Census 2011: Demographic Changes in India

Earlier this month, the Government selectively released (unofficially) some census data on religious demographics in India. While the delay in reporting data is inexplicable, the data in itself confirmed a couple of trends observed in the last 3 decades. These broad trends are: 1. Rising share of Muslim Population in India; and 2. Decreasing share of Hindus in overall population.

However, the reporting mainstream media was, as it is wont to be, heavily skewed. It primarily highlighted 2 aspects: 1. Falling growth rate of Muslims; and 2. The ‘paltry’ increase of Muslims population share at 0.8%. This, the media votaries mocked, was a certain proof that all the talk by the Hindu Right of demographic change was nothing but fear-mongering.

While many Indians, in their comments to the purported ‘analytical’ news reports tried to highlight the gross errors in reporting, comments do not make or mar impressions. Some right-leaning websites did try to draw more realistic conclusions from the partially released data, but owing to their limited reach, it is doubtful if they would have even 0.5% of an impact which a Times of India report declaring ‘All is Well’ can have.

Of all such notes, the one by Dr JK Bajaj, India’s leading demographer, on Indiafacts is by far the best. There is hardly any aspect, either historical or current, which is not covered by Dr Bajaj, who presents and dissects available data dispassionately.

One might ask the need of this blogpost if Dr Bajaj’s analysis is so comprehensive. My humble submission is – while I am ill-equipped to add anything worthwhile to Dr Bajaj’s analysis, this post could probably make it reach out to handful of more people, providing key points in brief.

• As per the census data, growth rate of Muslim population in between 2001 and 2011 was 24.4% as against a general growth rate of 17.7%. What most of the mainstream reports did not state that this 17.7% comprises the growth rate of ALL communities and not communities other than Muslims. Unreported was the growth rate of Hindus, which at 14.5% is lower than the Muslim growth rate by 9.9% in absolute terms. When compared to the Hindu rate of growth, Muslim growth rate is higher by a whopping 68.8% (9.9% over 14.5%). Even when taken against the mis-directional National average, it is still 37.9% higher (6.7% over 17.7%)
• Much has been made by MSM on the decline of Muslim growth rate from 29.5% in 2001 to 24.4% now. However, what has hardly been reported is a steeper decline in growth rate of Hindus, i.e., from 20.3% to 14.4%. Yet again, apologists have tried to attribute higher growth rate of Muslims to their supposed poverty and illiteracy. Yet, this does not explain Kerala, where Muslims have risen from 24.7% to 26.6% of the population despite being much better off compared to Hindus, both economically and socially. Even the much poorer Pakistan (20%) and Bangladesh (14%) have lower growth rates. So much so for illiteracy and poverty driving Muslim population growth.
• Now the ‘paltry’ growth of Muslims from 13.4% to 14.2% of the population. For one, Muslims share in population expanded by around 6% over its base (14.2% against 13.4%). In the same period, Hindus share in population dropped by around 2.7% on its base (78.35% against 80.5%). As a result, for the first time since independence, Hindus are less than 80% of the population.
• In the last 60 years, Hindus have dropped by 6.8% on its base (from 84.1% in 1951 to 78.35% in 2011). In the same period, Muslim share in population has grown by a whopping 45% (14.2% in 2011 against 9.8% in 1961). As such, any impression that the Muslim growth rate is ‘paltry’ is simply self delusional. Of even more importance is the fact that Muslims have registered equivalent growth of 0.8% population share in the last 3 censuses consecutively.
• In many states, particularly Assam (34.2% in 2011 against in 30.9% in 2001), Kerala (26.6% in 2011 against in 24.7% in 2001), West Bengal (27% in 2011 against in 25.2% in 2001), Uttarakhand (13.9% in 2011 against 11.9% in 2001), Goa (8.4% in 2011 against 6.8% in 2001), Haryana (7% in 2011 against in 5.8% in 2001) and Delhi (12.9% in 2011 again 11.7% in 2001), share of Muslims in population has risen much faster. It is this demographic growth which has result in de-Hinduisation of villages after villages, in fact, whole of Talukas in Bengal and Assam and disturbingly being seen in pockets of North Kerala now.
• In 1909, UN Mukherjee had authored a book, Hindus, a dying race, based on his study of the continuous decrease of the Hindu’s share of population in undivided India. While the doomsday scenario painted by the author seems fanciful, it is a fact that the in 1881 (when the first census was taken), Muslims accounted for 20% of the Indian population. In 1941, they accounted for 24.3% while in 2011, Muslims comprise around 31.8% of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. For the Hindus, it has meant that from being close to 8 out of 10, they are now only 6 out of every 10 people inhabiting the Indian subcontinent.

