Hasina and Bangladesh

- Ramesh Mukhopadhyay

The smashing victory of Hasina in Bangladesh is no less remarkable than the victory of Obama in the USA With the victory of Obama the blacks have got identity all over the globe Hence forth their voice will matter more than ever It might hit hard the white chauvinism and the establishment of the Christian church Hasinas overwhelming victory will hit hard the Islamic fundamentalism that rocks the world Here a word or two about Islamic fundamentalism would not be out of place Evidence is there that Hajrat Muhammad lived with the Jews as well as Christians in amity And the Quran Sharif says that God has no intention to fool any people Hence God sends a prophet to every tongue or language Hajrat Muhammad was however was very much against idol worship which was from his standpoint another name for materialism Who is a Mussalman? According to Islam one who has submitted his body mind and soul to God is a true Mussalman B e that as it may history is the witness of religious wars or crusades between the Christians and Muslims Besides with the conquest of Mecca by Hajrat Muhammad Islam moved from strength to strength and conquered the greater part of Asia and Europe Their rule extended as far as Spain in Europe And everywhere they caused great devastations To kill infidels they believed was an act of piety This doesnot portray them any more tyrannical than the ancient Greeks or todays Christian capitalism Tyrannical though they were it were they who preserved ancient Greek culture during the Middle Ages when the so called barbarians had their field in Europe during the Middle Age Such classics as Aristotle were preserved in Arabic translation It was chiefly the scholars of king Charlemagnes court who retranslated them into European vernacular Had not Islam preserved the ancient Hellenic lore and had it not been translated into European llanguages the Renaissance of which Europe boasts would not take place In india also they let loose cruelty Despite that it were they who carried the notion of the digit zero abroad Besides their rule in India cannot be called fundamentalist in the right sense of the term True that they destroyed numerous temples They insulted the Hindus in many ways Despite Islam in India was not fundamentalist The rulers in India like Alauddin Or Muhammad Bin Tughlaq didnot establish an Islamic state or theocratic state Not even Aurangzib They may have been devoted Mussalmans But they were absolute monarchs They didnot consult the Shariat or Hadish at every step That the Moslem rulers were not fundamentalist is best illustrated by the career of Akbar Akbar gave up Islam for a religion engineered by himself which is known as Din Ilahi Din Ilahi sought to assemble all the good things of every religion May be it was a pragmatist ploy But can any head of an Islamic state do that now a days without being threatened His life will be at stake But in India Islam was not like that It was Akbar who granted approx 500 acres of land where the Sikh Golden temple was built Even Aurangzib donated land to Jains Religious fundamentalism has not as yet raised its hydrahead in India . thank God But whatever Islamic fundamentalism we find here has been the consequence of British rule and the develpment of so called communication system With the British rule communication system developed and there was the slogan of Pan Islamism Earlier the Indian Moslems looked upon India as their home But with the advent of the British and developed communication they became homeless or rather Islam became their home Or else they think that they are among infidels and they must wipe them off and the country must be ruled according to the dictates of Islam Here I want to highlight two things One those who glory over the developed communication system through internet and the like should remember that the so called development of communication system has always been catalyst in developing fundamentalism Secondly Islamic fundamentalism is no more cruel than communist fundamentalism and the christian capitalist fundamentalism I will not tarry long on the latter But let me point out that the globalisation does not intend to leave even the culture of the poorest tribe to themselves unhurt Think of the Jaroas of Andaman They proved themselves wiser than the finest scientists of the world be he from Cambridge or Harvard Because it were the Jarowas who got the premonition of Tsunami that rocked the coasts of the Bay of Bengal But the scientist will not learn anything from them A day must come when the knowledge wallas will lie at the feet of these illiterate so called barbarians Do you know how they are being protected in Andaman They live in a preserved forest and visitors go to them the very way we visit the zoo and see the animals What man has made of man Down with technology Down with civilization Secondly what has happened to the civilised man Ateacher teaches the children in the class S/he is being watched by the Headmistress seated in her chamber This is the panopticon of Bentham which has been brought to the foreground Foucault in modern times We civilised men have turned into the animals osf a zoo And this process perhaps unknowingly stated when civilisation invented the zoo Let me now switch to another point With the advent of the British Pan Islamism was so popular among quite a few that one of the founders