Of Noble, Ignoble and Ignoramous Hindus
By Sid Harth
Thanks to the Hindu dated March 22, 2000.
I am not at all surprised at an instance of one Neanderthal nincompoop calling my sister, Malini, not that bimbo in a Mafia limbo, Malini Gupta, you silly, Malini Parthasarathy, executive editor of Hindu a traitor, anti Hindu. Such is the nature of our fucked up feces fascists who cannot stand the reality and are incapable to see the truth.
The real Hindus, among them one named Asghar Ali Engineer, a Shia Muslim of Bombay fight for the equality, justice and reforms of the decadent system and political feudalism, yeah, feuding among the filthy Hindus, including but not limited to the sewer rats called RSS fascists, them too.
Dr. Vir Bhadra Misra of Varanasi, Benaras for you, calls holy river Ganges a gutter, another word for sewer but devotes all his talent and energies to improve it not just worship it. Kiran Bedi takes up the causes of the downtrodden and poor who are incarcerated and punished because they cannot understand the law or too intimidated to challenge it.
Asghar Ali's manhandling by bunch of Bohra thugs became a rallying cry for Hindu hoodlums. Strange as it sounds, BJP and Shiv Sena heavies were pushing the envelope to call for quick justice against the assailants of Asghar. Why so much love and admiration for a Muslim? No love, mind you, just opportunistic attitude glossing over customary atavistic attitude.
Look at how lucid Asghar Ali Engineer writes, just a sample.
Nation-state, religion & identity
By Asghar Ali Engineer
THERE HAS been lot of discussion about the nation-state in the 20th century and yet there is no unanimity of views on this controversial subject. The concept of nation-state becomes all the more controversial in a country which lacks religious, cultural and linguistic homogeneity. The classical nation-state came into existence in Europe on the basis of a shared linguistic and cultural heritage and future economic vision. That was not the case in colonised countries in Asia and Africa. The colonial powers did not establish their empires in religiously and linguistically homogeneous areas but wherever they could capture power. These administratively-unified areas became a nation-state when the colonial masters left.
In India, severe conflict took place over the concept of nation- state when the colonial power was about to leave. The Muslim League, which claimed to be the sole representative of the Indian Muslims, rejected the concept of composite nationalism and advanced the theory of religious nationalism. In fact, the idea of religious nationalism was mooted for the first time on the Indian subcontinent. Till then, nationalism was associated with shared history, culture, language and ethnicity. And, the theory of religious nationalism was advanced by the secular elite of the Muslim community and not by its religious leadership.
The two-nation theory was born more out of political considerations than religion. It was result of competition for power between the secular elites of the two communities rather than justified by the theology of Islam or Hinduism. The Muslim religious leaders opposed the theory and justified composite nationalism on religious ground. Territory and not religion forms the basis of nationalism, they argued. The most articulate theorist among those who rejected religious nationalism was Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani of the Deoband school.
Among Hindus too it was not the religious leadership which justified the two-nation theory but the `secular' leadership led by Savarkar and others. Neither the Muslim League nor the Hindu Mahasabha was a religious party. The leaders of Hindu Mahasabha agreed with Jinnah and his Muslim League that Hindus and Muslims were two different `nations'. It is a different thing that the Hindu Mahasabha, unlike the Muslim League, did not demand partition. It stood for ``Akhand Bharat'' under Hindu hegemony.
The theory of religious nationalism has been thoroughly discredited. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani was well aware of the problems and he raised them in his seminal book ``Muttahida Qaumiyyat aur Islam'' (Composite Nationalism and Islam). There are several Muslim nations today in the post-colonial world. If Islam was to be the basis of nationalism, there should have been only one nation. It is territorially impossible, one can argue, there being no contiguity. Even if this argument is theoretically accepted, the question arises: why don't countries which have territorial contiguity - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and several of the central Asian nations, and several Arab countries - merge into one nation?
No Muslim country will ever take such an idea seriously. An attempt was made during Nasser's time to merge Egypt, Syria and Libya and create a United Arab Republic in the early Seventies. Though all three were overwhelmingly Muslim and Arab countries the union did not last more than a couple of years, though even the language( Arabic) was the same. When the Saudi King objected to Nasser's use of the term `Arab nationalism', and suggested instead `Islamic Umma', Nasser asked what was common between an Arab Muslim and an Indonesian Muslim except for religion? How could they come together politically?
