Monumental folly - Right & Wrong

It's been well over half a century of political independence from our British colonial masters. Yet, questioning any of Nehru's antics with policy decisions for the budding nation state India, remains a political blasphemy. His affiliated bandwagon, namely, the Indian National Congress, works tirelessly in establishing that this man was the sole "Visionary of Modern India" - that it was because of him that we see India the way it is today - and how he, like an exemplary leader with emaculate foresight, sharp articulativeness and deft leadership qualities, blessed us by taking up the onus of envisaging the vision for his just-born motherland - how his deft craftmanship in their implementation helped us evolve into today's days of "glory". And sadly, though there exists a reclused species of individuals who do wish that we were spared of this generosity of Nehru - the majority of Indians are just too preoccupied with their daily livelihood to spare time to give this debate their participation - thereby being party to mute acceptance of this false propaganda as truth. It's not too often that we hear someone unequivocally denouncing Nehru's utopic vision as a product of his romantic association with altruism. An amazing article to this effect appeared recently in Times of India, August 24, 2008 online edition. Thanks and acknowledgement to Swapan Dasgupta, the writer of this article. I am copying the article below. The past few weeks have seen the most vile assaults on Indian nationhood. In the Kashmir Valley, emboldened separatists have desecrated the Indian tricolour with glee. The hitherto ambivalent slogan of azadi has become a defiant, full-throated acceptance of Pakistan. "We are Pakistanis and Pakistan is us because we are tied with the country through Islam," the Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani told a mass rally in Srinagar on August 18, adding, "Hum Pakistani hain, Pakistan hamara hai." Simultaneously, the assumptions on which Indian democracy rests have been challenged by a Taliban-like advocacy of Nizam-e-Mustafa (state based on divine law). Police investigations in another part of India have revealed the murderous conspiracy of a group calling itself the Indian Mujahedeen. Made up of educated, lower-middle class Muslims, these ideologically-driven fanatics have made it their life's mission to wage a bloody jihad against non-believers. They too, have openly debunked the principles on which the Indian political order rests. According to the boastful email the IM sent minutes before the Ahmedabad blasts on July 26, "The terms democracy, secularism, equality, integrity, peace, freedom, voting, elections are yet another fraud with us." The group has also directed its ire at the "faithless infidels and their hypocrite allies from amongst the so-called Muslims...who have bartered their faith in return of just one seat in the Parliament." A striking feature of these threats is the resulting disarray in the liberal establishment. While the more weak-kneed and cosmopolitan intellectuals have advocated total surrender, others have fallen back on denial. The ruling Congress Party, for example, has equated demonstrators waving the national tricolour with those flaunting the Pakistan flag. Cabinet ministers have defended the terrorist SIMI and new-found allies of the UPA have rushed to console the family of the man the police believes was responsible for the murder of some 150 innocent Indians. Most important, homilies apart, there has been no meaningful intervention by those who felt that the Nehruvian ideal was the last word in India's political evolution. This disoriented silence is understandable. The Nehruvian project rested on the assumption that the emotional foundations of India would become unshakeable if the Muslim minority were allowed a generous measure of separateness and firewalled from the intrusions of both the secular state and civil society. Nehru believed that "temporary provisions" giving a special status to J&K in the form of Article 370 would reconcile Kashmiri sub-nationalism with Indian nationhood. A common civil code was also put on hold because he felt that in time Muslims would voluntarily accept the idea of non-religious personal laws. While Nehru viewed separateness as a temporary balm on the scars of Partition, his successors elevated it to a non-negotiable tenet of Indian secularism. The results have been hideous. Far from nurturing a Amar-Akbar-Anthony form of multi-culturalism, separateness nurtured both ghettoisation and separatism. The perverse mindset of SIMI and IM activists, for example, is almost entirely a creation of the ghetto and centred on an abstract ummah that takes precedence over actual neighbours. The similarities between the IM mindset and the radical Islamism of the Pakistani ghettos in Britain are striking. And the problem in both countries has been encouraged by an intelligentsia that equates liberty with licence and turns every complaint into victimhood. Likewise, the dispute over 40 hectares of land was rapidly politicised and projected as a conflict between Kashmir and India. The transformation was possible because Article 370 had created the emotional space for separatism. Nowhere else in India have laws for the protection of 'locals' become a ruse for open secessionism. Nehru's multicultural brainwave was opposed by many nationalists at the time. To them, emotional separatism was the precursor to actual separation as happened in 1947. They were right. Today, India is paying the price of Nehru's monumental folly.