of Communism in India claims that Pan Islamism inspired the first communists to understand the tenets of communism Dont look askance at me When Ataturk Kamal Pasha did away with the institution of Khalifa a band of Mussalmans trekked away from India with a view to reaching Turkey and telling the Moslems there that there should be quarrel among Moslem brothers On the road through machinations of M.N Roy they were stopped at Turkey and brainwashed into communists Onlookers commented that they didnot have the rudiments of political thought and that is why they were baptised bythe Soviet Russia In retort Mujaffar Ahmed who belonged to that band and who is the author of the history oof the beginnings of communism in India says that they had the idea of Pan Islamism And he is right Any thing with the prefix pan is equally torturesome unless it is pan chaos or confusion Be that as it may Pan Islamism couldnot impress everyone in lndia Let me give you the instance of Kashmir It was a princely state where the ruler was Hindu and 75% of the subjects were Moslems The freedom movement that rocked all over India under the august leadership of Mahatma Gandhi did not raise any ripple in Kashmir The Moslems in Kashmir didnot want to abolish Hindu \Monarchy there But they organised a powerful movement to realise constitutional monarchy To that end they gathered and forged a political outfit which was at the outset named Muslim Conference The very next year the name was changed into National Conference There were more than hundred founder members of the Conference Among them there was only one Hindu Despite that all the founder members excepting one voted for the name National Conference Iam not here to write the history of modern Kashmir But my point is that when all is said and done Muslims in India were not fundamentalists It was the National Conference that didnot accept two nation theory If the Moslems of Kashmir were against India Jayanta Chaudhuri could not defeat the newly born Pakistan on the banks of Jhelum Despite all these the developmewnt of communication system and onward march of capitalism has made a dent on India Beyond India all over the non muslim globe shakes in fear of Muslim fundamentalism Now let us return to pre partition India to explore another axis of our discussion contd The smashing victory of Hasina in Bangladesh is no less remarkable than the victory of Obama in the USA With the victory of Obama the blacks have got identity all over the globe Hence forth their voice will matter more than ever It might hit hard the white chauvinism and the establishment of the Christian church Hasinas overwhelming victory will hit hard the Islamic fundamentalism that rocks the world Here a word or two about Islamic fundamentalism would not be out of place Evidence is there that Hajrat Muhammad lived with the Jews as well as Christians in amity And the Quran Sharif says that God has no intention to fool any people Hence God sends a prophet to every tongue or language Hajrat Muhammad was however was very much against idol worship which was from his standpoint another name for materialism Who is a Mussalman? According to Islam one who has submitted his body mind and soul is a true Mussalman B e that as it may history is the witness of religious wars or crusades between the Christians and Muslims Besides with the conquest of Mecca by Hajrat Muhammad Islam moved from strength to strength and conquered the greater part of Asia and Europe Their rule extended as far as Spain in Europe And everywhere they caused great devastations To kill infidels they believed was an act of piety This doesnot portray them any more tyrannical than the ancient Greeks or todays Christian capitalism Tyrannical though they were it were they who preserved ancient Greek culture during the Middle Ages when the so called barbarians had their field in Europe during the Middle Age Such classics as Aristotle were preserved in Arabic translation It was chiefly the scholars of king Charlemagnes court who retranslated them into European vernacular Had not Islam preserved the ancient Hellenic lore and had it not been translated into European llanguages the Renaissance of which Europe boasts would not take place In india also they let loose cruelty Despite that it were they who carried the notion of the digit zero abroad Besides their rule in India cannot be called fundamentalist in the right sense of the term True that they destroyed numerous temples They insulted the Hindus in many ways Despite Islam in India was not fundamentalist The rulers in India like Alauddin Or Muhammad Bin Tughlaq didnot establish an Islamic state or theocratic state Not even Aurangzib They may have been devoted Mussalmans But they were absolute monarchs They didnot consult the Shariat or Hadish at every step That the Moslem rulers were not fundamentalist is best illustrated by the career of Akbar Akbar gave up Islam for a religion engineered by himself which is known as Din Ilahi Din Ilahi sought to assemble all the good things of every religion May be it was a pragmatist ploy But can any head of an Islamic state do that now a days without being threatened His life will be at stake But in India Islam was not like that It was Akbar who granted approx 500 acres of land where the Sikh Golden temple was built Even Aurangzib donated land to Jains Religious fundamentalism has not as yet raised its