुल (क़ुरआन की चार सूरतें) उनको फ़र-फ़र आते हैं. वजह? अख़लाक़यात का मज़मून था नहीं तो स्कूलों में इस्लामियात पढ़ना पड़ी.

अब प्राइवेट स्कूलों की तरफ़ आ जाएँ। सिवाए चर्चों से मुन्सलिक (जुड़े हुए) स्कूलों के ज़्यादा-तर स्कूल इस मज़मून को ऑफ़र ही नहीं करते। इस की वजह? वजह यह है कि 50 बच्चों की क्लास में बमुश्किल 1-2 बच्चे अक़लियतों (अल्पसंख्यकों) से ताल्लुक़ रखते हैं. अब 1-2 बच्चों के लिए एक टीचर रखी जाए - यह तो मुनाफ़ा न हुआ ना.

अब बात करते हैं कि हमारी निसाब की किताबों में अक़लियतों के ख़िलाफ़ कहाँ झूठ बोला जाता है और नफ़रत सिखाई जाती है?

बेशुमार मिसालें हैं जो कि यहाँ बयान की जा सकती हैं, लेकिन थोड़े को बहुत समझने पर इक्तिफ़ा (संतोष) करते हुए, कुछ पेश-ए-ख़िदमत हैं. बाक़ी आप ख़ुद ढूँढ लीजिए; अच्छे ख़ासे पढ़े लिखे तो हैं.

फ़ेडरल मिनिस्ट्री ऑफ़ एजुकेशन की सोशल स्टडीज़ की किताब जो कि चौथी क्लास के लिए लिखी गई है कुछ यह बात करती है:

"The Muslims of Pakistan provided all the facilities to the Hindus and Sikhs who left for India. But the Hindus and Sikhs looted the Muslims in India with both hands and they attacked their caravans, buses and trains. Therefore about one million Muslims were martyred on their way to Pakistan."

जी हाँ जानी नुक़सान हुआ था, बहुत ज़्यादा हुआ था, लेकिन हम भी दूध के धुले तो थे नहीं। यहाँ जो मारा मारी आप ने हिन्दुओं और सिखों के साथ की है उसका कोई ज़िक्र ही नहीं।

बस दस साल के बच्चे के दिमाग़ में यह बात डाल देंगें कि हमने उनको कुछ न कहा, हाँ उन्होंने हमारे साथ बहुत ख़ून ख़राबा किया। यह भी आप मज़हब के नाम पर सिखा रहे हैं.

आगे चलिए; इसी किताब में लिखा है कि:

"India invaded Lahore on the 6th of September 1965 without any ultimatum. After 17 days, Indian authorities laid down arms, acknowledging the bravery and gallantry of the Pak Army and civilians."

झूठ पर झूठ... ताशक़ंद मुआहिदे और सीस-फायर का ज़िक्र है। न पाकिस्तान ने हथियार डाले थे और न इंडिया ने. हाँ पाकिस्तान की फ़ौज बहुत बेजिगरी (दिलेरी) से लड़ी और अपने से बहुत बड़ी आर्मी को नाकों चने चबवा दिए. लेकिन क्या यह सच नहीं है कि यह जंग 'ऑपरेशन जिब्रॉल्टर' (Operation Gibraltar) के नतीजे में शुरू हुई थी?

अर्ज़ यह है कि और कुछ नहीं तो 'शहाब-नामा'ही पढ़ लें, जिसमें बहुत से लोगों के पसंदीदा (मेरे नहीं) क़ुदरतुल्लाह शहाब ने इस का ज़िक्र किया है. यह जंग उसी ऑपरेशन के नतीजे में छिड़ी थी.

('ऑपरेशन जिब्राल्टर'पाकिस्तानी फ़ौज ने घुसपैठियों की मदद से जम्मू कश्मीर को हथियाने के लिए जुलाई-अगस्त 1965 में क्रियान्वित किया। यह नाकाम रहा पर इस से बड़ी जंग छिड़ गई जो 17 दिन चलने के बाद संयुक्त राष्ट्र द्वारा कराए 'सीस-फायर'पर समाप्त हुई. जंग का औपचारिक अंत जनवरी 1966 में भारतीय प्रधान मंत्री लाल बहादुर शास्त्री और पाकिस्तानी राष्ट्रपति अयूब खान के बीच ताशकंद समझौते से हुआ.  

क़ुदरतुल्लाह शहाब - जो अयूब खान के सलाहकार और इनफार्मेशन सेक्रेटरी रहे - ने अपनी आत्मकथा 'शहाब-नामा'में 1965 की जंग का भी ज़िक्र किया है.)

जब हम झूठ पढ़ाते हैं तो बच्चे यह सीख लेते हैं कि हमारा मुल्क सब ठीक करता है  ज़्यादती हमेशा हमारे साथ होती है.

अब यह पूछने की जुरअत तो मुझ में नहीं कि कारगिल जंग किस वजह से छिड़ी थी क्योंकि बहुत से लोग उसको भी दिल पर ले जाएँगे।

ख़ैर बात कहीं और निकल गई. चलें नफ़रतों की तरफ़ वापिस चलतें हैं. पंजाब टेक्स्ट-बुक बोर्ड की दसवीं जमाअत की किताब कुछ यह बयान करती है:

"Because the Muslim religion, culture and social system are different from non-Muslims, it is impossible to cooperate with Hindus."

जब आप सीधा-सीधा हिन्दुओं से इतनी नफ़रत सिखाएँगे तो ख़ाक इस मुल्क में अमन आएगा!

पाँच से 15 साल के बच्चे यह सब पढ़-पढ़ कर बड़े होते हैं; हिन्दुओं को अपना क़ुदरती दुश्मन समझते हैं; मार-धाड़ को, जंगों को अपना जीने का तरीक़ा समझते हैं.

फिर आप कहते हैं अमन नहीं है इस मुल्क में!

KPK (ख़ैबर पख़्तूनख़्वा) की एक किताब बच्चों को यह सिखाती है कि अगर ख़ुद जिहाद नहीं कर सकते तो कम से कम जिहाद करने वालों की माली (पैसे से) मदद करो.

फिर लोग पूछते हैं यह जो मदरसे ख़ुदकश (आत्मघाती) हमलावर तैयार करते हैं उनकी फ़ंडिंग कहाँ से आती है.

बांग्लादेश के बारे में भी सुन लीजिए; एक और टेक्स्ट-बुक क्या कहती है:

"A large number of Hindu teachers were teaching in the educational institutions in East Pakistan. They produced such literature which created negative thinking in the minds of Bengalis against the people of West Pakistan."

कहते हैं आधा सच झूठ से ज़्यादा बुरा और ख़तरनाक होता है. बस यह वो आधा सच है जो हम अपने आने वाली नस्लों के दिमाग़ों में घोल रहे हैं. यहीं से बच्चे सीखते हैं कि कैसे अपनी ग़लतियाँ हमेशा दूसरों के सरों पर डाल कर बरी-अज़्ज़मा (ज़िम्मेदारी से आज़ाद) हो जाना है. यहीं से बच्चे सीखते हैं कि इस मुल्क में जो मुक़द्दस गाय (sacred cow) है उसके बारे में बात करना भी ममनू (निषिद्ध) है. 

आँखें खोल कर जीना सीख लीजिए। रेत में सर देकर कहते हैं इस मुल्क में कुछ ग़लत नहीं हो रहा. ग़लती तस्लीम करना ख़राबी को सुधारने का सब से पहला क़दम है; यह माना जाए कि कोई ग़लती है.

न हम दूध के धुले हैं, न यह मुल्क हमेशा मुअजज़ों (चमत्कारों) के सहारे चलेगा। आएं आँखें खोलें; और कुछ नहीं तो अपने दिल से नफ़रत की सियाही मिटानी शुरू करें।

लंबा सफ़र है, लेकिन शुरू तो करना चाहिए।

------------------

This post contains the following Web links.

1. https://kbforyou.blogspot.com/2017/11/hindus-are-wicked-people-living-in.html

2. http://www.humsub.com.pk/17846/zunaira-saqib-15/




Prof. Brij Narain: "Pakistan's most ardent 'Hindu' champion"

$
0
0
In his book The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed, Pakistani-Swedish academic Ishtiaq Ahmed writes about Prof. Brij Narain, a Professor of Economics at Punjab University and a resident of Lahore at the time of the Partition.

The story of Prof. Brij Narain is narrated by Som Anand another Lahori at the time of the Partition, whose family had fled the violence to India.

Ishtiaq Ahmed writes:

"Despite being a Hindu, Narain had defended the demand for Pakistan and developed a sophisticated range of economic arguments to prove that it would be a viable state.

Som Anand told me: 'Professor Brij Narain was an ardent supporter of the Pakistan idea. He used to write articles in the press proving, with his vast knowledge of economics, that Pakistan would be a successful and viable state. It is said that Jinnah had asked him to stay on and he had fully made up his mind to devote himself to serving Pakistan.

'He sincerely believed that Jinnah wanted to create a democratic state where non-Muslims would have equal writes. Hindus had been leaving in large numbers since at least May 1947, and by 15 August only some 10,000 were still around, believing things would cool down and they would be able to continue living in Pakistan as it was where their roots were.

'But as soon as the Radcliffe Award became public, criminal elements went on a killing and looting spree. That completely shattered the hopes of those who believed in Jinnah's secularism. Professor Narain, however, stuck to his guns and said that Pakistan was his real homeland and therefore he had no reason to leave.

'A mob arrived in the area where he lived. They were burning and pillaging abandoned Hindu and Sikh houses. Narain went up to them and advised them not to do so as it was now Pakistani property. His arguments convinced the first lot, who moved away. 

'Soon after that some more ruffians arrived and began pillaging and burning. Again he went up to them and presented the same arguments. 

'But one of them shouted, "He is a Kafir (infidel), kill him."

'The mob fell upon him and Pakistan's most ardent Hindu champion was killed mercilessly. 

'When that news spread, there was hardly any Hindu or Sikh who any longer believed that Jinnah's Pakistan would be safe for them. Almost all of them left Lahore immediately.'

I learnt from a relative of the professor that he used to live on Nicholson Road, Lahore. 

The same incident is reported in another famous book on Lahore, Lahore Ka Jo Zikr Kiya: Aap Bitee (Remembering Lahore: An Autobiography) by Gopal Mittal.

Mittal was originally from Malerkotla in East Punjab. He was a journalist, writer and poet, who had made Lahore his home and spent most of his time with Muslim colleagues. He wanted to stay on, but Prof. Brij Narain's murder made him change his mind.

Mittal wrote: Professor Brij Narain was an internationally acclaimed economist. While most economists were of the view that Pakistan would not be economically sustainable and therefore its existence will be untenable, Prof. Narain had written several articles in support of the view that Pakistan would be fully capable of being economically feasible and self-sufficient. 

He had decided to remain in Pakistan and even the most die-hard Muslim Leaguers were convinced that he was a man without any prejudice (against Muslims and Pakistan). His murder proved shattering for me. He was my teacher and had played a role in the formation of my personality. My family was already against my staying in Pakistan, but now even my resolve to stay in Pakistan began to waver. When the last caravan of buses destined for Amritsar left Lahore, I boarded a bus and left."

(Pages 409-411, The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed, published by Rupa Publications)
------------------------

Here are some academic and other references to economist Prof. Brij Narain, the story of whose lynching during Partition violence is told by Pakistani-Swedish writer Ishtiaq Ahmed in his book on Punjab's partition -- (and referred to in this Daily Times article).

1. Prof. Brij Narain (1888-1947) was a brilliant teacher and a prolific writer. He was Professor of Economics in the S.D. College, Lahore, before Independence. He died a tragic death during communal disturbances in Lahore on 14th August 1947. 

His important works on economics are: Essays on Indian Economic Problems (1919); The Population of India (1925); Indian Economic Life (1929); India in the Crisis (1934); Tendencies in Recent Economic Thought (1935); India Before Crisis (1939); Marxism is Dead (1939).....

Prof. Brij Narain falls in the line of original thinkers in economics in the country. In fact, he wanted to lay the foundation of modern India. He was the first Indian economist who made original contribution to the development of the science of economics. (History of Economic Thought, edited by Hajela T.N.)  
2. Prof. Brij Narain, an economist by profession, contributed significantly to the analysis of agrarian economy in the colonial Punjab. Making analytical use of contemporary publications - both official and unofficial - he delineated patterns of differentiation at various levels. So far, his intellectual contribution remains confined to stray references. Keeping his academic interest in contemporary matters in mind, study of his economic ideas becomes imperaive.
(Prof. Brij Narain on the Agrarian Economy of the Punjab; 1919-1947, by Sukhdev Singh Sohal)

3. Eighty Years of Punjab Food Prices, 1841-1920 (By Brij Narain, "Civil & Military Gazette" Press, 1926) 

4. Progressive economist Professor Brij Narayan, who was the head of the economics department and wrote on ‘Sufferings of Peasants’, had opted to stay back in Lahore. He too was similarly murdered in his office.

5. According to Prof. Brij Narain -- a prominent economist at Sanatan Dharam College, Lahore, whose work was read all over North India -- history was governed by the laws of biology.

"The moral or spiritual condition of human beings was devoid of any ethical significance,' he wrote.

The problem was that under the rule of the great philosopher, king Ashoka, 'the Hindus failed to develop qualities which give victory in the struggle for life. These are the militant virtues. Nature is warlike. And Nature knows no pity.'

('The Politics of Self-Expression: The Urdu Middle Class Milieu in Mid-Twentieth Century India and Pakistan' by Markus Daechsel.)

A news agency and "the values of accuracy, objectivity and rigour in its reportage"

$
0
0
Here are some thoughts on news agency IANS where I worked for some months. I have avoided naming the people cited in this post, or have redacted their names, for understandable reasons.

Having put out a news-report on 12 Sep. 2018 that used a swear word for Narendra Modi and then withdrawing the news-report, the Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) said in its statement of apology that it "has always strived to uphold the values of accuracy, objectivity and rigour in its reportage and remains committed to the highest norms of journalistic ethics and excellence".

(I would have put that as "has always striven..." but then I know better about IANS, having worked there from Nov. 2015 to Sep. 2016.)

I got an idea about IANS'"editorial standards" even before I joined its Noida office -- while being assessed for the job.

Having travelled from Bhopal (overnight journey) and spent over three hours in IANS news-room editing a series of raw stories and subsequently staying on in Delhi for a couple of days, waiting to hear from the managing editor, I returned home, only to be told the day I arrived back in Bhopal that "there may have been some confusion about what was to be editing".

(Yes, "...what was to be editing". See the managing editor's mail at the bottom.)

The managing editor wanted me to come back and this time do a few "round-ups" (IANS jargon for the last story of the day on an important subject, summing up all the previous releases).

So another overnight journey for the "round-ups" and back -- I got the job though.

I had spent enough time at IANS desk even before I joined to see what a bureaucratic and small-minded place its editorial was - with the executive editor lording over younger journalists, grumpily lecturing, shouting at, even bullying, his younger colleagues.   