The question of identity is of primary importance in the formation of a nation. What then is the basis of identity? Identity, most commonly, is based on a shared sense of history, culture and language. Religion may or may not be common. Religion alone cannot provide a viable and cohesive base for common nationalism. In the classical European model too, though Christianity was a common factor Europe was divided into different nations on linguistic and cultural basis. Thus in the formation of a nation a common language, culture and a sense of a shared history play quite an important role.
In the case of Malaysia, Malay nationalism, apart from Islam, plays an important role. Malay identity to them is as important as their religious identity. In fact, it is difficult to make a distinction between their Malay and Islamic identities. This identity is unique to them which they cannot share with other Muslims in Malaysia or elsewhere. There are non-Malay Muslims in Malaysia. They are of Indian origin but they have a very different sense of identity from the Malay Muslims.
Malaysia is a pluralist country like India. There are Chinese, non-Malay Muslims, Christians and Hindus. Malay Muslims constitute the largest group at 45 per cent. The Chinese are about 37 per cent. The Malay Muslims, unlike the majority Hindus in India, are socially, educationally and economically a highly deprived group. It is the Chinese who are educationally and economically dominant. The Malay Muslims organised under the banner of Malay Islam and fought for their rights. They came mostly from rural areas. The revivalist movement represented the aspirations of these rural Malay Muslims. The revivalist movement could easily be co-opted by the state by giving concessions to Malay Muslims. Thus Malaysian Islam has its own unique cultural characteristics and Malay nationalism does not share a sense of common cultural and historical heritage with other Muslims in or outside Malaysia.
Indonesian Islam has again its own unique cultural and historical characteristics. Hinduism was a dominant force in Indonesia during the early medieval period and hence there is greater impact of Hinduism on Indonesian Islam, particularly Javanese Islam. Bhasa Indonesia has several words of Sanskrit origin and Hindu names such as Sinta (Sita) and Lakshmi are quite common among the Muslims in Indonesia. Similarly names such as Ram and Vishnu are common among Muslim men. Indoneisa's President, Mr. Abdurrahman Wahid, once told me at a seminar in Jogjakarta that the greatest preacher of Islam in Indonesia was one Maulana Vishnu. These are unique socio-cultural characteristics of Islam in different countries and Muslims and non-Muslims in these countries have a shared sense of culture and history; and it this which imparts them a common sense of national identity.
All these examples clearly bring out the fact that political unity and the sense of a common nationhood need not depend on religious unity but on political, historical and cultural factors. Religious nationalism is not a viable category as the same religion can be, and often is, embraced by different racial, ethnic and cultural groups. Religion, it should be remembered, is a spiritual and moral category whereas nationalism is a political-cum-territorial category. The two should not be confused. A composite culture can be a more viable base for nationalism than religion alone. Religion provides for a common spiritual experience and shared moral and ethical vision whereas nationalism provides for shared political concerns, cultural practices and historical heritage. South Asia had such a common heritage. Its division was brought about by extraneous factors such as British imperial policies rather than by differences of religion. A South Asian confederation is a must for this region to usher in peace and prosperity.
Asghar is a remarkable man and Malini Parthasarathy is a remarkable woman, so are Kiran Bedi, Dr. Vir Bhadra Misra, and Arvind Dave. Last month they were awarded honor and monetary prizes for who they are and what they do. In Jaipur Maharana Mewar Foundation instituted such awards after Col. James Tod. Among the reciepients as mentioned above was one Sir Vidiadhur Surajpasand Naipaul a non Indian who became famous criticizing the pathetic Hindu culture and more so after he decided to throw pathetic Muslim culture to dogs.
Sid Harth..."While all these good Hindus are walking an extra mile what the computer coolies of California doing? Fornicating, fabricating, conspiring, conniving, lying, and being pathetic pests of the kind of rats carrying black plague on their filthy sewer soaked pelts. In other words, ef-ucking their em-amas."
FastCounter by LinkExchange
