• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Radicalisation Of Indian Muslims -2
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bangalore on alert after violence
Saturday, January 20, 2007 10:04:03 am

Atleast 20 people including ten police men were injured and about 40 vehicle damaged or burnt after a protest against the hanging of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein turned violent in Bangalore.

Things are calm now, over 200 assailants mostly teenagers armed with swords,kniefs and lathis were behind this attack. On the other hand, police fired in the air to disperse a violent crowd.

Additional Commissioner of Police Bipin Gopalakrishna said, “Few shops were burnt and people injured in the stone throwing incident. The situation was brought under control when DCP reached the place, absolutely no loss of life and no major injuries were reported. Policemen were also injured.”

The trouble broke out when a banner relating to "Virat Hindu Samajotsav" was removed by a group of people on way to attend the rally, which led to tension and stone-pelting, police said.

At a rally held at Shivajinagar stadium, leaders of political parties from the state, including Congress leaders C K Jaffar Sharief and former chief minister N Dharam Singh and SP leader S Bangarappa, attacked the US' Iraq policy.

The protesters, who had gathered at the rally, burnt the portraits of US President George Bush and shouted slogans against him and the US. The rally was held under the banner of "People's Front".

The police is in mood to take chances and will continue to keep a close watch. 

They don't have time to protest when Mumbai blasts happen or when the Saudi king visits India, shows where their priorities lie.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Atleast 20 people including ten police men were injured and about 40 vehicle damaged or burnt after a protest against the hanging of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein turned violent in Bangalore.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Send them to Iraq. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Saffron activists, minority groups clash in Indore</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The trouble erupted when a group belonging to the minority community brandished swords in front of an office bearer of a saffron outfit, Superintendent of Police Anshuman Singh Yadav said.

He said this led to a clash between the two groups which pelted each other with stones and a police force had to be rushed to the area.

Check news heading and why they are hiding identity of Muslims? <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bangalore bleeds again: cops fire on mob, 1 dead
Posted Sunday , January 21, 2007 at 16:57
Bangalore: One person was killed and over 15 injured when Police opened fire in the Shivaji Nagar area of Bangalore where an angry mob went on a rampage burning several vehicles, pelting stone and closing shops on Sunday.

Violence broke out in many parts of east and north-east Bangalore with Shivaji Nagar being the worst-hit area in the city. Curfew has been imposed in Bharti Nagar area of Bangalore from 2200 hrs (IST) on Sunday to 0700 hrs (IST) on Monday.

While a 12-year-old boy was killed when police opened fire, 15 people were injured including eight police constables. A constable Thimmaiah was stabbed by a mob in Shivaji Nagar. The injured have been admitted to Bowring Hospital.

Trouble began on Sunday afternoon right next to a convention of Virat Hindu Samaj Utsav. While three buses were burnt in the Bamboo Bazaar area, three autos were damaged near Ulsoor lake. Stray incidents of violence have also been reported from other areas in Bangalore Contonement, Shivajinagar and Old Madras Road.

The other troubled areas in the city are Kamaraj Road, Armstrong road, Sappers road, Commercial street, Shivchetty garden, Bamboo Bazar, Coles park, Cock Burn street, Ulsoor lake, Assay Road, Gangadhara Chetty road, Old Madras Road, and Indira Nagar.

Mob violence had rocked the Shivaji Nagar and Bharati Nagar areas of the city on Friday after clashes during a demonstration against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s execution.

The violence left at least 20 persons injured. Police had to fire in the air to disperse a violent crowd prior to a massive rally by the Muslim community.

There were stone-throwing and group violence between the two groups in Bharti Nagar police limits. Trouble broke out when a banner relating to 'Virat Hindu Samajotsav' was removed by a group of people on their way to attend the rally, which led to tension and stone-pelting, police said. An unspecified number of police personnel and civilians were injured in the incidents.

Around 400 police personnel had been deployed in the two places, which officials said are tense but under control. A police two-wheeler and two shops were set on fire. Several private vehicles were also damaged in the incidents.

The Bangalore Police chief said more than 300 people were arrested or detained on charges of riots and prohibitory orders were clamped on all trouble-torn areas.

At a rally held at Shivajinagar stadium, leaders of political parties from the state, including Congress leaders CK Jaffar Sharief and former Chief Minister N Dharam Singh and SP leader S Bangarappa, attacked the US' Iraq policy. The protesters, who had gathered at the rally, burnt the portraits of US President George Bush and shouted slogans against him and the US.

The rally was held under the banner of 'People's Front'. Though the situation is under control in Bamboo Bazaar and the Contonement areas, Ulsoor remains tense.

"It is now under control as the we lathicharged. We have clamped section 144 and arrested many in connection with the clash," Commissioner of Police told CNN-IBN.

The bastards should all be deported to Iraq where the US army can send them to their jannat.
Moslems in action: In pictures
<img src='http://www.indiavarta.com/gallery/images/2007/jan/19b/bng6.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Title to this picture should be
<b>"Anti-Hindu Muslims protesting US policy in middleEast by destroying Hindus property"</b>
Protest organized by Congress and its partner Muslim League
<img src='http://static.ibnlive.com/pix/sitepix/01_2007/bangalore_protest1_248.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

<b>Indian Muslim protesting US policy in Bangalore, India. Protest organized by Sonia led ruling Congress Party and its parter Muslim league who were responsible for India's partition in 1947.</b>
<b>Chant for CBI probe into madarsa rape</b>
A day after two Muslim girls were gangraped in an Allahabad madarsa, political parties demanded a CBI probe into the gory incident. The madarsa is run by Wasiullal, the brother of Varanasi blast accused Waliullah who is in prison.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->NRIs accused of Al-Qaeda links

Durban: Two South African Muslims of Indian origin had been accused of having links with the Al-Qaeda by the US in a document submitted to the UN, a media report said.

The US has submitted documents to the UN that alleges that Farhad Ahmed Dockrat, a cleric and a businessman from Pretoria, and Junaid Ismail Dockrat, a dentist from Johannesburg, are cousins with links with the Al-Qaeda network.

The US claimed that Farhad Dockrat in 2001 gave $100,000 to the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan for transmission to the Al-Akhtar Trust headquarters in Pakistan, which had been identified as a fund-raiser for the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Johannesburg-based Sunday Times said.

The trust had been identified as a Special Designated Global Terrorist group (in terms of the Executive Order 13224), designed to block financial and material support to terrorists and their facilitators, the US said.

Junaid Dockrat has been accused of being in contact with Al-Qaeda's late operations chief Hamza Rabia and co-ordinating the travel of South Africans to Pakistan to train with the terror group.

However, both have rejected the allegations. "I have never paid any money to Al-Qaeda in my life. If one is Muslim and had Muslim concerns at heart, then one is considered a terrorist by the US," said Farhad Dockrat.

"We are public figures, law abiding citizens. I will absolutely contest this. I am not involved in funding Al-Qaeda. Nobody has come to me to explain why the US has put me on the list", said Junaid Dockrat.


<b>The hidden roots of Wahhabism in British India </b>
From: World Policy Journal
Date: June 22, 2005
Author: Allen, Charles

Three generations ago a great deal was known about Muslim extremism in India, and with good cause--indeed, one of my great-grandfathers was standing beside the viceroy when he was knifed to death by an alleged Wahhabi assassin in 1871.

