Indian Muslim scholar: "Indian Muslim victim narratives are made up."

[-=virus=-]

Muslim oppression narratives are created to feed a certain narrative in order to target India. The olympics of oppression, as I call it: Arshia Malik

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Didn't watch the video, but the Muslim League was founded in Dhaka. Maybe the Bangali Muslim narrative of tyrannical Hindu overlords became dominant, but this is not applicable to all regions and groups - all Indian Muslims are not from the same backgrounds and trajectories of histories just as all Indians are not.

 

[-=virus=-]

Didn't watch the video, but the Muslim League was founded in Dhaka. Maybe the Bangali Muslim narrative of tyrannical Hindu overlords became dominant, but this is not applicable to all regions and groups - all Indian Muslims are not from the same backgrounds and trajectories of histories just as all Indians are not.

That's true of all religious and ethnic groups in India, a Punjabi is very different from a Tamil culturally, a Naga shares nothing with the average Mumbaikar.. on average, that is. Big cities are of course melting pots where all people live and work together.

There are political groups who seek to divide but, the dying congress party (religion), the handful of communist loudmouths (class) and some church/foreign funded dalit groups etc (caste)

 

[Titanium100]

Why you spamming the forum with this shxt....

This poster is desparate looking for attention.. Proving that India is technically irrelevant outside of communal commotion..

@LeGenD @waz @The Eagle

Please guys can you not make a large thread for all this garbage communal stuff for India... They start to think we are local indians this is international forum and nobody cares about domistic India

 

[-=virus=-]

Why you spamming the forum with this shxt....

This poster is desparate looking for attention.. Proving that India is technically irrelevant outside of communal commotion..

@LeGenD @waz @The Eagle

Please guys can you not make a large thread for all this garbage communal stuff for India... They start to think we are local indians this is international forum and nobody cares about domistic India

This isn't "spam" , this is a topic worthy of being discussed by the fine folks of PDF who obsess endlessly over the subject otherwise.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

Her children have to dress up as raam Sita in character day at school. But she is ashamed or too dheet to now admit it publicly.

 

[Goritoes]

LOL yeah right...

 

[villageidiot]

Muslim oppression narratives are created to feed a certain narrative in order to target India. The olympics of oppression, as I call it: Arshia Malik

Well, it's settled now. The million dollar question of whether muslims are oppressed in India. Arshia Malik says so, so it must be true. Let's pack it up.

Also, ngl, I saw the title and thought the scholar in question is Maulana Mehmood Madani.

There are political groups who seek to divide but, the dying congress party (religion), the handful of communist loudmouths (class) and some church/foreign funded dalit groups etc (caste)

And only one stands against them. the who who seeks to unite, i.e. BJP (@-=virus=- , what should go in the parenthesis here?)

 

[SQ8]

This isn't "spam" , this is a topic worthy of being discussed by the fine folks of PDF who obsess endlessly over the subject otherwise.

The “scholar” in question doesn’t have the credentials nor has presented anything other than opinion in terms of the historical narrative.

Now, for the sake of communal “harmony” if she wishes to “let bygones be bygones” one can understand but that doesn’t take away that historical “revenge” was undertaken - not by “all hindus” as is pushed in Pakistani textbooks but by a considerable number of the hindu political leadership against their erstwhile muslim “masters” both during and post the British Invasion. That doesn’t mean that Hindus themselves did not suffer in the raj? They definitely did at the hands of these very same self serving ones. The British too took it out disproportionately on Muslims simply because you want to defeat the previous “rulers” psychologically as best and also because despite their piecemeal status at the end - the Mughals were the face of majority Indian leadership,

And this will be pertinent throughout because I speak of political leadership versus the common man(women only coming out of desi patriarchy recently) who frankly are swayed by this leadership. I will be simplifying and paraphrasing narratives for this posts sake and that of my fingers since I only use my cellphone for PDF.

