Muslims, India and Hindu Nationalists
A Response to Pankaj Mishra
The following was posted on an internet group
September 15, 2003
This is a long post but there is some interesting
information in it.
There are many interesting points in Pankaj Mishra's article:
1. As Ashokji has already noted in his comments "2000 mostly Muslims were killed" seems to be a favorite phrase in the secular agenda. Why are they afraid of doing some homework and give details as Ashokji has given. I am sure if they did some honest research they would come up with the same numbers.
But then this would involve some work and lose its communal appeal and not get published. Who wants that?
2. He wrote ""So the surprising thing, perhaps, is not that militant groups like
the Gujarat Muslim Revenge Force are now emerging in India, but that it
has taken so long"' -- So it is surprising that it took Muslims so long to take revenge of Gujarat!!!
In his eyes It is perfectly justified for the Muslims to take revenge and not for the Hindus to do so.
Is Muslims' revenge justified because the Koran asks them to do so
"Believers retaliation is decreed for you in bloodshed: a free man for a free man, a slave for a slave and a female for a female." (2:178)
But Hindus are expected to let themselves be killed -- as advised by the GREAT MAHATMA.
It is perfectly OK for the Muslims to riot and kill Hindus across India when one Babri structure is demolished but it is wrong for the Hindus to do anything about the temples demolished by the Muslims. Makes perfect sense. Otherwise how would the world know we are Hindus?
3. "" Yet while religious violence has made the Indonesian government
cautious in its dealings with both radical Islamists and the Bush
administration, the Hindu nationalists in New Delhi and the provinces
seem eager to expand the Indian Muslim list of grievances."" Wrote Mishra
Today the excuse for the Muslims' grievances is "the Hindu nationalists in New Delhi". In 1946 when the MUSLIMS OF INDIA voted for Pakistan? What were their grievances against the Secular Congress party and the MAHATMA?
"'With general elections next year, the nationalists are unlikely to
tone down their anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan language. Muslims
pondering their fate in Hindu- nationalist-ruled India will feel only a
greater sense of isolation and impotence"' wrote Mishra
The nationalists are "anti-Muslim" -- was Congress also anti-Muslim?
4. ""It may be that most Indian Muslims are too poor and downtrodden to
join radical causes elsewhere'' wrote Mishra
Where is the refrain that Muslims join the radical movements because they are poor and downtrodden?
Is it a recent phenomenon or is the BJP cause of it?
Muslims in India have always regarded themselves as separate from the rest of the population.
They were rulers and they ruled the Hindus for centuries. But when the British came, being unable to compete fairly with the Hindus, their share of "being rulers" declined.
I quote the following from a book edited by Mushirul Hasan:
For example, the Muslim proportion of the provincial civil service was over double their proportion of population. Figures supplied to the 1913 Royal Commission
on the Public Services in India show that the Muslims held 34.7% of appointments in UP against 60% held by the Hindus. In the executive branch Muslims occupied 41.3% of positions in 1913 against 48.6% held by Hindus.
(Comment -- The Muslims never complained that the British were unfair in giving such high percentage of jobs to Muslims -- neither any of bleeding heart "SECULARISTS"
Muslim population was around 16 - 17%.)
"Taking a broad picture first, the census of 1911 indicates that out of the total of 123,022 persons engaged in the 'services of the state' 53.0% were Hindus and 41.94% were Muslims, and out of 85,623 police, 44.71% were Hindus and 50.33% were Muslims. Muslims had clearly a disproportionate share of overall government employment....
But then the things start to change.
The problems facing the Muslims elite of the UP in the first decade of the 20th century were daunting. Economically they were shaky, in that the three basic occupations on which they relied -- executive positions in the PCS, the middle ranking positions in the police force and zamindari -- the first were vulnerable, and the latter (outside Oudh) was of declining value.
"They were not participating in modernizing education at the same rate as the Hindus, and their mother tongue, Urdu, was being attacked in its role as sole official vernacular language by Hindu enthusiasts."
(Damn BJP was active even then! )
It goes on to write:
"Muslims had achieved an almost fixed share in recruitment to the ICS because although most Muslim candidates COULD NOT SCORE GRADES EQUIVALENT TO THEIR HINDU COMPETITIONS, THEY WERE NOMINATED UP TO A FIXED PROPORTIONS OF THE VACANCIES."
(Damn Hindu nationalist BJP was active and would not let the Muslims go to schools and get educated)
"Whilst realizing that it is impracticable for a definite communal proportion to be maintained in all services, we agree with our Muslim colleagues that, as far as possible, one-third of the appointments in the government services should be given to Muhamammadans."
Are Muslims short of education in "Hindu nationalist BJP" ruled India alone? Have they been reduced to this condition in the last four or five years? What about UK? What is their situation there?
But anyway Hindu nationalist BJP is a good horse to beat upon.
"Of the 87 Muslims to enter the ICS between 1922 and 1943, 29 were successful at the examinations, the remaining 58 had been nominated to the service to retain the communal balance." (Potter, 'Manpower Shortage', p. 56. Quoted as footnote in the book.
In another chapter on Hyderabad Hindu Muslims situation:
"Last but not the least, there are grounds for thinking that the Nizam's rule affected Hindus more adversely than Muslims. In 1931 Hindus comprised 84% of Hyderabad subjects while Muslims made up just 20%; yet Muslims dominated the government and enjoyed a disproportionate share of its bounty. For example, they held three out of four gazzeted appointments in the public service, occupied one in three places in State run schools and colleges, and consumed 94% of Ecclesiastical Department's budget for religious charities."
"During the 1930s the Ecclesiastical Dept. spent an annual average of Rs. 300,000 on Islamic charities, Rs. 15,000 on Christian charities and Rs. 3000 on Hindus charities. Other large sums were expended on Islamic institutions abroad. Between 1926 and 1932 RS. 10,000,000 was given to Aligarh University, Rs. 500,000 to London Mosque, Rs. 100,000 to Jama masjid in Delhi, Rs. 100,000 to a mosque in Palestine, Rs. 80,000 to a Muslim association in Turkey, and Rs. 232,000 to the travelling expenses of Muslims going to Mecca.
(Gen Sec. Hindu Mahasabha, to Pol. Sec. Govt. of INdia, 24 Dec. 1936, Mahasabha Papers, file R-& of 1936-7, NMML; The Tribune, 7 June 1939; and BS MUnje to BN DE, 13 Feb. 1938, Munje Papers, Subject file 47, NMML)
It goes on to write:
"In fact the Hindus were doubly penalized because it was their money which mainly underwrite the Darbar's largesse."
No personal comments -- this is just for information. Except that as Hindus we should forget what was done to us and beat ourselves with everything at our disposal or not giving whatever wealth we generate to the Muslims.
Sept 15, 2003