hydrahead in India . thank God But whatever Islamic fundamentalism we find here has been the consequence of British rule and the develpment of so called communication system With the British rule communication system developed and there was the slogan of Pan Islamism Earlier the Indian Moslems looked upon India as their home But with the advent of the British and developed communication they became homeless or rather Islam became their home Or else they think that they are among infidels and they must wipe them off and the country must be ruled according to the dictates of Islam Here I want to highlight two things One those who glory over the developed communication system through internet and the like should remember that the so called development of communication system has always been catalyst in developing fundamentalism Secondly Islamic fundamentalism is no more cruel than communist fundamentalism and the christian capitalist fundamentalism I will not tarry long on the latter But let me point out that the globalisation does not intend to leave even the culture of the poorest tribe to themselves unhurt Think of the Jaroas of Andaman They proved themselves wiser than the finest scientists of the world be he from Cambridge or Harvard Because it were the Jarowas who got the premonition of Tsunami that rocked the coasts of the Bay of Bengal But the scientist will not learn anything from them A day must come when the knowledge wallas will lie at the feet of these illiterate so called barbarians Do you know how they are being protected in Andaman They live in a preserved forest and visitors go to them the very way we visit the zoo and see the animals What man has made of man Down with technology Down with civilization Secondly what has happened to the civilised man Ateacher teaches the children in the class S/he is being watched by the Headmistress seated in her chamber This is the panopticon of Bentham which has been brought to the foreground Foucault in modern times We civilised men have turned into the animals osf a zoo And this process perhaps unknowingly stated when civilisation invented the zoo Let me now switch to another point With the advent of the British Pan Islamism was so popular among quite a few that one of the founders of Communism in India claims that Pan Islamism inspired the first communists to understand the tenets of communism Dont look askance at me When Ataturk Kamal Pasha did away with the institution of Khalifa a band of Mussalmans trekked away from India with a view to reaching Turkey and telling the Moslems there that there should be quarrel among Moslem brothers On the road through machinations of M.N Roy they were stopped at Turkey and brainwashed into communists Onlookers commented that they didnot have the rudiments of political thought and that is why they were baptised bythe Soviet Russia In retort Mujaffar Ahmed who belonged to that band and who is the author of the history oof the beginnings of communism in India says that they had the idea of Pan Islamism And he is right Any thing with the prefix pan is equally torturesome unless it is pan chaos or confusion Be that as it may Pan Islamism couldnot impress everyone in lndia Let me give you the instance of Kashmir It was a princely state where the ruler was Hindu and 75% of the subjects were Moslems The freedom movement that rocked all over India under the august leadership of Mahatma Gandhi did not raise any ripple in Kashmir The Moslems in Kashmir didnot want to abolish Hindu \Monarchy there But they organised a powerful movement to realise constitutional monarchy To that end they gathered and forged a political outfit which was at the outset named Muslim Conference The very next year the name was changed into National Conference There were more than hundred founder members of the Conference Among them there was only one Hindu Despite that all the founder members excepting one voted for the name National Conference Iam not here to write the history of modern Kashmir But my point is that when all is said and done Muslims in India were not fundamentalists It was the National Conference that didnot accept two nation theory If the Moslems of Kashmir were against India Jayanta Chaudhuri could not defeat the newly born Pakistan on the banks of Jhelum Despite all these the developmewnt of communication system and onward march of capitalism has made a dent on India Beyond India all over the non muslim globe shakes in fear of Muslim fundamentalism Now let us return to pre partition India to explore another axis of our discussion contd
The smashing victory of Hasina in Bangladesh is no less remarkable than the victory of Obama in the USA With the victory of Obama the blacks have got identity all over the globe Hence forth their voice will matter more than ever It might hit hard the white chauvinism and the establishment of the Christian church Hasinas overwhelming victory will hit hard the Islamic fundamentalism that rocks the world Here a word or two about Islamic fundamentalism would not be out of place Evidence is there that Hajrat Muhammad lived with the Jews as well as Christians in amity And the Quran Sharif says that God has no intention to fool any people Hence God sends a prophet to every tongue or language Hajrat Muhammad was however was very much against idol worship which was from his standpoint another name for materialism Who is a