Muslims, India and Hindu Nationalists
A Response to Pankaj Mishra
Vinod Kumar
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.
WHY?
"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)
Interesting point:
"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:
Some quotes:
"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.
Vinod
Sept 15, 2003
@ Copyright