Mirza Ghalib (1797 – 1869) and Mohammad Iqbal (1877 – 1938) are two great poets in their own ways. Iqbal is also a politician, a populist, an ideologue of Islam where he expounds Islam along mystical and unclear paths (his ‘Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam’ being a clear expression of his confused thinking and lack of clarity despite his pedantic English that only few can understand or digest!). But his command of Urdu and Farsi in conveying his poetic message and ideas is impressive.
His poetry covers many areas and it can’t be labelled under any one theme. His revolutionary and progressive ideas are appreciable but his tilt towards religiosity, mysticism and Islamic nationalism in the latter part of his life was a big waste of the intellect of a good man. The Pakistani reactionary political establishment took full advantage of his shoddy Islamist ideology and transformed him into a mullah which he was not!
In contrast to Iqbal, Ghalib was only a poet and not a politician or messenger of any political revolution. In his verse, he conveyed his sublime ideas in a way unmatched in this language. His word has enriched the Urdu language by his poetic expression and his style of prose (see his letters). If we can extend the area of philosophy to general wisdom, deeper insights in human psychology and human condition then Ghalib stands far higher than Iqbal in such areas. He is a universalist, not bound by faith, creed or ideological nihilism as Iqbal seems to be. Iqbal’s origin as a Kashmiri Pandit, which, no doubt, I feel happy about as a Kashmiri myself, but that is not decisive when I assess him. I end this piece with a verse of the immortal Ghalib:
Ham kahan ke danaa the, kis hunar main yakta the Be sababb hua Ghalib, dushman aasman apna
Mr. Woodward, I hope you don’t misunderstand me when I write this as a freethinking humanist. I know that religions have caused much bloodshed and misery in human history. But religions have no real content. It is the followers of a religion who give meaning or importance to what their religion is and what it is not.
Religions have been a powerful factor in human history which the rulers used for their political domination and the servility of their subjects. That role is still there and is used by present-day rulers as it suits them, except for the countries where State and Religion are separated.
The second point in this context I would like to make is that religion is an idea often based on some dogmas. Such dogmas become essential parts of a religion that people interpret and sometimes come up with varying interpretations, leading to inter-religious conflicts. Such things have been the cause of much blood-shedding in Christianity and Islam, etc. Anyone who has read the histories of these religions knows that.
Religion and its followers are not the same. That should be easy for us to see. For instance, a group of fanatic followers may misuse their religion. In fact, such things have happened in all recorded history. If they use it to justify the killing of other people for some reason by using the name and cover of religion, who can stop them? None, in my view.
Religion as a collection of ideas does not impose itself upon humans; humans do that. Vicious people will use it as they want. But humane and noble people who want to use their religion for doing some good work are also free to do that. Such conflicting uses of religion are not a secret. We have to understand that in this world there are believers of religions. As long as they do not leave their religions, no one should force them to do so.
In that case, my attitude towards these people is simply this: As long as they do not harm others and use their religions as their personal beliefs, then we should respect them. They are our fellow human beings and they use the freedom to choose and practise their religion. But as a humanist, I should not abuse and dehumanize them. Instead, we who are freethinking people should work systematically to bring information to these people in a manner that they don’t feel threatened. You know how people react when they feel their beliefs and valuable things in life are under threat. Before we can teach others, we have to learn ourselves to carry on our work.