[A clerk in the news-room is tasked with collecting the print-outs of all the raw stories being filed and then depositing the print-outs with the "desk-in-charge" who then distributes the stories to the desk-persons for editing, in line with his/her preferences, the 'hierarchy', and the 'likeableness' -- or a lack of it -- of a desk-person.

This arrangement results inevitably in delays, sometimes even in 'disappearances' of important stories. And yet no one -- not even a person with substantial news agency experience like myself -- dare take a raw story from the system for editing even if it's lying there unedited for 3-4 hours -- unless one is prepared to be insulted and shouted at in public.] 

The executive editor lived up handsomely to my initial impression of him.

A fanatic Kejriwal bhakt, he won't brook filing of any story that would include any unflattering mention of his idol -- at a time when Delhi's chief minister was at his lying and abusive best (not yet made to fall silent by works of people like myself.)

At least two desk persons were instructed to check every half an hour what Kejriwal had been tweeting. No Kejriwal tweet, howsoever frivolous or abusive, would go unreported -- and no Kejriwal story would go 'unfixed' by the executive editor or one of his proteges.

Narendra Modi he hated with all his being, often detaining subordinates for 20-30 minute sermons on the profound moral depravity of the BJP and the irredeemable wickedness of Modi.

This editorial ambience at IANS served their "Modi cause" well, as is borne out by the columns/opinion pieces by outside "commentators" (like a pretty prolific scribbler called Amulya Ganguli), which they put out on a regular basis.

High on sweeping conclusions and prejudice and low on facts, these columns/opinion pieces were supposed to be imbibed as exposés of all the evil conspiracies of the "Hindu Right Wing".

The same goes, more or less, for IANS reportage.

Tendentiousness, even fabrication, characterized many news-stories, encouraged by the 'editorial ambience' outlined above, but, more importantly, by an uncritical, supine, almost brain-dead, slavishness to the propaganda put out by big TV channels which are streamed all the time through at least 6-8 TV sets installed in the news-room.

I estimated, as a member of the IANS editorial desk, that close to 95 per cent of their news-stories were based on TV channels, World Wide Web, press releases, press conferences, and such other sources of information that require no first-hand communication with people and no pains-taking gathering of information. 

Another abiding love of the executive editor's was Kashmir and Kashmiris.

There were quite a few Kashmiris in the news-room -- including AAA that the executive editor would extol as one of his most beloved and trusted proteges, BBB that a colleague told me is the grandchild of a top Hurriyat leader, and CCC who was particularly fond of watching Indian and Pakistani comedy shows on YouTube while on the desk.

Throughout the unrest following the killing of terrorist Burhan Wani, AAA -- having been designated the final authority on reports sent by IANS' Srinagar correspondent -- did things to the news-reports that I increasingly found suspicious.

I myself would take some of these stories on phone from the Srinagar correspondent -- and was struck later by the way AAA put them out of shape, introducing phrases like "valley is on the boil", describing terrorists as "militants" and murderous stone pelters as "protesters" -- generally playing up the unrest, never telling the reader that the "protests" (read: violent stone pelting and rioting) were concentrated only in a few districts of the valley, not the entire valley.

A young colleague on the desk later told me that the Srinagar correspondent has often expressed his exasperation to her at the distortion that AAA has been introducing in his stories.

It was easy to see where AAA drew his/her authority from -- i.e. authority to present an exaggerated picture of what was actually happening in Kashmir -- and why challenging him/her in the IANS news-room was well nigh impossible.

The executive editor seemed to have avuncular love for BBB, doing long sessions with him/her -- (even calling him/her in the conference room for a one-to-one) -- on how to reconcile with living in a country that he/she deemed an enemy territory (going by some of the conversations I and others couldn't help overhearing).

(For instance, I heard him telling his favourite Kashmiri proteges that Hindi-speakers are "idiots" to have "imposed" Sanskrtized Hindi on India -- and such other malevolent drivel made popular by JNU's professors/writers of "history".)     

It's easy to see on BBB's Twitter timeline messages such as the one that describes Kargil hero Captain Vikarm Batra (posthumously awarded Param Vir Chakra) as a "war criminal" who committed atrocities on Kashmiri women.

As for CCC, he/she told me once very proudly: "I consider Burhan Wani as my brother. He was fighting for us."
----------------------


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Vvvvvv Ccccccc
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 at 15:31
Subject: IANS editing
To: <yyyyyyyy>

Dear Kapil,

Hi. Thanks for spending time at the Desk in IANS. However, there may  have been some confusion about what was to be editing. We had particularly wanted to see your skill in doing roundups (stitching together disparate stories with the same newsline) as is required in an agency.

Could you come in one of these afternoon for 2-3 hours and do a couple of roundups so that we can then come to a quick decision on hiring. Pl give me a call when it’s convenient for you.

regards

Vvvvvv Ccccccc
Managing Editor
Indo-Asian News Service

---------------------------

This post contains the following Web-links.

1. https://www.thequint.com/news/india/ians-error-narendra-modi

2. http://kbforyou.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-blog-post-on-arvind-kejriwal-finds.html



BBC's job is to shield British mass murder, loot and other crimes, and to invent false narratives to blame the victims

$
0
0
Some thoughts upon watching this BBC report titled 'Why Hindus are feeling so insecure?'

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is the world's oldest and most sophisticated colonial propaganda outfit, which specializes in concealing the genocide, ethnocide, rape, plunder, and other monumental crimes against humanity of the British colonialists, imperialists, mass murderers, thugs, rapists, racists and criminals.

One of the most important ways in which BBC carries out the task of shielding the British imperialist thugs is to invent 'narratives' that pretend as if the societies that were savaged by the British imperialist manipulation and exploitation were responsible for their own misery. 

One such false 'narrative' is the 'caste' narrative which seeks to show the people labelled 'Hindus' as making up inherently exploitative societies that always needed to be saved from their 'uncivilized' ways by the 'enlightened' British.

The most obvious problem with this narrative is that the word 'caste' itself (and the concept that it represents) has no Indian origin. India has never had anything called 'caste'. It's a word and a concept imported from Europe -- Portugal to be precise.

India had 'varna' and 'jatis' which allowed the world's freest and most flexible societies imaginable -- still in evidence today.

It's only after the British imperialist fraudsters introduced the Portuguese concept of 'caste' and began to create divisions in societies in India through such means as Zamindari, censuses that deemed communities as 'castes', labelling certain peoples as 'martial races', notifying certain communities (such as 'Sansi') as criminal, and racial profiling through anthropological surveys, etc. that the false narrative of 'exploitative caste system' became a self-fulfilling one.

That moment -- when this false narrative of 'caste' acquired some amount of verisimilitude under a system that was essentially a system of British colonialist exploitation -- is frozen in history.

That's when the imperialist thugs realized that they now have a permanent 'handle' on the communities and cultures of India -- a means by which they could blame the victims for the consequences directly flowing from the racist, extractive, exploitative and ethnocidal administration of the British.

The cruel irony of the present-day British imperialists and their propaganda department (BBC) feigning empathy for 'Dalits' is that throughout their illegal occupation of India these thugs not only made these 'Dalits' do the menial chores in their imperial courts, mansions, offices, gardens and farms, but were also the instigator and the ultimate beneficiary of the exploitative system that actually created or reinforced or worsened the disadvantages of the communities that came later to be known as 'Dalit'.

The crimes, the falsehoods, the fraud, the racism of the British imperialist thugs and their lapdog (that goes by the name of BBC) are too numerous and too horrendous to be enumerated here.

Suffice it to say that it will take an international commission representing the countries that have been the victim of British crimes to deal with the task of bringing these criminals, plunderers and mass murderers to book.

Just remember, in the meanwhile, that whenever you find yourself having to watch BBC, you are unfortunate enough to be watching a channel run by vicious racists, imperialists, criminals and mass murderers. And you are watching the work of people whose stock-in-trade is falsehood and fraud.

Do read this post on my blog to have an idea as to how fraudulent Western theories mislabel, mischaracterize, stereotype, and divide non-Western societies.
--------------

This post contains the following Web links.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BRFF_UMrWc
2. https://kbforyou.blogspot.com/2015/04/western-theories-that-misabel.html

Let's shun the word 'Hindu' and use 'Bharatiya' instead

$
0
0
Using terms like ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindu Dharma’ and putting them in the same category as 'religions' (namely ‘Christianity’ and ‘Islam’) -- as Maria Wirth seems to do in a blog post published on 08 Oct. 2018 -- does not help the cause of dharma.

She seems to suggest, at least in the blog post in question, that there is a ‘religion’ called ‘Hinduism,’ just as there is a ‘religion’ called ‘Christianity’ and a 'religion' called ‘Islam’.

The problem is that there is no such thing as ‘Hinduism’.

And there is certainly no such thing as ‘Hinduism’ the religion.

In fact, there is no such thing as ‘Hindu Dharma’ — when this term is meant to convey something singular and applicable to all — just like ‘religion’.

There is certainly ‘dharma’ in plural — as perceived from an individual standpoint.

I think there can also be ‘Dharma’ in singular — i.e. singular from individual standpoints without the possibility that any of these individual standpoints can ever be projected as some kind of dogma that can be imposed on vast numbers, a la ‘religion’.

What is ‘religion’ then?

Well, it used to be a term synonymous with ‘Christianity’. That is ‘religion’ was once another descriptor for ‘Christianity’ and a term used only for ‘Christianity’.

‘Religion’ is a purely an artificial construct. It’s artificial because it rejects ‘syncretism’ which is an essential element of all human cultures that have ever existed.

In fact, in its rejection of ‘syncretism’, ‘religion’ becomes an outright false and fraudulent concept.
That is because no human community and culture can ever exist without ‘syncretism’.

So rejecting ‘syncretism’ is like saying ‘I reject the air’ which words you can’t utter without breathing the same air!

It’s like fish (to take another metaphor) saying ‘I reject the water’.

(In fact, even the so called ‘Christian’ and even ‘Muslim’ societies — even if they are 100 per cent ‘Christian’ and ‘Muslim’ — cannot exist without ‘syncretism’.)

I am sure Maria Wirth knows it better than I do that ‘Christianity’ rejects ‘syncretism’ (as does Islam). Anyone not sure can go to Vatican’s website and check references to the term ‘syncretism’.

(Islam rejects ‘syncretism’ through the false Quranic concept of ‘Shirk’. The concept of ‘Shirk’ is used as a means to brand people and to straitjacket cultural diversity into Islamic homogeneity.)

Muslims use the term ‘Deen’ for Islam, but they seem to be OK with using the term ‘religion’ too for Islam.

The so called Islam is, after all, built on the Judeo-Christian mythologies. (Their falsehood and fraud is derived from the falsehood and fraud of the so called Judeo-Christianity.)

It should be easy to see for any sensible person that ‘religion’ is a colonial-imperial construct that should be used only and only for ‘Judeo-Christianity’ and ‘Islam’ — not for any other human culture.

In fact, this colonial-imperial concept of ‘religion’ has always been alien to all human cultures — not just Indic cultures — across the world through history.

Isn’t it easy for anyone to see that ‘religion’ is exactly synonymous with ‘imperialism’ when one looks at how Christianity started European colonialism 500 years ago — with Papal Bulls (formal papal decrees) of the 15th century giving explorers the right to claim lands they “discovered” for the Catholic Monarchs of Portugal and Spain?

Imperialism (i.e. ‘religion’) must have started even before European colonialism, with the supplanting of the diversity and autonomy of cultures in parts of the world (particularly those that are now called the West) by the uniformity and heteronomy of ‘Christianity’.

With imperialism (or ‘religion’) came the imperial epistemology — i.e. the practice of mislabeling human cultures as ‘religion’. Thus came ‘Hinduism’ the religion, ‘Buddhism’ the religion, ‘Jainism’ the religion, even ‘Shamanism’ the religion, and so on.

This mislabeling is a pernicious manifestation of the colonial-imperial age in which we live, compelling everyone who exists in this ‘modern’ age to pretend as is there is some such thing as ‘religion’ — and that the world population is divided into adherents of ‘religions’.

The fact is ‘religion’ has no real existence. Only ‘culture’ exists.

(‘Religion’ exists only as a mental abstraction based on a reification of ‘belief’ which is non-material and by pretending as if everyone has the same ‘belief’ which is an impossibility.)

(‘Culture’ lives and breathes and creates beautiful things only because of its gene-cum-meme called ‘syncretism’.)

And ‘cultures’ get terribly eroded and damaged by the artificial and colonial-imperial construct of ‘religion’ (which rejects ‘syncretism’) —- so much so that the loss of cultural diversity ultimately threatens the human existence on Earth.

What we have always had in India is the great Indian cultural matrix embodying mind-boggling diversity as well as autonomy and including dharmas, panths, sampradays, gyan margs, bhakti margs, ways of living, etc.

(So dharmas, panths, gyan margs, bhakti margs, etc. are all inherent in this great Indian cultural matrix and do not transcend this great Indian cultural matrix.)

Let’s call it that — i.e. ‘the Great Indian Cultural Matrix’. We can also call it simply ‘Bharatiyata’.
Let’s not call it ‘Hinduism’. Let’s not even call it ‘Hindu Dharma’.

We should completely shun the root-word ‘Hindu’ and its derivatives (‘Hinduism’, ‘Hindutva’, etc.) and instead use the terms ‘Bharatiya’ and ‘Bharatiyata’.

That is, since the word ‘Hindu’ has become associated with the false concept of ‘religion’, it should be shunned altogether. 

The word we should use for ourselves is ‘Bharatiya’. And the word we should use for our great cultural matrix is ‘Bharatiyata’.
---------------

This post has the following Web-link embedded in it.

https://mariawirthblog.wordpress.com/2018/10/08/where-is-extremism-in-india-and-where-in-pakistan/

एक युवा पाकिस्तानी हिन्दू की व्यथा उसी की ज़बानी

$
0
0
प्रस्तुतहैएकयुवापाकिस्तानीहिन्दूकीव्यथाउसीकीज़बानी।इसपाकिस्तानीयुवककानामहैमुकेशमेघवाड़। 

मैंनेयहाँमुकेशमेघवाड़द्वारालिखेएकउर्दूलेखकादेवनागरीलिप्यंतरणदियाहै. मूललेखपाकिस्तानीवेबमैगज़ीन'हमसब' (www.humsub.com.pk) में 29 सितम्बर 2018 कोप्रकाशितहुआ.


लेखकमुकेशमेघवाड़एकमानवाधिकारकार्यकर्ताहैंजोपाकिस्तानमेंहिन्दुओंऔरअन्यअल्पसंख्यकोंपरचलरहीहिंसाकेख़िलाफ़आवाज़उठातेहैं.

तीसवर्षीय मुकेश कासम्बन्धइंटीरियरसिंधकेबदीनज़िलेकेएकछोटेसेगाँवकपरीमोरीसेहै. यहएकऐसेदलितपरिवारमेंपैदाहुएजिसकापेशाजूतेबनानाहै.