Another aspect of “injustice” was self inflicted by muslims by their refusal to accept the British and the willingness of the Hindus to do so - thereby granting Hindus an immediate advantage in the corridors of power of that time and access to bureaucratic influence that was not “balanced” until the late 30s.

Then again, injustices were done once Hinduism was used as the political vessel during the 30s elections - prior to that, communal harmony was fairly normal and Sunni-Shia riots were more commonplace than Hindu-Muslim conflicts…both respecting each other’s practices and houses of worship.

Now, keep in mind that a seed of Muslim extremism too was planted then but it was focused on pushing isolation or fighting for their rights(revolts against Sikh rule) or Hindu princely states(regain power).

Once that seed of Hindu extremism was planted there was no going back. The horrors of partition and how that violence was disproportionately carried out against Muslims with both the British busy with their exit and the disproportionate number who of Hindu representation in those circles of power either turning a blind eye or encouraging it.

Post partition - both Nehru and Gandhi made efforts to stem the seed which was planted but the damage was already done. On the other side, the muslim extremists(recall that Pakistan was formed by the epitome of educated Muslims of which many were ambassadors of Hindu-Muslim unity or common communal harmony ) who were of view in leadership that Pakistan not be formed(due to their opposition to the other Pakistan forming muslim party) because their goal was to continue muslim leadership and try to grab power in United India either migrated to Pakistan or remained behind. Another large section also remains behind both for political purposes but also because their investment in India outweighs the perceived threat and need to leave their ancestral homes.
Of these many will eventually leave later as that extremist Hindu leadership rabble rouses on and off to assert its majority but many will stay behind as well… to face a constant extremist threat that will grow exponentially once mass media impacts India later.

Now, that narrative from 47 starts to form further - in Pakistan it’s reinforced by the horrors of Partition - and somewhat reflecting in North India in the west and east(The south in general escapes a lot of the pain and I don’t count the transfer of Hyd or Jungardh as part of the South)

In Kashmir, the Dogra makes his mistakes - his Hindu faith is secondary to his rule in his mind but that association rings true with the Kashmiris currently high on the partition. Bear in mind, as with all insurgencies and conflicts the fighting force doesn’t mean the entire population with the larger civilians (supportive or not) sitting on the sidelines. The appeal to the tribesmen of the NWFP to reinforce what is a smaller Kashmiri fighting force means non-invested fighters and those that will not hold back out of kinship to the Kashmiri pundits are involved as well.

The British simply want the most they can drain from their exit(and will continue to do so from both nations in military purchases and otherwise but that is out of scope for this discussion) which means the Dogra has to keep his assets by going India’s way - that Pakistani “Army” stalls in bureaucratic infighting and the general disorganization that befalls militias and India lands troops in Srinagar.

That’s injustice again because at the end, the majority of the Kashmiri population is Muslim and a large section of them did want to go with their fellow muslims to Pakistan.. but a section of them did want to remain with India too. That number should have been decided by plebiscite - both avoiding conflict and angst but the reasons for that go beyond injustice.
Tangentially, it is truth-mured that Ayub was offered Kashmir by Shastri in return for dropping Hyderabad, Junagard and Manavadar from its claims… but he refused on the “wanting to eat cake and have it too” although my suspicion is that he like rulers in Pakistan post MA Jinnah did not want the ire of the deposed but still considerably wealthy and influential Nizam.

Surprisingly though, until the early 60s this communal harmony remains in balance despite the RSS and other elements in India until the government of India decides it is time to start fuelling a justified Bengali nationalism in east Pakistan and to finish the eastern threat of Pakistan’s wing which was facing discrimination from its west.
This takes full fold in 71 when narratives of poor Bengali Hindus being killed by Pakistani muslims were being told all the way in UP and were leading to fights and ruckus there. One of my family’s relatives holding out his own had to evacuate to Pakistan post this to his chagrin and he would would comment disparagingly on having to come to Pakistan because Pakistanis made it worse to his death bed in the early 2000s.

