Connect with us


Muslim versus Islamic

The Kashmir Monitor




By Nadeem Farooq Paracha

Over 95 percent of Pakistanis are Muslim. They have been an overwhelming majority here since Pakistan’s inception on the 14th of August, 1947. Pakistan was carved out from India as a separate country. By 1947, India had been under British colonial rule for almost a hundred years. Before the British finally departed they decided to split the Indian subcontinent into two parts.

Regions with a Muslim majority (but noteworthy Hindu minorities) became Pakistan, and the Hindu-majority areas (with significant Muslim minorities) became India. The Muslim-majority province of East Bengal became part of Pakistan as well (East Pakistan). Like the rest of Pakistan (then known as West Pakistan) East Pakistan too had a Muslim majority, but it had an overwhelming ethnic Bengali population. West Pakistan on the other hand was a more ethnically diverse region. Its prominent ethnic groups included Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Baloch and thousands of Muslim migrants (Mohajirs) who had poured in from areas that had become part of post-colonial India. The East Pakistan region was over 2,000 km from West Pakistan. The vast territory that became India lay between the two wings.


Hindus were an almost absolute majority in India before the first Muslim incursions in the region in the 8th century. But these invasions were restricted to what today is the Sindh province of Pakistan. They were led by the armies of the Arab Umayyad Empire. The Muslim minority of India grew significantly during the long Muslim rule in the region from the early 13th till the mid-19th centuries. But Hinduism – rather its many forms – remained the region’s majority religion. Other ancient religions of the region such as Buddhism and Jainism too continued to exist but the number of their adherents progressively declined. India’s religious diversity was further bolstered by the emergence of Sikhism in the late 15th century and the arrival of Christianity from the 16th century onwards.

Most Muslim rulers who ruled India did not overtly impose Islamic laws or initiate any large-scale projects to convert Hindus to Islam. Almost all the major Muslim dynasties which governed India during this period had Central Asian, Persian and Turkic ancestries. Violence between Hindus and Muslims was rare.

But in no way was India a diverse religious Utopia. The Hindus remained to be treated as second-class citizens and there were incidents in which Muslim kings demolished Hindu places of worship. However, this was not always an act of faith. M.A. Qureshi in Memories of Two Failures wrote that It was mostly done to punish the inhabitants of a town or a village that had risen in revolt. Interestingly, even when a Muslim marauder – such as the 11th-century Afghan warrior Mahmud of Ghazni – repeatedly invaded India and destroyed Hindu temples, he mostly did so to loot them of their jewels and gold.

C.E. Bosworth wrote in Ghaznavid Military Organization that Mahmud’s armies also included Hindus recruited from India. But some Muslim rulers did attempt to impose stringent laws and policies in the name of Islam – most prominently the last major Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb (1658-1707 CE). Many of his religious policies sowed the seeds of future ‘communal violence’ between the Hindus and the Muslims of India. According to A Rieck’s hefty history of South Asia’s Shia Muslims, Shias of Pakistan: An Assertive and Beleaguered Minority, Aurangzeb’s actions in this regard also dialed up tensions between the Sunni and Shia Muslim sects when he tried to root out (what he believed) were certain Shia customs that the Mughals (who were Sunni Muslims) had adopted.

Aurangzeb’s rule was long but it was marred by some major revolts by the Sikhs, and the Hindu Rajput and Maratha castes, so much so, that soon after his death, the once powerful Mughal Empire began to weaken and crumble until it was completely abolished by the British in 1857 CE. Till Aurangzeb, Muslim rule in India was just that: Muslim. It was never ‘Islamic,’ as such. Though largely tilted in favor of the Muslims of India and employing Islamic scholars as religious advisors, its disposition towards Islam was, in fact, influenced by the more esoteric strands of the faith, such as Sufism; and, more so, by sheer political pragmatism.

Islam in India had arrived on horsebacks, but it was the Sufi saints who were its main instruments of persuasion; men who lived among the masses and preached to the people of all faiths a strand of Islam that was populist, sufficiently flexible and vernacular in nature.