मुकेश अपनेपरिवारकेपहलेसदस्यहैंजिन्होंनेउच्चशिक्षाप्राप्तकीहै. अमरीकीथिंक-टैंक'अटलांटिककॉउन्सिल'ने 2014 मेंमुकेशकोपाकिस्तानके 15 उभरतेहुएयुवानेताओंमेंशामिलकिया।

मुकेशकी Twitter ID है @Mukesh_Meghwar. 

मूललेखकेअंतमेंपाठकोंकेबहुतसारे कॉमेंट्सहैं, जिनमेंसेअधिकतरमुकेशकेसाथसहानुभूतिव्यक्तकरतेहैं. कुछचिड़चिड़ातेहुएभीहैं.

मैंनेएकमहिलाकेचिड़चिड़ेकॉमेंटऔरउसपरएकपुरुषकेरिस्पांसकोइसलेखमेंशामिलकियाहैक्योंकिउनदोकॉमेंट्समेंपाकिस्तानकेवजूदसेजुड़ेमहा-पाखण्डकीएकझलकमिलतीहै.
----------------------------------
क्याहिन्दूहोनाजुर्महै?

मुकेशमेघवाड़, 29 सितम्बर 2018, 'हमसब'मैगज़ीन (पाकिस्तान)

मैंनहींचाहताकिमैंसिर्फ़एकख़ासमज़हबीपहचानकेसाथइसमुल्कमेंरहूँ, यामुझेसिर्फ़एकमज़हबीपहचानसेजोड़ाजाए. मैंचाहताहूँकिमुझेएकशहरी (नागरिक) कीनज़रसेदेखाजाए. इसमुल्ककेबराबरकेशहरीकीतरहसुलूककियाजाए. जबभीकिसीसेमज़हबकेनामपरनफ़रतबरतीजातीहैतोलगताहैकिवहसबमेरेसाथहोरहाहै.

मगरमुझेबारबारहिन्दूहोनेकीसज़ामिलतीहै; हररोज़मुझेहिन्दूहोनेकीवजहसेमाराजाताहै; मेरेसाथतीसरेदर्जेकेशहरीजैसासुलूककियाजाताहै; मेरीबहनेंअग़वाकीजातीहैं. उनकेसाथज़बरदस्तीकीजातीहै; किसीकाजबरीमज़हबतब्दीलकियाजाताहै.

वहसिर्फ़इसलिएक्योंकियहाँकिअकसरियत(यहाँके बहुसंख्यक) मुझेख़ुदसेअलगसमझतीहै, क्योंकिवहमुसलमानहैंऔरमैंहिन्दूहूँ; वहजन्नतीहैंऔरमैंजहन्नुमी; वहसमझतेहैंकियहधरती, यहवतनसिर्फ़उनकाहै, मेरानहीं।मैंकिसीऔरसय्यारे (ग्रह) सेआयाहूँ.

वहसमझतेहैंकिहिन्दूहोनेकामतलबइंडियनहोनाहै, औरमुसलमानहोनेकामतलबपाकिस्तानीहोना है, चाहेफिरवहीपाकिस्तानीमुसलमानअपनेनामकेसाथ'लुधियानवी', 'गुरदासपुरी', 'देहलवी', 'जयपुरी'लगाए!

क्यायहीतक़ाज़ाहैवतन-परस्तीका?

अबउनकोयहकौनसमझाएकि'मैं' - जिसकोवहसिर्फ़हिन्दू, पाकिस्तानदुश्मन, इस्लामदुश्मनसमझतेहैं - मैंभीइसी धरतीकाबेटाहूँ; मैंबटवारेसेपहलेकायहाँकारहनेवालाहूँ; मेराजन्मइसीमिट्टीपरहुआहै; मेरीरगरगमेंवतन-परस्तीबसीहुईहै.

भाईमेरे! मेरेबाप-दादानेभीअपनेख़ूनसेइसधरतीकोसींचाहै; इसधरती, इसवतनकेलिएख़ूनतोमेराभीबहायाहै; लाहौरसेलेकरलाड़कानातक, लायलपुरसेलेकरलक्ष्मीचौकतकमरातोमैंभीहूँअपनोंकेहीहाथों।

भगतसिंहसेलेकरहेमूकालाणी तक, रूपलोकोल्ही सेलेकरराजादाहिर तकयहधरतीमेरेख़ूनसेभीतोलालहै.

(हेमूकालाणीसिंधमेंजन्मेस्वतंत्रतासेनानीथेजिन्हे 1943 मेंफांसीदीगई. रूपलोकोल्हीअंग्रेज़ोंसेलड़नेवालेसिंधकेस्वतंत्रतासेनानीजिन्हें 1858 मेंफांसीदीगई. राजादाहिरसिंधकेसातवींसदीकेराजाथेजिन्होंनेउमय्यदख़िलाफ़तकेआक्रांतामुहम्मदबिनक़ासिमसेलोहालेतेहुएअपनीजानगंवाई.)  
    
फिरमैंकैसेतुमसेकमवतन-परस्तहोगया? औरफिरभीसवालमेरीपहचानपर, मेरीवफ़ापर, मेरीदेशभक्तिपर!

"जबभीगुलिस्तानकोलहूकीज़रुरतपड़ी, 
सबसेपहलेगर्दनहमारीकटी 
फिरभीकहतेहैंअहल--चमन 
यहहमाराचमनहै, तुम्हारानहीं". 

जिसक़लन्दरकेतुममतवालेहो, उसीक़लन्दरकाचौथाख़लीफ़ामैंहूँ; जिसभटाई कोतुममानतेहोउसीभटाई केदामनमेंमैंदफ़नहूँ. मैंउडेरोलालहूँ, जहाँतुमभीजातेहो, जहाँमैंभीजाताहूँ; मैंबाबाबुल्लेशाहकापैरोकारहूँ, जिसेतुमभीमानतेहोऔरमैंभी; अज़ानपरदुआतुमहीनहींमांगते, दुआएंतोमैंभी उसीरबसेमांगताहूँ.

(लालशाहबाज़क़लन्दर12वींसदीकेसूफ़ीसंतथेजिनकामज़ार, सेहवन शरीफ़, सिंधमेंहै; कहतेहैंक़लन्दरकेचौथेख़लीफ़ाएकहिन्दूथे. शाहअब्दुललतीफ़भटाई17वींसदीके प्रसिद्धसूफ़ीथे, जिनकाकालजयीकाव्य-संकलन'शाहजोरसालो'सिन्धीसमुदायकेहृदयकीधड़कनसाहै।उडेरोलालएकसंतथेजिनकीसिंधमेंस्थितदरगाह हिन्दूऔरमुसलमानदोनोंकीआस्थाओंकी प्रतीकहै. बुल्लेशाह 18वींशताब्दीकेपंजाबीलोक-कविथे.)

मैंनेहमेशाअपनीमाँसेयहीदुआसुनीहैकिमालिकहिन्दू--मुसलमानकेबच्चोंकाख़ैरकरना; इसकेसदक़ेमेरेबच्चोंकोभीअपनेअमानमेंरखना।वहबचपनमेंमुझेसिखातीहैकिबेटाजबकिसीमुसलमानकारोज़ाहोतोउसकेसामनेकभीकुछखानानहीं; भगवाननाराज़होताहै.

औरहाँमैंनेअपनेमुहल्लेकीउसमुसलमानचाचीसेहमेशायहसुनाथाकि"तूहिन्दूबनेगामुसलमानबनेगा, इन्सानकीऔलादहैइन्सानबनेगा".  

क्यातुम्हाराख़ूनलालऔरमेराख़ूनसफ़ेदहै? क्यातुम्हारीपेशानीपरमुसलमानऔरमेरीपेशानीपरहिन्दूलिखाहुआहै? क्याफ़र्क़हैतुम्हारीजिस्मानीबनावटमेंऔरमेरीजिस्मानीबनावटमें?

जबबनानेवालेनेहममेंकोईफ़र्क़नहींकियातोतुमऔरमैंकौनहोतेहैंएकदूसरेकोबांटनेवाले?

फ़र्क़बसउससोचकाहैजोयहाँसरायतकरगईहै (घुसगईहै).  

मेरेभाई, अबबतातूकैसेअलगहोगयामुझसे? औरमैंकैसेहोगयाअलगतुझसे? मेरेघरमेंआगलगाकरतुमकैसेसुकूनसेसोसकतेहो? हमारेएहसासाततोएकहैंना; ख़ूनएकहै; धरतीएकहै; आसमानएक, ऊपरवालाएक, लोरीएक, ज़बानएक, रंगएक, वतनएक, तहज़ीब (सभ्यता) एक, सक़ाफ़त (संस्कृति) एक.

फिरकैसेमैंतुम्हारादुश्मनबनगया? कैसेमैंवतनफ़रामोश (वतनकोभूलाहुआ) औरग़द्दारबनगया? क्याडरहैतुम्हेंमुझसे?

यहफ़र्क़मुझेबारबारयाददिलाताहैकिमैंशायदइसमुल्कमेंइन्साननहींकोईऔरमख़्लूक़ (जंतु) हूँ. गोयाहिन्दूहोनागुनाहहै... 

भाईमेरे, मैंइन्सानहूँ. बसमुझेइन्सानरहनेदो. मुझेबारबारइन्सानहोनेकीसज़ादो. मुझेबसइसमुल्ककाशहरीरहनेदो.

मंदिर, मस्जिद, गिरजाघरनेबांटदियाभगवानको 
धरतीबांटी, सागरबांटा, मतबांटोइन्सानको.     
----------------------

मूललेखपरपाठकोंद्वारापोस्टकिएगए कॉमेंट्समेंसेदो कॉमेंट्सकाउर्दूसे हिंदीअनुवाद। 

पहलाकॉमेंट'आलिआजमशेदखकवाणी' (एकमहिलानाम) काहै. दूसराउसकाजवाबहै, 'शकीलचौधरी'कीतरफ़से.

आलिआजमशेदखकवाणी: क्याहीअच्छाहोताअगरइससाइटपरकश्मीरियोंपरहोनेवालेज़ुल्मकीबातभीहोती: कितनेकश्मीरीअपाहिजकिएगए, कितनेमारेगएऔरकितनेमररहेहैं.

इन्सानोंकेसाथइंसाफ़करनाहैतोफिरहिंदुस्तानकारवैयाभीदेखनाहोगा।सिर्फ़पाकिस्तानहीक्योंशर्मिंदाहो?

हिन्दूबिरादरियांजितनेअमनसेपाकिस्तानमेंरहरहीहैं, क्याभारतीयमुसलमानरहरहेहैं? फिरभीहमशर्मिंदाहैंक्योंकिहमएकजुटहोकरअपनेमुल्ककाबचावनहींकररहे; हमारेअंदरखोटेसिक्केहैं; हममुसलमानहैं, इसलिएदुत्कारेजारहेहैं, वर्नाहमारामज़हबदुनियामेंसबसेज़्यादाइन्सानियतकीइज़्ज़तकरनासिखाताहै.

लेकिनहमअबशर्मिंदारहतेहैंक्योंकिहमारेअंदरबहरूपियेबैठेहैंजोअंदरसेइसमुल्ककीजड़ेंकाटरहेहैं.

शकीलचौधरी: आपकातर्कअजीब--ग़रीबहै. क्यापाकिस्तानकीअक़लियतों (अल्पसंख्यकों) सेहोनेवालीज़्यादतियोंकोइसलिएअनदेखाकरदियाजाएकिहमेंहिंदुस्तानकारवैयापसंदनहींहै?

पाकिस्तानमेंरहनेवालीअक़लियतोंसेबदसुलूकीकाऔचित्यकश्मीरकेवाक़ेआतमेंकैसेढूँढाजासकताहै? आपनेपूछाहै, "हिन्दूबिरादरियांजितनेअमनसेपाकिस्तानमेंरहरहीहैं, क्याभारतीयमुसलमानरहरहेहैं?"

पाकिस्तानमेंहिन्दूबिरादरियांजितनेअमनसेरहरहीहैं, उसकाअंदाज़ाहमेंमुकेशमेघवाड़केलेखसेहोजाताहै

अगरआपकोऔरसमझकीज़रुरतहोतोवोपाकिस्तानकेपहलेक़ानूनमंत्रीजोगिन्दरनाथमंडलकेत्यागपत्रसे मिलजाएगी।उन्होंने 1950 में 10,000 हिन्दुओंकेक़त्ल--आमकेबादअपनाओहदाछोड़ाथा. उनकात्यागपत्रइसलिंकपरमौजूदहै.


वैसेयहभीबताइयेगाकि'टूनेशनथ्योरी'केअनुसारमुसलमानहिंदुस्तानमेंकैसेरहसकतेहैं? क्याउनमुसलमानोंकीबहुतबड़ीअक्सरियत (बहुसंख्यकभाग) ने'टू नेशनथ्योरी'कासमर्थननहींकियाथा? उनसबकोपाकिस्तानक्योंलायाजाए?  

आपनेलिखाहैकि"हमशर्मिंदाहैंक्योंकिहमएकजुटहोकरअपनेमुल्ककाबचावनहींकररहे". इससेआपकीक्यामुरादहै? क्याआपकीमुरादइसीक़िस्मका'बचाव'हैजोऊपरआपनेकियाहै? 

आपनेयहभीकहाहैकि"हमारेअंदरखोटेसिक्केहैं". 

अगरआपकुछ'खोटेसिक्कों'कीनिशानदेहीकरदेंतोबहुतोंकाभलाहोजाएगा।

आपनेयहभीकहाकि"हममुसलमानहैं, इसलिएदुत्कारेजारहेहैं, वर्नाहमारामज़हबदुनियामेंसबसेज़्यादाइन्सानियतकीइज़्ज़तकरनासिखाताहै. लेकिनहमअबशर्मिंदारहतेहैंक्योंकिहमारेअंदरबहरूपियेबैठेहैंजोअंदरसेइसमुल्ककीजड़ेंकाटरहेहैं."

यह"बहरूपिये"कौनहैंऔरउनकाइसलेखसेक्याताल्लुक़है? जहाँतक"इन्सानियतकीइज़्ज़त"काताल्लुक़है, अपनेइसदावेकाकोईसबूतभीपेशकरदेंतोबहुतसेलोगआपकेआभारीहोंगे।

किसमुसलमानमुल्कमेंइन्सानियतकीइज़्ज़तकीजातीहैऔरग़ैर-मुसलमानोंकोबराबरकेअधिकारहासिलहैं?

क्यापाकिस्तानकेतमामलोगोंकोबराबरकेअधिकारहासिलहैं? राज्यकेसबसेऊँचेओहदों (राष्ट्रपतिऔरप्रधानमंत्री) केलिएग़ैर-मुस्लिमोंकोअयोग्यक्योंक़रारदेदियागयाहै? क्यायहइन्सानियतकीइज़्ज़तकेलिएकियागयाहै?