But by my grandfathers' time that experience was fast being forgotten, and by my father's generation it had been buried in the archives. <b>Had this present generation been more aware of the true history of Indian Wahhabism, our governments might perhaps have been more wary of engaging in war by proxy following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.</b> And if we are ever to come to terms with why so many young men have given and continue to give their lives to jihad in what the British knew as the North-West Frontier, and why so many cling to the belief that this same region is a dar-ul-Islam or "domain of the faith" second only to Mecca and Medina, then we have to understand what Wahhabism accomplished there, not only in the 1980s and 1990s but a full century and a half earlier.

I must admit that until very recently I shared this general ignorance. I can remember traveling from Swat to Hazara in the late 1990s and being absolutely baffled when a local khan told me to be sure, as I crossed the Indus at the Tarbela Dam, to look out for the site of what he called the Hindustani Camp, "which you British called the Fanatic Camp."

So let me begin by examining what we mean by Wahhabism: the reformist theology first expounded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1702/3-91) in Nejd in the 1740s, espoused by the local chieftan Muhammad ibn Saud, and subsequently applied by these two houses--the al-Saud and the aal as-Sheikh (as the descendents of Sheikh Abd-al-Wahhab are known) in interdependent alliance until Wahhabism became the established form of Islam in the state bearing the name of Emir ibn Saud since the 1920s.

<b>Ever since Wahhabism took root in Indian soil its adherents have consistently denied being Wahhabis. </b>Their dissembling was aided by the inability of the British authorities to recognize that the scores of uprisings and assassinations that marred the Pax Britannica of India's North-West Frontier <b>from the 1840s onward were anything more than local troubles stirred up by "mad mullahs."</b>

<b>This misrepresentation was subsequently compounded by the distortions of nationalist historians writing after independence, who represented Wahhabi rebels as freedom fighters. As a result, our understanding of the forces that gave rise to Islamist fundamentalism on the Indian subcontinent has been seriously distorted. </b>

<b>The man credited with importing Wahhabism into India is Syed Ahmad of Rae Bareili (1786-1831), who returned from pilgrimage in Mecca in 1824 to begin a holy war against the Sikhs aimed at restoring the Punjab to Muslim rule.</b> But the argument that Syed Ahmad picked up his ideas of Wahhabi intolerance and jihad while in Arabia is untenable. <b>The reality is that he had already accepted the basic tenets of Wahhabism long before sailing to Arabia, as a student of the Madrassa-i-Ramiyya religious seminary in Delhi and as a pupil of its leader, Shah Abdul Aziz, son of the reformer Shah Waliullah of Delhi. </b>

Shah Waliullah is the key figure here--a man as much admired within Sunni Islam as a great modernizer (the historian Aziz Ahmad rightly describes him as "the bridge between medieval and modern Islam in India") as Abd al-Wahhab is reviled. The one, after all, was a follower of the tolerant, inclusive Hanafi school of jurisprudence and a Naqshbandi Sufi initiate, while the other belonged to the intolerant, exclusive Hanbali school, was viciously anti-Sufi and anti-Shia, and deeply indebted in his prejudices to the notorious fourteenth-century jurist of Damascus, Ibn Taymiyya--the ideologue whose reinterpretations of militant jihad are today cited by every Islamist. <b>Yet these two key figures have far more in common than their respective admirers are willing to accept. Not only were they exact contemporaries, they almost certainly studied in Medina at the same period--and had at least one teacher in common. </b>

Shah Waliullah came to Mecca on hajj in 1730, when he was 27, and then spent 14 months studying in Medina. First among his teachers was Shaikh Abu Tahir Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Kurani al-Madani, a renowned teacher of Hadith (the statements and examples of conduct of the Prophet gathered into a corpus to become, together with the Koran, the basis of sharia--the divinely ordained laws governing all aspects of behavior) in whose library the young Shah Waliullah studied the works of Ibn Taymiyya.

In the case of Abd al-Wahhab the facts are not quite so well documented, but we know that he studied Hadith in Medina in his late twenties under the Indian Muhammad Hayat al-Sindi, a Naqshbandi sufi and a Shaft jurist who was an admirer of Ibn Taymiyya and a student of Ibrahim al-Kurani--the teacher who taught Hadith to Shah Waliullah and introduced him to the ideas of Ibn Taymiyya.

So we have the intriguing possibility that the two greatest Sunni reformers of their age not only sat at the feet of the same teachers but may even have sat in the same classes. We can also be confident that some of these teachers encouraged their students to follow Ibn Taymiyya's hard line and to regard militant jihad as a prime religious duty--which is what both Abd al-Wahhab and Shah Waliullah then went home to implement.

On his return to India, Shah Waliullah preached the oneness of God and called a return to the basics. Just as Ibn Taymiyya had done, he defied custom by setting himself up as a mujtahid (one who makes his own interpretations of established religious law by virtue of informed reasoning), and indulging in independent reasoning (ijtihad). In central Arabia, Abd al-Wahhab did likewise --the only major difference between the two being that Abd al-Wahhab succeeded in imposing his reading of Islam on his countrymen while Shah Waliullah failed, for lack of a strong champion.

With the British takeover of the Mughal capital of Delhi in 1803 and the humiliating demotion of the emperor to the status of a pensioner, Shah Waliullah's eldest son and successor, Shah Abdul Azziz, issued a fatwa, or religious judgment, <b>that Delhi had been enslaved by kuffr (paganism). He declared Hindustan to be a dar al-harb or "domain of enmity" and that it was now incumbent on all Muslims to strive to restore India to Islam. This was no more than a gesture, but it set a goal that his student Syed Ahmad did not forget</b>.

After a murky period as a mercenary, Syed Ahmad returned to his religious studies, to reemerge in his early thirties as a visionary revivalist and preacher. He very soon acquired disciples, of whom the first two were the nephew and son-in-law of his former teacher. Many Sunnis now saw him as the inheritor of the mantle of the Shah Waliullah and hundreds flocked to join his cause, among them a young man called Wilayat Ali, who deserves special mention not only because he became an important leader of the Wahhabi movement but because of his antecedents. It seems to have been overlooked--<b>by historians determined to distance Syed Ahmad's movement and Arabian Wahhabism</b>--that Wilayat Ali was initially a student of Ghulam Rasul of Benares. The significance of Ghulam Rasul is that he spent many years in Arabia--not in Mecca or Medina but in the remote province of Nejd, the seat of Wahhabism.

When he returned to Benares he took the name of Hajji Abdul Haq and became known as the Nejdi Sheikh. He also brought with him a radical version of Islam that we can confidently label as "Wahhabism," which means that it was already established in India before Syed Ahmad began his pilgrimage to Mecca in 1821.

<b>The Five Articles of Faith</b>

Syed Ahmad's teachings were now based on five main articles of faith (as summarized by T. E. Ravenshaw in his Historical Memorandum on the Sect of the Wahabees, 1864): "Reliance on one Supreme Being [tawhid]; repudiation of all forms, ceremonies, and observances of the modern Mahomedan religion, retaining only such as are considered the pure doctrines of the Koran [bidat]; the duty of holy war for the faith [jihad] against infidels generally; blind and implicit obedience to their spiritual guides; expectation of an Imam who will lead all true believers to victory over infidels." The first four of these articles accorded with the teachings of Abd al-Wahhab, but the last was the quintessential Shia belief that at the end of days a messiah-figure known as the Imam Mahdi, or the "expected one," would come to the rescue of Islam. Divisions now began to appear between Syed Ahmad's more hardline followers in Patna, who saw themselves as Wahhabis in all but name, and those in Delhi, led by the grandson of Shah Waliullah, Shah Muhammad Ishaq (hereafter referred to as the "Delhi-ites").