There is thus enough space for one to argue that Muslim rule in India began to dither and erode once its political and social complexion began to transform from being Muslim to ‘Islamic.’ Being Muslim in this context meant being pragmatic, inclusive and keeping the ulema from overtly influencing religious policies. The Mughals thus managed to hold vast swaths of land populated by millions of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs (of various ethnicities and castes).

On the streets the rulers allowed an inclusive strand of Islam to cross-breed and take a more integrated shape. This is one reason why the Mughals overtly patronised Sufi saints. The saints became these rulers’ face of Islam which they exhibited to India’s Hindus and Muslims alike.

The Mughal Emperor Akbar (1556-1605 CE) is a prime example. His attempt to expand the appeal of the Mughal Muslim ethos was rather blatant. In 1582 CE he tried to formulate a syncretic idea of a universal set of beliefs by fusing together ‘the best elements’ of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism and Christianity. After Akbar’s death, some Islamic scholars began to claim that Akbar had blasphemed by trying to create his own religious cult. This accusation had initially come from an Islamic scholar active in Akbar’s court. His name was Ahmad Sirhindi. He had been sidelined by Akbar during his intellectual tussles with the emperor’s grand vizier Abul Fazal, who had defended and promoted the Emperor’s idea of formulating a more inclusive and universal Muslim ethos. Even though to this day, some Islamic scholars and historians claim that this was an attempt to create a whole new religion, it really wasn’t.

Aurangzeb’s actions also dialled up tensions between the Sunni and Shia Muslim sects when he tried to root out (what he believed) were certain Shia customs that the Mughals (who were Sunni Muslims) had adopted
Sirhindi claimed that Akbar had tried to create a new religion called Din-e-Illahi. The truth is that this term only appeared after Akbar’s death. Akbar never called it that. The term was coined by Abul Fazal after Akbar had passed away. As one of Pakistan’s leading revisionist historians Dr. Mubarak Ali put it, the act of trying to formulate an all-inclusive Muslim ethos by Akbar was an extension of the emperor’s policy of co-opting the Hindus into the wider universe of Mughal India and expanding his appeal across the large Hindu population of the country. This was an act of sheer political pragmatism by a Muslim emperor ruling over a Hindu majority.

Dr. Ali wrote that Akbar never called it Din-e-Illahi nor presented it as a religion. The confusion about what it comprised was largely proliferated by the faulty translations of Abul Fazal’s writings by the British in the 19th century.

A number of economic, political and social reasons triggered the fall of Muslim rule in India. But one won’t be exaggerating by suggesting that Aurangzeb’s departure from the religious policies of the previous Mughals also played a role in not only slowly strangulating Muslim rule in India from within but also in creating religious and sectarian schisms that still haunt the region.

Many of his intransigent policies gradually dismantled the carefully constructed edifice of the Mughal Muslim ethos. This triggered violent revolts by the Sikhs and the Hindu Marathas and brought the historical tensions between India’s Sunni and Shia Muslims out into the open.

South Asia is not a very homogenous place. In fact, even today, both India and Pakistan, despite their respective Hindu and Muslim majorities, are segmented by a number of ethnic groups, sects, sub-sects, castes, languages and indigenous cultures. Medieval Muslim rulers of India understood this well. There are still a number of theories trying to answer just why Aurangzeb would so radically depart from the tested policies of the previous Mughals.

Aurangzeb’s active proclivity towards religion was more of a reaction. In his bid to come to power and replace his ailing father, Shah Jehan, Aurangzeb’s chief opponent in this regard was his elder brother, Dara Shikoh.

Dara was deeply impressed by the policies and spiritual disposition of his great-grandfather, Akbar. More of a scholar than a warrior, Dara studied Muslim and Hindu scriptures and was also an ardent follower of Sufi Islam which had been the prominent religious conviction of the Mughal court.

Sufism was also the main folk-religion of the common Muslims of India. When Dara was defeated by Aurangzeb, and then captured, he was immediately executed. A group of clerics and ulema who had risen in prominence by siding with Aurangzeb, declared Dara to be an apostate.