The other rise of the communal hatred can be put at Nehru and Gandhis feet. Having first fanned Hindu extremism in the 30s and for certain districts in partition, they now wanted to enforce the secular identity in their attempt to distinguish Pakistan as an anomaly and avoid further bloodshed. This did mean public displays of supposed preferential treatment of muslims that brewed resentment. Ironically, the perception of injustice was planted in many Hindus the same way it was in muslims - public displays of affection by the rulers so to speak.

So, the injustice narrative isn’t false for muslims as it is false for Hindus as well. However, being the majority the Hindus have had the ability to extract their price for injustice with the upper hand in communal violence domestically. As far as Kashmir is concerned, that is not primarily a case of communal violence but the side effects of needing to occupy a people and the blowback of injustices due the overall population suffering due to an insurgency and lack of opportunities in their home confines. The paramilitary force which is comprised of all sorts of men including some with criminal or questionable backgrounds along with frustrated officers will resort to brutality and rape - that breeds more injustice.

Losses of those military and paramilitary translates to not just their families but is used by the same political leadership of the Hindus to further their power desires and wreak further injustice.

So, the muslim victimhood is fully justified and with historical and current context - but whether it is truly only communal in nature and the result of all hindus is the debate - as is how much of muslim society in India also suffers this injustice due to Pakistan’s existence and their own lack of cohesion.

 

[hussain0216]

This is NO scholar
This is the Indian Muslim house negro

Look at her TL in twitter, a useful idiot who seems to think Indian Muslims should be some uncle Tom's and embrace some sort of perverse Bharati ideology

She spends most of her time attacking Indian Muslims and justifying every injustice against them

 

[Areesh]

The "scholar" behind this video:

 

[StraightEdge]

Well he can have his views, everyone is entitled to one. There are also muslims in BJP party. But then exceptions are never the rule.

So just today, this happened -
Mob Of 200 Attacks Mosque In Gurugram, Threaten Worshippers (ndtv.com)

Also, this was viral recently.
Ashok Swain on Twitter: "New India is Medieval India: Nine Muslim men are being publicly flogged while crowd is doing nationalist chant in Modi’s state Gujarat! https://t.co/nMcBQKy0IO" / Twitter

Meer Faisal on Twitter: "#Thread On 10th of october in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, A crowd from Hindu community took out a religious procession on the occasion of Durga Puja. While passing by a mosque, the men from Muslim community asked the procession to lower the volume of the music played on loud + https://t.co/Uzn8TtWyW9" / Twitter

 

[-=virus=-]

The “scholar” in question doesn’t have the credentials nor has presented anything other than opinion in terms of the historical narrative.

Now, for the sake of communal “harmony” if she wishes to “let bygones be bygones” one can understand but that doesn’t take away that historical “revenge” was undertaken - not by “all hindus” as is pushed in Pakistani textbooks but by a considerable number of the hindu political leadership against their erstwhile muslim “masters” both during and post the British Invasion. That doesn’t mean that Hindus themselves did not suffer in the raj? They definitely did at the hands of these very same self serving ones. The British too took it out disproportionately on Muslims simply because you want to defeat the previous “rulers” psychologically as best and also because despite their piecemeal status at the end - the Mughals were the face of majority Indian leadership,

And this will be pertinent throughout because I speak of political leadership versus the common man(women only coming out of desi patriarchy recently) who frankly are swayed by this leadership. I will be simplifying and paraphrasing narratives for this posts sake and that of my fingers since I only use my cellphone for PDF.

Another aspect of “injustice” was self inflicted by muslims by their refusal to accept the British and the willingness of the Hindus to do so - thereby granting Hindus an immediate advantage in the corridors of power of that time and access to bureaucratic influence that was not “balanced” until the late 30s.

