Comments on: Communalism, is it Muslim?

By: Anurag Pandey

Anurag Pandey — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 06:03:48 +0000

On communalism I am sending you the link of one of my published article, (due to a short space here)and on terrorism, i have really problem in ur argument. I call Sangh Parivar the group of terrorist organizations,they are not communal. Planned pogrom or killing of minorities should not be termed as communal violence. All violence in the name of religion cannot be termed as communal violence. Only those riots in which two or more groups have participated, should be called as communal violence. In this sense I have a problem in calling Gujarat 2002 as communal violence, rather it was a terrorist activity. I will also send you the link of my article which will soon appear on this topic.
Rest you have dealt it good.But about sikh separatism, Bhidarwale was not alone responsible, Gandhi also played a role. about Muslim separatism and hindu communalism plz visit the link I am sending to you. It talks about 1. The reasons of partition of india in 1947 and whether India is running towards the threat of second partition.
http://jas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/42/6/533

By: Dheeraj

Dheeraj — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:02:33 +0000

Very very good article. It was subjective and I never felt that u were biased to any religion. I am actually a friend of Zubair and I too studied in Muffakham Jak College. In my college I never had any debate with Zubair or for that fact with any Muslim and we rarely spoke about religion. After coming to US I find that Zubair is becoming a kind or religious, which is nothing wrong, but I get a feeling that he is becoming a rebellious. I have seen your debate with him on certain posts and your views do match with mine.
Commenting on the above comment, even I always get this doubt why is that Islam spread to all those countries where oil is there? All west Asia is oil rich and Islam is there. Again in between there is sub continent, but again in Indonesia, its Islamic and its oil rich. Even in Africa the countries which are Islamic are oil rich. Example Nigeria. Islamic countries without oil are very few but all of them are struggling with poverty. Example Somalia, Pakistan. Well you can call me stupid to put Pakistan in same place as Somalia but its not oil rich country.

By: A pondering Hindu

A pondering Hindu — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:20:12 +0000

Some factual points to ponder :-

1. The 1993 Mumbai riots were instigated by Muslims first. They were replied to fittingly, although the rioting Muslims may not have been exactly targeted, but the innocent ones.

2. The Godhra train carnage was executed by Muslims. Also in the post-Godhra riots, 210 Hindus also lost their lives and 40,000 Hindus also got displaced. These are PARLIAMENTARY reports.

3. Sociologists and Anthropologists are examining why Muslims automatically tend to live in ghettos wherever they are in a minority : UK, France, Phillippines, southern Thailand and of course, India.

Sociologists are trying to find out what is it about Islam that makes its followers behave as though they are under seige by the majority.

4. Despite having all the oil wealth, middle-eastern nations are struggling with poverty, strife and concentrated wealth. Why ? Is it a co-incidence that the official state religion from Morocco to Pakistan is Islam ?

Think …….

Think hard ….

By: India Unbound

India Unbound — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:34:43 +0000

A good article and you have indeed done a lot of research. But I disagree with quite a few points raised by you.

You have acknowledged that only few Hindus wanted partition and yet you blame those “few” Hindus. Savarkar didn’t have any mass following. Not even Jinnah ever used Savarkar as one of the reasons to demand partition. If you read history, you will realize that partition happened because of mis trust of Jinnah on Congress leaders and blind trust of Muslims of present day Pakistan on Jinnah.

But I wont be surprised if in near future this becomes a norm and “few” Hindus are blamed for partition. Ironically those very “few” Hindus are mocked and called as war mongers for the idea of Akhand Bharat which is quite opposite to the Two Nation Theory.

By: parvezzz

parvezzz — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:30:59 +0000

Very nice Aymen. However I must admit that use of term “Islamic” Terrorism is bit biased and partial. Recently CNN IBN displayed 30 minute program on “Saffron Terror”(1). Clearly they are shown as taking somekind of brainwashing to bring “Divine rule” and Sanatan Sanstha (little known outfit) accused of picking up Hindu youth (parent’s complaining sometimes) and brainwashing them to fight against evils. K Sudarshan and L K Advaani are also shown. You have already presented good overview of Sangh Parivaar’s terrorism (excluding riots), they too are religiously motivated (Cow protection, Ram Temple Building and may be some other reasons little known); their terrorism is not referred as “Hindu terrorism” so it’s unfair and incorrect to use the term “Islamic Terrorism” (as if terrorism by Hindutva outfits is not same as Muslim extremists). Moreover Muslim clergy has condemned Terrorism (2); so it is unjust to use word like “Islamic Terrorism”. Rest of the article looks good.

1.http://www.ibnlive.com/news/how-saffron-terror-outfits-spread-agenda-of-hate/75667-3-1.html
2. http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2548

By: Chaitanya

Chaitanya — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:22:05 +0000

Thanks Aymen for mailing this to me. Its a good read. You even acknowledged me for providing links on communal riots. I do agree with the way you summed it up though I feel few things are oversimplified in your article.

Just as you said that Islamic terrorism is a reality which poses a threat to India, sangh parivar’s growing support base in India is also a reality. Its a reality that communal polarisation aids the cause of Islamic terrorism. I also understand that stereotyping of Indian muslims is a sad reality. Sometimes I feel that India is caught in some vicious cycle. Unfortunately at this point of time there is no true national leader with mass appeal at the helm of affairs.

Now how do we go about making people understand the threat posed by retrograde,reactionary, divisive communal politics played by those who are in our public life (unlike the Islamic jehadists)? It is increasingly becoming difficult for secular minded Hindus to speak against VHP/ Bajrang Dal just because they thrive on emotional blackmailing and fear psychosis. I hope it is the case atleast in online forums where there are many(mostly in their 20s) hyper reactive supporters of sangh parivar.Many of those don’t know what they stand for other than that they fear/hate someone else. Most of them identify Sangh parivar’s Hindutva with Hinduism.This is again a sad reality.

Believe me that you can’t sell this to those who actually need it. You’ll be branded as a terror apologist for your muslim name. If it were a “Raman” instead of “Aymen”, they would call him a pseudo secular. I don’t know whether they assume that there can’t be any secular(or at least pseudo secular) person with a muslim name. Now take this as an advice. You have to sound more objective( I don’t actually say that you are not objective) and for that you also have to touch up on issues like muslim communalism, selective interpretation of holy texts by rabid mullahs, muslim backwardness,victimization, vulnerability to hate propagation etc.,

By: mohammad jamil akhtar ansari

mohammad jamil akhtar ansari — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:47:57 +0000

kudos for the work you did buddy, i really appreaciate you for this, you can anytime contact me through my email id jamilkgp@gmail.com. keep it up… but the time has come that we need to bring this message to the grassroot level to the muslims and the hindus not just confined to the blogs… we the intellectual including both from the hindu and the muslim community can bring a difference… you can even call me in this number…+919725720950…