क्याओसामाबिनलादेननेजोकुछकिया, वोइन्सानियतकीइज़्ज़तकेलिएकिया? वहइतनेज़्यादामुसलमानोंकाहीरोकैसेबनगया?

अगरआपबुरामानेंतोपरदेऔरफ़ोटोग्राफ़ीकेबारेमेंअपनेविचारोंसेभीहमेंआगाहकरें।क्याइस्लामकेअनुसारएकऔरतअख़बारमेंयाफ़ेसबुकपरअपनाफ़ोटोलगासकतीहै?

(नोट: 'हमसब'मैगज़ीनमेंपाठक Facebook के login सेकॉमेंट्सपोस्टकरतेहैं. 'आलिआजमशेदखकवाणी'काकॉमेंटफ़ोटोसहितपोस्टकियागयाहै.)
-----------------------

इसलेखमेंनीचेदिए 11 वेब-लिंक्ससम्मिलितकिएगएहैं, उसीक्रममेंजिसमेंवेलेखमेंआएहैं.

1. http://www.humsub.com.pk/22345/mukesh-meghwar-3/
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkocGEMsnu8
3. http://elpak.org/fellows/mukesh-meghwar/
4. https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/हेमू_कालाणी
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooplo_Kolhi
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_Dahir
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lal_Shahbaz_Qalandar
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Abdul_Latif_Bhittai
9. https://laaltain.com/ibtidah/2013/10/11/radicalization-of-sindh/
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine_at_Odero_Lal
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulleh_Shah
------- 

'Jinnah’s secularist stance of 11 August was a con trick; Indians saved his Pakistan project from certain collapse,' says Pakistani-Swedish academic

$
0
0
Muslim League's poisonously communal campaign since 1940s rebounded on them – within Jinnah's lifetime. It's Indians who bailed them out!

By Kapil Bajaj
Jinnah’s 11 Aug. 1947 speech embracing secularism was a stratagem to get Nehru and Gandhi to help stem the tide of Muslim exodus from India to Pakistan amid a raging communal conflagration which, he feared, would cause a “collapse” of the inchoate State through a flood of in-migration, says a Pakistani-origin Swedish academic.

“The practical reason (for the secularist stance taken by Jinnah in his 11 Aug. speech) was the fact that Sikhs and Hindus were being hounded out (of West Punjab) and they (Jinnah and his team) could see that in East Punjab too Muslims were being massacred,” says Ishtiaq Ahmed, professor emeritus of political science at Stockholm University, who is also a visiting professor at the Government College University, Lahore.

“And then somebody said: ‘Jinnah Sahib, imagine if Indian government were to send 30 million Muslims from there; Pakistan will simply collapse.’”
“Areas within Pakistan already accounted for 37.2 per cent of (united) India’s population. The North had then just acquired a little bit industry. So there was nothing here except agriculture,” Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed said in a talk he gave in Islamabad that can be watched in this video posted on YouTube on 31 Dec. 2017.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was so desperate to prevent the possibility of an uncontrolled Muslim exodus overwhelming the new-sprung Pakistan that he delivered a grandiloquent vision of a State that will have “nothing to do” with a citizen’s “religion or caste or creed,” suggested Prof. Ahmed, whose book on the partition of Punjab has so far won three awards.
‘Secularism’ the con trick

Jinnah presided over the constituent assembly of Pakistan until his death on 11 Sep. 1948.

He delivered his first address to the constituent assembly in a grandstanding manner with an eye on the foreign dignitaries present in the gathering, says Prof. Ahmed.
In that address, on 11 Aug. 1947, Jinnah had said: “We are starting with this fundamental principle: that we are all citizens, and equal citizens, of one State… and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus, and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

The cruel irony was that it was the same Jinnah whose party had since 1942 been running – as Prof. Ahmed has emphasized in his writings – a poisonous campaign, “telling the Punjabi Muslims that their economic liberation will be guaranteed if they were to get rid of the Hindus and Sikhs,” – not to mention Muslim League’s direct involvement in carrying out murder, rape and plunder of the non-Muslims.
In fact, Jinnah himself had been going around promising Muslims that Pakistan would be a “democracy”, predicated on “democracy” that Islam had already achieved 1300 years earlier, Prof. Ahmed said, citing a letter that Jinnah had written as early as 1945 to the Pir of Manki Sharif of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) in which he supposedly promised that Shariat would be applied to the affairs of the Muslim community.

So the speech of 11 August 1947 was an anomaly – a bolt from the blue – rather than a reflection of an essentially secular temperament that was eventually betrayed by the Islamists.

Prof. Ahmed says Jinnah’s apparent embrace of secularism was a one-off event in contrast to Indian National Congress’s (INC’s) consistent vision – enunciated as early as 1928 in the Nehru Report – for India as a polity with no state religion and equality of all citizens.
“I throw a challenge: show me just one speech delivered before or after the 11 August speech in which Jinnah would have said what he stated in that one-off speech.”

“One sunny day does not make a summer. Do you think what Jinnah had been saying all along comes to naught on the basis of a single speech?”
The 11 August speech caused “a huge amount of confusion” among Muslims who already had an offer from the INC of a secular State (India) right since 1928, but who had chosen rather to listen to Jinnah’s rhetoric about a State that was eventually obtained in the name of Islam, says Prof. Ahmed.

“Were the Muslims Ullu ke Paththe (fools) who listened to Jinnah and supported him... who abandoned their home and hearth to come to this side?”
“What for? For a secular state?

If Jinnah was saying in the 11 August speech what had long been there in the Nehru Report of 1928, then what on earth was the difference, demands Prof. Ahmed.
“Well, the only difference was that you wanted Pakistan and you got it. Let’s be fair about it.”

The Liberal mythopoeia
Prof. Ahmed pooh-poohs Pakistani liberals’ narrative, built largely on the 11 Aug. speech, which portrays Jinnah as a great statesman who always wanted his country to be a secular and liberal democracy, a vision betrayed after his death by the civil and military rulers of Pakistan who took turns to enmesh the State in Islamism and bigotry.

According to the liberal narrative (developed by historians such as Ayesha Jalal) Chaudhry Muhammad Ali (a high-ranking bureaucrat who later had a brief stint as prime minister of Pakistan), Liaquat Ali Khan (the first prime minister), and such other worthies, suppressed the 11 August speech in order to prevent the wider public from learning that ‘Quaid-e-Azam’ (the ‘Great Leader’) had favoured the formation of a secular State.
“That is bullshit,” counters Prof. Ahmed.

“Jinnah was the Governor General of Pakistan. He was virtually the ‘prime minister’ of Pakistan; he presided over all cabinet meetings; he dismissed elected governments; he appointed people as he wished.”
“Would a man, who was so completely in charge of Pakistan, let his speech be suppressed by his inferiors?”

“No way!”
What transpired subsequent to that one-off speech – i.e. more of Jinnah’s utterances favouring Shariat and the constituent assembly permanently implanting Islam into the State structure by adopting the Objectives Resolution on 12 March 1949 – goes on to show the flimsiness of the liberal narrative, argues Prof. Ahmed.

For instance, Jinnah stated at Karachi Bar Association in January 1948: “Why is this question being raised as to whether our constitution would be in conflict with Shariat laws . . . (when) Islam had already laid down our constitutional principles 1300 years ago.”
The substantive point Jinnah made (at Karachi Bar Association) was that there would be implementation of Shariat in Pakistan, says Prof. Ahmed.

“After 11 August 1947, Jinnah never said that there would be ‘equal rights’ (for the minorities), but merely stated that there would be ‘fair treatment’ – that in Islam ‘we extend fair treatment to the non-Muslims’.”
“’Fair’ is not the same as ‘equal’. And that is what, I think, are the Pakistan’s parameters.”

“And then Jinnah gave no other statement on the constitution (in the making).”
Prof. Ahmed says the men in charge of the State of Pakistan have sought to “hide” the “practical reason” behind Jinnah’s bogus avowal of secularism and non-discrimination towards minorities in his 11 Aug. speech – the “practical reason” being the need to get Indians to somehow stop uncontrolled Muslim exodus into Pakistan.

Communal, craven and deceitful
Prof. Ahmed’s research shows that Indians played a phenomenal role in rescuing Jinnah’s Pakistan from collapse by controlling violence against Muslims, but the same cannot be said about the separatist leadership of the Muslims in its treatment of the Hindu and Sikh victims of violence, who were simply left to fend for themselves.

“It’s the Indian government that helped Pakistan – (Mahatma) Gandhi by giving his life and (Jawahar Lal) Nehru by doing his duty in stopping the attacks … (on Muslims, thus controlling the situation that would have forced more Muslims to flee to Pakistan),” he says.
Prof. Ahmed says a delegation of ‘Muslim’ leaders had virtually thrown themselves at Mahatma Gandhi’s feet in Delhi in Sep.1947, begging him to help save Muslims from being attacked by the Sikh and Hindu refugees from West Punjab and NWFP streaming into the city.

“Mahatma, only you can save the Muslims,” they pleaded, he says, citing Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, a staunch supporter of the Pakistan Movement from United Provinces (UP), who was a member of that delegation (which also included Zakir Hussain who would later become the President of India).

Gandhi, who had then just come to Delhi from Bengal after saving thousands of Muslim lives there, promised to do what he could, says Prof. Ahmed.
“And then with Gandhi’s volunteers getting the situation under control, Muslims who wanted to leave could do so, and those who wanted to stay in Delhi or elsewhere in India could stay,” he says, citing Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi.

Jawahar Lal Nehru too discharged his responsibility well in helping to control violence against Muslims, he says.
Prof. Ahmed does not have much to say, however, in the talk being reported here as to whether Gandhi and Nehru sought to obtain reciprocal assurances from Jinnah and other separatist leaders that violence against Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistani areas would similarly be controlled – or whether the Muslim leadership made such an assurance to the two Indian leaders.

In an email exchange with this writer, Prof. Ahmed addressed this question by merely saying that: “This was the gentleman’s understanding as well as what was stated in the Three June Plan.
(A gentleman’s agreement/understanding is one based on mutual trust rather than being legally binding. Three June Plan refers to the British government’s plan for India’s partition, announced on 03 June 1947).

What is clear from Prof. Ahmed’s research is that Jinnah and other separatist Muslim leaders were not only primarily responsible for whipping up communal polarization in Punjab which led to ethnic cleansing of Sikhs and Hindus in West Punjab and NWFP and counter-ethnic cleansing of Muslims in East Punjab, but were also cowardly and cunning in the way they dealt with the cataclysmic consequences of the conflagration they had started themselves.
Once they succeeded in getting Indians to prevent those consequences from ruining their Pakistan project, they once again betrayed their non-Muslim minorities by supporting the Objectives Resolution, which produced an Islamic republic rather than a liberal democratic state with equal rights for minorities that Jinnah had conjured up in his 11 Aug. speech.

Two faces of ‘Muslim’ identity
Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, for instance, was a member of the delegation that had in Sep. 1947 begged Gandhi to help save Muslims in Delhi from being attacked by Sikhs and Hindus, whose ethnic cleansing in West Punjab and NWFP was a direct consequence of the Pakistan Movement he ardently supported.

He took part in that delegation only a few weeks after listening in the constituent assembly (whose member he was) to Jinnah’s 11 Aug. speech in which the latter promised that “religion or caste or creed has nothing to do with the business of the State” which would start with the “fundamental principle that we are all citizens, and equal citizens, of one State”.
Subsequently, the same Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi strongly supported the passage of Objectives Resolution in the constituent assembly, thus betraying and permanently marginalizing the leftover minorities of Pakistan.

Far from Jinnah’s grand vision of a secular democracy, the Objectives Resolution, presented in the constituent assembly on 07 March 1949 and adopted on 12 March 1949, envisioned “equality as enunciated by Islam” and “adequate provision” for the minorities.
So going by the playbook of people like Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, non-Muslims everywhere must reconcile to the ‘rights’ of the ‘Muslims’ as a majority and as a minority, including the right to secede, but ‘Muslims’ will guarantee non-Muslims nothing more than sham “equality” and “adequate provision”!

The duplicity of ‘Muslim’ identity is also evident in the conduct of two brothers: Zakir Hussain and Mahmud Hussain.
While the former pleads with Gandhi in Sep. 1947 for the safety and security of ‘Muslims’ and subsequently goes on to become the President of India as a member of the so called “minority” – his brother Mahmud Hussain sits in Pakistan’s constituent assembly trashing the rights of Pakistan’s own minorities by voting for the Objectives Resolution!

An Islamic state from the start
Prof. Ahmed says “no Muslim member” of the constituent assembly of Pakistan – not even one with Leftist leanings – opposed the Objectives Resolution, which was denounced by the Hindu members as a violation of Jinnah’s 11 August speech.

“Liaquat Ali khan, Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, Mahmud Hussain (brother of Zakir Hussain), Umar Hayat Malik (from Punjab)… all spoke (in support of the Objectives Resolution).”
“And then Mian Iftikharuddin, who was a Leftist, spoke… Actually, even he supported the Objectives Resolution, but he did it in a very different way.”

“He wondered, for instance, whether continuation of feudalism and exploitation was consistent with an Islamic system… and said he was disappointed. So he spoke in support, but in the form of criticism.”
Prof. Ahmed says the Objectives Resolution was also supported by Zafarullah Khan, Pakistan’s first foreign minister, who belonged to the Ahmadi community that would later be severely persecuted in Pakistan and constitutionally deemed non-Muslim.

“In the manner of ‘more royal than the king,’ he (Zafarullah Khan) went on and on about Islam, liberally quoting Quran. He said Islam covers every aspect of human society and does not allow religion to be separated from politics – presenting a vision of an ultra-Islamic state.”
The vital principle that religion and politics must remain separate was thus negated by the Objectives Resolution without any of the Muslim members of the constituent assembly, including a Leftist, putting up any worthwhile resistance, says Prof. Ahmed.

“So the constitution that we got in 1956 gave us ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’ whose president would be a Muslim and all laws in Pakistan would be brought in consonance with Quran and Sunnah.”
Deeper slide into Islamism

The constitution of 1956 was abrogated by Field Marshal Ayub Khan in 1958 when he became Pakistan’s first military dictator through coup d'état, says Prof. Ahmed.
“Ayub Khan, for the first time, dares to bring half-heartedly a bit of secularism by changing (in 1962) the name of the country to ‘Republic of Pakistan’.”

“I was 15-16 years old then and I remember the abuse hurled at Ayub Khan by not just Mullahs but also ‘normal people,’” says Prof. Ahmed.
The protests led to restoration in 1963 of the ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’ – and of constitutional provisions that only a Muslim can be the president and all laws will be brought in harmony with Quran and Sunnah.