Mussalman? According to Islam one who has submitted his body mind and soul is a true Mussalman B e that as it may history is the witness of religious wars or crusades between the Christians and Muslims Besides with the conquest of Mecca by Hajrat Muhammad Islam moved from strength to strength and conquered the greater part of Asia and Europe Their rule extended as far as Spain in Europe And everywhere they caused great devastations To kill infidels they believed was an act of piety This doesnot portray them any more tyrannical than the ancient Greeks or todays Christian capitalism Tyrannical though they were it were they who preserved ancient Greek culture during the Middle Ages when the so called barbarians had their field in Europe during the Middle Age Such classics as Aristotle were preserved in Arabic translation It was chiefly the scholars of king Charlemagnes court who retranslated them into European vernacular Had not Islam preserved the ancient Hellenic lore and had it not been translated into European llanguages the Renaissance of which Europe boasts would not take place In india also they let loose cruelty Despite that it were they who carried the notion of the digit zero abroad Besides their rule in India cannot be called fundamentalist in the right sense of the term True that they destroyed numerous temples They insulted the Hindus in many ways Despite Islam in India was not fundamentalist The rulers in India like Alauddin Or Muhammad Bin Tughlaq didnot establish an Islamic state or theocratic state Not even Aurangzib They may have been devoted Mussalmans But they were absolute monarchs They didnot consult the Shariat or Hadish at every step That the Moslem rulers were not fundamentalist is best illustrated by the career of Akbar Akbar gave up Islam for a religion engineered by himself which is known as Din Ilahi Din Ilahi sought to assemble all the good things of every religion May be it was a pragmatist ploy But can any head of an Islamic state do that now a days without being threatened His life will be at stake But in India Islam was not like that It was Akbar who granted approx 500 acres of land where the Sikh Golden temple was built Even Aurangzib donated land to Jains Religious fundamentalism has not as yet raised its hydrahead in India . thank God But whatever Islamic fundamentalism we find here has been the consequence of British rule and the develpment of so called communication system With the British rule communication system developed and there was the slogan of Pan Islamism Earlier the Indian Moslems looked upon India as their home But with the advent of the British and developed communication they became homeless or rather Islam became their home Or else they think that they are among infidels and they must wipe them off and the country must be ruled according to the dictates of Islam Here I want to highlight two things One those who glory over the developed communication system through internet and the like should remember that the so called development of communication system has always been catalyst in developing fundamentalism Secondly Islamic fundamentalism is no more cruel than communist fundamentalism and the christian capitalist fundamentalism I will not tarry long on the latter But let me point out that the globalisation does not intend to leave even the culture of the poorest tribe to themselves unhurt Think of the Jaroas of Andaman They proved themselves wiser than the finest scientists of the world be he from Cambridge or Harvard Because it were the Jarowas who got the premonition of Tsunami that rocked the coasts of the Bay of Bengal But the scientist will not learn anything from them A day must come when the knowledge wallas will lie at the feet of these illiterate so called barbarians Do you know how they are being protected in Andaman They live in a preserved forest and visitors go to them the very way we visit the zoo and see the animals What man has made of man Down with technology Down with civilization Secondly what has happened to the civilised man Ateacher teaches the children in the class S/he is being watched by the Headmistress seated in her chamber This is the panopticon of Bentham which has been brought to the foreground Foucault in modern times We civilised men have turned into the animals osf a zoo And this process perhaps unknowingly stated when civilisation invented the zoo Let me now switch to another point With the advent of the British Pan Islamism was so popular among quite a few that one of the founders of Communism in India claims that Pan Islamism inspired the first communists to understand the tenets of communism Dont look askance at me When Ataturk Kamal Pasha did away with the institution of Khalifa a band of Mussalmans trekked away from India with a view to reaching Turkey and telling the Moslems there that there should be quarrel among Moslem brothers On the road through machinations of M.N Roy they were stopped at Turkey and brainwashed into communists Onlookers commented that they didnot have the rudiments of political thought and that is why they were baptised bythe Soviet Russia In retort Mujaffar Ahmed who belonged to that band and who is the author of the history oof the beginnings of communism in India says that they had the idea of Pan Islamism And he is right Any thing with the prefix pan is equally torturesome unless it is pan chaos or confusion Be that