Read More...

Karan Thapar interviews Shabana Azmi

Karan Thapar: As Indian marks another Independence Day, what is it like to be a Muslim in India and what does the world look like when seen through Muslim eyes? That’s one of the key issues I shall explore today with actress, social activist and former MP, Shabana Azmi. Shabana, let’s start with how the world perceives Islam. Seven years after 2001, many people see the religion as a threat; some even fear it. How do you respond to that?

Shabana Azmi: With exasperation, anger, and bewilderment. The fact is that Islam is not a monolith. It resides in more than 53 countries in the world and it takes on the culture of the country in which it resides. So it’s moderate in some, liberal in others, and extremist in the rest… You know there’s a whole range of Islam that’s available according to culture. But the world, particularly after September 11th tends to view it as synonymous with terror.

Karan Thapar: The sad part is that it is not just Islam that is in a sense misunderstood if not targeted but Muslims as well. In the West, particularly the Western media because of the association with terror, Muslims have become figures of fear and for some even figures of hate. Do you understand that or do you resent it?

Shabana Azmi: I’ll go back a little bit to 1992 when Babri Masjid was demolished. I have been raised in a very liberal, Bohemian family in which religion has not played any part at all. For me, being a Muslim was really about Urdu, eating Biryani and wearing kararas on the Eid. So the cultural aspect of me was Muslim, otherwise, because I am not very religious, the religion did not matter.

Karan Thapar: But then, in the eyes of those who do not know you, you are branded as…

Shabana Azmi:No, no. That’s why I am saying that after the riots following the Babri Masjid demolition, I suddenly had people saying, ‘You are a Muslim’ and using it as an accusation or treating me with Dresden china. Either ways, it was a sort of self-consciousness that I had never before experienced. It was very traumatising. And what it made me do is that it made me dig my heels in and say, ‘Yes, I am a Muslim and what are you going to do about it?’ That is what I can see increasingly happening, particularly in the Western world. A lot of young kids today are wearing the burkha, are taking on an identity, which they really don’t feel just because you push somebody up against the wall, that’s what they will come up with.

Karan Thapar: In other words, you push them and make them defiant. You push them and make them what they aren’t and may not want to be but have to become in self-defence?

Shabana Azmi: Absolutely! Yes, that’s exactly what happened to me and I see it particularly amongst the young in the West. And it poses me some concern because what they are taking on is just parts of an identity which does not really have anything to do with Islam.

Karan Thapar: Is that also happening to the Muslims in India? Are Muslims in India going through the same experience that Muslims in the West are going through?

Shabana Azmi: I think the Muslims in India despite the fact that there have been communal riots justice has not been given…even then I think that the Indian Muslim is in a safer place because the Indian Muslim has a stake and a space in India’s democracy. It’s a very huge thing that we are a part of the democracy. An Indian Muslim can aspire to become a Shah Rukh Khan, can aspire to become an Irfan Pathan or even the President of India. And that makes the Muslim here far more hopeful and far less in despair than in any other part of the world.

Karan Thapar: So, it’s the fact that they can participate in the democracy and far more important that they can aspire, have dreams and live up to those dreams, that makes the difference.

Shabana Azmi:That’s right.

Karan Thapar: Have you in your life, particularly in the last few years, because you are a Muslim faced distrust and suspicion? Have you suddenly noticed that people look at you in a manner that they did not look in earlier?

Shabana Azmi: No, it again happened after the 1992 riots because you know after the first phase was over, which was largely in the slums and not in the sophisticated areas, people weren’t really affected. But when January happened, it’s when they got affected, that’s when they woke up. But the thing is that since I was right there on the streets and because I was so totally consumed by it…the minute I would speak about it there would be a hushed silence. I was not allowed to talk about it. And suddenly I was being branded a Muslim. But that is what my reaction was during the Sikh riots, and that time this (attitude) was not flung at me. So that was very, very difficult.

Karan Thapar: Today, not just abroad but even in India, people say that Muslims have to take on the onus of changing the image of their religion and the image of the community. Is that a fair thing to say?