During much of Muslim rule in India, the ulema had only been allowed to play a nominal role in the workings of the government. But as Muslim rule receded, the ulema took upon themselves the right to address the resultant concerns of India’s Muslims. The ulema insisted on explaining the decline of the Mughal Empire as something which took place due to the deterioration of ‘true Islam’ and the inclusive policies of the Mughals, which, according to the ulema, strengthened the Hindus and the Sikhs.

In a 1997 essay, the brilliant sociologist Hamza Alavi wrote that this tendency emerged with full force during the Khilafat Movment (1919-1924). The politicised ulema were not only antagonistic towards the British, they exhibited hostility towards South Asian Muslims who were contemporary extensions of the Mughal Muslim ethos. These included those who led the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

For example, whereas Jinnah and his comrades had explained Pakistan as a Muslim-majority state, their religious opponents described it as an ‘Islamic state.’ The tussle between the two tendencies is still alive.

(Courtesy: Friday Times, Lahore)

The Kashmir Monitor is the fastest growing newspaper as well as digitial platform covering news from all angles.



Some baffling decisions of the SC

The Kashmir Monitor



By Manini Chatterjee

Of the three pillars of the state, the judiciary has always evoked much greater respect from ordinary citizens than either the legislature or the executive. Since the legislature comprises elected representatives of the people, we — the people who elect them — feel justly entitled to criticize them at will. The executive, similarly, is more often pilloried than praised when it fails to deliver on its many promises.

The judiciary, on the other hand, has usually been treated as a hallowed institution. Judges, unlike politicians, are seen not only as wise but also possessed of thinner skins. The fear of being hauled up for contempt of court (what construes contempt remains a mystery to most of us) acts as a deterrent to commenting on the judiciary.


But that silence was broken last year. And not by an irreverent media or crusading activists or outspoken lawmakers. It was members of the highest judiciary who dealt the blow, coming out with home truths whose reverberations have yet to subside.

On January 12, 2018, the then four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court — J. Chelameswar, RanjanGogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph — held an unprecedented press conference in the capital. In the course of the press conference, they revealed the letters they had written to the then Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, questioning his style of administration and the manner in which he allocated cases to difference benches of the court. Expressing dismay at the CJI’s refusal to address their grievances, they said, “Unless the institution of Supreme Court is preserved, democracy won’t survive in the country.”

That press conference, which alluded to government interference in the workings of the court, was not a one-off affair. Soon after, in separate letters to the CJI, J. Chelameswar and Kurian Joseph expressed concerns about the judiciary’s independence in face of the executive’s encroachment.

But what made waves in circles well beyond the judiciary was RanjanGogoi’s speech on July 12 to a packed auditorium in Delhi.Delivering the RamnathGoenka memorial lecture, Gogoi spoke at length on the “Vision of Justice” and the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional ideals.

In the course of the lecture, he quoted an article from the Economist which said, “…independent judges and noisy journalists are democracy’s first line of defence.” Gogoi went on to say, “I agree but will only suggest a slight modification in today’s context — not only independent judges and noisy journalists, but even independent journalists and sometimes noisy judges.” Those words made headlines then and have been quoted frequently since.

Pointing out that the judiciary had been endowed with great societal trust, he said, “This very fact gives it its credibility and this very credibility gives it its legitimacy… I will only say that if it wishes to preserve its moral and institutional leverage, it must remain uncontaminated. And, independent. And, fierce. And, at all times. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So is an institution.”

Gogoi’s speech was remarkable because he was in line to be the next Chief Justice. In fact, many feared that he had risked his career with that speech and the government might not elevate him to the post of the CJI after Dipak Misra retired.

Those fears were belied. Gogoi became the Chief Justice of India in early October. But, truth be told, hopes that a feisty judiciary would force more transparency on opaque and questionable executive decisions have also remained unfulfilled.

Some of the Supreme Court’s decisions, such as in the case relating to the removal of the Central Bureau of Investigation chief, has left even retired judges puzzled.