as it may Pan Islamism couldnot impress everyone in lndia Let me give you the instance of Kashmir It was a princely state where the ruler was Hindu and 75% of the subjects were Moslems The freedom movement that rocked all over India under the august leadership of Mahatma Gandhi did not raise any ripple in Kashmir The Moslems in Kashmir didnot want to abolish Hindu \Monarchy there But they organised a powerful movement to realise constitutional monarchy To that end they gathered and forged a political outfit which was at the outset named Muslim Conference The very next year the name was changed into National Conference There were more than hundred founder members of the Conference Among them there was only one Hindu Despite that all the founder members excepting one voted for the name National Conference Iam not here to write the history of modern Kashmir But my point is that when all is said and done Muslims in India were not fundamentalists It was the National Conference that didnot accept two nation theory If the Moslems of Kashmir were against India Jayanta Chaudhuri could not defeat the newly born Pakistan on the banks of Jhelum Despite all these the developmewnt of communication system and onward march of capitalism has made a dent on India Beyond India all over the non muslim globe shakes in fear of Muslim fundamentalism Now let us return to pre partition India to explore another axis of our discussion contd The smashing victory of Hasina in Bangladesh is no less remarkable than the victory of Obama in the USA With the victory of Obama the blacks have got identity all over the globe Hence forth their voice will matter more than ever It might hit hard the white chauvinism and the establishment of the Christian church Hasinas overwhelming victory will hit hard the Islamic fundamentalism that rocks the world Here a word or two about Islamic fundamentalism would not be out of place Evidence is there that Hajrat Muhammad lived with the Jews as well as Christians in amity And the Quran Sharif says that God has no intention to fool any people Hence God sends a prophet to every tongue or language Hajrat Muhammad was however was very much against idol worship which was from his standpoint another name for materialism Who is a Mussalman? According to Islam one who has submitted his body mind and soul is a true Mussalman B e that as it may history is the witness of religious wars or crusades between the Christians and Muslims Besides with the conquest of Mecca by Hajrat Muhammad Islam moved from strength to strength and conquered the greater part of Asia and Europe Their rule extended as far as Spain in Europe And everywhere they caused great devastations To kill infidels they believed was an act of piety This doesnot portray them any more tyrannical than the ancient Greeks or todays Christian capitalism Tyrannical though they were it were they who preserved ancient Greek culture during the Middle Ages when the so called barbarians had their field in Europe during the Middle Age Such classics as Aristotle were preserved in Arabic translation It was chiefly the scholars of king Charlemagnes court who retranslated them into European vernacular Had not Islam preserved the ancient Hellenic lore and had it not been translated into European llanguages the Renaissance of which Europe boasts would not take place In india also they let loose cruelty Despite that it were they who carried the notion of the digit zero abroad Besides their rule in India cannot be called fundamentalist in the right sense of the term True that they destroyed numerous temples They insulted the Hindus in many ways Despite Islam in India was not fundamentalist The rulers in India like Alauddin Or Muhammad Bin Tughlaq didnot establish an Islamic state or theocratic state Not even Aurangzib They may have been devoted Mussalmans But they were absolute monarchs They didnot consult the Shariat or Hadish at every step That the Moslem rulers were not fundamentalist is best illustrated by the career of Akbar Akbar gave up Islam for a religion engineered by himself which is known as Din Ilahi Din Ilahi sought to assemble all the good things of every religion May be it was a pragmatist ploy But can any head of an Islamic state do that now a days without being threatened His life will be at stake But in India Islam was not like that It was Akbar who granted approx 500 acres of land where the Sikh Golden temple was built Even Aurangzib donated land to Jains Religious fundamentalism has not as yet raised its hydrahead in India . thank God But whatever Islamic fundamentalism we find here has been the consequence of British rule and the develpment of so called communication system With the British rule communication system developed and there was the slogan of Pan Islamism Earlier the Indian Moslems looked upon India as their home But with the advent of the British and developed communication they became homeless or rather Islam became their home Or else they think that they are among infidels and they must wipe them off and the country must be ruled according to the dictates of Islam Here I want to highlight two things One those who glory over the developed communication system through internet and the like should remember that the so called development of communication system has always been catalyst in developing fundamentalism Secondly Islamic fundamentalism is no more cruel