Shabana Azmi: I think it is. I would accept that because I don’t think that the Muslim leadership has bothered to clear the air about what Islam is all about. I think that for far too long, for reasons more due to conspiracy rather that intent really. Every time, the Muslim question is raised; you look at all the politicians, whether it is Atal Bihari Vajpayee or whether it is Indira Gandhi or anybody else, the minute it is a Muslim question you get only the dadhiwallahs (beard-sporting men) and all the maulvies (scholars) to speak. I have always told them that why do you always leave it to the maulvies? There are other people also who are the moderate, liberal voices. Do you ever consult them?

Karan Thapar: In other words, there is the need for the moderate, liberal Muslim voices to speak up?

Shabana Azmi: No, no, no. It is again a cliché and it tires me because the moderate, liberal Muslim has always spoken up. But, nobody is interested because it does not make for dramatic headlines.

I’ll talk to you about myself. Now, we’ve all along been talking about reforms within the Muslims to look at reforms within their community, to look at themselves and to look at several situations. It never gets any kind of coverage. But I took on the Shahi Imam. If you remember there was this incident when he had called for the Indian Muslims to go and wage jehad (holy war) in Afghanistan and I had told him on a television channel. I said what I’ll do is that we can arrange for you to be dropped in Kandhar and you can start your jehad from there. Your problem will be solved and so will ours. That grabbed newspaper headlines like nothing else could. What I am saying is that why does it have to be something so sensational before it is picked up by the newspapers?

Karan Thapar: So how responsible is the press for conveying an impression of the Muslim community and of Islam perhaps, because they only concentrate on mullahs and the ‘long-beards’ and they don’t listen to moderate people like you?

Shabana Azmi: No, I would not say that the press is doing that as a design or a conspiracy against the Muslims, though I would want to see it like that because they do the same thing to the Hindus. It is Pravin Togadia who gets all the newspaper headlines.

Karan Thapar: Except that, Hindus being a majority are a little difficult to misunderstand but Muslims, being the minority and in a sense being victims of what has happened as a result of change of image after 9/11, are easier to target and misrepresent?

Shabana Azmi: Much, much easier to target, but I think that if there is a call within the community to actively try and diffuse the image that it has got, I think that it is a fair demand.

Karan Thapar: So, do you make an appeal to the press, do you say to the newspapers and to the television channels that there is a whole range of Muslim sisters out there, there are a whole range of Hindus out there, try and portray some of those others who do not have beards?

Shabana Azmi: All the time. I constantly say that Islam is not a monolith and do not portray it like that because you then do it great injustice.

Karan Thapar: What about politicians who persist in trying to convert politics into something that immediately quizzes the religion? For instance, you have the BJP saying that the UPA is weak on terror because they will lose Muslim votes or as the Left says, Indo-US treaty is anti-Muslim. Do you resent this attempt to portray everyday politics into religious or worse yet, into Muslim stance?

Shabana Azmi: Yes, except you know when people say that this is for Muslim votes, I do not see any problem with that. If there is a constituency that is voting for you, then hopefully, you will pay attention to that constituency. There is nothing wrong with that. That’s what you are supposed to do. You see, if you have voted me into power, then it is my business to protect your rights. What’s wrong with that?

Karan Thapar: But what about the position Omar Abdullah took during the vote of confidence in Parliament when he spoke with passion and anger at the fact that people were trying to portray him through his religion and politics. And he resented it.

Shabana Azmi: Yes, of course. You see, India’s greatest strength is her composite culture. But in recent times, there’s a concerted effort to compress identity into the narrow confine of religion that you were born into.

Karan Thapar: And does that happen more to Muslims?

Shabana Azmi:All the time! And therefore, you are Hindu, I am a Muslim and she is a Christian and so on and so forth. This is not true because if you were to look for instance at the Kashmiri Muslims and Muslims in Tamil Nadu, then despite the fact that the religion is the same, the Kashmiri Hindu and the Kashmiri Muslim have much more in common with each other than the Kashmiri Muslim and the Muslim in Tamil Nadu. It is because of their Kashmiriyat and nothing else.

Karan Thapar: How do you today, then view the crisis in Kashmir? The two are literally pulling apart and their emotions are spiralling out of control?

Shabana Azmi: That is because it is a cauldron. The situation has been allowed to go out of hand and there is a deliberate attempt to communalise it…which is a huge pity because throughout history, people of Kashmir have always had very strong bonds with each other despite the religious differences and it is only because of their Kashmiriyat. See, it’s wrong to say you will not have differences; of course you will have differences. My only point with anybody who differs on this with me is that see, I do not have to love my neighbour, and not love myself, that cannot happen; but all I need to do is not kill my neighbour and not burn down his house.