In December 1825, the fortress of Bharatpur was taken with great slaughter--a further demonstration of the ascendancy of the British. "Fate has been so kind to the accursed Nazarenes and the mischievous polytheists," <b>Syed Ahmad wrote to a friend. "My heart is filled with shame at this religious degradation and my head contains but one thought, how to organize jihad."</b> He decided the time had come to emulate the Prophet, who had preceded his Islamic conquest by making a retreat (hegira) from the land of enmity of Mecca and migrating to the land of faith of Medina. <b>Syed Ahmad arranged that Patna should serve as his movement's main base in Hindustan. However, his fighting base had to be a domain of the faith, ideally Afghanistan. </b>

In January 1826, he commenced his retreat along with some 400 armed mujahidin ("strivers for the faith"). <b>At the same time, he wrote to Muslim rulers such as the emir of Bokhara, exhorting them to support his jihad--not against British imperialism, as it is so often portrayed, but to purge Hindustan of "the impurities of polytheism and the filth of dissonance."</b> The response was lukewarm and when Syed Ahmad's army eventually reached Kabul by way of the Bolan Pass they found themselves unwanted. With their numbers greatly reduced they finally emerged from the Khyber Pass onto the Vale of Peshawar, occupied by Pathans of Afghan origin but then ruled over by the Sikhs. Here they were received as liberators and a sanctuary was provided for them at Sittana in the massif known as the Mahabun Mountain, jutting into the plains from the hills of Swat and Buner.

<b> This had long been regarded as a land of saints and now became the Wahhabis' dar al-Islam. Astonishingly, it remained the Wahhabi stronghold, or what the British called the Fanatic Camp, to the end of the nineteenth century. </b>

In fall 1826, Syed Ahmad summoned all Muslims to join his holy war. The Pathans rallied to his cause and he was formally chosen as the movement's imam and commander of the faithful, echoing the titles of the early caliphs. His war began in spring 1827, initially with a military disaster but then with a series of victories against the Sikh armies that culminated in the capture of Peshawar in 1830. To mark this great victory, Syed Ahmad declared himself badshah, or king of kings, possibly as a preliminary to presenting himself as the longed-for Imam Mahdi. He also imposed strict Wahhabi rules on Peshawar and the surrounding country. After two months the locals rebelled and every Hindustani jihadist found in the Vale was dragged from his prayers and put to the sword. Syed Ahmad and his companions survived the massacre and fled across the Indus River into Hazara, only to be cornered by a Sikh army. On May 8, 1831, Syed Ahmad, his two closest disciples, and some 1,300 Hindustanis made their last stand and died bravely.

<b>That should have ended the fundamentalist movement. But led by Wilayat Ali, the original Wahhabi convert, the Wahhabis in the plains regrouped.</b> Wilayat Ali lacked charisma but was a brilliant propagandist, confecting the story that Syed Ahmad was not really dead but merely waiting in the mountains to resume the jihad, thus reshaping Wahhabism into a cult centered on its hidden imam. A secret network based on Patna was established by which funds, supplies, and weapons were sent along a covert caravan trail to the Mahabun Mountain, along with volunteers to be trained as mujahidin. Finally, in spring 1851, <b>Wilayat Ali and his younger brother, Inayat Ali, with hundreds of armed men, made their hegira from the plains to the Punjab frontier, with the aim of recommencing the jihad in the winter of 1853-54. </b>

All this went largely unnoticed by the British authorities, until August 1852, when a bundle of "treasonable correspondence" was seized that revealed the existence of a sect of fanatic Muslims in Patna. A raid on the Wahhabis' base was carried out, but after a stand-off the governor general concluded that the troublemakers in the mountains should be left alone "since they are insignificant."

In the event, the commissioner of Peshawar, Frederick Mackeson, chose not to leave the Hindustani Fanatics alone. In January 1853, in response to an appeal from a local chief, he launched a raid on the Hindustani camp at Sittana, driving its inhabitants further into the mountains. But he failed to follow up; a decision that probably cost him his life, since in the following September he was knifed to death in his bungalow by a tribesman from Swat. <b>Nevertheless, the raid forced the Hindustanis to put off their jihad, which was rescheduled for the summer of 1857. </b>

<b>Wahhabism Survives </b>

The events of the great Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 are well known, but the part played by the Wahhabis deserves closer examination. <b>All the evidence suggests that the Wahhabis refused to align themselves with the non-Wahhabi rebels,</b> in part because they regarded the king of Delhi, Bahadur Shah, as a heretic due to his religious tolerance, but also because they had their own plans. The main fighting arm of the Wahhabis were the Hindustani Fanatics up at Sittana, but they too remained inactive until several hundred mutinous soldiers arrived in their camp. Wilayat Ali had died of a fever a year earlier so it was his younger and more intemperate brother, Inayat Ali, who responded by launching a raid into the plains, apparently believing that he would be joined by mujahidin sent up from Patna. Instead, the Hindustanis were subjected to a series of assaults that forced them to retreat even deeper into the mountains.

In April 1858 the British military commander in Peshawar led a three-pronged assault on the Mahabun Mountain to wipe out the Hindustani Fanatics once and for all. Inayat Ali had just died of fever, and the Wahhabis were again taken by surprise. The mujahidin were surrounded and all but wiped out, yet somehow Wilayat Ali's eldest son, Abdullah Ali, escaped to fight another day. The survivors moved to an abandoned settlement named Malka, where they were entirely dependent on the charity of their neighbors. Amazingly, the Wahhabis bounced back, again thanks to official indifference. They rebuilt their organization and reopened their underground trail to the North-West Frontier. The outcome was a series of arrests in the plains, and a disastrous campaign, mounted at huge cost to destroy the Fanatic Camp at Malka, so clumsily executed that it achieved nothing beyond uniting the Pathan tribes against the British and raising the Wahhabis' prestige as champions of Islam.

By beating detainees to extract confessions and using "approvers" to turn Queen's evidence, the Wahhabi organization in plains India was broken up, leading to a series of high-profile trials in the 1860s and 1870s. One curious feature of these trials was that those convicted, besides being shackled in irons, were dressed in orange overalls (a color code replicated at the U.S. base at Guantanamo). A number of leaders were condemned to death, subsequently commuted to transportation for life on the Andaman Islands, and others sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. <b>A special commission was then set up to examine the extent of the threat posed by the sect, producing the first detailed report on the Wahhabi movement--Ravenshaw's memorandum. This documented for the first time its extraordinary sophistication and its long history of armed jihad. </b>

Then, in 1871, the whole issue came back to a fresh boil with the murder of the British chief justice, John Norman, on his way into court to preside over a Wahhabi trial in Calcutta. He was stabbed to death by a Pathan who went to the gallows without giving a coherent account of his motives. This was followed five months later by the unprecedented assassination of a viceroy, Lord Mayo, while on tour in the Andaman Islands. His attacker, also a Pathan, had served as orderly to a number of British political officers in Peshawar. The British in India united in concluding that the Wahhabis were behind the assassination, but no evidence was found to support this belief. Yet two possibly unconnected events remain unexplained: a grandson of Wilayat Ali was found to have visited the Andaman Islands shortly before Lord Mayo's arrival, and a person or persons unknown had given a great feast for the killer on the night before the murder.

Remarkably, the Wahhabis on the Mahabun Mountain survived the purges. Under the leadership of Abdallah Ali, they moved from one hideout to another, harassed in turn by the local tribes and the British authorities. In 1873, Abdullah Ali's youngest brother in Patna appealed for an official pardon, rejected on the grounds that the Hindustani Fanatics would eventually be forced to give up. But the government was, as often before, indulging in wishful thinking. The Hindustanis clung on, kept alive by handouts from the Pathan tribes.