than communist fundamentalism and the christian capitalist fundamentalism I will not tarry long on the latter But let me point out that the globalisation does not intend to leave even the culture of the poorest tribe to themselves unhurt Think of the Jaroas of Andaman They proved themselves wiser than the finest scientists of the world be he from Cambridge or Harvard Because it were the Jarowas who got the premonition of Tsunami that rocked the coasts of the Bay of Bengal But the scientist will not learn anything from them A day must come when the knowledge wallas will lie at the feet of these illiterate so called barbarians Do you know how they are being protected in Andaman They live in a preserved forest and visitors go to them the very way we visit the zoo and see the animals What man has made of man Down with technology Down with civilization Secondly what has happened to the civilised man Ateacher teaches the children in the class S/he is being watched by the Headmistress seated in her chamber This is the panopticon of Bentham which has been brought to the foreground Foucault in modern times We civilised men have turned into the animals osf a zoo And this process perhaps unknowingly stated when civilisation invented the zoo Let me now switch to another point With the advent of the British Pan Islamism was so popular among quite a few that one of the founders of Communism in India claims that Pan Islamism inspired the first communists to understand the tenets of communism Dont look askance at me When Ataturk Kamal Pasha did away with the institution of Khalifa a band of Mussalmans trekked away from India with a view to reaching Turkey and telling the Moslems there that there should be quarrel among Moslem brothers On the road through machinations of M.N Roy they were stopped at Turkey and brainwashed into communists Onlookers commented that they didnot have the rudiments of political thought and that is why they were baptised bythe Soviet Russia In retort Mujaffar Ahmed who belonged to that band and who is the author of the history oof the beginnings of communism in India says that they had the idea of Pan Islamism And he is right Any thing with the prefix pan is equally torturesome unless it is pan chaos or confusion Be that as it may Pan Islamism couldnot impress everyone in lndia Let me give you the instance of Kashmir It was a princely state where the ruler was Hindu and 75% of the subjects were Moslems The freedom movement that rocked all over India under the august leadership of Mahatma Gandhi did not raise any ripple in Kashmir The Moslems in Kashmir didnot want to abolish Hindu \Monarchy there But they organised a powerful movement to realise constitutional monarchy To that end they gathered and forged a political outfit which was at the outset named Muslim Conference The very next year the name was changed into National Conference There were more than hundred founder members of the Conference Among them there was only one Hindu Despite that all the founder members excepting one voted for the name National Conference Iam not here to write the history of modern Kashmir But my point is that when all is said and done Muslims in India were not fundamentalists It was the National Conference that didnot accept two nation theory If the Moslems of Kashmir were against India Jayanta Chaudhuri could not defeat the newly born Pakistan on the banks of Jhelum Despite all these the developmewnt of communication system and onward march of capitalism has made a dent on India Beyond India all over the non muslim globe shakes in fear of Muslim fundamentalism Now let us return to pre partition India to explore another axis of our discussion contd
The smashing victory of Hasina in Bangladesh is no less remarkable than the victory of Obama in the USA With the victory of Obama the blacks have got identity all over the globe Hence forth their voice will matter more than ever It might hit hard the white chauvinism and the establishment of the Christian church Hasinas overwhelming victory will hit hard the Islamic fundamentalism that rocks the world Here a word or two about Islamic fundamentalism would not be out of place Evidence is there that Hajrat Muhammad lived with the Jews as well as Christians in amity And the Quran Sharif says that God has no intention to fool any people Hence God sends a prophet to every tongue or language Hajrat Muhammad was however was very much against idol worship which was from his standpoint another name for materialism Who is a Mussalman? According to Islam one who has submitted his body mind and soul is a true Mussalman B e that as it may history is the witness of religious wars or crusades between the Christians and Muslims Besides with the conquest of Mecca by Hajrat Muhammad Islam moved from strength to strength and conquered the greater part of Asia and Europe Their rule extended as far as Spain in Europe And everywhere they caused great devastations To kill infidels they believed was an act of piety This doesnot portray them any more tyrannical than the ancient Greeks or todays Christian capitalism Tyrannical though they were it were they who preserved ancient Greek culture during the Middle Ages when the so called barbarians had their field in Europe during the Middle Age Such classics as Aristotle were preserved in Arabic translation It was chiefly the scholars of king Charlemagnes court who