Karan Thapar: Are you worried that what is happening in Kashmir is spiralling out of control and will create differences between Hindus and Muslims elsewhere in India also?

Shabana Azmi: Absolutely! And that is exactly why I am so distressed over what is happening in Kashmir and for heaven’s sake it should be brought to a stop. And it should have been brought to a stop when they started with that nonsense.

Karan Thapar: So it is not just Kashmir, it’s India that’s at stake?

Shabana Azmi:Absolutely, yes.

Karan Thapar: So is this a challenge to our integrity, future and unity?

Shabana Azmi:Yes, it is and I think that if the politicians have not woken up to it yet then they really do not know what is happening.

Karan Thapar: Shabana Azmi, I want to ask you a critical question as a former MP. Let’s talk a little bit more focussed about Indian Muslims. They are amongst the poorest, least educated and worst represented communities in India. Has Indian politics been unfair to the Indian Muslim?

Shabana Azmi: (After a thoughtful pause) Yes.

Karan Thapar: Is it any individual politician you would blame or the system?

Shabana Azmi: I think there is not enough understanding of the fact that in a democracy the manner in which you treat the security of the minority must be a very important part for that democracy to be a success. You cannot just make token gestures and actually let them be in the state that they really are as the Rajkendra Sachchar Committee report shows. So what happens is that token gestures are made but the real issues are never addressed.

Karan Thapar: Would you go a step further? Would you say that in fact Muslims are victims of discrimination despite India’s proud claim of being secular? They still face prejudice?

Shabana Azmi: I can’t get a house in Mumbai. I wanted to buy a flat and it wasn’t given to me because I am a Muslim. I read the same thing about Saif. I mean if Javed Akhtar and Shabana Azmi cannot get a flat in Mumbai because they are Muslims, then what are we talking about?

Karan Thapar: Do Indians, particularly those who aren’t Muslims, understand the extent of these problems that we have created by this prejudice for the 14-15 per cent Muslim minority? Do you think people understand this?

Shabana Azmi: Yes, and no. And when they don’t, I think it’s about time that Indian Muslims stopped viewing themselves as Muslims. I think otherwise they tend to get into that victim mode.

Karan Thapar: But what can they do?

Shabana Azmi: Firstly, you have to look within your community, you have to build reforms within it. You have to say that you want to look into things like education.

But wait, what happens then – riots and more riots, the guilty get away, go scot-free. So the feeling that gets left behind is that there are two kinds of laws in this country. One is when you are only one person and commit murder then you will be caught and hung. But if you kill in mass, an amnesty of sorts will be granted to you. This leads to ghettoism and leads to marginalisation and to a lot of despair. Till we understand that the guilty must be punished, whoever they are, we cannot talk about integration.

Karan Thapar: How much resentment does all of this cause in the hearts of the Muslims who see themselves as Indians and also realise that they are not being given a fair deal?

Shabana Azmi: No, I do not think that this is the time for resentment.

Karan Thapar: But there is resentment?

Shabana Azmi: There is resentment in certain sections which is fanned even more than the fundamentalists. The average Muslim really wants only roti, kapda and makaan, just like the average Hindu or Christian.

Karan Thapar: But they do not get it because the politician do not think of that?

Shabana Azmi: Yes, that and the fact that the community is allowing itself to listen to the fundamentalists, who are not actually their leaders.

Karan Thapar: To what extent is the community entrapped by what are often described as ‘bad leaders’; fundamentalists who provoke them rather than lead them forward?

Shabana Azmi: I think that there is a change happening. What has happened is that for far too long, the moderate, liberal Muslim hasn’t really gotten involved with the affairs of the community because after Partition it was seen as sort of communal to do so. But, post-Babri Masjid demolition, the moderate, liberal has come forward to the affairs of the community and that has led to a great strengthening of confidence amongst the Muslims.

Karan Thapar: Let’s try and look to the future. In the UP elections the Shahi Imam formed the Muslim Front to contest the polls. Then in Assam, Badruddin Ajmal formed another Muslim Front to contest the Assam elections. Do two Muslims need their own political parties?

Shabana Azmi: No, they do not. Jawaharlal Nehru was the leader of Muslims and that’s the way it should be. You do not need a Muslim leader.

Karan Thapar: Do Muslims need to merge more firmly and more aggressively with the mainstream then?