When a British journalist came to write about the North-West Frontier in 1890, he noted that the Hindustanis were widely admired among the tribes for their "fierce fanaticism." Their colony was celebrated locally as the Kila Mujahidin, or "the Fortress of the Holy Warriors," wherein they "devoted their time to drill, giving the words of command in Arabic, firing salutes with cannon made of leather, and blustering about the destruction of the infidel power of the British." It was said that they were still awaiting the return of Syed Ahmad, their Hidden Imam.

Then came the great frontier uprising of 1897-98, beginning in Swat and spreading like the proverbial wildfire south through tribal country, and requiring an army of 40,000 to reduce them to submission. It is worth examining the source from which the mullah who incited the uprising drew his ideas. Known to the British as the "Mad Fakir," Mullah Sadullah was a 60-year-old native of Buner who reappeared in his homeland after many years' absence to proclaim that he had been visited by Syed Ahmad the Martyr and had been ordered by him to turn the British out of Swat and the Vale of Peshawar. He had with him a 13-year-old boy named Shah Sikander (Alexander) who claimed to be the legitimate heir to the throne of Delhi. Unfortunately for the mullahs, British bullets did not turn to water as he had predicted, and the boy was among the many tribesmen killed in the fighting.

<b>Three Legacies </b>

Many young Wahhabis, easily identified by their distinctive black waistcoats and dark blue robes, fought and died in the uprising. <b>We can now see that two great legacies of Syed Ahmad on the frontier were, first, the "jihadization" of the Pathans; and, second, the reinforcement of the belief that the border region was a domain of the faith, to be defended at all costs. </b>

But there was a third, more potent, legacy. <b>The Wahhabi trials and assassinations led to discussions in the vernacular newspapers and in the mosques as to where a Muslim's first loyalties lay</b>. Convocations of muftis and other jurists met in Calcutta and Delhi and, after much agonizing, produced differing declarations.

In Calcutta, they decreed British India to be domain of the faith, wherein religious rebellion was unlawful. In Delhi, however, they found the country to be a domain of enmity--but went on to state that rebellion was nevertheless uncalled for. <b>At the same time, many ordinary Muslims, despite their misgivings about Wahhabi dogma, interpreted the trials as victimization of fellow Muslims. A number of historians have cited this as explaining the decline of Muslims in government employ from this time onward. The sadder reality is that this decline was part of a wider pattern of withdrawal from public life as the Muslim community began a retreat into the past.</b>

Spearheading the great leap backward were two groups of mullahs, both with Wahhabi associations, both linked to the path of Islamic revivalism originally initiated in Delhi by Shah Waliullah. The more extreme of the two set up a politico-religious organization known as Jamaat Ahl-i-Hadith, the Party of the Tradition of the Prophet. One of its founders was Sayyid Nazir Husain Muhaddith Dihlawi, the leader of the Wahhabi "Delhi-ites." The Ahl-i-Hadith movement's many critics were quick to label it "Wahhabi," and to this day it continues to be described and denounced as such. In Pakistan today it has over 400 madrassas and has sponsored a number of militant organizations linked to terrorism.

A second group of clerics was led by two students of Sayyid Nazir Husain who, in 1857, had attempted to set up their own domain of the faith north of Delhi: Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi and Rashid Ahmed Gangohi. In May 1866, they founded their own madrassa at Deoband, a hundred miles north of Delhi. They drew their students from the peasantry and refused government funding. Boys as young as five were accepted and often remained there until adulthood, so that many came to identify with the madrassa as their main home and the teacher as a surrogate parent.

Although modeled on the university, the ethos of Deoband was that of the seminary. English was prohibited, Urdu served as the lingua franca, and all students began their studies by learning the Koran by heart in the original Arabic.

<b>The theology taught at Deoband was an uncompromising fundamentalism mirroring that of Wahhabism. It denounced the worship of saints, the adorning of tombs, and such activities as music and dancing; it waged a ceaseless war of words against Shias, Hindus, and Christian missionaries; it distanced itself from all that was progressive in Indian society; and it retained militant jihad as a central pillar of faith but focused this jihad on the promotion of Islamic revival. </b>

At the same time, Deoband exploited modern technology, especially in the dissemination of fatwas on every issue brought before its muftis. By this means Deoband gained the support of the masses, providing Muslims with a new sense of identity and an alternative to the British model. In 1879, the institution assumed the additional name of Dar ul-Ulum, the Abode of Islamic Learning. By then it was already becoming renowned throughout the Islamic world as a center of religious study second only to Al-Aqsa in Cairo, producing an ever growing cadre of graduates who formed a class of reformist clerics not unlike the Jesuits of the Catholic Counter-Reformation: a politicized group who could compete against all other clerics to advantage and, above all, disseminate the teachings of Deoband in their own madrassas.

The first of these graduates, Mahmood ul-Hasan, duly became rector of Dar ul-Ulum Deoband and in 1915 set up his own clandestine mujahidin army in an attempt to replicate Syed Ahmad--a bid that ended in disaster, with the imprisonment of its leader and over 200 followers. By 1900, Dar ul-Ulum Deoband had founded over two dozen allied madrassas in northern India. Today that figure stands, remarkably, at over 30,000 worldwide. The consequences for Islam have been profound, resulting in a seismic shift within Sunni Islam in South Asia, which became increasingly conservative and introverted, less tolerant and more inclined to look for political leadership from the madrassas and the madrassa-trained politician.

<b>It also gave new force to an old ideal: that a Muslim's first duty was to his religion and that he had an absolute obligation to defend Islam wherever it was under attack.</b> Nowhere has this new force made more impact than in Pakistan, where the Deobandi-led politico-religious party known as Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam (JUI), the "Party of Scholars of Islam," has widespread support in the Pathan tribal areas. Pakistan now has well over 7,000 JUI, Deobandi, or Ahl-i-Hadith madrasas. <b>It was here in the 1980s and 1990s that the Taliban's leaders and many of its rank-and-file were educated and jihadized. And it is here, in this frontier region, that Osama bin Laden most surely confounds a superpower's efforts to find him, dead or alive. </b>

<i>This essay is drawn from a lecture given at the Royal Society for Asian Affairs at Canning House in London on February 23, 2005.

Charles Allen is a historian of the British colonial period in South Asia. His recent publications include Soldier Sahibs: The Men Who Made the North-West Frontier and The Buddha and the Sahibs: The British Discovery of Buddhism. He recently received the Sir Percy Sykes Memorial Medal for his work in "stimulating public interest in Britain's imperial encounter with Asia." His history of Wahhabism will be published in Britain later this year.

COPYRIGHT 2005 World Policy Institute</i>
Sita Ram Goel had written the exact same things way before, it's a sad state of affairs that no one knows about all this in India, here is what he said:



Today these bastards are being portrayed as nationalists and freedom fighters by the commie SOB's.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Austere version of Islam finding a home in India
Migrants returning from the Persian Gulf with stricter views are altering the melting pot in an Indian province.
By Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writer
January 28, 2007

<b>Speaking truth to terror</b>
Tavleen Singh


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The 'Islamofascists' who operate in our country make it clear with every one of their evil deeds that their aim is to destroy India's economy and its secular democracy. Is this something that we can discuss over a negotiating table? If we want to win the global war on terrorism we have to begin by acknowledging that 'Islamofascism' is as evil an ideology as Nazism once was and those of us who are its victims must fight back with everything we have.