“So where is secularism (in the make-up of the State of Pakistan)? Where are we going to look for secularism? Where…,” demands Prof. Ahmed.
After suffering constitutional crises in the 1970 and a civil war in 1971, resulting in the secession of East Pakistan, the country adopted a new constitution in 1973; it was drafted by the government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

The 1973 constitution further enmeshed Pakistan in Islamism, prescribing that not only the president but the prime minister will also be a Muslim and they will have to publicly affirm their belief in the finality of the prophet-hood of Muhammad (doctrine of ‘Khatm-e-Nabwat), says Prof. Ahmed.
“In 1974, the same National Assembly (during Bhutto’s premiership) declared the Ahmadis to be non-Muslims (through a constitutional amendment, on the ground that their beliefs were a violation of ‘Khatm-e-Nabwat’).”

In 1984, military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq (who ruled from 1978 until his death in 1988) imposed further restrictions on Ahmadis through an ordinance that effectively prohibited them from preaching or professing their beliefs.
“After that ordinance, they brought in the blasphemy law (in 1986 through Sections 295 B and 205-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, dealing with ‘anyone who desecrates the Quran or defiles the name of Prophet Muhammad’,” says Prof. Ahmed.

Zia’s blasphemy law prescribed heavy fine or life imprisonment or capital punishment.
“There were thus three possibilities, but in 1990 when the government of Nawaz Sharif (i.e. a democratically elected government rather than a military dictatorship) was in power, the Federal Shariat Court said the punishment for blasphemy should only be capital punishment.”

This brief history shows clearly that neither Jinnah nor any of the civilian or military governments since his death intended to set up a secular State, says Prof. Ahmed.
He says Jinnah and his successors also never allowed socialist and communist thinking to grow in Pakistan.

“The Communist Party bragged a lot about its plans (for the new State of Pakistan), but the very first statement of Governor General Jinnah, on 17 August 1947, was that there was a fifth column in the country looking towards Moscow and ‘we have to take care of them’.”
“Marxists have been under fire in Pakistan right from day one. It’s a place that has never seen even ordinary democracy; where is the question of freedom for communist ideas?”

Pakistan was NEVER a democratic state – not even for a day, asserts Prof. Ahmed.
“If at all Pakistan was a “democracy”, it was a “majoritarian democracy”. Don’t forget it was the elected government (of Bhutto) – not a dictator – that declared Ahmadis non-Muslim. (Dictator) Zia-ul-Haq only capitalized on that; he did not first do it.”

The garrison State
Prof. Ahmed also seeks to explain in his talk as to how Pakistan came to be a “garrison state” – i.e. a state consumed by security concerns and dominated by the military – and debunks another Pakistani myth that Radcliffe Award favoured India.

He says Pakistan became a garrison state because Jinnah could not get his wish of having the whole of Punjab and Bengal merged with Pakistan, in which case the International Border (IB) would have cut across Gurgaon, just 15 km from Delhi, for (united) Punjab extended as far as there.
Had that happened, it’s India that would have become the garrison state.

However, India got the International Border (IB) around Lahore (16 km from the IB), Sialkot (18 km), Gujranwala (28 km) and Shekhupura within striking distance too, says Prof. Ahmed.
“The whole of Punjab was within the reach of Indian Army in case of a land war. Thus, right from the beginning, Pakistan came to be a state in which defence of the country was paramount.”

The garrison state was thus the net result of the division of Punjab.
“It’s said that Pakistan was hard done by in Radcliffe Award (under which Punjab and Bengal were divided). I throw a bet. I can be taken anywhere and I can argue that Radcliffe Award was 99.9 per cent what the Muslim League demanded,” he asserts.

In the debate that took place in Punjab Boundary Commission, Muslim League said that Muslim-majority areas should simply be scissored off.
“Hindus and Sikhs opposed that, pointing out that it was they who had accounted for 80 per cent of the revenues of Punjab in the previous 100 years, and about 75 per cent of the properties/assets, including business assets, belonged to them,” says Prof. Ahmed.

In order to counter that, Muslim League quibbled with the terms of reference of the commission (which was ‘division on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims AND other factors’), contending that ‘other factors’ are only relevant in very specific situations.
“So according to its interpretation, Muslim League wanted Lahore to which Sikhs too staked claim on the grounds that it was the birth-place of Guru Arjan Dev. Sikhs (and Hindus) also wanted Sialkot in which Narowal has Sikh claim, and Hindu religion too has a relationship – a mythological connection – with Sialkot.”

Sikhs wanted Shekhupura, Nankana Sahib, Gujranwala (Maharaja Ranjit Singh's birth-place). Sikhs said these places represented much of their history. They also wanted Montgomery or Sahiwal and Lyllpur where they held great amount of land.
“Now you can see that under Radcliffe Award all of these places were given to Pakistan. So it is nonsense to argue that Radcliffe Award was directed against Pakistan's demand. It’s actually the other way round,” says Prof. Ahmed.

He says it’s true that Wavell (Viceroy and Governor General of India from 1943 to 1947) favoured awarding three tehsils of Gurdaspur to India in order to allow the country a natural defence without which Amritsar would have been surrounded on all sides by Pakistani-Muslim areas.
However, there was no conspiracy in that allowance – no conspiracy that by getting the major part of Gurdaspur district, India was handed land access to Kashmir (thus making the Indian intervention in Kashmir possible). In fact, India also has access to Kashmir through Hoshiarpur.   

“If at all, the curses that Pakistanis hurl at Mountbatten (who replaced Wavell as Viceroy in 1947) should be redirected at Wavell, but remember Wavell gave us everything (we wanted); Indians got none of what they asked for.”
“Gurdaspur was a very minor thing; (We) Muslims (on the other hand) are quite incapable of giving even a small thing to others.”  

No comparison
While Muslims in India have increased their share of the population from 9.5 per cent in 1947 to 14.4 per cent today, Pakistan continues to present a bleak picture of the ethnic cleansing that was carried out during Partition and ill treatment of minorities since that time, says Prof. Ahmed.

Had Sikhs and Hindus been allowed to stay in areas that Pakistan got, in line with the Partition's original understanding, there population would have been 10-11 per cent today, he says.
“Some Hindus remain in Sindh. Here (in Punjab) we don’t see any, and if at all we see one it is like someone being displayed in a museum and introduced with: ‘Here’s what a Hindu of Pakistan looks like’.”

“Otherwise they were very prominent part of Punjabi culture and society. Who can write about Punjab without Krishan Chander, who has as much claim over this land as you and I have.”
“But today, he doesn’t even get a mention; (Saadat Hasan) Manto Day is celebrated here, but I have never heard anyone memorializing Krishan Chander.”

“We have a complete blank on our past.”
----------
This article was first published on 23 Sep. 2018 by PGurus.com.

I have transcribed into English the substantive part of Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed's talk, which was delivered in Hindi/Urdu and on which this article is based. The transcript can be read here.  
Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s book ‘The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned Cleansed’ has been published by Oxford University Press as well as by Rupa Publications. 
An overview of this book can be found in this PDF containing the text of a lecture that Prof. Ahmed delivered at the India International Centre (IIC), New Delhi, in Feb. 2013.
-----------

This post contains the following Web-links.

1.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg0BOlb5HJE
2. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_jinnah_assembly_1947.html
3. https://www.amazon.com/Punjab-Bloodied-Partitioned-Cleansed/dp/8129129612
4. http://www.iicdelhi.nic.in/ContentAttachments/Publications/DiaryFiles/542711May162013_Occational%20Publication%2046.pdf

'Muslims are never grateful to those who do good to them,' says Pakistani-Swedish academic in a talk on Partition of India

$
0
0
Pakistani-Swedish academic Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed gave a talk on Partition of India in Islamabad, as recorded in this video posted on YouTube on 31 Dec. 2017. 

The talk was delivered in Hindi/Urdu mixed with English. I have provided here an English transcript of the substantive part of that talk. 


To contextualize Pakistan’s demand, we start with Indian National Congress's demand which was always very clear, whether we agree with that or not.

In the Nehru Report of 1928 (outlining a proposed new dominion status constitution for India), Muslims had as much share as others. The chairman (of All Parties Conference whose committee drew up the Nehru Report) was Dr. M.A. Ansari. These people (proponents of Pakistan) forget all those things.
Nehru Report said there will be no state religion, men and women will have equal rights as citizens, and that India will be a federation with a strong centre.

So from there (Nehru Report) up until the drafting of India’s Constitution, you will find continuity.
They did their politics on that basis – which was challenged by the Muslim League, which asserted that: “Muslims are NOT Indians; they are Muslims. So as Muslims, we are a nation.” It was as simple as that.

The basis of the Two Nation Theory was that 'living on Indian territory does NOT mean that we (Muslims) are Indians'.
Well, in a sense we are Indians… if you read Sir Syed’s ‘Asbab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind’ (‘Reasons for the Indian Mutiny’), he calls both (Hindus and Muslims) Hindustani.

But that was 19th century's terminology; the 20th century terminology that they (Muslim separatists) used was: “No, we are NOT Indians; we are Muslims. And as Muslims, we are entitled to our own state”.
The basis of Pakistan that we got was that the Muslim-majority areas be taken from India and given to Pakistan.

There is one point that I have strongly emphasized in my book on Punjab's partition. When we asserted that Muslims are a nation and India should be divided on that basis, the Sikhs of Punjab responded by saying that if you insist on dividing the country on the basis of religion then Punjab must also be divided on the same basis – i.e. the Sikh-and-Hindu-majority areas be taken from (united) Punjab and either be vested in a separate Sikh state or be given to India.

In Bengal it was not clear, what will happen.
In 1946, the Muslims and Hindu leaders of Bengal said: ‘We will make a third state of independent Bengal.’ That was opposed by Congress which said if Punjab – indeed all of India – is being divided on the basis of religion, then so should Bengal be. Thus the demand for division was heard all over the place.

Now, what was the problem (with such a demand for division)?
The problem – linked to the moot question as to how Pakistan came to be a garrison state – was that Jinnah couldn’t get his wish of having the whole of Punjab and Bengal merged with Pakistan, in which case the International Border (IB) would have cut across Gurgaon, just 15 km from Delhi, for (united) Punjab extended as far as there.

Had that happened, it’s India that would have become the garrison state.
(However), they (Indians) got the International Border (IB) around Lahore (16 km from the IB), Sialkot (18 km), Gujranwala (28 km) and Shekhupura within striking distance too.

Bear in mind that Pakistan of those days was no more than Punjab for all practical purposes; Karachi was far off. So the whole of Punjab was within the reach of Indian Army in case of a land war.
Thus, right from the beginning, Pakistan came to be a state in which defence of the country was paramount; this should not be seen as morally, but be seen as realistically.

That (a garrison state) was thus the net result of the division.
It’s said that Pakistan was hard done by in Radcliffe Award (under which Punjab and Bengal were divided). I throw a bet. I can be taken anywhere and I can argue that Radcliffe Award was 99.9 per cent what the Muslim League demanded.

In the debate that took place in Punjab Boundary Commission, Muslim League said that Muslim-majority areas should simply be scissored off.
Hindus and Sikhs countered that, pointing out that it was they who had accounted for 80 per cent of the revenues of Punjab in the previous 100 years, and about 75 per cent of the properties/assets, including business assets, belonged to them.

In order to counter that, Muslim League quibbled with the terms of reference of the commission (which was ‘division on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims AND other factors’), contending that ‘other factors’ are only relevant in very specific situations.
So according to its interpretation, Muslim League wanted Lahore – to which Sikhs too staked claim on the grounds that it was the birth-place of Guru Arjan Dev. Sikhs (and Hindus) also wanted Sialkot in which Narowal has Sikh claim, and Hindu religion too has a relationship – a mythological connection – with Sialkot.

Sikhs wanted Shekhupura, Nankana Sahib, Gujranwala (Maharaja Ranjit Singh's birth-place). Sikhs said these places represented much of their history. They also wanted Montgomery or Sahiwal and Lyllpur where they held great amount of land.
Now you can see that under Radcliffe Award all of these places were given to Pakistan. So it is all nonsense to argue that Radcliffe Award was directed against Pakistan's demand; it’s actually the other way round.

It’s true that Wavell (Viceroy and Governor General of India from 1943 to 1947) favoured awarding three tehsils of Gurdaspur to India in order to allow the country a natural defence without which Amritsar would have been surrounded on all sides by Pakistani-Muslim areas.
However, there was no conspiracy in that allowance – no conspiracy that by getting the major part of Gurdaspur district, India was handed land access to Kashmir (thus making the Indian intervention in Kashmir possible). In fact, India also has access to Kashmir through Hoshiarpur. So it’s all mythology (that India was favoured). 

If at all, the curses that Pakistanis hurl at Mountbatten (who replaced Wavell as Viceroy in 1947) should be redirected at Wavell, but remember Wavell gave us everything (we wanted); Indians got none of what they asked for.
Gurdaspur was a very minor thing; (We) Muslims (on the other hand) are quite incapable of giving even a small thing to others, which is the fact of the matter.  

So we got a State where Muslims were in majority. And you all know what we did to the minorities. Had Sikhs and Hindus stayed in areas that Pakistan got, according to the Partition's original understanding, there population would have been 10-11 per cent.
So hardly a Hindu or a Sikh remained in Lahore, Sialkot, Rawalpindi (where they had big properties and other assets).

In fact, the epicentre of Punjab's partition was Rawalpindi whose villages witnessed a general massacre of the Sikhs in March 1947. My book has all the details. In those villages, I met the Muslims who were witnesses to that (massacre) and are still alive.
I also went to the other side (of the border) and found people who once belonged to those same villages; my book has the stories from both sides. Imagine, finding people 60 years after the event.

So the Partition took place and what should have been a very sizeable population of Hindus and Sikhs (in areas that became West Pakistan) was eliminated, except of course a small holdover in Sindh.
On the other hand, in East Punjab, they did not allow a single Muslim to remain. So it was equal: tit for tat.

But if you go beyond that – and this point we have to underline, the point being that Gandhi sacrificed his life (for Muslims) and Nehru discharged his responsibility.
At that time 9.5 per cent of Indian population was Muslim and today it has gone up to 14.4 per cent. So in India, Muslim population has increased, even though Muslims don’t get good treatment, but here in Pakistan we haven’t allowed a soul (of non-Muslims) to remain.

Those few who remained here, such as a small number of Christians, we all know what we have done to them, terrorizing them with blasphemy cases being one instance of our treatment of them.
(Some) Hindus remain in Sindh; here (in Punjab) we don’t see any, and if at all we see one it is like someone displayed in a museum and being pointed out with: ‘Here’s what a Hindu of Pakistan looks like’.

Otherwise they (Hindus) were very prominent part of Punjabi culture and society. Who can write about Punjab without Krishan Chander?
Krishan Chander has as much claim over this Punjab as you and I have. But today, he doesn’t even get a mention; (Saadat Hasan) Manto Day is celebrated here, but I have never heard anyone memorializing Krishan Chander.

We have a complete blank on our past.
So the problem is that (with non-Muslims cleansed) this came to be an overwhelmingly Muslim country. Here comes into play Jinnah’s speech of 11 August 1947 (made to Pakistan's constituent assembly) – one and only speech of this nature.