The following brief account may help some curious readers about the Sunni-Shia divide in Islam that also affects political affairs in the Middle Eastern region. Remarks on the Sunni-Shia division in Islam — Nasir Khan The division of Islam into Shia and Sunni branches from the mid-seventh century was more due to the political factors than with the fundamentals of the faith because they were the same for all people including the power elites. Obviously, two rivals engaged in a struggle to gain the upper hand in a political race cannot win unless they strike some compromise and avoid the conflict. This was possible between rival claimants, Ali bin Abi Taleb and Muwaiya bin Abi Sufyan, but did not happen in the early phase of the growing polarization that was taking place in the Muslim community. One puritan group, the Kharijites, saw the developments with apprehension for the new faith and the Muslim community, which by now was large and was rapidly spreading in many regions of the world. The Kharijite solution to stem the tide of power-politics that was damaging the new nation was a radical one: liquidate the rival claimants to the Caliphate and save the faith and the Caliphate. Despite what they did, the problem did not vanish. Now the Sunni and Shia forms of thought about the office of the Caliph started to diverge. Afterward, even the theological differences started to grow. Inevitably, the Sunni and Shia doctrinal differences became more pronounced and the different schools of jurisprudence put their stamp on the growing disparity between the two groups. Therefore, what started as a political factor eventually developed into two rival sects within Islam. What sort of relationship emerged between the two branches when Islam became a world religion and Islamic Empire grew in size and power can be briefly put this way: The Sunni Islam became dominant but Shias were not victimized. The relationships were mostly cordial and one of toleration and mutual respect. The intolerance towards Shia and the victimization of Shias in countries like Pakistan in these times is a tragic story of a faith that has been hijacked by some fanatic ignorant people in the name of their brand of ‘puritan’ theology. But these criminals and assassins are a right-wing fringe element within Pakistan. The great majority of ordinary Sunni Muslims has nothing against Shia Muslims and vice versa. Both of them look upon each other as brothers and accept each other’s right to follow Islam according to their traditions and customs. But in Iraq under President G.W. Bush American invaders and occupiers of the land fanned the sectarian divide, resulting in the bloodshed of Iraqis. The suppression of the Shias in Saudi Arabia is also a manifestation of how the Wahabbi rulers impose their morbid religious cult in violation of the fundamental principle of the freedom of religion which is followed in the civilized world.
TEHRAN (FNA)- Nasir Khan, historian and peace activist, says Donald Trump, the US President, issued the assassination order of Lieutenant General Soleimani under the influence of Netanyahu’s allies working in his Administration.
In an exclusive interview with FNA, Nasir Khan said, “[Netanyahu] had people like Secretary of State Pompeo and former National Security Advisor Bolton doing their work for him.”
“Netanyahu has used all the ploys. He has played a key role in pushing Trump to unilaterally retreat from the international nuclear agreement with Iran, and has done all to influence Trump to attack Iran”, he added.
Nasir Khan, Ph.D. Philosophy, is a historian and political analyst. He has authored several books and written numerous articles on international politics, socialism, religion and human rights.
Below is the full text of the interview:
Q: How do you see Lieutenant General Soleimani’s role in the fight against Daesh, also known as ISIL or ISIS?
A: The emergence of Daesh was primarily due to the general instability caused by the US war of aggression on Iraq in 2003. The systemic destruction of Iraq, its army and infrastructure had created a complicated and confusing situation in and around Iraq. As a result, Daesh was able to expand in Iraq and Syria, where a disastrous civil war had started. The Syrian forces had lost large areas to Daesh.
General Soleimani as a bold military strategist played a pivotal role in defeating Daesh in Iraq and Syria. For instance, his role in breaking the siege of Amirli in 2014, liberating Jurf Al-Sakhr and planning the operation to take Tikrit in Iraq in 2015 from Daesh are memorable. In 2013, he coordinated the military plans with the militias and Hezbollah fighters and captured Qusayr, a town on the Syria-Lebanon border. In 2015, Russian military intervention on the side of President Assad was decisive, but it was Soleimani who had masterminded the ground support to fight against the Syrian rebels.
Q: Why do you think the US targeted Lieutenant General Soleimani, who played a major, active role in defeating Daesh?
A: First, after the defeat of Daesh the US saw Soleimani as an able military strategist of Iran, who had the potential to become a serious obstacle to the US imperial designs on Iran. Therefore, according to US imperial outlook, Soleimani’s death will make the US goals in the region easier. Secondly, both Israel and the US had coordinated their plans to assassinate him. He was perceived as a threat to the interests of the two close allies in the region.
Trump was impeached and Israeli PM Netanyahu was indicted last year. Trump and Netanyahu aim to win elections this year. The two will present the killing of Soleimani as a trophy to the electorate of America and Israel. Netanyahu knows how easy it is for him to influence American political establishment, the US Congress and American voters. Thus Trump has a big supporting ally in Netanyahu to win the election again. To our dismay, major international hegemons help each other in such devious ways.
Q: During his presidential campaigns, Trump claimed he would prevent further wars. What has pushed him in the last three years to the brink of a new war?