retranslated them into European vernacular Had not Islam preserved the ancient Hellenic lore and had it not been translated into European llanguages the Renaissance of which Europe boasts would not take place In india also they let loose cruelty Despite that it were they who carried the notion of the digit zero abroad Besides their rule in India cannot be called fundamentalist in the right sense of the term True that they destroyed numerous temples They insulted the Hindus in many ways Despite Islam in India was not fundamentalist The rulers in India like Alauddin Or Muhammad Bin Tughlaq didnot establish an Islamic state or theocratic state Not even Aurangzib They may have been devoted Mussalmans But they were absolute monarchs They didnot consult the Shariat or Hadish at every step That the Moslem rulers were not fundamentalist is best illustrated by the career of Akbar Akbar gave up Islam for a religion engineered by himself which is known as Din Ilahi Din Ilahi sought to assemble all the good things of every religion May be it was a pragmatist ploy But can any head of an Islamic state do that now a days without being threatened His life will be at stake But in India Islam was not like that It was Akbar who granted approx 500 acres of land where the Sikh Golden temple was built Even Aurangzib donated land to Jains Religious fundamentalism has not as yet raised its hydrahead in India . thank God But whatever Islamic fundamentalism we find here has been the consequence of British rule and the develpment of so called communication system With the British rule communication system developed and there was the slogan of Pan Islamism Earlier the Indian Moslems looked upon India as their home But with the advent of the British and developed communication they became homeless or rather Islam became their home Or else they think that they are among infidels and they must wipe them off and the country must be ruled according to the dictates of Islam Here I want to highlight two things One those who glory over the developed communication system through internet and the like should remember that the so called development of communication system has always been catalyst in developing fundamentalism Secondly Islamic fundamentalism is no more cruel than communist fundamentalism and the christian capitalist fundamentalism I will not tarry long on the latter But let me point out that the globalisation does not intend to leave even the culture of the poorest tribe to themselves unhurt Think of the Jaroas of Andaman They proved themselves wiser than the finest scientists of the world be he from Cambridge or Harvard Because it were the Jarowas who got the premonition of Tsunami that rocked the coasts of the Bay of Bengal But the scientist will not learn anything from them A day must come when the knowledge wallas will lie at the feet of these illiterate so called barbarians Do you know how they are being protected in Andaman They live in a preserved forest and visitors go to them the very way we visit the zoo and see the animals What man has made of man Down with technology Down with civilization Secondly what has happened to the civilised man Ateacher teaches the children in the class S/he is being watched by the Headmistress seated in her chamber This is the panopticon of Bentham which has been brought to the foreground Foucault in modern times We civilised men have turned into the animals osf a zoo And this process perhaps unknowingly stated when civilisation invented the zoo Let me now switch to another point With the advent of the British Pan Islamism was so popular among quite a few that one of the founders of Communism in India claims that Pan Islamism inspired the first communists to understand the tenets of communism Dont look askance at me When Ataturk Kamal Pasha did away with the institution of Khalifa a band of Mussalmans trekked away from India with a view to reaching Turkey and telling the Moslems there that there should be quarrel among Moslem brothers On the road through machinations of M.N Roy they were stopped at Turkey and brainwashed into communists Onlookers commented that they didnot have the rudiments of political thought and that is why they were baptised bythe Soviet Russia In retort Mujaffar Ahmed who belonged to that band and who is the author of the history oof the beginnings of communism in India says that they had the idea of Pan Islamism And he is right Any thing with the prefix pan is equally torturesome unless it is pan chaos or confusion Be that as it may Pan Islamism couldnot impress everyone in lndia Let me give you the instance of Kashmir It was a princely state where the ruler was Hindu and 75% of the subjects were Moslems The freedom movement that rocked all over India under the august leadership of Mahatma Gandhi did not raise any ripple in Kashmir The Moslems in Kashmir didnot want to abolish Hindu \Monarchy there But they organised a powerful movement to realise constitutional monarchy To that end they gathered and forged a political outfit which was at the outset named Muslim Conference The very next year the name was changed into National Conference There were more than hundred founder members of the Conference Among them there was only one Hindu Despite that all the founder members excepting one voted for the name National Conference Iam not here to write the history of modern Kashmir But my point is that when all is said and done Muslims in India were not fundamentalists It was the National Conference that didnot accept two nation theory If the Moslems of Kashmir were against India Jayanta Chaudhuri could not defeat the newly born Pakistan on the banks of Jhelum Despite all these the developmewnt of communication system and onward march of capitalism has made a dent on India Beyond India all over the non muslim globe shakes in fear of Muslim fundamentalism Now let us return to pre partition India to explore another axis of our discussion contd