<b>What is worrying is that instead of doing this our political leaders seem more concerned about heightening the Muslim sense of grievance by giving us nonsense like the Sachar Committee report. Can we at least hope for a report on 'Islamofascism' as well? </b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Muhammad bin Qasim’s treatment of the Indian population was so just that when he was called back to Baghdad the civilians were greatly disheartened and gave him farewell in tears. There was a Muslim community in Malabar, southwest India as early as 618 C.E. as a result of King Chakrawati Farmas accepting Islam at the hands of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Muslim presence as rulers in India dates from 711 C.E. Since then, different Muslim rulers (Turks of Central Asia, Afghans, and the descendants of the Mongol - the Mughals) entered India, primarily fought their fellow Muslim rulers, and established their rule under various dynastic names. By the eleventh century, the Muslims had established their capital at Delhi, which remained the principal seat of power until the last ruler of Mughal Dynasty, Bahadur Shah Zafar, was deposed in 1857 by the British. A few British visitors were given permission by Akbar to stay in Eastern India more than two centuries before. The British abused that privilege, and within a few decades the British began to collaborate with Rajas and Nawabs in military expeditions against the Mughals and Muslim rulers of the east, southeast and south India. After two centuries of fighting, the British succeeded in abolishing the Mughal rule in 1857.

Muslims were a minority when they ruled major parts of India for nearly a thousand years. They were well liked generally as rulers for their justice, social and cultural values, respect for freedom to practice religion as prescribed by the religion of various communities, freedom of speech, legal system in accordance with the dictates and established norms of each religious community, public works and for establishing educational institutions. In their days as rulers, the Muslims constituted about twenty percent of India's population. Today, Indian Muslims constitute about fifteen percent of India's population, about 150 million, and they are the second largest Muslim community in the world.

Blatantly rewriting history and lying through their teeth, I guess respect for freedom to practice religion now includes burning alive people who said that Islam and Hinduism are both true and destroying thousands of mandirs, torturing 2 of the Sikh Gurus to death and imposing the jizya.

The Arabs' Suddenly Sensitive Feelings

Author: Mumin Salih
Publication: Islam-Watch
Date: January 8, 2007
URL: http://www.islam-watch.org/MuminSalih/Sadd...im_Feelings.htm

Like all young Muslim, I was brainwashed to believe that Islam is the perfect way of life. My mind was happy to accept everything that came in the Islamic package and carries the Islamic label. Without ever doubting their wisdom, I had no trouble in accepting the Islamic sharia law with all its absurdities like polygamy and wife-beating. However, I had real difficulty in accepting that part in sharia, which deals with corporal punishment (hudud) like cutting off hands and capital punishment for trivial offences such as leaving Islam or criticising Mohammed. During all my 'Islamic years', I deliberately attempted to dissuade such thoughts to intrude my mind, because the mere thought of those draconian Islamic provisions was too disturbing to my natural feelings. So it was a tremendous relief for me, after I left the circle of darkness, to be able to go by my natural human feelings and say a big no to ending anyone's life, even for a proven criminal. After all, I thought, even notorious criminals and serial killers, once in captivity, become only as good as dead.

Saddam Hussein's life, however, was in itself a threat to the lives of others, even though he was in captivity. The nature and scale of his atrocities made him a criminal in a class of his own. Decades of his brutal rule left the Iraqis with deep wounds and permanent scars of horror and anguish. I met Iraqis who genuinely believed that the butcher of Baghdad, as they liked to call him, was an alien who doesn't belong to our human race or to our planet! That was their only explanation for his malicious conduct and remarkable ability to emerge unscathed after every crisis; they actually thought they could never get rid of him. Saddam in captivity was an inspirational icon to his loyal gangs of criminals, in as much as an icon of misery and hopelessness to his victims who lived in the fear of his coming back! In this sense, the mere existence of Saddam was an obstacle to Iraq's stability and a threat to its national security.

Undoubtedly, the execution of Saddam was a painful blow to his Arab supporters and appeasers. The widespread outrage expressed by the Arabs was not confined to the pro-Saddam groups but spilled over to involve other Sunni Muslims regardless of their political affiliation. The initial reason for their outrage, as they put it, was the thoughtless timing of his execution. The execution was carried out on the first day of Eid, which has hurt their 'sensitive feelings'. After the West's criticism of the mobile phone's footage, the Sunni Muslims found another reason for their outrage. The Arabic media described the behaviour of the Iraqi government as barbaric and a proof of being worse than Saddam. This is a rather surprising reaction from the Arabic media to the illicit mobile footage, when those media themselves use disturbing graphic images extensively to inflame the feelings of their Muslim audience.

One would expect Muslims to be the last people on earth to talk about fine values and use civilized expressions like 'sensitive feelings'. The world is more familiar with the image of Muslims going to the streets dancing and celebrating the death of innocent civilians killed by fellow Muslims. The world is too accustomed watching the Muslims dragging the victims' bodies in the streets, or setting fires on the churches or bombing mosques that belong to different sects of Islam. Muslims are better known as those who take children as hostages in schools and slaughter them, or kidnap whoever falls in their way and behead them just for the sake of making a point. Muslims are known to have never apologized spontaneously for any atrocity they had carried out; on the contrary they promise the continuation of more such mayhem. So how hypocritical it is that they dare talk about sensitive feelings!

The truth is that Sunni Muslims feel defeated and humiliated in Iraq, and they cannot come to terms with the reality that Iraq is now governed by a Shia dominated government, for the first time in its history. Sunni Muslims suddenly woke up to the painful truth of a rising Shia threat, but feel embarrassed to express their real feelings and prefer to turn their insult and anger on the Shia. The execution of Saddam was such an opportunity for them to appear civilized by highlighting the savage behaviour of their Shia rivals.

Muslims are known to use the issue of their 'sensitive feelings' whenever it suits their agenda. Their 'sensitive feelings' are selective, because they were never touched by all those killings and beheadings carried out by fellow Muslims around the world. Those sensitive feelings were muted over a year ago, when hundreds of innocent civilians were killed and injured by a suicide bomber on the first day of Eid in Kurdistan. The innocent victims were attending a special reception at the city hall to celebrate the first day of Eid. The bloody scenes of this massacre did not disturb these Muslims' sensitive feelings. We did not see any tangible outrage and condemnations in the Muslim communities, as one would have expected. Some Islamic media thought it was not worth talking about that massacre and gave little coverage.

The outrage expressed by the Sunni Arab media in response to Saddam's execution just completes the picture of a total Islamic disgrace. On one hand, the Sunni claim that the shia Iraqis tormented Saddam before his execution, and afterwards they followed what has now become a usual 'Islamic ritual' of dancing and chanting in the streets. This Islamic savage reaction to death is prescribed in the Quran in Surat Al tauba (Q.9:1414. Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers). While on the other hand, the Sunni Muslims have associated themselves with a convicted criminal whose only defence with regard to his crimes was: 'they deserve it'! Those Sunni Muslims were also following an Islamic tradition established by Mohammed. During his rule in Medina, Mohammed never denied any of the assassinations of his political opponents or the genocides he had committed against the Jewish tribes in Arabia. His only defence was 'they deserved it', which also happens to be the only defence we hear from his followers today!

Saddam's execution may have created a widening rift between Sunni and Shia Muslims. The public opinion of the Sunni Muslims is in a state of confusion when it comes to how to deal with the Shia Islam under the leadership of Iran. As recently as a few weeks ago, the Sunni Arabs were rallying behind Iran and its strong arm in Lebanon, Hizbuallah, offering them total support against Israel. Their excitement made them turn a blind eye to the rising Iranian nuclear threat or Hizbuallah's recent show of force in the streets of Beirut. That love affair is now a thing of the past. Because of last week's developments Sunni and Shia Muslims may actually be on a collision course. During the last week, we started seeing signs of a major shift in this delicate relationship between the two major Islamic sects. We now hear some Sunni Arabs describing Iran, not Israel, as their enemy number one. A high-ranking Saudi scholar issued a fatwa branding the Shia Muslims as non-Muslims or as infidels, therefore halal for complete annihilation!

