Dammam: ‘Pragati’ commemorates Jamiyyatul Falah’s 30 years of selfless service

Words Jihad and Jihadi have been in abundant use for the negative purposes from last two decades in particular. They have been closleyl linked to the word terrorism and violence, done by section of Muslims here and there. This global use of word is particularly a post 9/11 phenomenon. Just to recapitulate after the WTC was hit by two aeroplanes; the building sunk leading the death of nearly three thousand innocent people. The victims belonged to most countries and religions. In the aftermath; Osama bin Laden called it Jihad. American media coined the word Islamic terrorism since then. Most of the acts indulged in by Muslim terror groups have been labelled under this title. This; irrespective of the fact that many an Islamic Scholars, many a Muslim clerics like Maulanas of Deoband and Barelvi, stating that Islam does not approve of violence against innocent people. The words have stuck.

This has also beoame one more weapon in the hands of communal sectarian elements. Apart from the mainstream media social media has been delving this with gay abandon using these words in a derogatory way. The lap media also called Godi media, which is an important part of the opinion making against Muslims has been using it day in and day out.

Recently (March 11, 2020), Mr. Sudhir Chaudhary, the Editor-in-Chief of Zee channel in a show went on to the limits of this misrepresentation by showing a chart and classifying Jihad into various categories, Love, Jihad, Land Jihad and latest in series being Corona Jihad in the wake of Tablighi Jamaat event. Mr Chowdhary concluded that all these types of Jihad are being done to weaken India. Surely, these types of programs have been increasing and intensifying Hate against Muslims and Jihad.

Unlike most of the times, this time around a complaint was filed against the said editor, a FIR was filed and lo and behold the editor’s tune changed.  In the next program he talked respectfully about the word Jihad! The tone and tenor changed. Was it a late realization or the fear of facing criminal action which made him change the tune, he alone should know, but that’s another chapter to the story?

As such jihad is by and large used as synonym for violence, terrorism. This is very much contrary to the its use in Koran.. Islamic scholar Asghar Ali Engineer argues that its use in Koran is multilayered. It stands for ‘utmost striving’ and has nothing to do with violence against innocents. As per him the concept of Jihad is far above violence. Those indulging in power games have used it as a cover for expanding power and called it as Holy War. This is very similar to the use of word Crusade by Christian Kings and Dharm Yudh by Hindu kings.

A deeper and more rational study of Koran and Hadith bring forth the real meaning of the term. Sufi’s who were away from the power struggle and focussed on spiritual aspects of religion like Bhakti Saints or liberation theologians, unfolded the deeper meaning of the term. Engineer points out that “it is for this reason that they describe war as jihad-e-Asghar and jihad to control one’s greed and selfish desires as jihad-e-Akbar (Great jihad)” (On Multi Layered Concept of Jihad, in A Modern Approach to Islam, Dharmaram , Page 26, 2003, Bangalore)

The reference to Jihad comes in Koran over 40 times, mostly referring to Jihad-e-Akbar, striving to overcome personal greed and selfishness. The real transformation of the word Jihad in popular perceptions and Chaudhary is the extreme example of that, takes place during the training of Mujahideen in the few specially set up Madarssas in Pakistan. This was initiated and coordinated by America in the decade of 1980s, when the Russian Army occupied Afghanistan. That was the time American forces were totally demoralised due to their humiliating defeat in Vietnam, at the hands of Vietnamese people.

To confront the Russian army, US planned to join the anti Russian forces. For this with the help of extremist Salafi version of Islam, they promoted the radical tendencies within a section of Muslims. The brain washing of the Asian Muslim youth as Mujahedeen to Taliban took place in few Pakistani Madrassas, totally funded by America. For this funding opium trade was also put into operation. The brainwashing module designed in Washington incorporated many components which also distorted the concept of Kafir, and created Hate against communists. Communists were labelled as Kafirs (Non believers) and so killing them was presented as Jihad. Getting killed while doing such an act was to be rewarded with entry pass to Jannat with 72 virgins waiting for those embracing this path.

America further went on to promote Taliban and Al Qaeda, which joined anti Russian forces, leading to defeat of Russian forces. Mahmood Mamdani in his book ‘Good Muslim Bad Muslim’ makes an inference based on CIA documents that America invested 8 thousand million dollars and also supplied seven tonnes of armaments, including the most sophisticate missiles to these forces. One also recalls the Al Qaeda leaders’ visit to US, White house. In the Press meet the then US President Ronald Regan, introduced them as being the equivalents of founding fathers of United States as they are fighting against the evil of communism.

Now of course the situation has taken its own turn and nearly three decades after their inception the same elements, later followed by ISIS and IS acted like Frankenstein’s monsters, killing Muslims in large numbers. It is estimated that over 70000 Pakistanis have been killed due to the action of these groups, who were propped up and nurtured by US to enhance its control over the oil wells of West Asia.

The likes Sudhir Choudhary can merrily propagate the Hate using the term Jihad. That such elements can also be partly controlled through the process of law is a part of great learning after the FIR filed against him. One hopes that such hate filled programs will come to a halt once we combat them ideologically and after resorting to the provisions of Indian Constitution. 

Like most of the political phenomenon, even the practice of Nationalism is not a static one. It changes with the changing political equations of the political forces and assumes the expressions which are very diverse. As such the phenomenon of Nationalism has a long journey and various state policies in particular have used it for purposes which relate more to the power of the state ‘vis a vis’ its people, power of the state ‘vis a vis’ the neighboring countries among others.