Shabana Azmi: You see, the poor things are pulled over the coals all the time for some stupid statement made by some extremists and that catches the attention of the press. You then have all Muslims hauled over the coals, which is really unfair.

Karan Thapar: A Togadia does not get identified with the whole Hindu community but a Muslim extremist gets identified with the entire Muslim community; is that unfair and wrong?

Shabana Azmi:Yes.

Karan Thapar: What about another issue; the Rajendar Sachchar Committee brought out another issue for the first time – the extent of deprivation that Muslims in India live under. Do they need reservations just as you have for Dalits or OBCs or Scheduled Tribes?

Shabana Azmi:That’s a tricky question to answer.

Karan Thapar: Is it because it’s an answer that you do not know or is it because it is political and therefore awkward?

Shabana Azmi: Because I really don’t know the answer. I know an affirmative action is definitely important but whether it will be solved by reservations or not, I am not really very sure about that.

Karan Thapar: People sometimes say, and you have echoed that without saying it in the same words, that Muslims have begun to retreat into their shells and that they have begun to get into ghettoes. They need to come out and play a fuller role.

Shabana Azmi: No, but the situation is not as dismal as you are making it out to be because on the one hand that this is happening but on the other hand there is a resurgence of the moderate, liberal voices, which is now taking on the affairs of its community. This is something they had not done in the past and because of their recent actions there is also a confidence building within the community. It’s not all black and bleak.

Karan Thapar: Then how do you square up the fact that there is this resurgence, which is a positive side, and yet as you say that Shabana Azmi and Javed Akhtar or Saif Ali Khan cannot buy a flat in India’s most cosmopolitan city.

Shabana Azmi:Yes, but if I were to see that as an indication of everything that was wrong, then that would be incorrect. Look at the possibilities of what Muslims are. Exactly because of that you have a President, a cricketer, you have the Khans ruling the film industry. There are both these contradictions. India is a country of contradictions.

Karan Thapar: So, as you look to the future, are you an optimist who sees the situation getting any better or do you fear that it could get worse before any improvement comes?

Shabana Azmi: I am by nature an optimist. I can see within Muslims, a real hard look at themselves. I think they are making very important attempts to be seen. Like for instance this rally that Muslims had against terrorism. That was huge! Now that comes from an understanding that we need to change the image.

Karan Thapar: And the Deoband ‘fatwa’ against terrorism was another example, right?

Shabana Azmi: Huge, really. So, we need to understand that these things are happening. We have to look at them positively.

Karan Thapar: So you positive about it? You are an optimist?

Shabana Azmi:Yes.

Karan Thapar: Shabana Azmi, a pleasure talking to you on ‘Devil’s Advocate’. Thank you.

Shabana Azmi: Thank you.

Read More...

'Islam is not a slave'

Everytime a bomb explodes or a plane is crashed into a building in the name of "jihad" or "token" partisan politics is enacted by pretentously empathetic politicians in the name of "Islamic activism" or "secularism", nothing suffers more than Islam and no one gains lesser out of it than its followers.

One thing that needs to be forcefully injected into the minds and hearts of an ever increasing number of proclaimed "Islamist"-s entrapped into this self-destructive end-game is that the world is not selectively discriminatory toward Muslims. Rather, the truth is, the world was and still remains selectively discriminatory against the weak and the poor - a pitfall of the very process of evolution that we all are a part of. Why a disproportionately large section of the Muslim populace falls in that category needs deep introspection rather than childish accusation of foul play.

I found this fascinating article on Times of India website on this subject. Thanks and acknowledgement to Mr. Mohammed Wajihuddin, the writer of this article.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani is perhaps the most polarising figure in contemporary Kashmir. In his many avatars as Jamaat-e-Islami member, Hizbul Mujahideen's political face and Tehreek-e-Hurriyat's hawk, the octogenarian, bearded leader has led mammoth rallies, courted countless arrests and penned several books, including a passionate prison diary. On August 15 this year, Geelani donned the garb of Islam's saviour and declared to an azadi-chanting, green-flag waving crowd at Srinagar's Lal Chowk: "Our goal is azadi baraa-e-Islam (freedom for Islam)."