Then again, injustices were done once Hinduism was used as the political vessel during the 30s elections - prior to that, communal harmony was fairly normal and Sunni-Shia riots were more commonplace than Hindu-Muslim conflicts…both respecting each other’s practices and houses of worship.

Now, keep in mind that a seed of Muslim extremism too was planted then but it was focused on pushing isolation or fighting for their rights(revolts against Sikh rule) or Hindu princely states(regain power).

Once that seed of Hindu extremism was planted there was no going back. The horrors of partition and how that violence was disproportionately carried out against Muslims with both the British busy with their exit and the disproportionate number who of Hindu representation in those circles of power either turning a blind eye or encouraging it.

Post partition - both Nehru and Gandhi made efforts to stem the seed which was planted but the damage was already done. On the other side, the muslim extremists(recall that Pakistan was formed by the epitome of educated Muslims of which many were ambassadors of Hindu-Muslim unity or common communal harmony ) who were of view in leadership that Pakistan not be formed(due to their opposition to the other Pakistan forming muslim party) because their goal was to continue muslim leadership and try to grab power in United India either migrated to Pakistan or remained behind. Another large section also remains behind both for political purposes but also because their investment in India outweighs the perceived threat and need to leave their ancestral homes.
Of these many will eventually leave later as that extremist Hindu leadership rabble rouses on and off to assert its majority but many will stay behind as well… to face a constant extremist threat that will grow exponentially once mass media impacts India later.

Now, that narrative from 47 starts to form further - in Pakistan it’s reinforced by the horrors of Partition - and somewhat reflecting in North India in the west and east(The south in general escapes a lot of the pain and I don’t count the transfer of Hyd or Jungardh as part of the South)

In Kashmir, the Dogra makes his mistakes - his Hindu faith is secondary to his rule in his mind but that association rings true with the Kashmiris currently high on the partition. Bear in mind, as with all insurgencies and conflicts the fighting force doesn’t mean the entire population with the larger civilians (supportive or not) sitting on the sidelines. The appeal to the tribesmen of the NWFP to reinforce what is a smaller Kashmiri fighting force means non-invested fighters and those that will not hold back out of kinship to the Kashmiri pundits are involved as well.

The British simply want the most they can drain from their exit(and will continue to do so from both nations in military purchases and otherwise but that is out of scope for this discussion) which means the Dogra has to keep his assets by going India’s way - that Pakistani “Army” stalls in bureaucratic infighting and the general disorganization that befalls militias and India lands troops in Srinagar.

That’s injustice again because at the end, the majority of the Kashmiri population is Muslim and a large section of them did want to go with their fellow muslims to Pakistan.. but a section of them did want to remain with India too. That number should have been decided by plebiscite - both avoiding conflict and angst but the reasons for that go beyond injustice.
Tangentially, it is truth-mured that Ayub was offered Kashmir by Shastri in return for dropping Hyderabad, Junagard and Manavadar from its claims… but he refused on the “wanting to eat cake and have it too” although my suspicion is that he like rulers in Pakistan post MA Jinnah did not want the ire of the deposed but still considerably wealthy and influential Nizam.

Surprisingly though, until the early 60s this communal harmony remains in balance despite the RSS and other elements in India until the government of India decides it is time to start fuelling a justified Bengali nationalism in east Pakistan and to finish the eastern threat of Pakistan’s wing which was facing discrimination from its west.
This takes full fold in 71 when narratives of poor Bengali Hindus being killed by Pakistani muslims were being told all the way in UP and were leading to fights and ruckus there. One of my family’s relatives holding out his own had to evacuate to Pakistan post this to his chagrin and he would would comment disparagingly on having to come to Pakistan because Pakistanis made it worse to his death bed in the early 2000s.

The other rise of the communal hatred can be put at Nehru and Gandhis feet. Having first fanned Hindu extremism in the 30s and for certain districts in partition, they now wanted to enforce the secular identity in their attempt to distinguish Pakistan as an anomaly and avoid further bloodshed. This did mean public displays of supposed preferential treatment of muslims that brewed resentment. Ironically, the perception of injustice was planted in many Hindus the same way it was in muslims - public displays of affection by the rulers so to speak.