A: Netanyahu has used all the ploys. He has played a key role in pushing Trump to unilaterally retreat from the international nuclear agreement with Iran, and has done all to influence Trump to attack Iran. In this, he had people like Secretary of State Pompeo and former National Security Advisor Bolton doing their work for him.
To our surprise, Trump resisted any such military solution last year. He stopped only just ‘ten minutes to go’ before his order to attack Iran was carried out. He sacked war hawk Bolton. But all that political scenario has now changed with the assassination of General Soleimani. Trump has prepared the groundwork for a war on Iran that can lead to catastrophic consequences for the region and the world. The only person who benefits from such a conflict will be Netanyahu who is fighting for his political survival. The lives of people have no meaning for him if he can have his way.
Indian poet and writer Badri Raina praises the women of India who are in the forefront of the ongoing protests and political struggle against the brutal Hindutva regime of PM Modi. – Women of India By Badri Raina – ZNet, December 27, 2019 –
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAB) goes against the fundamental principle of secularism in the Indian Constitution and democratic and non-sectarian values. There is no place of religious discrimination in a secular society that has the followers of many religions.
If people started discriminating against others on the basis of their religions then that will lead to social and political chaos in the whole of India.
The Hindutva fascists are creating conditions where they can set the militant Hindu mobs against Indian Muslims. That will lead to massacres and violence. This is a very dangerous and ill-chosen political course by the Chief of Hindutva forces who is the Prime minister of India now.
In 1992, a large Hindutva fascist mob led by some extremist right-wing parties demolished the 15th-century Babri Mosque in Ayodhya in full glare of publicity. One month later, Dr Shamsul Islam, an Indian academic, visited the site of the demolished mosque and the city of Ayodhya. He wrote his article based on what he saw and heard from the Muslim victims of large-scale pillage and destruction of their homes and properties in the city of Ayodhya by the anti-Muslim Hindutva militants and Hindu zealots.
In view of the Indian Supreme Court’s verdict on 9 October this year, Dr Shamsul Islam has added his views on secularism in Indian state and society to his 1992 article. The highest court of the country had made an unprecedented travesty of justice and the rule of law.
The author’s eye-view account helps us to understand the events in India where the Hindutva fascists with the help of some prominent politicians, police and civil authorities went on a rampage of the Ayodhya city where Muslims lived. The atrocities and barbarity of the Hindutva militants against the Muslim population of the city are horrifying.
The information given by the author is also important for political observers, writers and human rights activists to analyse the dangers of the extremist ideology of militant Hindutva, which is directed mainly against Indian Muslims, but it also extends to Christians, Dalits and other ethnic groups.
Now in the latest twist of events came the Supreme Court of India’s verdict on the case relating to the site of the Babri Mosque. The verdict delivered on 9 October has stunned and shocked many people around the world. The age-old principles of the impartiality and non-sectarianism in applying laws of the land were thrown to the wind exactly as the Hindutva fascists wanted. The demands of the Muslim community for justice in a long-drawn judicial struggle for over 27 years for the site of the razed mosque were ignored.
In fact, the Supreme Court did as the Hindutva fascists wanted. The court also took the extraordinary step by ordering the central government to prepare a plan within three months for building a temple of Rama, a mythological Hindu king revered as a Hindu god by many Hindus on the site of the razed Babri Mosque. Thus the facade of Indian democracy, secularism and rule of law became vacuous words, while the power of the Hindutva received the full judicial backing by the highest court of India
What criminals could not achieve on December 6, 1992, is legitimized by Court
{Dr. Shamsul Islam, Political Science professor at Delhi University (retired).}
The author visited Ayodhya one month after the demolition of Babri mosque by the RSS/Shiv Sena/BJP cadres. It presented a picture of carnage, devastation, criminal participation of the Indian State in it but also underlining of the fact that secularism was not dead in Ayodhya. But today, on the 27th anniversary of the demolition of the Babri mosque I am not so sure, specially after the Supreme Court judgment on November 9, 2019, handing over mosque site to those who had razed the mosque. The moral of the story is that whatever criminals could not achieve on December 6, 1992, is legitimized by the highest court of justice of India.
The short report is being produced in full, courtesy to The Sunday Times of India.