Saddam, in his life and execution, was a disgrace to Muslims and Islam. He was a major dividing factor in the already divided Islamic world. He killed and raped and committed genocides just like Mohammed had done during his time. Saddam was an example for the man who can never be trusted, respected or believed by any sane person. However, there is no shortage of people who believed and admired the wicked tyrant, they happen to be the same kind of brain-dead people who also believed and admired Mohammed fourteen hundreds year ago.

Exhibition-"Aurangzeb, as he was, according to Moghol Records"

FACT invites you to an exhibition on "Aurangzeb, as he was, according to Moghol Records", which for the first time shows Aurangzeb as he was, according to his own court records and not as he has been portrayed by Indian and Western historians

Place: Habitat Centre. Palm Court,New Delhi
Date: 16th to 20th February 2007
Time: 9 Am to 8 Pm

For any information, contact:
François Gautier
FACT - Director
41 Jorbagh, New Delhi 110003
Tel: +91-11-24649635 / +919811118828

Aurangzeb as he was according to Mughal Records

Aurangzeb, Emperor Shah Jahan's sixth son, was born on 24th October 1618 at Dohad in Madhya Pradesh, and wrested India's crown from his father before the end of June 1658, after defeating his brother Prince Dara Shukoh's armies, first at Dharmat near Ujjain (15th April 1568) and the second, led by Dara himself, at Samugarh on 29th May 1658. The war of Succession to the richest throne in the world was practically over with this victory, and Aurangzeb secured his position by making Murad, his brother and accomplice in his impetuous pursuit for power, his prisoner, by treachery, on 25th June. He had already made his old father Emperor Shah Jahan a prisoner in the Agra Fort (8th June 1658).

Shah Jahan survived his confinement by nearly eight years and the disgraceful manner of his burial (Exhibit No.5) will ever remain a stigma on this unscrupulous son Aurangzeb's advent to the throne in his father's life time was not welcomed by the people of India, because of the treacherous manner it was achieved; , but public opinion became all the more hostile towards him when Prince Dara Shukoh, the favourite son of Shah Jahan, the translator of the Upanishads (Exhibit No.2), and a truly liberal and enlightened Musalman, was taken prisoner on the Indian border, as he was going to Persia. Dara was paraded in a most undignified manner on the streets of Delhi on 29th August 1659. The French Doctor, Bernier, was an eye-witness to the scene and was deeply moved by the popular sympathy for Dara (Exhibit No.3) which so much alarmed Aurangzeb that he contrived to have a decree from his Clerics announcing death-sentence for his elder brother on the charge of apostasy (Exhibit No.4).

Throughout the War of Succession, Aurangzeb had maintained that he was not interested in acquiring the throne and that his only object was to ward off the threat to Islam, which was inevitable in case Dara Shukoh came to power. Many, including his brother Murad, were deceived by this posture. After his formal accession in Delhi (5th June 1659) he posed as a defender of Islam who would rule according to the directions of the Shariat, and with the advice of the Clerics or Ulama for whom the doctrines, rules, principles and directives, as laid down and interpreted in the 7th and 8th century Arabia, Persia and Iraq, were inviolable and unchangeable in all conditions, in all countries,and for all times to come.

One of the main objectives of Aurangzeb's policy was to demolish Hindu temples. When he ordered (13th October 1666) removal of the carved railing, which Prince Dara Shukoh had presented to Keshava Rai temple at Mathura, he had observed "In the religion of the Musalmans it is improper even to look at a temple", and that it was totally unbecoming of a Muslim to act like Dara Shukoh (Exhibit No.6, Akhbarat, 13th October 1666).

This was followed by destruction of the famous Kalka temple in Delhi (Exhibit No.6, 7, 8, Akhbarat, 3rd and 12th September 1667).

In 1669, shortly after the death of Mirza Raja Jai Singh of Amber, a general order was issued (9th April 1669) for the demolition of temples and established schools of the Hindus throughout the empire and banning public worship (Exhibit Nos.9 & 10). Soon after this the great temple of Keshava Rai was destroyed (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Exhibit No.12) and in its place a lofty mosque was erected. The idols, the author of Maasir-i-Alamgiri informs, were carried to Agra and buried under the steps of the mosque built by Begum Sahiba in order to be continually trodden upon, and the name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad. The painting (Exhibit No.13) is thus no fancy imagination of the artist but depicts what actually took place.

This was followed by Aurangzeb's order to demolish the highly venerated temple of Vishwanath at Banaras (Persian text, Exhibit No.11),Keshava Rai temple (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Persian Text, exhibit No.12 and Painting, Exhibit No.13), and of Somanatha (Exhibit No.14). To save the idol of Shri Nathji from being desecrated, the Gosain carried it to Rajputana, where Maharana Raj Singh received it formally at Sihad village, assuring the priest that Aurangzeb would have to trample over the bodies of one lakh of his brave Rajputs, before he could even touch the idol (Exhibit No.15)

Aurangzeb's zeal for temple destruction became much more intense during war conditions. The opportunity to earn religious merit by demolishing hundreds of temples soon came to him in 1679 when, after the death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur in the Kabul Subah, he tried to eliminate the Rathors of Marwar as a political power in Rajputana. But Maharana Raj Singh of Mewar, in line with the great traditions of his House, came out in open support of the Rathors.. This led to war with both Mewar and Marwar during which the temples built on the bank of Rana's lake were destroyed by his orders (Exhibit No.23, Akhbarat 23rd December 1679) and also about three hundred other temples in the environs of Udaipur. (Exhibit No.25, Text), including the famous Jagannath Rai temple built at a great cost in front of the Maharana's palace which was bravely defended by a handful of Rajputs (Exhibit Nos.20, 21). Not only this, when Aurangzeb visited Chittor to have a view of the famous fort, he ordered the demolition of 63 temples there which included some of the finest temples of Kumbha's time (Exhibit No.22).

From Marwar (in Western Rajasthan) alone were brought several cart-loads of idols which, as per Aurangzeb's orders, were cast in the yard of the Court and under the steps of Jama Masjid (Exhibit No.19). Such uncivilized and arrogant conduct of the Mughal Emperor alienated Hindus for ever, though they continued to be tolerant towards his creed. In June 1681, orders, in a laconic two-liner, were given for the demolition of the highly venerated Jagannath Temple in Orissa (Exhibit No.24, Akhbarat, 1st June 1681)., Shortly afterwards, in September 1682, the famous Bindu-Madhav temple in Banaras was also demolished as per the Emperor's orders (Exhibit No.27, Akhbarat, Julus 26, Ramzan 20). On 1st September 1681, while proceeding to the Deccan, where his rebel son Prince Akbar, escorted by Durga Das Rathore, had joined Chhatrapati Shivaji's son, Shambhaji, thus creating a serious problem for him, Aurangzeb ordered that all the temples on the way should be destroyed. It was a comprehensive order not distinguishing between old and newly built temples (Exhibit No.26, Akhbarat, Julus 25, Ramzan 18). But in the district of Burhanpur, where there were a large number of temples with their doors closed, he preferred to keep them as such, as the Muslims were too few in number in the district. (Exhibit No.28, Akhbarat 13th October 1681). In his religious frenzy, even temples of the loyal and friendly Amber state were not spared, such as the famous temple of Jagdish at Goner near Amber (Exhibit Nos.30, Akhbarat, 28th March and 14th May 1680). In fact, his misguided ardour for temple destruction did not abate almost up to the end of his life, for as late as 1st January 1705 we find him ordering that the temple of Pandharpur be demolished and the butchers of the camp be sent to slaughter cows in the temple precincts (Akhbarat 49-7).