In India there has been a certain change in the practices of the state which have transformed the meaning of Nationalism during last few years. Particularly with BJP, the Hindu Nationalist outfit gaining simple majority, it has unfolded the policies where one can discern the drastic change in the meaning and application of Nationalism in regard to its citizens, particularly those belonging to minority community, with regard to those who are liberal, and with those who stand with the concept of Human rights.

Our former Prime Minister of Dr. Manmohan Singh hit the nail on the head when he said that “Nationalism and the "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" slogan are being misused to construct a "militant and purely emotional" idea of India that excludes millions of residents and citizens. Former Prime Minister recently stated this in an apparent attack on the BJP.” The occasion was the release of a book, ‘Who is Bharat Mata’, edited by Purushottam Agarwal and Radhakrishna. This is a compilation of significant extracts from writings of Nehru, and important assessments of and contributions of Nehru by prominent personalities.

Dr. Singh went on to add "With an inimitable style…Nehru laid the foundation of the universities, academies and cultural institutions of Modern India. But for Nehru's leadership, independent India would not have become what it is today," This statement of Dr. Singh has great importance in contemporary times, as Nehru is being denigrated by Hindu nationalists for all the problems which India is facing today and attempts are on to undermine his role and glorifying Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. This is also significant as it gives us the glimpses of what Nationalism meant for Nehru.

As Singh’s statement captures the present nationalism being practiced by BJP and company, the Hindu nationalists, immediately shot back saying that Dr. Singh is supporting the anti India activities at JNU and Jamia and his party is supporting the anti India nationalists. They asked whether Singh likes the nationalism of the likes of Shashi Tharoor or Manishankar Ayer who are provoking the Shaheen Bagh protest rather than making the protestors quiet. Whether he likes the anti national protests which go on at JNU or Jamia? As per them there is no Nationalism in Congress. One more example being cited is the private visit of Shatrughan Sinha who talked to Pakistani President during his visit there recently!

Most of the arguments being used to oppose Dr. Singh are very superficial. What is being referred to; is not opposition to Indian nationalism and its central values which were the core of anti colonial struggles. While ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ may not be acceptable to a section of population, even the book he was releasing has the title ‘Who is Bharat Mata’. What is being stated by Singh is the twist which slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ has been used by Hindu nationalists to frighten the religious minorities.

Indian nation came into being on the values, which later were the foundation of Indian Constitution. Indian Constitution carefully picked up the terminology which was away from the concepts of Hindu or Muslim nationalism. That’s how the country came to be called as ‘India that is Bharat’. The freedom of expression which was the hallmark of freedom movement and it was given a pride of place in our Constitution. It respected the diversity and formulated rules where the nation was not based on particular culture, as Hindu nationalists will like us to believe, but cultural diversity was centrally recognized in the Constitution. In addition promoting good relations with neighbors and other countries of the World was also part of our principles.

JNU, Jamia and AMU are being demonized as most institutions so far regard the freedom of expression as a core part of Indian democracy. These institutions have been thriving on discussions and debates which have base in liberalism. Deliberately some slogans have been constructed to defame these institutions. While Constitution mandates good relations with neighbors, creation of ‘Anti Pakistan hysteria’ is the prime motive of many a channels and sections of other media, which are servile to the ideology of ruling Government. They also violate most of the norms of ethical journalism, where the criticism of the ruling party is an important factor to keep the ruling dispensation in toes.

A stifling atmosphere has been created during last six years. In this the Prime Minster can take a detour, land in Pakistan to have a cup of tea with Pakistan PM, but a Congress leader talking to Pakistani President is a sign of being anti National. Students taking out a march while reading the preamble of Indian Constitution are labeled as anti-national; and are stopped while those openly wielding guns near Jamia or Shaheen Bagh roam freely.

Nationalism should promote amity and love of the people; it should pave the way for growth and development. Currently the nationalism which is dominant and stalking the streets has weakened the very fraternity, which is one of the pillars of our democracy. Nehru did explain that Bharat Mata is not just our mountains, rivers and land but primarily the people who inhabit the land. Which nationalism to follow was settled during the freedom movement when Muslim nationalism and Hindu nationalism were rejected by the majority of people of India in favor of the Nationalism of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Maulana Azad, where minorities are equal citizens, deserving affirmative action. In today’s scenario the Hindu nationalists cannot accept any criticism of their policies.

Bengaluru,  Jul 9: Former Karnataka Chief Minister and Congress leader Siddaramaiah on Wednesday said that he was opposed to a tie-up with Janata Dal-Secular in the last Lok Sabha elections but the party high command did not listen to him.

"I had suggested that we should fight alone (in Lok Sabha elections) because JD-S votes would not have come to us and our votes would not have gone to JD-S," Siddaramaiah told reporters here.

Congress leader said that he was the only one to make the suggestion and he did not get support.

"I was the only one to raise a voice that's why it was not heard by (party) high command and I did not get support. We might have won over seven seats in parliament election if we had fought alone," he said.

After forming government in Karnataka in 2018 with support of JD-S, Congress had fought the 2019 general election in a pre-poll alliance with the party. Congress could only one seat of the 21 it contested and JD-S also won one seat of the seven it contested.