Shamsul Islam
December 6, 2019
{Dr. Shamsul Islam, Political Science professor at Delhi University (retired).}
Publication Date: Jan 17, 1993
Publication Name: The Sunday Times of India, Delhi.
HUMAN LIFE BRICKS AND MUD IN AYODHYA
By Shamsul Islam
A visit to Ayodhya, more than a month after the December 6 tragedy, reminds one of the hunted city. It is a city under siege by paramilitary forces. They are on high alert. What is to be guarded now? Nobody knows. The deep wounds of carnage and plunder are still visible.
The walls of Ayodhya are still covered with sectarian war cries in Hindi, Telugu, Marathi, etc. The claims of the champions of Hindutva, that the police and military are with them are still engraved on the walls of the city-mocking the secular state.
You have to be in Ayodhya to realize that the tragedy was far more than the demolition off a mosque. Away from Ayodhya, the only dimension off the tragedy which we heard related to the demolition of a structure of bricks and mud. We overlooked the human tragedy, the human carnage and plunder caused by zealots of Dharma. Ayodhya symbolizes the fact that human flesh is the cheapest commodity around.
While moving towards Ayodhya, you chance upon a refugee camp just on the outskirts of the holy cit. It is being run at Badu Bua ki Masjid (Old Aunt’s mosque), which houses an orphanage too. More than 1500 refugee, males, females and children of all age groups are packed like sardines here. A similar number of refuges have been sheltered in Quresh nursery camp in Fazibad. Most of them are wage-earners, petty shopkeepers, vendors, cycle repair walls, rickshaw-pullers and their dependents. They are being fed and clothed through community donations. The state was gracious enough to donate 130 blankets.
Soul chilling: The stories of barbaric destruction and sadistic killings are should-chilling. Everything which belonged to approximately 4500 inhabitants belonging to the minority community in Ayodhya was singled out to be burnt. The vandals at work had minute details of such properties, assets and religious place. They were very methodical in destroying properties.
Incidentally, the crusaders of Hindutva did not even spare a “good Musalman” by the name of Husni Vilaiti Haider. Son of the big zamindar of Ayodhya, he had led delegation of Muslims to Murli Manohar Joshi offering themselves for kar seva some weeks back. He had also donated a large chunk of land to the VHP trust for Ram Mandir. But these credentials did not apparently wash. Hundreds of refugees are ready to vouch for the bitter truth that the provincial police force was not a silent spectator. They actively joined the kar sevak. The policy control room of Ayodhya was taken over by kar sevaks on December 4 itself, they allege. The wireless sets were at their disposal.
Local Help: However, it is really heartening to know from the terror-stricken refugees that local residents of Ayodhya were not involved in any of these barbaric deads. In fact, dozens of local Hindus took all kinds of risks to save Muslim neighbors. Many refugees acknowledge the help of one Yadav Pahalwan of Mohalla Shikhana. But by December 3, most of such “bad elements” had been neutralized by kar sevaks through threats, bashing and social boycott. Yadav Pehlwan was also taught a lesson. He was attacked and injured.
You enter Ayodhya. Though day curfew was relaxed a couple of days back, nobody seems to be around. After going around quite a few damaged monuments, shops and houses, one comes across a big house, near from the demolished Babri Masjid, which seems to have been “bombarded”. All walls standing almost infact while all roofs have fallen. You prepare to take snaps. Suddenly you see a middle aged women searching for something in the rubbles. You are told that it was once here home.
Part of it was destroyed on December 5, on the 6th evening it was plundered and on the forenoon of the 7th it was blasted with the help off petrol bombs and chemicals.
The tasks was accomplished by the same group which was seen demolishing the Babri Masjid the day before. It was led by a bearded chap who used to command the group through a whistle. She also recounts that on December 7 she and her family members were rescued by the Hindu CRPF officer who hid them in truck and took them to safety in Faizabad. She returned with her teenage son to Ayodhya only on the 29th December and was the first family to do so.
She is bewildered at the turn of events. But she is sure of one thing – “Whatever may be hardships, we shall stay here. Let us see for how long Congress and BJP keep on playing this game. We shall not leave. It is our motherland. It is our home. Why should we go? It is not somebody’s freedom. It is belongs to others, it belongs to us also. We were born here, we have lived here and we will die here.”