let us go back to pre partition I ndia It is curious to note that the count of Moslem population in the then Bengal was larger than the Moslem population of any other part of India How come this could happen is a moot point to the historians Because the Sultans and Badsahs ruled from Delhi Hence it would be quite natural if Moslem population were the largest in Delhi and its neighbourhood Be that as it may let subedars and nawabs whatever they could, roughly speaking the Moslems and Hindus lived in amity in Bengal during the Moslem period In so caled folk cultures the two communities mingled in such a way that you could not distinguish and theirs was a culture qualitatively different from the North Indian culture Moslem fundamentalism flourished in UP Firstly it were the British who taught the Moslems that Urdu was their and taught the North Indian Hindus that Hindi was their language Secondly many things though could be said in defence of Sir Syed Ahmed it was he who was all for Moslems in a sense But Bengal was different from Northern India Even the English educated Moslems unlike Sir Syed were great admirers of the Hindus granted that the upper caste Hindus exploited them very much Unlike the Moslems in UP the majority of the Moslems here were poor The avant garde Moslem poets like Jasimuddin wrote in praise of Vaisnavism In the meantime a great event happened in the realm of Islam There was a religious conference of Moslems at Lahore and one Ahmed outwitted everyone there with his interpretation of the Quran Just as our Swami Vivekananda conquered Chicago so did Ahmed conquer Lahore What new did he say ? well it is said in the Quran that Hajrat Muhammad has been the last of the prophets and the greatest among all of them. Fine..But Ahmed argued it is told in Holy Quran that the Almighty is closer to you than your jugular vein In other words the Almighty resides in every being So Ahmed argued that although absolute god realisation can not happen to anyone after Muhammad partial god realisation is possible for everyone This contrary to the established Islam In fact let American boast whatever it can Islam in the world today moves from strength to strength There is no denial of it One explanation of the same is that since official Islam has declared that god realisation after Hajrat Muhammad is impossible the establishments interpretation should be the last word Any variation from that would be heresy This is why Bahaists have been expelled from Iran and the Ahmedias the followers of Ahmed were deemed heretics by the mainstream of Islam But I donot how the majority of the masses and the intellectuals among the Muslims in Bangladesh are Ahmedias In the pre partition India moslems were concentrated in the eatern part of Bengal In 1905 Lord Curzon was the Viceroy of India and his seat was Calcutta Till 1911 Calcutta was the capital of India In1905 Lord Curzon largely for administrative convenience decreed the partition of Bengal If the partition were accepted then the East Bengal might not part from India in 1947 Because they would have Moslem rule What new Pakistan could give them ? The partition of Bengal movement was a blunder Since the partition did not take place in 1905 it was realised in 1947 at the cost of lot of blood The Moslems triggered fierce riots Well presntly after partition in 1947 the Moslem Bengalees were getting settled But East Bemngal then East Pakistan became a colony of Palkistan The Ahmedias are persecuted in Palkistan Besides Pakistan wanted to thrust Urdu language upon the Moslem Bengalees In fact You cannot distinguish Moslem, Bengalis from other Bengalis on the surface in West Bengal even today Although Moslem culture in East Pakistan tried to distinguish itself from the Hindus Still they were very much Bengali When they were asked to give up their mother tongue they revolted against Pakistan and became a free nation called Bangladesh During the struggle in Bangladesh for freedom India helped Bagladesh Pakistan at that time brought many Urdu speaking North Indians who had migrated to Pakistan to quell the revolt Pakistani army was also there When Bangla desh was liberated those Urdu speaking men didnot go away from Bangladesh It were they who fanned fundamentalism anti Hinduism and anti Indianism A large neighbouring country is always feared by smaller countries So fundamentalism and anti Lndianism spread easily in Bangladesh The post independence Bengali culture was so steeped in Tagore and since the majority there are Ahmedians fundamentalism could not dominate ultimately This is what we read from Hasinas victory Why is it internationally important Well Bangladesh is the motherland of sometyhing like 12c rores of Muslims If such a great population votes against funadamentalism dont you think that this is a great jolt to pan Islamic fundamentalism ? Concluded