Kashmiris and Indian Muslims – Newspaper

Following the anti-Ahmadi violence in the 1950s, Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyed Muhammad Ahmad Qadri, president of Jamiatul Ulema-i-Pakistan, demanded an Islamic state in Pakistan. And he deposed before the Justice Commission Munir that investigated the violence.

Q: Will a (similar) right to have a Hindu religious state admit to Hindus, who are a majority in India?

So.

Q: Will you have any objection if Muslims are treated under that form of government like Malishes (Mlechhas) or Shudras according to Manu's law?

Year.

Maulana Fazlur Rehman leads a Jamiat faction today. I met the maulana nodding her head when, for a reason difficult to understand at the time, she became a regular interlocutor of Indian journalists visiting Pakistan. The corpulent bearing and the cheerful laughter of the maulana resembled Fray Tuck in whom Robin Hood, although too briefly, had become Musharraf. A version of the English legend has the monk wading the river in the Sherwood forest with Robin Hood behind him when, halfway, for no apparent reason, he threw his friend into the icy waters. That's more or less what is said that the maulana did with Musharraf.

A recent statement by JUH effectively supports the repeal of Kashmir's autonomy.

In recent days, the cleric of the doctrine of the Muslim theology school Deoband has been furious against Imran Khan, accusing the prime minister of lack of sincerity towards the Kashmir people facing Indian indifference since August 5. The posture is double-edged.

Fazlur Rehman has friends in high places with the Indian government. In addition, he has all the Jamiatul Ulema-i-Hind (JUH) and the Deoband seminary eating from his hands. Atal Behari Vajpayee hugged him and Manmohan Singh received him at the prime minister's residence. This was at the time when Benazir Bhutto was struggling to get an appointment with Vajpayee in New Delhi, when, as the vineyard said, he was seeking his intervention to resolve things with General Musharraf.

Important Pakistani visitors from the left and liberal corner have not had the ease of access to the prime minister's office in recent years as the maulana did. His equation with the Modi establishment is unclear, but given the friendly relationship of the Indian prime minister with the rulers of Saudi Arabia, a common link between Rehman and the JUH, it is not difficult to imagine a pleasant perspective.

The fact that the maulana routinely led to the Deoband seminary, not far from the Indian capital, after its official stays, suggests a link between the two stops. That P. Chidambaram made a highly publicized visit to the seminary as interior minister also indicates a strong political interest between the Indian government and the Orthodox clerics of Deoband. And perhaps it also offers a useful bank of votes that clerics control.

There are Indian Muslim groups, as well as non-Muslims, who harbor sympathy for the people of Kashmir, but it is mainly their claim on the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian agreement. Such groups also speak against perennially violated human rights supported by the majority of Muslims in the disputed area. In that sense, the JUH has supported the people of Kashmir, but only from the perspective that their interests were not separated from those of Indian Muslims.

In 2010, during the congressional government there was an increase in India's confrontation with the Kashmir Muslims, and the JUH, a close cross-border fellow of Maulana Fazlur Rehman, expressed his sympathy. However, a recent statement was more assertive in its pro-government stance, effectively supporting the repeal of Kashmir's autonomy.

“We believe that the welfare of the people of Kashmir lies in integrating with India. The enemy forces and the neighboring country are determined to destroy Kashmir. The oppressed and besieged people of Kashmir are trapped among the opposition forces, "the JUH argued, practically criticizing the official opinion on the repeal of Kashmir's autonomy." The JUH strongly defends the unity and integrity of the country and has given it importance capital As such, it can never support any separatist movement, but considers that such movements are not only harmful to India but also to the people of Kashmir. ”

The irony is severe. Both the JUH and its Pakistani counterpart headed by Fazlur Rehman are or should disagree in Kashmir. And they are also tied to the Saudi establishment in search of inspiration and sustenance. However, Saudi Arabia has approached the Indian stand and even congratulated Modi with his highest civil award. Imran Khan has chosen to swallow the disappointment and has indicated that everything remains as usual when choosing to fly to the session of the UN General Assembly in New York on the private plane of the Saudi crown prince. Cashmere must be watching the outcome with amazement and fear.

The JUH takes advantage of Indian Muslims in what is clearly a fairly selfish relationship it has with any government of the day. But this is also how the Hindu right prefers to project the equation. Addressing the media after the derailed summit in Agra, then Minister Jaswant Singh indirectly described the link between Indian Muslims and the Kashmir problem. The essence of his comment was this: if India gives Kashmir to comply with the theory of the two nations, shouldn't Indian Muslims travel by train to Pakistan?

A different answer to the question came from a senior leader of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front in 1992. Javed Mir had dodged the safety net when virtually all Hurriyat leaders were put behind bars. I asked Mir to comment on the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, which had just happened. He said he could not care less about what happened or the dispute, because he was referring to Indian Muslims who had shown little interest in the struggles of the cashmere.

The writer is Dawn's correspondent in Delhi.

jawednaqvi@dawn.com

Published on Dawn, November 5, 2019