There are others too who are returning to the heap of rubble that had been their home, and that will hopefully be their home again.
My
interview on the Indian Supreme Court’s verdict on the Ayodhya site of
the Babri Mosque, which was demolished in 1992 by a large group of
Hindu activists of the right-wing Hindutva organizations.
Nasir Khan: Indian Top Court Ruling on Holy Site Political Judgment
TEHRAN
(FNA)- Nasir Khan, a historian and political activist, says the verdict
by the Indian Supreme Court to give the land of the Babri mosque in the
Northern town of Ayodhya falls short of a legal pronouncement.
Speaking
in an exclusive interview with FNA, Nasir Khan said, “It was more of a
political judgement, in which the difference between the perpetrators of
a major crime and the aggrieved party was ignored completely and
instead ordered thconstruction of a Hindu temple at the disputed
site.”
Nasir Khan, PhD of Philosophy, is an author,
historian and anti-war and human rights political activist. He has
written numerous articles on human rights and international affairs.
Below is the full text of the interview:
Q: How do you find the verdict, especially amid many instances of sectarian violence?
A: From a historical point of view, many mythical
heroes and gods were believed by people in the ancient civilizations of
Egypt, Greece, Assyria, etc. But with the passage of time, Egyptians
stopped believing in many gods such as Osiris, Isis and the divine child
Horus, among many others. In Greece the same thing happened: The old
Olympian gods and heroes were replaced by other gods and mythologies.
But in India ancient mythical stories continued to exist, and are still
regarded as part of Hinduism by the followers of this religion. The
Hindus who destroyed the Babri mosque believed in the myth of the
birthplace of Rama. This brief account is essential to understand the
mythical account of the life of god Rama that were tacitly accepted and
supported by the Supreme Court in its verdict.
The verdict falls short of a legal pronouncement,
based upon a judicious investigation of the evidence involved about the
land where the mosque stood. It was more of a political judgement, in
which the difference between the perpetrators of a major crime and the
aggrieved party was ignored completely and instead ordered the
construction of a Hindu temple at the disputed site. The court asked the
central government to prepare a scheme within three months to enforce
the order for the construction of the temple! The Muslims were to be
given a five acres of land in Ayodhya, as if the dispute was merely one
about the possession of a disputed piece of land. In this way, the goals
of the Hindutva government of Modi and the Hindu extremists were given
an endorsement by this unjust and lopsided judgement. It is amazing that
the court did not mention or condemn the wanton destruction of the
500-year old mosque in the summary of the verdict.
The question of sectarian violence after this
verdict should also be seen in a broader context of Indian political
system, where the Hindutva forces wield the cudgel. The Modi government
had made sure that the internet was not freely available to areas where
Muslims could protest or raise their voices. Indian Muslims are acutely
aware of their vulnerability in case of any opposition to this verdict.
The fear of attacks by the militant Hindus is not something they can
ignore. They know how over two thousand Muslims were massacred by the
Hindu mobs.
Q: Do you believe justice was served by the verdict?
A: Modi bears much responsibility for the communal
violence in India when he was the chief minister of Gujarat. In 2002,
there was a mass bloodbath in his state in which more than two thousand
Muslims were killed, their women raped and their properties pillaged by
the Hindu mobs when a train carrying Hindu pilgrims caught fire in which
58 people died. Without any evidence, Modi accused Pakistan of causing
the fire. Within hours of his provocation, the killing of Muslims
started in his state. The way the Hindu mobs molested and raped Muslim
women is too painful for me to repeat here.
Modi has shown his political base is his militant
right-wing parties and followers who want to change India into a Hindu
rashtra. How to do this is part of the political strategy of Hindutva
which he follows. The first major step he took on 5 August was to
colonize the 8-million Kashmiri Muslims by isolating them in a total
blockade by the most savage means.
In India, it is the Hindutva that reigns supreme,
and Modi is their leader. The Indian judicial system is not immune
against the prevailing political situation and policies of the Modi
government. The verdict of the Supreme Court has left no doubt in the
minds of political observers that the highest court of the land has
furthered the anti-Muslim communal policies of the present government.
Q: Islam is the second largest religion in
India, with approximately 200 million Muslims. Why do Indian Muslims
struggle to retrain their religious rights?