I throw a challenge: show me just one speech delivered before or after the 11 August 1947 speech in which Jinnah would have said what he said in the one-off speech – that “in this great state of Pakistan we are all free to go to our temples, mosques and churches and from now on we are all citizens of this great state; in due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims...”.
Now if that is what you are saying, which is the same that the Nehru Report promised, then what on earth is the difference?

The only difference is that you wanted Pakistan and you got it. Let’s be fair about it.
Now all these people (in Pakistan) say that Jinnah wanted a secular state!

How can you have a secular state whose basis is religious nationalism?

As the saying goes: ‘One sunny day does not make a summer’. Shakespeare put it as: ‘One swallow does not make a summer’.
Do you think what Jinnah had been saying all along comes to naught on the basis of a single speech? Were the Muslims Ullu ke Paththe (fools) who listened to Jinnah and supported him – and (some of whom also) abandoned their home and hearth to come to this side?

What for?
For a secular state?

(But) they wereoffered a secular state (India). If you had remained in that secular state, you would have enjoyed 42 per cent of Muslim representation that was there in Indian Army.
Muslims also accounted for 73 per cent of Punjab police; they (Pakistanis) fudge the figures too. In UP (United Provinces), Muslims enjoyed 50 per cent of police force despite being only 14 per cent of the population.

In police recruitment in India's premier cities of Madras, Calcutta and Bombay, they used to give preference to Pakhtuns, Punjabi Muslims, and Sikhs for these men were considered strongly built.
So you (Muslims) had the whole of India. You go and see; (across India) up to Srirangapatna, you could see the green flags of Muslims even in this age of the rule of BJP which is to India what Pakistani Fascists are to Pakistan.

So if someone were to suggest Gandhi was an enemy of Muslims, it is nonsense; he was someone who gave his life for you (Muslims).
Spare a thought for Gandhi... but then Muslims are never grateful to those who do good to them; that’s the second point (about Muslims) that I want to remind you of.

Let us be true to the facts of history. Some say ‘God is truth’. I think it should rather be phrased 'truth is God'. So (let’s) learn to speak the truth.
So what’s the Pakistan story? It is that we got it (Pakistan) in the name of Islam.

The (Muslim League’s) campaign for the whole of Punjab and North-West Frontier Punjab (NWFP)… (was Islamist)… (as born out, among other things, by) the letter to Pirof Manki Sharif of NWFP (written in 1945 by Jinnah, in which he supposedly promised that Shariah will be applied to the affairs of the Muslim community).
In fact, there was an agreement (reached on 24 November 1945) in the NWFP legislative assembly (between Jinnah, who was accompanied by Liaqat Ali Khan, and Pirof Manki Sharif and other pirs) that when Pakistan comes into being, every law will be in line with Islamic Shariah and every bill will be legislated only after consulting the pirs.

This is all written down there.
(Jinnah had been going around, promising that) In Pakistan there will be ‘democracy’ (of the Islamic kind)… that Islam had achieved ‘democracy’ 1300 years earlier…

And then comes the 11 August 1947 speech (of Jinnah), causing a huge amount of confusion…
They say Chaudhry Muhammad Ali (a high-ranking bureaucrat who later had a brief stint as prime minister of Pakistan) and Liaquat Ali Khan (one of Pakistan’s ‘founding fathers’ and the first prime minister) orchestrated the suppression of Jinnah’s speech (of 11 August 1947, allegedly to prevent the public from knowing that Jinnah supposedly wanted a secular country)…

Now that is bullshit.
Jinnah was the Governor General of Pakistan; he was virtually the ‘prime minister’ of Pakistan; he presided over all cabinet meetings; he dismissed elected governments; he appointed people as he wished.

Would a man, who was totally in charge of Pakistan, let his speech be suppressed by his inferiors?
Not at all!

He delivered that one-off speech (of 11 August) in a certain (expansive and grandstanding) mood… surrounded by foreign dignitaries…
But there was also a practical reason for saying what Jinnah said in that speech, which they hide, but I have pointed out in my forthcoming book.

The practical reason was the fact that Sikhs and Hindus were being hounded out of here and they (Jinnah and his team) could see that in East Punjab too Muslims were being massacred – It (massacre of the Muslims in East Punjab) was basically organized by the Sikhs. 
And then somebody said: “Jinnah Sahab, imagine if Indian government were to send 30 million Muslims from there; Pakistan will simply collapse.”

Areas within Pakistan already accounted for 37.2 per cent of (united) India’s population. The North had then just acquired a little bit industry; so there was nothing here except agriculture.
So who helped Pakistan?

It’s the Indian government that helped Pakistan – Gandhi by giving his life and Nehru by doing his duty by stopping attacks carried out by RSS there… (thus controlling the situation that would have forced more Muslims to flee to Pakistan).
Those (Muslims) who wished could still cross the border, of course.

In fact, Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi (a staunch supporter of Pakistan movement, who later also became Pakistan’s education minister) has been quoted as saying something (that will bear me out).
He has written that Hindus and Sikhs who fled West Punjab arrived in Delhi to find that large numbers of Muslims were still around. This infuriated them and they began to harass and terrorize the Delhi Muslims who had to take refuge in Humanyun’s tomb’s premises.

And then a delegation of Muslims – which included Zakir Hussain (later president of India) and Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi – approached Gandhi for help.
Gandhi had just come to Delhi from Bengal after saving thousands of Muslim lives there. The massacre of Muslims in Calcutta was prevented by Gandhi who sat there and said: ‘Kill me before you kill the Muslims’.

In September (1947), Gandhi was in Delhi.
Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi says they (the delegation) went to Gandhi ji and pleaded: ‘Mahatma, only you can save the Muslims’.

Gandhi ji responded: Do you think I really can?
In fact, Agha Shorish Kashmiri (a leader of the Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam party) had said that the Muslim delegation had gone down on its knees before Gandhi ji, begging for help.

Gandhi promised to do what he could.
And then (with Gandhi’s volunteers getting the situation under control), Muslims who wanted to leave could do so, and those who wanted to stay in Delhi or elsewhere in India could stay, Qureshi writes.

And the RSS (man) who killed Gandhi has a statement – which you can check on the YouTube – that Gandhi championed the rights of the Muslims.
…So what I am trying to say is that creation of Pakistan had absolutely no clear vision…except the assertion that it would be a country for the Muslims…

Meanwhile, in the wake of the confusion arising from his (contradictory) speech of 11 August 1947, Jinnah goes to Karachi Bar Association in January 1948 and says: “Why is this question being asked as to whether our constitution would be in conflict with Shariat Laws? . . . 1300 years ago our constitutional principles had been laid down by Islam.”
Then Jinnah adds: “Islam gave us the grand ideas of democracy…” and all that jazz.

So the substantive point Jinnah made was that there would be implementation of Shariat in Pakistan.
Let me repeat that ‘One sunny day does not make a summer’.

After 11 August 1947, Jinnah never said that there would be “equal rights” (for the minorities), but merely stated that there would be “fair treatment” – that in Islam we extend “fair treatment” to the non-Muslims.
“Fair” is not the same as “equal”. And that is what, I think, are the Pakistan’s parameters.

And then Jinnah gave no other statement on the constitution (in the making).
So the Objectives Resolution (which permanently implanted Islam into the structure of Pakistani state) was presented in the constituent assembly on 07 March 1949 – and was deemed a violation of Jinnah’s 11 August speech by the Hindu members of the assembly.

Liaquat Ali khan, Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, Mahmud Hussain (brother of Zakir Hussain), Umar Hayat Malik (from Punjab)… all spoke (in support of the Objectives Resolution).
And then Miyan Iftikharuddin, who was a Leftist, spoke… Actually even he supported the Objectives Resolution, but he did it in a very different way.

He wondered, for instance, how could continuation of feudalism and exploitation be consistent with an Islamic system? … and said “I am disappointed”. So he spoke in support of sorts, but in the form of criticism.
Thus none of them (i.e. the Muslim members of the constituent assembly) opposed the Objectives Resolution.

Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (the Deobandi cleric from UP who belonged to the Muslim League)… very interestingly… did not take a fundamentalist stand, while quoting Quran… He basically said that we’d advance the idea of welfare state.
And he (Usmani) quoted Mahatma Gandhi as exhorting newly elected Congress legislators in Bihar in 1937 to adopt the Congress way of simplicity by wearing Khadi and sitting on the floor.

“…I can give you examples of neither Rama not Krishna for they are not historical figures” --- (Imagine) it’s a Hindu (Mahatma Gandhi) who is saying it!!
“The example is that of Abu Bakr (the first of the four caliphs after Muhammad’s death, the four being known as ‘Khulafa-e-Rashida’ or the ‘rightly guided caliphs) and Umar (who succeeded Abu Bakr) as ideal rulers,” (Usmani quoted Gandhi as saying).

He (Gandhi) said there is no dispute that Abu Bakr and Umar were very powerful rulers, but they lived a very simple life… Umar wore coarse cloth and ate coarse grains…
So that was the speech delivered by Usmani… and it did not reflect the kind of Islamism that has come to prevail today…

Then speaks Sir Zafarullah Khan (Pakistan’s first foreign minister, who belonged to the Ahmadi community that would later be persecuted in Pakistan and constitutionally deemed non-Muslims) – and it’s very interesting (read ‘ironical’) that, in the manner of ‘more royal than the king,’ he went on and on about Islam, liberally quoting Quran.
And then he (Zafarullah Khan) made the statement that Islam covers every aspect of human society – that religion can never be separate from politics in Islam.

Statecraft, foreign affairs, rules of war and peace… everything is covered in Islam… i.e. Zafarullah Khan presented a model of an ultra-Islamic state.
And then (surprise! surprise!) Zafarullah Khan even refers to Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani and cites the latter’s utterances in extolling the great virtues of Islam…

The irony is that the same Zafarullah had earlier (in Sep. 1948) refused to take part in Jinnah’s funeral prayer on the ground that the prayer was led by Usmani who deemed Ahmadis non-Muslims…
In the constituent assembly he (Zafarullah) was virtually deferring to Usmani!

Keep in mind that we are talking about the important principle that religion and politics must remain separate (which was negated by the Objectives Resolution without any of the Muslim member, including Ahamadis, posing any worthwhile resistance).
And then, the constitution that we get --- the 1950 report (‘interim report’ of the basic principle committee introduced in the constituent assembly), 1952 report (first basic principle committee report), 1954 (second basic principle report), and then 1956 constitution --- gives us “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” whose president will be a Muslim and all laws in Pakistan would be brought in consonance with Quran and Sunnah.

And when that ended (i.e. constitution was abrogated in 1958), Field Marshall General Ayub Khan (first military dictator of Pakistan) comes into power.
He, for the first time, dares to bring half-heartedly a bit of secularism by changing in 1962 the name of the country to “Republic of Pakistan” (which name was later reverted to “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” owing to the protest of the religious parties).

I was 15-16 years old then and I remember the curses hurled at Ayub Khan by not just Mullahs but also ‘normal people’.
So Pakistan again became the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” (in 1963) – and the same constitutional provisions that only a Muslim can be the president and all laws will be brought into consonance with Quran and Sunnah (were brought back).

So where is secularism (in the make-up of the State of Pakistan)?
Where are we going to look for secularism?

Where?
In 1973 constitution, we go even further – that not only the president but the prime minister will also be a Muslim and they will have to take the oath that they believe in the finality of the prophet-hood of Muhammad (doctrine of ‘Khatm-e-Nabwat).

And in 1974, the same Assembly declared the Ahmadis to be non-Muslims (through a constitutional amendment, on the ground that their beliefs are a violation of ‘Khatm-e-Nabwat’).
Then in 1984, General Zia-ul-Haq (Pakistan’s military dictator who ruled from 1978 until his death in 1988) imposed further restrictions on Ahmadis (through an ordinance that effectively prohibited Ahmadis from preaching or professing their beliefs).

After that ordinance, they brought in the blasphemy law (in 1986 through Sections 295 B and 205-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, dealing with ‘anyone who desecrates the Quran or defiles the name of prophet Muhammad’).
Zia’s blasphemy law prescribed heavy fine or life imprisonment or capital punishment.

So there were three possibilities, but in 1990 when the elected government of Nawaz Sharif (i.e. not a military dictatorship) was in power, the Federal Shariah Court said the punishment for blasphemy should only be capital punishment.
…So I very seriously question any suggestion that Jinnah wanted and intended to set up a secular state.

And if he really had wanted a secular country, then his must have been a one-man constituency for no one else ever talked about that (secularism).
It’s only some of the crackpot Leftists like us, who talk about that because we live in delusions; we have spent virtually our lives in delusions and this happens to be our grand delusion.

The Communist Party bragged a lot about its plans (for the new State of Pakistan), but the very first statement of Governor General Muhammad Ali Jinnah, on 17 August 1947, was that there was a fifth column in the country looking towards Moscow and “we have to take care of them”.
So Marxists have been under fire in Pakistan right from day one. It’s a place that has never seen even ordinary democracy; where is the question of freedom for communist ideas?

Pakistan was NEVER a democratic state – not even for a day.
If at all Pakistan was a “democracy”, it was a “majoritarian democracy”. Don’t forget it was the elected government – not a dictator – that declared Ahmadis non-Muslim. (Dictator) Zia-ul-Haq only capitalized on that; he did not first do it.

So how can you say that he (Jinnah) wanted a secular state?
That’s the sad story.

Now, what is the way out?
As a political scientist, I suggest we go back to the Objectives Resolution…

Regarding the clauses like the one about “exemplary punishment,” affecting minorities… we need to ask them: Is this reasonably “exemplary punishment” that you catch hold of an Asia Bibi (the Christian woman from an underprivileged background, who was convicted of blasphemy by a Pakistani court and received a sentence of death by hanging in 2010) or other miserably poor people…
Even if she did say something (objectionable), where on earth is your forgiveness?

Don’t unlettered people engage in loose talk? In fact, the educated people are worse than them…
What’s all this? You are pouncing on an unfortunate and desperately poor woman… Where’s your sense of pity?

…So if you are serious about (dealing with) the Objectives Resolution, forget Jinnah and his 11 August speech – it means nothing.
What matters in terms of constitutional theory is what happened in the constituent assembly. That’s how constitutional theory is understood, not by a statement made by a great man.

So my dear friends, we have a Pakistan in which the battle is between Muslim modernism and Muslim fundamentalism.
The modernists have been losing because… it has come to be a rule that ‘wherever in trouble, invoke Islam’… whenever we get into trouble we take the cover of Islam and legislation in a manner so as to silence everybody…

(Dictator) Zia did that (Islamization) in a clumsy manner, but didn’t (democratically elected) Bhutto do it too?
(Zulfikar Ali Bhutto served as the 9th Prime Minister of Pakistan from 1973 to 1977, and prior to that as the 4th President of Pakistan from 1971 to 1973.)