On October 23, the government conducted a midnight raid on the headquarters of the CBI and seized a whole lot of material related to pending investigations. It then summarily removed the CBI chief, AlokVerma, from his post. Since Verma had been appointed by a three-member selection committee (comprising the prime minister, the leader of the largest Opposition party and the CJI), he contended that only that committee could remove him — and not the central vigilance commissioner. Verma moved the Supreme Court with alacrity against his arbitrary removal.

The apex court chose not to adjudicate on the removal. Instead, it appointed a retired Supreme Court judge, A.K. Patnaik, to supervise a CVC probe into the allegations of corruption levelled against Verma by his bête noire, the then CBI special director, Rakesh Asthana. It directed the probe be completed within two weeks. The three-judge bench of Gogoi, Sanjay KishanKaul, and K.M. Joseph passed no strictures against the manner in which the raids were conducted by the government nor asked why and what materials had been seized.

Although the probe was completed in two weeks and the report presented to the court, it was not till January 8 that the judges delivered their verdict. On the face of it, the verdict was a victory for Verma. It said that only the three-member selection committee could transfer or divest Verma of his powers, and not the CVC or the Centre.

Again, puzzlingly, it passed no strictures against the government for removing him in the manner it did. Instead, it asked the selection committee to go through the contents of the CVC probe report and decide in a week whether Verma should be exonerated or indicted.

The government convened a meeting the very next day and less than 48 hours after he was reinstated as CBI chief, Verma was once again given marching orders. The CJI had recused himself from the panel, and appointed the judge, A.K. Sikri in his stead. Sikri and the prime minister, Narendra Modi, voted to remove Verma while MallikarjunKharge dissented.

What followed has been extremely unflattering for the apex court. A.K. Patnaik, the judge who had supervised the CVC probe, told The Indian Express that “[t]here was no evidence against Verma regarding corruption”, that the decision to remove him was “very very hasty”, and that the committee “should have applied their mind thoroughly, especially as a Supreme Court judge was there.”

Speaking to The Telegraph, two highly respected former Chief Justices of India also expressed misgivings on the way the committee took the decision without giving Verma a chance to present his side of the case. Former CJI, T.S. Thakur, underlined that if a decision was being taken on the basis of an adverse report against an individual, that individual must be given an opportunity to present his point of view. “If that process has not been followed… then any decision based on such adverse findings will be contrary to the principles of natural justice.”

Another former CJI, R.M. Lodha, said much the same thing: “He (Verma) needs to be heard. Ordinarily, he should be heard. Principles of natural justice deserved to be followed.”

In other words, the Supreme Court’s failure to explicitly state that Verma should be given a hearing violated the principles of natural justice.

Similarly, a CJI-headed bench’s verdict on the Rafale deal has also raised eyebrows. While the government, understandably, has hailed the verdict as a “clean chit”, the detailed review petition filed by ArunShourie, Yashwant Sinha and Prashant Bhushan points out how the “the government has blatantly misled the Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court has grossly erred in placing reliance on false averments in the note not even supported by an affidavit.” In layman’s language, it questions the touching faith the apex court placed in the assertions of the government in spite of evidence to the contrary.

The Supreme Court collegium’s decision to appoint two judges to the apex court after retracting an earlier selection of two other judges is the latest controversy to hit the judiciary.

The CJI, reportedly, is “very upset” over the “media leaks” on the collegium’s functioning. Last week, he also advised the advocate, Prashant Bhushan — who wanted the government to disclose the names shortlisted by the search committee for the post of Lokpal — not to “look at things from a negative point of view” and to “be positive” instead.