A: The causes of the social, economic and
political condition of Indian Muslims in a predominately Hindu India are
many. The British rulers of India had their own colonial interests.
When the Indian freedom movement gained momentum after the First World
War, the British rulers found themselves in a precarious situation in
face of the growing demands of freedom, which was mostly led by the
Indian National Congress. When the Muslim League under the leadership of
M.A. Jinnah made his Two-Nation Theory a basis for establishing a
Muslim state, Pakistan, that finally resulted in 1947 in the partition
of India into India and Pakistan, the Muslims who lived in India
suffered most. Most Hindus never forgave Muslims for the partition of
India. As a result, the Indian Muslims have been suspect in the eyes of
Hindus, and over the years their political and economic condition became
weak. The upsurge of militant Hindutva nationalism in India and the
goals of Hindu rashtra regard Muslims as their main enemies. So, the
Indian Muslims live in that anti-Muslim environment and are subject to
many social and political pressures as unwanted people in India.
In a searching and thoughtful comment, Maria Moorat gave her views on the issue of injustices. I reproduce her comment here, followed by my comment.
Maria Moorat: Some people rail against injustice, wherever it occurs. The trouble is we are frustrated by our tiny voices being ignored. Even large public demonstrations are ignored; they may hit the headlines, but the next day the status quo continues. The powers that be, and the armament companies, will not stop selling death dealing devices to India or Israel or Saudi, or wherever, the business is too lucrative and they care nothing for those who die. And, the media in the west has brainwashed people into believing untruths.
Nasir Khan: Maria, what you say is strikingly true. It is a fact that some people speak up against injustices, and occasionally also get much support for the causes they stand for. But in the long run, the political establishment prevails, and no substantial results are achieved in the fight against the main purveyors of violence and abusers of human rights.
For instance, when President George W. Bush was planning
a war of aggression against Iraq to further the US imperial and Zionist
interests in the Middle East, millions of people around the world
protested against the coming war. There was much enthusiasm in the
masses of people against the plans of the American ruling gangsters.
But Bush went ahead. He invaded Iraq, and ravaged a large Arab country
as much his administration wanted. Americans virtually, destroyed Iraq.
When all this was taking place in the most brutal way, the protesters
and protests had died down. Only a small minority of writers, bloggers,
journalists and anti-war organizations continued to voice their
opposition to the policies of the US imperialists. I was also one of
those people, writing continuously on my blogs and on different
websites. But the militarists and warmongers did not stop. So, the
voices of protesters and opponents of wars did not affect the policies
of the aggressor.
The same thing has been going on in
Palestine and Kashmir. Two most vicious and brutal colonial powers,
Israel and India, feel free to kill, suppress and suffocate the
colonized people. This is happening before our eyes. No powerful country
intervenes to stop the savagery in Palestine and Kashmir.
Pakistani PM Imran Khan’s words of warning in the UNGA were not a
threat to anyone, but a warning against the great threat that India has
unleashed in Kashmir by its military terror by encapsulating over 8
million Kashmiris into a big prison, by cutting them off from any
contact with the outside world or with each other. Such savagery the
world has not seen over such a large population.
As I have suggested a few times before about the present large-scale
state terror and the incredible cruelty in Kashmir that India has
started with fresh vigor is to advance the objectives of the Hindutva
ideology of extremist fanaticism that targets and discriminates against
the religious and marginalized minorities within the Indian state.
The course followed by India violates the fundamental principles of
the United Nations Charter, international law and international norms
dealing with subjugated or colonized population.
There is only
one sane way for the Indian government in the present inferno that
India has created in Kashmir, and that is to reverse its toxic policy it
imposed on the Kashmiris on 5 August 2019, restore the autonomous
status of Jammu and Kashmir, and then enter into serious negotiations
with Kashmiris and Pakistan under the direction of the United Nation
with a view to end the old conflict according to the wishes of the
people of Kashmir.
There are three parties to the conflict, the
people of Kashmir, India and Pakistan. The fate of Kashmir and Kashmiris
cannot be decided by the Indian occupation army and its barbaric
treatment of the people of Kashmir, but only by the people of Kashmir.
You must be logged in to post a comment.