(As a youngster) I used to run along with his truck at Lahore Railway Station (whenever Bhutto would visit Punjab)… thinking he was the man who would bring socialism in Pakistan.
(Ironically) The same Bhutto was responsible for declaring Ahmadis non-Muslim.

I think it’s morally wrong. You may not accept their (Ahmadis’) belief. That’s OK. Many of us don’t. But there are many things we don’t like.
I may be a staunch Sunni who may not like Shias’ mourning (of Muharram). So should we mete out the same treatment to Shias?

It doesn’t make any sense.
Belief (read ‘religion’) is something you are born into, mostly. Had I been born in an Ahmadi family, I would have had all that baggage in my…

…Having been born in a Sunni household, I have that (Sunni) training… (But) a human being is after all a human being…
So in my opinion these are the values we should talk about… that even Objective Resolution has been betrayed.

Jinnah’s speech was not betrayed because he had said many things – even telling Shabbir Ahmad Usmani that every bill would get their (Ulema’s) approval before being passed.
But what they (constituent assembly) said is what we have to consider.

Thank you very much.
-------
I have written and published an article, based on Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed's talk whose English transcript is given above. That article can be read here.
-----------
This post contains the following Web-links.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg0BOlb5HJE
2. https://kbforyou.blogspot.com/2018/10/jinnahs-secularist-speech-of-11-august.html


Towards a wipe-out of all cultures that exist in the world

$
0
0
Read this article by Iain Buchanan to get a better idea as to how Judeo-Christianity acts as the most evil ethnocidal force on Earth.

https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-the-north-sentinelese-question-2692916

The North Sentinelese Question

By Iain Buchanan, DNA, 07 Dec. 2018

The North Sentinel Island episode has been presented by the Evangelists and those supporting them mainly as another tragic case of missionary martyrdom at the hands of violent non-believers. There have been other such cases – for example, in China, Ecuador, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Somalia, and the Cameroons – and all have been presented as the deaths of innocents driven by love and peaceful intent.

But there is another perspective on such events. The martyred were not hapless do-gooders caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were knowing, willful, well-funded, and well-tutored agents of one of the biggest, richest, and most successful global industries to spring out of the Western world – the modern evangelical movement.

The modern evangelical movement has about half a million full-time workers, that sends out around three million short-term workers out every year. It has over 4,000 subsidiary agencies, an elaborate, highly developed, and tightly-integrated global management structure, a close partnership with the West’s most powerful governments, and the backing of the world’s largest corporations; and it has at its disposal at least $400 billion in liquid assets, a fleet of 200 aircraft, and over 300 million computers worldwide.

It has a computer intelligence system that has data-banked information on every community on earth down to the smallest village, and with this information – and all its associated resources – it targets every culture and every cultural sub-group on earth for conversion to evangelical Christianity. Much of its work is camouflaged, and to enable work within non-Western cultures most of its mission workers are now-white.

It is this enormous organization, and not John Allen Chau, that targeted the Sentinel Islands for special attention.

The North Sentinel affair raises a number of vital issues concerning human rights. Perhaps the most important is this: why is the Christian proselytisation of marginal communities still promoted, still possible, still indulged?

There are three answers - one political, one cultural, one religious. Politically, many marginal communities (especially remote tribal communities) live in strategically important areas – border regions, mineral-rich areas, timberlands, militarily significant zones, etc. Historically, Christian missions have been used to neutralize local opposition to imperial penetration.

Culturally, “civilization” abhors the survival of the “pre-civilized”– the nomadic, the pastoral, the Neolithic small tribe, etc. Civilized man is also an imperial man – subsistence alternatives must be co-opted, incorporated, controlled, and at the very least patronized. Part of the problem with complex industrial societies an intolerance of self-sufficient simplicity.

Religiously, the animism of such marginal communities poses a threat to theistic beliefs. This is a particular problem with evangelical Christianity, which has evolved a determined and doctrinaire response to “the other” – whether it be animist, secular, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist, “the other” must be converted. It is a tenet of evangelicalism that the Christian must spread the word: modern evangelicals have taken this a step further by creating a vast purpose-built industry for evangelizing each and every “unreached people group” on earth.

The North Sentinel Island residents are a particularly resistant example of such groups. As such, they challenge the certainty and the righteousness of the proselytizers.

There are many other resistant communities, large and small – from the major non-Christian religions to small tribes in the Amazon, the New Guinea uplands, or various Asian borderlands. The evangelical movement identifies over 3,000 cultural groups to be targeted for proselytization. Eventually, most of these will be penetrated and undermined – by a multitude of tactics, both overt and covert.

And they will be transformed for a very simple reason. Because the dominant global imperialism is still white and Christian – and because religious imperialism is always the handmaiden of secular imperialism.

And why the silence from the “Human Rights” industry? Because by and large, it is in cahoots with the proselytisers. Of course, there are local and independent activists fighting injustice in every country, but their voices are not widely broadcast or amplified. The loudest voices are those of the West’s “Human Rights” industry, which is closely embraced by a vast and complex machinery for shaping global and local activism to the West’s secular and religious agenda.

The two largest cogs in this machinery are World Vision and Youth With a Mission: both are deeply entrenched in the highest echelons of US politics (World Vision is effectively a branch of the US State Department, especially under the Democrats, and both groups are close to the Washington power-broking clique known as “The Family”); combined, the two agencies have almost 20,000 full-time workers working in over 170 countries in over 1,000 bases; both are extremely well funded (for years, World Vision’s budget exceeded the routine budget of the United Nations); and both have complex, diverse, and tightly-integrated corporate structures more powerful and more successful than many large global corporations.

Such agencies help define much of the “human rights” agenda through their close political connections, through their own “human rights” subsidiaries (such as World Vision’s International justice mission and Youth With A Mission’s Template Institute and International Reconciliation Coalition), and through a firm integration with the global corporate world.

In the case of the North Sentinel affair, these two agencies are organically linked to the main culprits in the field. The All Nations International ministry (of which John Allen Chau was an agent) was founded by Floyd Mcclung, one-time International Director of Youth with a Mission, and is now run by Mary Ho, who for many years was a World Vision manager in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

And the West has always been reluctant to enquire too deeply into the affairs of organised Christianity — both at home and overseas. Western culture is a deeply, subliminally Christian, and even committed secularists have trouble avoiding Christian parameters in their arguments, and often gloss over the Christian capacity for wrong-doing.

Among other things, this leads to a rather benign view of the behaviour of missionaries overseas — fed partly by ignorance, and partly by a sense that the Christian mission must be equated with civilisation. Such myopia has increased dramatically over the past 40 years, as the secular West has managed to define a global order largely in its own terms, with decisive help from its Christian missionaries. By contrast, of course, the behaviour of non-Christians (even other Abrahamic faiths like Islam) is scrutinised ruthlessly, misunderstood, and demonised.

India owes it to itself to go beyond the purely religious objection to Christian missionising, and examine the global forces which define it. These forces are subverting countries like India in a far more comprehensive and profound way than most people realise.

Most Western leaders (not just George W Bush and Tony Blair) have claimed in the past that they are inspired by their Christian beliefs. Sometimes, as with both Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush and even Trump they quote chapter and verse in support of their policy.

Certainly, deep in Washington, self-professedly Christian pressure groups (like the Fellowship Foundation and the Council for National Policy) have a highly influential membership and a powerful grip on policy. Of course, one can debate whether US strategy is manifestly Christian in inspiration — few Americans would say it is not, although most would probably insist that such strategy is guided primarily by secular concerns.

But there is no doubt at all that US strategy makes deliberate (and somewhat cynical) use of Christian agencies in pursuit of foreign policy — and that the distinction between the religious and the secular is deliberately blurred in the process. There are over 600 US-based evangelical groups, some as big as large corporations. Between them they constitute a vast and highly organised network of global influence, purposefully targeting non-Christians, and connecting and subverting every sector of life in the process.

Most of the major evangelical corporations (like World Vision, Campus Crusade, Youth With A Mission, and Samaritan’s Purse) operate in partnership with the US government in its pursuit of foreign policy goals. World Vision, which is effectively an arm of the State Department, is perhaps the most notable example of this. There is also the benefit of a custom-built legislation, with the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 providing necessary sanction to bring errant nations into line.

This means that evangelisation is an intensely secular pursuit, as well as a religious one. In turn, of course, the secular powers, whether they be departments of state or corporate businesses, find such evangelicals to be very effective partners.

Indeed, most missionaries are not obviously religious. A case in point is the Success Motivation industry. Many of the most popular ‘leadership gurus’ — Zig Ziglar, Paul Meyer, Os Hillman, Richard DeVos, John C. Maxwell, and Ken Blanchard, for example — are not just management experts, they are also evangelical Christians and conscious agents of US-style evangelisation.

Conversely, groups which, on the face of it, are primarily religious, may also serve a powerful secular agenda, such as the collection of intelligence, the grooming of political or commercial elites, or the manipulation of local conflicts.

So pity the poor Sentinelese. Like the Huaorani of Ecuador, or the Yanomami of Brazil, or the Hewa of New Guinea, or the Akha of Thailand or the Pashto of Afghanistan, they are now in the front lines of a war for the last few remnant souls of the unreached – and the “uncivilized.”
----------
The writer is the author of Sang Nila Utama and the Lion of Judah: Dominionism and Christian Zionism in Malaysia (2015) and The Armies of God: A Study in Militant Christianity (2011)
----------------

This blog post contains the following Web link.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/john-allen-chau-us-missionary-north-sentinel-killed-latest-india-a8659021.html

(A news-report headlined "John Allen Chau: US missionary killed by tribe on North Sentinel Island 'may not have acted alone'", filed by Adam Withnall of Independent, UK, reporting from New Delhi, 29 Nov. 2018.)


India -- not Pakistan -- is the original cradle of Islam and Islamism, and the original exporter of Islamic terror

$
0
0
India has long been the cradle of Islam and the source of the problem that Pakistan has congenitally been. I'd argue that India has been the most virulently Islamist country in the world since the 19th century, creating such Islamic madrasas as Deobandi and Barelvi, and such Islamic propaganda organizations as Tablighi Jamaat.

Deobandi madrasa nurtured the Taliban and a host of other terrorist organizations that currently exist in India and Pakistan. Barelvi madrasa produced Mumtaz Qadri who killed Punjab Governor Salman Taseer. Tablighi Jamaat has been linked to a number of terrorist massacres in Europe and the US.

India also allowed Pakistan to be spun off itself through an ethnic cleansing of Hindus/Sikhs in West Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), Sindh, Balochistan, and several general massacres of Hindus in East Bengal.

In fact, India has been the epicenter of the evil that goes by the name of Islam.

Islam has not only been nurtured but made to thrive in India -- specifically in the northern province of Uttar Pradesh -- through a colonial-imperial system in which the pagans of India (who are labelled 'Hindus') are demonized as sustainers of an 'unequal' society and worshipers of false gods, and so requiring to be set right by the 'noble' effects of Judeo-Christianity and Islam.

This colonial-imperial system is inherently Abrahamic and ethnocidal in its make-up, disapproving the syncretism and diversity of the Indian cultural matrix and valorizing the fraudulent Abrahamic concepts and mythologies.

I hope to publish some pieces in the near future to expand on the points laid out above.

The story of how India -- the supposed Dev-Bhumi for the millions -- encouraged and nurtured a ridiculous and barbarian Arab thinking called Islam has never been told to the Indians!

NEVER!

Someone has got to tell this horror story, which in its entirety would add up to be a big research project. I can only contribute my humble mite in the telling of this shameful story, the shame being India's.

For now you could read the following article written by a Pakistani partisan to get a flavour of this horror story that this 'Dev-Bhumi' of ours has long been.

This Pakistani partisan (whose view that Jinnah was a secularist I don't agree with) tells you that it was Indian National Congress that created "the first real terrorist group of the subcontinent i.e. Majlis-e-Ahrar".
-------------------

https://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/the-short-and-sordid-history-of-majlis-e-ahrar-e-islam-subcontinents-first-islamic-extremist-political-party/

The Short And Sordid History Of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam – Subcontinent’s First Islamic Extremist Political Party

By Yasser Latif Hamdani, Pak Tea House blog, 15 Nov. 2009

The role of Majlis-e-Ahrar (truly the real grandfather organization of all Islamic Extremist Parties in the subcontinent and also of all anti-Shia and anti-Ahmadi agitation in Pakistan subsequently) is the most significant when it comes to Militant Islam in the subcontinent.

This was a pre-partition body of Nationalist Muslims who had sided with the Congress throughout the independence movement and had been part of satyagraha (this is significant) at the time they believed in secular nationalism and secular India and in 1931 formed itself as a Indian Nationalist Muslim body, separate from the Congress, but always in support of it and in staunch opposition to the Muslim League.

It started its anti-Ahmaddiya movement in 1933 … when it clashed with All India Kashmir Committee – a rival organization fighting against Dogra Rule in Kashmir. Besides Dr. Muhammad “Allama” Iqbal (who was till 1933 or so probably an Ahmadi and whose father and elder brother were staunch Ahmadis), the AIKC consisted of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud – the second caliph of Jamaat Ahmaddiya… the rivalry of these two organizations turned Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam against the Ahmadis altogether.

(Ironically Bashiruddin Mahmud’s presidency of the said organization turned Dr. Iqbal against Ahmadis as well but that is another story.)

Majlis-e-Ahrar is clearly the oddest Islamic movement in the subcontinent… it was for “secular” and “united India”, was extremely anti-Ahmadi and was also fighting for “Madh-e-Sahaba” (or the honor of Sahaba) against Shias while its president – another significant point- was a Shia Muslim by the name of Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar.

So it was an Indian Nationalist “Secularist” anti-Ahmadi, anti-Shia, anti-Jinnah Movement led by a Shia Alim!!!! Ironies never cease. I hope my Indian friends are taking note: the Majlis-e-Ahrar was part and parcel of the Quit India Movement launched by the Congress and denounced the Muslim League for not taking part in it. Majlis-e-Ahrar’s greatest propaganda was against Mahomed Ali Jinnah … who they denounced as “Kafir-e-Azam”.

Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar  wrote the famous couplet: “Ik Kafira kay peechay Islam ko chora, Yeh Quaid-e-Azam hai kay Kafir-e-Azam”

Repeatedly Pakistan was described as “Palidistan”, “Kafiristan” and “Khakistan” by the Majlis-e-Ahrar. In 1946…. it’s candidates were soundly defeated by the Muslim League’s candidates. This is when Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar said “Madhe Sahaba can be a weapon against the League”- an obvious reference to Jinnah’s own background as a Khoja Shia Mahomedan.

(It is worthwhile to remember that Madhe-Sahaba is very much being used against Pakistan and Sipah-e-Sahaba is a direct result of this line of thinking).

When the Muslim League launched its Direct Action especially in Punjab against the Unionist government, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam logically remained completely aloof from it (This is also very significant- I’ll come to it later… because Muslim League’s short sighted policy in Punjab also met its come-uppance) .