Why are the above figures important? All of us understand the power of compounding in finances. How can then one assume that compounding would work differently in population growth? If Pakistan had a growth rate equivalent to Bangladesh, its population would have been lower by around 5 million. Likewise, if Bangladesh had a growth rate similar to Pakistan, its population would have been higher by some six million. A widening gap between Hindu and Muslim growth rates simply means that the Muslim population share would keep on increasing in a geometric progression.

And all this is assuming that the census data is correct. To assume that is again delusional. Any observer / resident of Andhra, Tamil Nadu and tribal belts of Orissa, Bengal and Jharkhand would vouch that the Christian population has increased dramatically. Data submitted by churches themselves indicate that Christian population in India is closer to 4% rather than the declared 2%. If we consider data reported by evangelists as authentic, then Christians have an even higher population share. Plain and simple, currently a Scheduled Caste person loses reservation benefits if the fact of conversion is reported. So, while people may get baptized, they may worship and get married in churches, their official documents record them as Hindus. If, the current Government, in its urge to prove its secular credentials, does extend reservation benefits to Dalit Christians, rest assured, the reported Christian population in India is certain to register an exponential growth.

When people talk of Bangladeshi infiltration, they miss that infiltration of Hindu refugees actually pushes up the Hindu population share and growth rate. That it is still relatively lower only shows the high growth rate of Abrahmic religions in India. And since it can reasonably be assumed that while Hindus are converting to Islam (particularly of the Love Jihad variety), the scale of conversion is very low compared to Christian proselytization. As such, even when accounting for Muslim Bangladeshis in India, Muslim growth is to a large extent, is organic in nature.

What is the cause behind higher growth of Muslims? While cultural and political factors (including infiltration) certainly contribute, can some blame not be apportioned to successive governments of India?

Indian Government has been pushing for population control since decades. While the message for population control may seem less pervasive now, what is curious is the focus of family planning – exclusively a Hindu face. Of all campaigns run by the Government, hardly any, if at all, advert had any Muslim character (either in name or appearance) who was facing issues on account of a large family or to who the message of family planning was being disseminated. Remember your Doordarshan days and those sundry ads in various newspapers and hoardings? The woman in question would always be wearing a bindi and sindoor. Ever remember a woman with a burqua or a hijab? Or a man with a skull cap or a Muslim beard? Maybe the Government’s efforts were not conscious. But, subliminally, with Muslims missing from the frame, the message was that it was the Hindus who needed to stop breeding. 

If only a change in demographics did not mean a change in culture, taboos and territory, population growth of any community, for its own sake, would have hardly been of any concern.

The chimeral moderate

A few weeks ago, the world with agog with parallel tales of terror and destruction; the ISIS led massacres of minorities across Iraq and of destruction wreaked by Israeli onslaught on Gaza. Some aspects of these two series of events were similar - families uprooted, children and women killed, destitution which follows war. The theatre was common and also common was the thread of Islamic thought as one of the factors driving the conflicts. The similarities stop here. Scale and impact-wise, there was little which was common between the toll at Gaza and casualties in Iraq. While the death toll at Gaza was an unfortunate but direct result of the Hamas using civilians as shields, the humanitarian tragedy of Iraq was a direct consequence of the rebirth of Islamic Caliphate.

One would have expected the world to react with horror and revulsion. It would not have been very far off the mark to visualize world over, rallies being organised, human chains formed, mass protests organised, community prayers conducted, and assembling of feet on street to fight the savages, all symbolizing an outright rejection of the theology ISIS stands for.