The media, constantly on the lookout for soundbites, moved to the separatists' other engagements in the day, ignoring the import of Geelani's new diktat and its fathomless falsity. In a single stroke, the Hurriyat hawk had coated his territorial battle with an Islamic flavour. Like Pakistan's founding father, the frail Mohammed Ali Jinnah in the tumultuous 1940s, Geelani has again tried to stoke a disturbing, though somewhat dormant, debate: "Is Islam incompatible with a secular society and must a Muslim majority live only in an Islamic state?"

The chant of "freedom for Islam" is actually a gross misinterpretation of a faith which unambiguously calls God "Rabul Almeen (lord of the universe)" and Prophet Mohammed "Rahmatul Almeen (blessing for universe)". "Like the Hindutva hardliners hinduised the Shrine Board for Amarnath yatris, Geelani has used a political slogan to provide the separatist movement with a pan-Islamic colour. Muslims might have been enslaved or free in the last 1,400 years, but Islam has never been a slave to anyone. Since it's not a slave, it doesn't need to be freed," says Islamic scholar Asghar Ali Engineer. "Islam is democratic in spirit and has no conflict with secular, composite nationalism, an idea that the likes of Geelani vehemently oppose."

In Geelani's warped views, all Muslims must strive for and live in an Islamic state. "It's as difficult for a Muslim to live in a non-Muslim society as it is for a fish to live in a desert," writes Geelani in Rudad-e-Qaf, his prison memoir. Bangalore-based Islamic scholar Yoginder Sikand, who has written extensively on Kashmir's composite culture, met Geelani a few months ago in Srinagar. "When I asked him to explain his theory of Muslims' discomfort in a non-Muslim society, he said that it was ordained by the Quran. If the separatists succeed, Kashmir will turn into another Talibanised Afghanistan," says Sikand.

How will an Islamised Kashmir, if it becomes a reality at all, look? To find that, don't look beyond Asia Andrabi, the leader of Dukhtaran-e-Millat (Daughters of Islam), who dictates head-to-toe hijab, issues fatwas against music and favours "covering" the women who dare to bare, preferably by sprinkling paint on them.

Geelani's ideological guru, Maulana Abul-Ala Maududi, Jamaat-e-Islami's founder, sought the idea of an Islamic state in a Quranic verse which says that if given power in the land, Muslims should establish salat (worship) and zakat (charity) and enjoin virtue and forbid evil. Maududi interpreted it as God's command to establish an Islamic state which needed to enforce the eradication of vice like adultery, drinking, gambling, vulgar songs, immoral display of beauty, promiscuous mingling of men and women, co-education and so on.

"Pakistan's original idea of establishing an Islamic state was never realised. Yes, Pakistan has a city called Islamabad, but true Islam remains in India," claims Akhtarul Wasey, who teaches Islamic Studies at Delhi's Jamia Millia Islamia. "The Prophet proved Muslims could co-exist with non-Muslims through the Covenant of Medina he signed with the Jews. Both the Jews and the Muslims became citizens of Medina with their separate identities."

Wasey's argument on the inclusivist nature of real Islam is backed by historical truth. Wahhabism, a revivalist, puritanical movement, expounded by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahbab in 1740s in today's Saudi Arabia, lost its exclusivist edge once it hit the shores of multicultural India. Darul Uloom Deoband, the Islamic seminary which traces its origins to the wave of Wahhabism, eschewed fanaticism when it met the tolerant, spiritual Sufi influences in India. Jamiatul Ulema-e-Hind, Darul Uloom Deoband's extension, which fought the British Raj, opposed the Muslim League's "two-nation" theory. Jamiat's stalwart Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, under fire from some misguided maulvis of the League, had to explain his advocacy of composite nationalism in a book called Muttahda Qaumiat Aur Islam (Composite Culture and Islam). Madni was hauled over the coals, yet he didn't budge from his stand.

The idea of an Islamic state did not attract even the venerable Maulana Abul Kalam Azad though his zeal for Islam was unmatched. Born in Mecca and trained in Arabic and Islam studies before his family migrated to Calcutta, the erudite Azad celebrated Islam's inclusivism in an 1913 essay: "It is the Muslims' duty to serve humanity...Every part of God's land is sacred, and all inhabitants of the land are dear to them." At another place, Azad declares that God's land cannot be compartmentalised into pak (pure) and na-pak (impure).

The Kashmiri youth who dance to the tune of "Teri jaan meri jaan, Pakistan, Pakistan" would do well to take time off from Geelani's harangues and read Islam in its right context.

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Islam_is_not_a_slave/articleshow/3397793.cms)

Read More...