So, the injustice narrative isn’t false for muslims as it is false for Hindus as well. However, being the majority the Hindus have had the ability to extract their price for injustice with the upper hand in communal violence domestically. As far as Kashmir is concerned, that is not primarily a case of communal violence but the side effects of needing to occupy a people and the blowback of injustices due the overall population suffering due to an insurgency and lack of opportunities in their home confines. The paramilitary force which is comprised of all sorts of men including some with criminal or questionable backgrounds along with frustrated officers will resort to brutality and rape - that breeds more injustice.

Losses of those military and paramilitary translates to not just their families but is used by the same political leadership of the Hindus to further their power desires and wreak further injustice.

So, the muslim victimhood is fully justified and with historical and current context - but whether it is truly only communal in nature and the result of all hindus is the debate - as is how much of muslim society in India also suffers this injustice due to Pakistan’s existence and their own lack of cohesion.

Thanks for the history lesson, I admit I'm not the most well read or versed in events that took place in Kashmir.

I'm also not blind enough to deny that there are problems and some friction, even the occasional ugly flare up between the communities, but, what I can confirm is that things are not nearly as bad as the chatter, certainly on in here, and as certain quarters of our polity and media seems to suggest.

Its a social ill but, our society is far from perfect but the state is not out to 'get the muslims', It's never been. Musalmans are a thriving community here, they have representation in government, in business, the arts, and in all sorts of lines of work.

This Arshia lady was probably pushing back against the whole "musalman khatre m hai" because Hindustani musalman ko aisa koi khatra nahi ha, na Kashmiri, na kahi aur ke.. ye sarasar jhooti narrative hai which needs to be pushed back against, and only the Hindustani Musalmans can do it effectively. Kabhi mauka milay, toh zaroor aap khud aa k dekhein.

 

[SQ8]

Thanks for the history lesson, I admit I'm not the most well read or versed in events that took place in Kashmir.

I'm also not blind enough to deny that there are problems and some friction, even the occasional ugly flare up between the communities, but, what I can confirm is that things are not nearly as bad as the chatter, certainly on in here, and as certain quarters of our polity and media seems to suggest.

Its a social ill but, our society is far from perfect but the state is not out to 'get the muslims', It's never been. Musalmans are a thriving community here, they have representation in government, in business, the arts, and in all sorts of lines of work.

This Arshia lady was probably pushing back against the whole "musalman khatre m hai" because Hindustani musalman ko aisa koi khatra nahi ha, na Kashmiri, na kahi aur ke.. ye sarasar jhooti narrative hai which needs to be pushed back against, and only the Hindustani Musalmans can do it effectively. Kabhi mauka milay, toh zaroor aap khud aa k dekhein.

I don’t think its an issue of being where the jewish people were in Europe pre and during WW2 but the elements and narratives used then are strikingly similar.
And this isn’t an indictment of all Hindus because that same patterns(Overly pampered minority trampling on the majority) are used by hardline rightwingers even in Pakistan (Shia vs Sunni) and throughout the world.

India has schools and colleges where Muslim and Hindu student share everything and live as brothers and it has schools where abject injustice is pushed by individuals or collectives against muslims.
It is not in the textbooks yet but it is clear attempts are in play to either remove Muslims as any positive contributors in Indian history to downright villains.

A question I asked of a dear friend who is active with the India foundation and young thinkers is that what would be the perception of dravidians against the aryans had they still managed to keep a separate identity and create a nation?
Would they not constantly paint Aryans as villains even if they had Aryans fully part of their society as contributing members - maybe even if Aryans were in general a minority and for similar factors occupied a lower economic state than the rest?

 

[ahaider97]

The "scholar" behind this video:

Ma'shAllah boys meme game very strong just like most Tarantino movies.