The number of such ruthless acts of Aurangzeb make a long list but here only a few have been mentioned, supported by evidence, mostly contemporary official records of Aurangzeb's period and by such credible Persian sources as Maasir-i-Alamgiri.

In obedience to the Quranic injunction, he reimposed Jizyah on the Hindus on 2nd April 1679 (Exhibit No.16), which had been abolished by Emperor Akbar in 1564, causing widespread anger and resentment among the Hindus of the country .A massive peaceful demonstration against this tax in Delhi, was ruthlessly crushed (Exhibit No.17), This hated tax involved heavy economic burden on the vast number of the poor Hindus and caused humiliation to each and every Hindu (Exhibit No.18). In the same vein, were his discriminatory measures against Hindus in the form of exemption of the Muslims from the taxes (Exhibit No.31, Akhbarat 16th April 1667) ban on atishbazi and restriction on Diwali (Exhibit No.32), replacement of Hindu officials by Muslims so that the Emperor's prayers for the welfare of Muslims and glory of Islam, which were proving ineffective, be answered (Exhibit Nos.33, 34). He also imposed a ban on ziyarat and gathering of the Hindus at religious shrines, such as of Shitla Mata and folk Gods like Pir Pabu (Exhibit No.35, Akhbarat 16th September 1667), another ban on their traveling in Palkis, or riding elephants and Arab-Iraqi horses, as Hindus should not carry themselves with the same dignity as the Muslims! (Exhibit No.36). In the same vein came brazen attempts to convert Hindus by inducement, coercion (Exhibit No.41) or by offering Qanungoship (Exhibit No.44, 45, 46) and to honour the converts in the open Court. His personal directions were that a Hindu male be given Rs.4 and a Hindu female Rs.2 on conversion (Exhibit No.43,Akhbarat 7th April 1685). "Go on giving them", Aurangzeb had ordered when it was reported to him that the Faujdar of Bithur, Shaikh Abdul Momin, had converted 150 Hindus and had given them naqd (cash) and saropas (dresses of honour) (Exhibit No.40, Akhbarat, 11th April 1667). Such display of Islamic orthodoxy by the State under Aurangzeb gave strength and purpose to the resistance movements such as of the Marathas, the Jats, the Bundelas and the Sikhs (Exhibit No.46). .

On the 12th May 1666, the dignity with which Shivaji carried himself in the Mughal court and defied the Emperor's authority, won him spontaneous admiration of the masses. Parkaldas, an official of Amber (Jaipur State) wrote in his letter dated 29th May 1666, to his Diwan. "Now that after coming to the Emperor's presence Shivaji has shown such audacity and returned harsh and strong replies, the
public extols him for his bravery all the more …" (Exhibit No.37). When Shivaji passed away on April 1680 at the age of 53 only, he had already carved a sufficiently large kingdom, his Swarajya, both along the western coast and some important areas in the east as well.

Aurangzeb could never pardon himself for his negligence in letting Shivaji escape from his well laid trap and wrote in his Will (Exhibit No.48) that it made him "to labour hard (against the Marathas) to the end of my life (as a result of it)". He did not realize that it was his own doing: the extremely cruel manner – even for those times - in which he put to death Shivaji's son, Shambhaji (Exhibit No.38) made the Maratha king a martyr in the eyes of the masses and with that commenced the People's War in Maharashtra and the Deccan which dug the grave of the Mughal empire.

Till the very end Aurangzeb never understood that the main pillars of the government are the affection and support of the people and not mere compliance of the religious directives originating from a foreign land in the seventh-eighth centuries.

His death after a long and ruinous reign lasting half a century, ended an eventful epoch in the history of India. He left behind a crumbling empire, a corrupt and inefficient administration, a demoralized army, a discredited government facing public bankruptcy and alienated subjects.

Prof. V.S. Bhatnagar


<b>SIMI a secessionist movement: SC</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) was a secessionist movement which continued to be involved in unlawful activities.

"You continue to be a secessionist movement. You have not stopped your (unlawful) activities till now," a Bench of Justice SB Sinha and Justice Markandey Katju observed while hearing SIMI's petition challenging the confirmation of the ban by a Tribunal under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
The court's observation came when SIMI's counsel Kamini Jaisawal contended that the Islamic outfit started in 1977 was not involved in any illegal activities and the ban was not justified.

However, the court said the ban can not be lifted "if your actions are the same and you don't give up your (unlawful) activities.You are a secessionist organisation. It is for the third time that you have been banned."
(Kamini) Jaisa Naam vaisay Darsan.

Now Mullah Yadav will find another excuse to justify his support to SIMI.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Questioning Muslims </b>
Scratch the surface and Indian Muslims, who claim to be or are thrust with the sobriquet of intellectuals, reveal their sarkari colours, says Ather Farouqui

There is a category of prominent Muslim intellectuals belonging to the Aligarh Muslim University or the Aligarh school; the star performers among them have been, in the main, AMU vice-chancellors. <b>There is no need to explain the political sensitivity of the AMU, which played a decisive role in the formation of Pakistan. Mohammed Ali Jinnah always considered the university a safe arsenal of the Muslim League.</b> But in the last five decades the AMU has hardly had a vice-chancellor who can claim knowledge of Muslim society or the capability to analyse or deal with the social complexities of Indian Muslims.

Between l975 and 1980, an elite economist from Hyderabad was the vice-chancellor of the AMU. He went to England for his PhD on scholarship awarded by the Nizam who symbolised the ills personified in the Muslim ruling class. Ali <b>Mohammed Khusro had no academic achievement to his credit after his appointment as the VC, for which he had left Delhi School of Economics where he was professor. After his posting at the AMU, he emerged as leading sycophant of Mrs Indira Gandhi</b>.

AM Khusro's foray into opportunistic political assignments began thereafter. He could speak for hours on poetry, Mughlai food and other such topics but not on economics. After leaving the AMU, he went to Germany as India's Ambassador, and got one or the other political assignment that gave him prominence and perks. There was no indication that he realised he belonged to an ailing community.

His successor was Saiyid Hamid who reached the secretariat after a stint in the corridors of the Government's clerical order through provincial civil services of Uttar Pradesh, and was later elevated to IAS.<b> He got a Masters in pre-partition days from the AMU. During his service, he was a hardcore Congress nationalist, proximating the definition of nationalism propounded by the RSS. But as soon as he was made the VC he began aspiring for political roles.</b>

Saiyid Hamid had no experience of interaction with Muslims beyond his administrative capacity. As the VC, he got such articles published, which he had perhaps written during his BA or MA and these could not be published even in Urdu on merit.<b> He was the first VC of the AMU who initiated police action on the campus, all the while feigning ignorance about it. One student was shot and many injured</b>.

His successor<b> Syed Hashim Ali Akhtar </b>too was a bureaucrat. After relinquishing the office of the vice-chancellor he went to the US and continued to work on an "interesting" topic that he made his mission in life - the change of the Nastaleeq (Urdu) script into Roman. <b>The ludicrousness of his plea was that none of his grandchildren, who were born and brought up in America, knew Urdu; this made him conclude that Urdu speakers should abandon the Urdu script and adopt Roman</b>. <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->  He tried hard to emulate Ataturk in AMU. Today, <b>he is busy translating Gorboduc into Urdu, in the Roman script</b>. <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Then arrived an eminent Professor of IIT, MN Farouqi. The distinguished academic never went out of the IIT campus to understand Muslim society. An idler, he was forced to leave the university one year before his term was to get over, with sundry scandals to his credit. Now one can see him at elite seminars waxing on Muslims issues.