That is fine advice from a spiritual guru. But advocating such a course in today’s India can also be construed as unquestioning faith in a majoritarian government’s intents and actions. The apex court has baffled us on many counts in the last few months. But that someone who spoke in praise of noisy judges and independent journalists should now worry about adverse media reports and negative attitudes to the government is, perhaps, the most bewildering of them all…

Continue Reading


Growing menace of corruption

The Kashmir Monitor



By Tawfeeq Irshad Mir

“One who listens to truth is not less than one who utters the truth”

With glued memories of my infantile period, hardly I could retrieve the surroundings and the events happening around, Brought up in a very small village “Goripora” in Sopore town of Kashmir, a village with meticulous presence, conscious, a mixture of intellect and a think tank of its own, whenever I revert my memory lane through times, I find myself in the nap of my grandfather, an image of an old man enveloped in “chadar” yet young by mind, he was the then head of village, people of all ages enjoyed his presence, igniting the debate pertaining to different issues, being the head of the village, so mostly revenue matters were discussed and the consistent content of all debates used to be “corruption” the word that recurrently vibrated my neurons and propelled me as to what is this corruption all about, initial understanding was like this, “to get your work down, have a chicken to please” and sometimes “the person inflated the pocket to get the work down” in common Kashmiri language, you might have encountered the word most frequently “channel, like the person has channel,designated to corruption. As being in rural area, the incentives for corruption used to be” chicken “an apple box” sometimes red beans “probably due to lack of money as people used to exchange their daily needs rather than money. As I grew up, exposed myself to the environment, what I found was interesting, now an updated version of corruption :every now, people discussing the scourge of corruption, as like a curse, preferably in revenue department, to have an income certificate, an amount of 2 to 3 hundred rupees was a prerequisite, with the time I found people paying huge amounts to get their land acquisitions settled, even to get a driving licence, driving skill hardly mattered, as the time passed by, now the word “corruption” was a constant encrypted into the minds of people, a peculiar picture of engulfing in corruption was most obvious from electricity department, then it was not digitalized, the new house holder enjoyed the bless even without registration by simply paying a meagre amount to officials in the department. “Not a single institution is prone to corruption” but it’s deleterious effects on education and recruitment system “has perturb and monstrous consequences. As I observed during the years, it was evident during the board exams, every one among us might have witnessed the special privilege being offered to some students in the examination Hall, a corruption of intimate level, eventually with the enlightenment of newspapers, social media, the youth Began to lay their repercussions on corruption pertaining to selection process whether it be for further education or selection of job process, like the ‘x’ person got selected because the said person had paid a huge amount for it, it swept the general consensus of youth, dredging them to denial resorting to premature statements that “now this education is futile as you won’t get any things unless you don’t have enough money, there is no place for poor fellows, we can’t continue with this” and the consequence was such that many talented ones dredged in drug dependency, heralding their further education.


Here I am talking about corruption on the local level, attached to the ground where I am the self-observant of this scourge, many a times I have been a part of discussions locally regarding this remorse, but in an alienated elite.

Social networking sites are filled with tons of data regarding corruption, gallons of ink have been spent on news papers to reflect this horror, while everyone apparently and seemingly attacking the subsequent political discourse and the concerned administrative systems,

“I have a virtual opinion, I believe, “every human being has encoded traits, and has a natural tendency to express these traits, both positive and negative as like in all other animals, but the best thing about humans is to differentiate between right and wrong and the ability to direct their energies toward humanity, that’s why called humans, but one’s the person is exacerbated by materialistic influence, the person tends to express the negative trait to fulfil the Ill designed desires, and simply the person who endorses or resorts to such mischievous act of corruption, the person is engulfed my this wild trait “
Now what astonishes me the most,” while everyone seemingly denigrates this scourge, then who supports it, I mean everyone is raising in objection to it, then who constitutes to the corruption.

I would like to prove my content with objective analysis, suppose I am the person, and I am asked to give some amount to secure a place in any govt. department, despite irrelevant educational qualifications and out of any fearful selection procedure, now it’s all about me, would I agree or not, so surely the moment I am in such a position, I will surely opt for it, likewise I believe every single person on the planet not only in the valley, will opt the same, I jus made an analogy and it almost pertains to every aspect. So literally, I mean to say that corruption is from within, not a system is corrupted, in fact the people with this thinking make the system corrupt and that’s how it seems that the whole system is overwhelmed with corruption, it is engrained in the minds of people, “the humans have rbcs, wbcs, and platelets in blood, but I suspect we have one more” corruption cell “in our blood and we have genes encoded with it dominantly.