The creation of Pakistan and partition of India in 1947 came as a complete shock to the Ahrar leadership. They went underground, resurfaced in May 1948, announced that they were disbanding as a political party and would continue as a religious group only. They also declared that in political matters they would take Muslim League’s lead but refused to join it on account of “unIslamic views” of Sir Zafrulla and Mian Iftikharuddin.

In Pind Daddan Khan in 1949, they raised two significant demands: 1. Ahmadis be declared Kafir. 2. No Non-muslims should be allowed to hold positions in the new state’s government (Please note above that till 1947, the same group was advocating a United Secular India and was completely fine with Hindus or any other group ruling India.

In 1949, the same year Sahibzada Faizul Hassan – another crook (who later hobnobbed with Ayub Khan) from the Majlis-e-Ahrar declared that: 1. All women without Purdah- especially Raana Liaqat Ali Khan- were prostitutes. 2. Muslim women were raped in East Punjab because Quaid-e-Azam wanted to be the governor general of Pakistan.

By 1950, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam began to reinvent itself politically. Their objective was to gain state power…. for this purpose alone they formed Majlis-e-Amal (consisting of religious parties) …. which raised again the demand that 1. Ahmadis be declared Non-Muslim 2. Zafrullah being a Non-Muslim should be thrown out of the government.

By 1953… they gave Khawaja Nazimuddin – the Prime Minister and the leader of the Muslim League- an ultimatum- either accept the demands or face civil disobedience i.e. “Raast-Iqdaam”… the plan for Raast Iqdam was modelled on the “Satyagraha” of the Quit India movement… with individuals offering themselves for arrest and so and so forth.

But what is significant is the name “Raast Iqdam”… Raast Iqdam translates neatly into English as “Direct Action”… Muslim League was getting a taste of its own medicine and in this one stroke, Mullahs were about hijack the Pakistan idea… the same Mullahs who had not only stayed away from the League’s Direct Action but had opposed the Pakistan Movement tooth and nail. Khawaja Nazimuddin – himself a veteran of the League’s Direct Action- knew that civil disobedience in the subcontinent was never peaceful immediately arrested crooks in chief the leaders of the Majlis-e-Amal which led to open rioting in Lahore.

Munir Report is the most significant document in Pakistan’s history. It establishes the roots of Anti-Ahmaddiya movement in the erstwhile anti-Pakistan forces amongst the Muslim clergy who now used the age-old dispute to weaken the new state. It also exposes shameless opportunists like Daultana- a feudal politician with otherwise a largely secular and left-leaning world view (a Punjabi forerunner of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) and a Punjab Leaguer- who encouraged the Ulema to strengthen his own position and then even had the audacity to suggest that it was happening because of Ahmadis’ attitude and because Pakistan had a vague religious basis for creation which gave too much power to the Mullahs.

The last statement is significant, however. There was nothing vague about what Jinnah said on 11th August or repeatedly about the principle of equal citizenship… but the Muslim League leaders subsequently (including Sir Zafrulla himself) did deliberately create the vague religious basis legally when they passed the Objectives Resolution.

However Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly had also passed a resolution promising equal citizenship without any bar and the right to profess and propagate one’s religion without any fear. And there was nothing vague about Nehru-Liaqat Pact between India and Pakistan, wherein, largely on Pakistan’s suggestion, the same principle was embodied. The Munir Report’s statement that “a party even of the background of Ahrar could bring down a government in the name of religion in Pakistan” … shows how urgent it was for Pakistan to be declared a secular state.

Furthermore, I think the pre-partition politics of civil disobedience of both Congress and the League was totally disastrous… and here one must give Congress the credit of having spawned, funded and encouraged what in my opinion was the first real terrorist group of the subcontinent i.e. Majlis-e-Ahrar.

Given that LeT chief Hafiz Saeed is “intellectually and morally inspired” by Maulana Ataullah Shah Bokhari of the Majlis-e-Ahrar, not just Pakistanis but Indians are paying for the Congress’ encouragement of the Mullahs starting with the Khilafat movement and which continued throughout the 1930s and 1940s.

Khawaja Nazimuddin, who was a profoundly religious man himself, refused the demands saying that the issue of whether Ahmadis are Muslim or not is up to the constituent assembly and two that Zafrulla was appointed by Jinnah himself and there was no way a Muslim Leaguer would remove him.

Pakistan today faces the same old enemy yet again but on a much magnified scale.  Pakistan must make a clear break with the crooks, cranks and madmen who continue to stab it in the back.    This battle is one that has to be fought on an ideological plane much more than on a military front.

Today Pakistan’s very existence is at stake because these crooks, cranks and madmen and their ideologies strike at the root of Jinnah’s Pakistan- a return to which idea can alone save us from our humiliation.
------------

You are not homo economicus

$
0
0
You (and I) are not homo economicus (the economic man/woman).
Homo economicus does not exist, has never existed, and is not likely ever to exist.
If homo economicus does not exist, do 'economy' and 'economics' have any meaning?
Considering that the concept termed 'economy' has been abstracted from another grotesque concept called 'polity', does 'homo politicus' exist?
What is that state of wholeness (i.e. un-abstract-ness) that needs to be named here, to which a human being has always belonged and will continue to belong?
How did we all come to be imprisoned in the twin bubbles of unreality, i.e. the abstract domains of the 'economic' and the 'political'?
How do we get out?
……….
This videofeatures a puppet show in which three students challenge outdated economics by debating with their professor the nature of humankind.
If you prefer a briefer and plainer message (sans the puppet show), listen to Herman Daly in
this video clip. ------------------------------------------ This post contains hyperlinks with the following URLs in their order of occurrence. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx13E8-zUtA&t= 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXdQGgiKP5k

Help me sniff out meat of the most rotten kind!

$
0
0
Cow is not mata (just like Bharat is not mata); it's meat growing on four legs.
We humans are also meat growing on two legs, but we are meat with sensibility who seek 'equality' and 'rights'. All kinds of meat are equal, but some kinds are more equal than others. It's a very fleshy and sinewy philosophy of 'progressivism'.
The 'progress' in 'progressivism' is the Greek or Latin root-word for either 'beef' or 'mutton'. And we all know what 'ism' is; don't we? I mean 'ism' as in Marx-'ism', femin-'ism', egalitarian-'ism', malaprop-'ism', Hindu-'ism', kapil-'ism', etc.
(If you are reading this post, you are engaging in a bit of kapil-'ism'.)
So meat is pretty central to the philosophy of 'progressivism' which fights against the Hindu-Right Wing-Manuvadi-Brahmanical fascism, supremacism, racism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, chauvinism, misogyny, patriarchy, etc. in order to bring about 'equality' and 'rights' for all kinds of meat found on Earth.
The meat of the matter is that we've got to fight the Hindu-Right Wing-Manuvadi-Brahmanical meat of the most rotten kind in order to establish 'equality' on Earth.
Sometimes we can witness some kinds of meat covered in black robes in order to fight the aforementioned meat of the most rotten kind. It's all part of the game. Handling different kinds of meat is, of course, a subtle and delicate art.
No less subtle and delicate is the art of sniffing out the rotten meat. Sometimes the Hindu-Right Wing-Manuvadi-Brahmanical meat (of the most rotten kind) disguises itself as perfectly mouth-watering and 'progressive' kind of meat (like 'mutton dressed as lamb' sans the Hindu-Right Wing-Manuvadi-Brahmanical misogyny and male chauvinism latent in this English phrase).
The nauseating Hindu-Right Wing-Manuvadi-Brahmanical meat is also known to have the capacity for contaminating, sometimes, the well established and widely regarded meat of the most 'progressive' kind.
I don't feel too comfortable, for instance, with the tweet as well as the article copied below for some reason (even though both seem to originate in quite well-known progressive kinds of meat). Do give it a thorough read for any signs of loathsome meat of the Hindu-Right Wing-Manuvadi-Brahmanical kind.
Thanks.
--------------
https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1079697213708734464
Jason Hickel
@jasonhickel
Pondering #NewYearsResolutions in an age of climate breakdown?  Here are three easy ones:
1) Switch your home (and workplace!) to a clean energy provider.
2) Liberate your diet from beef and lamb.
3) Move your money to a fossil-free bank (in the UK: Nationwide, Triodos, Co-Op).
3:14 AM - 31 Dec 2018
---------
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-beef-millions-slash-emissions-wef.html
Drop beef and save millions of lives, slash emissions: WEF
January 3, 2019, Phys.org
Switching from beef to alternative proteins could save millions of lives and dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions, the World Economic Forum said Thursday.
New research conducted by the Oxford Martin School for WEF showed that efforts to replace meat and especially beef could provide huge benefits for human health and the environment.
The organisation, famous for the plush gathering of the world's rich, famous and influential at the luxury Swiss ski resort of Davos each January, said 2.4 percent of global diet-related deaths could be avoided by moving away from beef.
And for wealthier countries, a full five percent of such deaths could be avoided, according to the shool's white paper "Alternative proteins".
"The most positive effects are found in wealthier countries, where beef consumption is high and where there is a particular benefit of consuming more fibre," it found.
The paper did not provide figures on how many people are estimated to die annually from diet-related causes, nor what diseases or conditions were included in that category, but WEF maintained that switching from meat "could prevent millions of unnecessary deaths per year."
It also pointed out that demand for meat is projected to keep growing even as the global population is predicted to swell to 10 billion around the middle of this century.
Not sustainable
"It will be impossible to sustainably satisfy the world's future demand for meat," WEF managing director Dominic Waughray said in the statement.
He stressed that "innovation in products, improvements in how we produce beef, pork and chicken, and an effort on the part of the consumer to embrace a more diverse diet," could make it possible to improve global health, even without giving up meat altogether.
The report analysed 13 sources of protein, including beef, pork and chicken, along with fruits and vegetables such as beans, processed non-animal substitutes like tofu, and novel products including insects.
It found that switching from meat to alternative proteins could have both a negative and a positive effect on nutrient intake, but that overall, increasing consumption of alternatives offered health improvements.
Beans, mycoprotein and peas offered the biggest health boost, with the possibility to reduce mortality rates by up to seven percent, it found.
The white paper also highlighted 2010 data showing that beef production alone accounts for a quarter of all food-related greenhouse gas emissions, stressing that soaring protein demand could put huge pressure on the environment unless alternatives are found.
Livestock farming poses a triple threat to Earth's atmosphere, as animals produce huge amounts of the greenhouse gas methane, coupled with the loss of carbon-absorbing forests that are felled to open grazing areas.
Immense amounts of water are also needed to sustain the livestock.
"The evidence is clear, our food system needs to be transformed for the sake of our planet and the future of humankind," said WEF International head Marco Lambertini in a statement.
"We are the last generation that can do something about this before the system collapses."
--------------------

I am so relieved Seema Chishti is safe after calling Ramayana a "fantasy peddled by a TV serial"

$
0
0
Sitaram Yechury's wife thinks Ramayana is "fantasy" peddled by the TV serial Ramayana

"The fantasy peddled by the TV serial Ramayana is fulfilled by Advani’s Toyota rath yatra in 1990..." 
(The Hate We Give, The Indian Express, 12 Jan. 2019).

(Seema Chishti's 'fantastically' named husband should have even stronger reason to be embarrassed by his origins, this time by the kinky tastes of his parents who named him!)  

I am so relieved and thankful that Seema Chishti said this in India, not Pakistan, and has directed her comment at a non-Muslim tradition, not a Muslim one or at Islam. 

She might have invited Section 295A of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) with up to 10 years imprisonment, or fine, or both -- if she had not been lynched, that is, and would probably have to flee the country (as Asia Bibi has reportedly been intending) after serving her prison sentence, if she had not been lynched inside jail, that is.

Even during lock-up, before even an FIR had been registered against Seema Chishti, there might have been riots and arson; a mob might have attacked the police station baying for her blood (a la the case of a 'Hindu' man accused of blasphemy in Balochistan in May 2017).

(To be fair to Pakistanis, a murderous mob could have laid siege to the police station in India too, as one did in Basirhat in West Bengal in July 2017, demanding that a 'Hindu' teenager accused of 'insulting' Muhammad be handed over to them, but such a capitulation is still less likely in India than it has been in Pakistan -- and a blasphemy-related siege of a police station even less likely at least in a non-Muslim context. Indian Muslims also kill their blasphemers, atheists and apostates, like they killed H. Farook in Tamil Nadu in March 2017, but such reports are still way fewer than in Pakistan.)

Had the Governor of a province of Pakistan spoken in Seema Chishti's defence, he would have been killed  and his killer would have been hero-worshipped as a 'Ghazi' of Islam, immortalized with a special tomb (a la the 'mazar' in Lahore of Ghazi Ilm-ud-Din who was convicted of murdering in 1929 a 'Hindu' publisher accused of 'insulting' Muhammad.)

The lawyer defending Seema Chishti would have had to flee Pakistan for his life.

Even if Seema Chishti had been acquitted by law-courts, Prime Minister Imran Khan would have had to do a 'national address' on TV to warn the lynch mobs to desist from carrying out their murderous intent. 

I am so relieved and grateful that Seema Chishti has not called Angel Jibreel -- created from light with "600 wings, with pearls, rubies and diamonds dripping from each wing," who brought Quran's surahs to Muhammad -- a "fantasy" peddled by Quran, a 'book' that promises believing men 72 virgins in Islamic paradise. 

(The believing women in Islamic paradise would probably be tasked with changing the bedsheets, fixing drinks, stitching clothes, and such other befittingly dignified work.)

I am so grateful Seema Chishti has not called Jinns a "fantasy" peddled by Quran, which describes Jinns as being "created aforetime from the smokeless flame o fire.” 
(Not to mention the typology of Jinns as described by Imam At-Tahawi in Mushkil Al-’Athar: "A type that has wings and they fly through the air; a type that looks like snakes and dogs; and a type that stops for a rest then resumes its journey.”)

I am so glad that Sitaram Yechury's wife has neither termed Isra and Mi'raj a "fantasy" peddled by Hadith - during which a flying horse carried Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem - nor 'splitting of the moon into two'as cited in the Quran

I am delighted that Seema Chishti has refrained from describing Iblees (Shaitan) a "fantasy" peddled by Quran which says "Iblees refused to prostrate before Adam" and was thus deemed satanic by Allah. (Adam, as we all know, was the first man, one of whose ribs was used to create Eve.)

I am also relieved that Seema Chishti has not called the books of Hadith (sexual) "fantasy" for being replete with such material as Muhammad's young bride Aisha reporting that he used to "fondle" her during menses (Sahih al-Bukhari Book 6 Hadith 298) or Abu Sirma describing Muhammad's advice on azl (coitus interruptus) to his soldiers intending to rape captive women (also very interestingly commented upon by Tayyab Sardar, a Pakistani-Punjabi in this YouTube video).

I am thankful that Seema Chishti is safe!

Viewing all 287 articles
Browse latest View live