He was followed by Mehmood-ur-Rehman, also a bureaucrat. Mr Rehman's only qualification as a Muslim intellectual was that he had a Masters in Persian. Eventually, he turned dictatorial, though he frequently assumed the role of an eminent Muslim intellectual. After an unceremonious retirement (he wanted a second term which is barred by AMU regulations) he became the Resident Commissioner of a State guesthouse in Delhi. He is now the managing director of a Muslim bank.

Mr Rehman was followed by Mr Hamid Ansari, IFS, whose only qualification as a Muslim intellectual was a tenure as India's Ambassador in Saudi Arabia. He was largely unaware of Muslim problems and remained confined to his office and residence during a short tenure. <b>But whenever, during his term or afterwards, he appeared on television to talk on a "Muslim issue", Ghalib was remembered: Bak raha hoon junoon main kya kya kuchh; Kuchh na samjhe khhuda kare koi</b>.

<b>Mr Hamid Ansari is now chairman of National Commission for Minorities</b>. The moral of the story is: <b>Whichever Government is in power, the pool of canonised sarkari Mussalman is a compulsion; his political affiliation hardly matters, neither does his performance.</b>
Current vice-chancellor Mohammed Nasim again has no previous record of interaction with the community; he was the "dark horse" of bureaucracy from the Haryana cadre. A Bachelor of Law, he is frequently heard and seen as a Muslim intellectual who is also a "legal luminary". His term has witnessed a number of controversies and caused embarrassment to the Government on legal issues related to the AMU.

The only Muslim of consequence who refused to be trapped was Mr Syed Shahabuddin; he rejected the offer of the VC of the AMU. Mr Shahabuddin had already resigned from IFS to join politics when Mrs Gandhi offered him the post in 1980. It was following his refusal that Saiyid Hamid joined the AMU.

Such is the lot of Muslim "intellectuals". It is doubtful whether any leader can be singled out in the category of Muslim intellectuals other than those mentioned above. Are they really intellectually gifted in any way? Or is it that, due to their own compulsions, they take serious Muslim issues casually?

They have often misguided the Government of the day on Muslim issues, all the while being lionised and feted in the media as Muslim intellectuals. It is hardly surprising that Muslims remain the worst sufferers, without the ability or choice to set things right for themselves.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Clear-eyed on SIMI </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Supreme Court speaks for India
In bluntly telling the counsel for the Students International Movement of India (SIMI) that she represented a "secessionist movement" that did not deserve to have the ban on it, imposed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, to be removed, the Supreme Court has spoken for the citizen. The two-judge bench that turned down the SIMI petition refused to accept that SIMI had not resorted to any "anti-national activity" since 2003 and insistently noted, "You have not stopped your activities." The apex court reflected the growing disquiet - perceptible to all, save the Union Home Minister and his colleagues in the UPA - that the domestic sources and facilitators of Islamist terrorism are a looming problem. In a series of terrorist attacks in Uttar Pradesh - particularly the strike on the Ram temple in Ayodhya in 2005 - in the pre-Diwali bomb attacks in Delhi in the winter of 2005, and elsewhere, the logistical support provided by SIMI modules to the terrorists was apparent. It has emerged as the footsoldier organisation of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and the face of the radicalisation of a section of the Muslim underclass, particularly in Uttar Pradesh but also in cities as far apart as Bhopal and Hyderabad. Despite having to go along with the ban in 2006 - after having opposed the NDA imposed prohibitions on SIMI in 2001 and 2003 - the Congress and its allies have been wary of admitting to the extent of the problem. To recognise that violent Islamism has a strong, homegrown element - of which SIMI is the menacing face - is to, it believes, alienate Muslim voters. In Uttar Pradesh, Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav's Government has followed just such a short-sighted policy. Pandering to a criminalised section of the community, it has refused to curtail SIMI's operational space and, indeed, has allowed it a certain political legitimacy. The result is there for all to see. From Gorakhpur in the east to Aligarh in the west, sectarian violence has been a feature of Uttar Pradesh's polity over the past year; and SIMI's fingerprints have been detected almost everywhere.
The painting of SIMI as some sort of a "victim" of a vicious BJP-led Government was only one arm of the UPA's multi-pronged approach to present its predecessor as an oppressor of minorities. The removal of the Prevention of Terrorist Activities (POTA) Act was of a piece with this.</b> Today, after terrorist outrage in Mumbai, Delhi and Bangalore, after the admission by the Government that terrorist organisations are manipulating the financial markets and occupying islands off the coast of India, it is worth asking what the UPA is doing to actually tackle this principal internal security challenge. In reminding India that SIMI is a clear and present danger, the Supreme Court has done well. One day, India needs its highest court to tell the Government of the imperative need for a national anti-terrorism law
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Meenaz murder gets murkier
By: By Anand Holla
February 18, 2007

If the gruesome murder of Meenaz Khan (18) by her parents wasn’t murky enough, the investigation and the trial in the case are turning stranger.

With cops declaring their prime witness hostile, and the judge transferring the case from his court through a confidential report, the case now seems as confusing as the disjointed 11 pieces of Meenaz’s body.

On the night of July 1, 2006, Meenaz Khan (18), a resident of the Ambedkar Nagar Transit Camp in Cuffe Parade, went missing.

Her parents found her later in Panvel with her lover Vidyanand Jadhav, so they brought her back home. The next day, her body was found — hacked into 11 pieces, put in two gunny-bags and dumped under Byculla’s JJ flyover. Cops arrested Meenaz’s parents Munna Khan (38) and Shehnaz (35), alongwith Meenaz’s younger sister Heena (16, name changed) for abetting her parents.

In their confession, parents told cops that they murdered Meenaz because she had fallen in love with a Hindu boy Vidyanand in their locality. 

In February, the trial began at the Sewri fast-track court. But witness Mary Nadar testified that she had last seen Meenaz that night with her neighbour Insaan Yadav at around 11.30 pm. Fearing that this would hamper their case where the accused were actually Meenaz’s parents, police declared the witness as hostile. The court objected to this.

Munna’s lawyer Wahab Khan remarked, “Instead of the court verifying the veracity of the witness statements, the police themselves jumped the gun.” The day after she deposed, Nadar and her daughter were allegedly threatened by cops and illegally detained at the Cuffe Parade police station, only because they refused to say what the cops wanted them to.

To prove their point, cops registered a case against Munna’s brother Dilshad Khan, alleging that Dilshad threatened Nadar to change her testimony in court.
Nadar totally denied this, but Senior Inspector Jaywant Shelar, Cuffe Parade police station says, “Allegations that we made a false case or we are putting pressure on them are baseless.

We informed the court to transfer the case as we weren’t happy with the way this court was conducting the matter.” But cops haven’t been able to trace the absconding Insaan Yadav.

Wahab Khan added that police had registered a false case against Dilshad and were also declaring Nadar hostile, fearing that their goof-ups would be caught. “But when the fast-track court declined their request, they wanted the case to be transferred.

The court had to even remark on the mischief played by the police and said that it can even consider this as contempt.” The court has now passed a confidential order to the principal judge of Sewri Court, Abhay Thipsay, seeking the case to be transferred to another fast-track court.

Meenaz’s body was not only chopped into pieces and washed before being dumped, but even her nose and cheeks were gouged out to make the body unrecognisable, said police.

The cops believe that Munna chopped Meenaz’s body and head, even while Shehnaz and Heena held her hands and legs. 


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)