” We have to deter this menace from within, the moment we object to this greed, it needs to be abolished from within, sanitising the systems won’t yield any results, because it’s already ingrained in the minds of people, so we have to interpret and analyse and suppress this wild trait only then we will get rid of this wild menace infesting our spirituality, ethos”

(The writer is pursuing graduation in Nursing at G M C, Srinagar and can be reached at: [email protected])

Continue Reading


Why the JNU story won’t die

The Kashmir Monitor



By Rakesh Batabyal

Not too long ago in the history of the Republic — 1974 to be precise — a large body of students entered the lobby, and later the room of Vice-Chancellor G Parthasarathy, the founding head of Jawaharlal Nehru University, a man charged with the setting up of a world-class university, and announced that they were gheraoing him. They wanted the barriers of gender separating the girls’ and boys’ hostels to be done away with, as it smacked of a feudal society based on patriarchy. They were expressing the most progressive ideas agitating the young mind — the gendered barricades encompassing society. Parthasarathy, who had interacted with the most powerful people in the world, found this group of students, many of whom did not even speak English (the language of the diplomatic elite that he was familiar with), more powerful than all who had come before — they were students, yet their demands were not for their own interests, nor even for something euphemistically called national interest. They were protesting for something which in their minds they thought would make society better all-in-all. He did not ask for the police, did not chide them, neither was he demurred — he talked to them about social, bureaucratic and other miscellaneous issues that would not permit such a great idea to be immediately pursued in a traditional society; it would in fact be harmed through the vicious constrictions of traditional society. Its time would come, though, one fine day, and then the society would remember the pioneers — those JNU students. Such was the spirit embodied in the foundation of the university that is JNU. There are many other instances that reinforced these values and established the spirit of dissent and dialogue that became the signature of this great institution.

In the mid-1980s, a Dean of Students introduced a register for women students/ guests entering the men’s hostel, where the purpose of visit was to be recorded. Many uncharitable remarks made the administration understand its own lack of practical wisdom, and this rule was never strictly enforced.


Then, in the late 1980s, an ever-watchful body of students discovered that a senior official was drawing salary from two sources. In the pre-RTI age, they made efforts to get at the source. The Vice-Chancellor, a stickler for rules, had to disown the officer; at no point was a student either issued a show-cause notice or shown the door.

In the early 1990s, students wanted to strike against the administration and they were sitting on a hunger strike when the Vice-Chancellor himself joined them in the strike, saying this was his cause too. Professor Yoginder K Alagh, the Vice-Chancellor, was no mean scholar and knew that the students were not demanding something out of the world.

Thus, through such acts, the young were indicating the new and emerging mores, which led to the university not being ossified. Teachers had their individual political and intellectual predilections and students too had their own, but one saw the campus, like the nation, carry on with the variety and colour of these differences.
There were shouts and slogans to drown the other, but they were more a demonstration of intellectual prowess than threats to physically eliminate the other. When the State imposed Emergency in 1975, JNU students became part of street agitations. Their refusal to allow then prime minister Indira Gandhi into the campus is the stuff of legends.

The story of an institution is a story of shared memories and shared ideals. JNU, as it has grown in the last 50 years, is one such great story. Within this story lay millions of small lives and their careers as they have woven the narrative of this country in the last half century.

A university reflects the character of a nation: its moral self, its confidence and its resolve to face the world. When we sat at the table in our hostel mess, when we all talked about our larger vision and smaller plans — about fighting the capital and its sway, our resolve to finish off shades of Apartheid or the discriminating caste hierarchies — we were speaking of the society and for a future society. The shared memories of those talks, of the politics that gave us the language to express those visions and plans, are small stories in the big world.

As the University celebrates its 50th anniversary, it is these shared memories of the collective self that will keep the beauty of the institution intact. All that is beautiful needs to be cherished and the memories are those beautiful things that direct us towards a great future. It is unfortunate that those who do not cherish the memory and what JNU stands for, are at the helm of affairs today. But memories fortunately cannot be killed, only repressed in some circles.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor and receive notifications of new stories by email.

Join 980,296 other subscribers


January 2019
« Dec