Sadly but perhaps expectedly, the only action on street was a series of organised protests, both by Muslims and left-liberal intelligentsia against Israeli actions in Gaza. The media was afire with sob stories of human casualties in the occupied land, how little children were deprived of milk and their childhood, how innocent civilians were being butchered by Israel. Yet, from this same bunch, nary a tear was shed for the victims of ISIS’s civilisational wars, neither from the eyes of the ‘oppressed’ Muslim world, nor from the eyes of their countess apologists and Islamophiles.

Some of the more brazen (read shameless) among the left-liberal groups might argue that many statements ‘condemning’ ISIS’s actions had been issued by the intelligentsia. Some will haughtily proclaim that even ISIS, like Taliban, is an outcome of American interventions and hence the world will have to suffer again. While there can be little to argue with people who can even think of offering such excuses, it must be noted that given the outrageously high scale of difference in between Gaza and Iraq, a mere condemnation of the latter as against frothing protests on the former, only shows the extent of lip service being offered to the cause of freedom. As regards the genesis of ISIS, even if it were an illegitimate child sired with the vilest of ill-intentions, the hands which killed, maimed, enslaved and raped were still of ISIS and not the USA.

For those who follow affairs of the world, the left-liberal hypocrisy won’t come as a surprise. Not only in India, in human theatres across the world, has this group displayed its duplicity and hypocrisy many a times over. Even otherwise, the left-liberal intelligentsia has vitiated the public discourse so much that any attempt to critique Islam, attempt to analyse the Black culture in US, attempt to question the aggressive caste politics of the erstwhile depressed classes in India, is certain to attract howls of accusations around racism, casteism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, blah, blah!

While even the minutest of efforts in trying to show reason to these label-loving intelligent beings is bound to go waste, the independent and the ideologically agnostic must pause and mull over the non-existence of a mythical being, the moderate Muslim.

Most of the population seems to believe that like the vast majority of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and other religion practitioners, the vast majority of Muslims too are liberals by heart, little concerned about anything other than their quality of life. And since these people are not fanatics, they must know what the true spirit of Islam is and so, would be repelled at the very thought that the religion of peace has been hijacked by some blood-thirsty loonies and stand shoulder to shoulder with rest of the world to protect human lives and dignity.

Yet, this supposed silent majority is so silent that even a ghost’s whisper would create more noise in comparison. Take a dipstick of Muslims you know. Rest assured, close to a unanimous majority of those Muslims, who are aware of the Gaza issue, will blame Israel completely. Without exception would their hearts beat for the innocent lives lost in Palestine and for those killed in drone attacks in Af-Pak. Yet, when prodded about Boko Haram, ISIS, Taliban or the Al Qaida, the more polished would offer an easy silence, at max, an uncertain but qualified condemnation –‘what they are doing is wrong but…’

Can these moderate Muslims stand up and say as to why the interpretation of Quranic verses and Hadith by these terrorist organisations are incorrect and how? Can they denounce the fact and organize a struggle to stop Muslims from all ranks of life, from across the world, pleading allegiance to ISIS, teaming up to join their group? Can they and the supposedly enlightened ulema stand with conviction and denounce the practice of forced conversions, genocide, sexual slavery as acts beyond the pale of humanity?

Unlikely; nay, Impossible!

The very simple reason is – ISIS and its sister organisations are doing simply what Quran and the Hadith command. Any Muslim, who is even remotely religious, cannot then condemn as their acts being contrary to Islam. As regards people who are more religious, well, they find those otherwise repulsive acts to be a mere replication of what happened in Arabia some 1400 years back.

Is it not presumptuous of the independent-minded and the moderates from other religions to assume that somehow they know more of what Islam says and stands for? They, who have no clue of what shuras and the hadith enjoin, as compared to those from the Taliban, the ISIS etc., people who have spent their entire lives in understanding and then living the Islamic theology?

The sad truth is – the ummah, irrespective of the social class or the economic background of the practitioner, stands as one on the question of kufr and the divine right of Muslims to rule the world. Any supposed attack of Islam, be it an ineffectual set of cartoons of the Prophet, or an even more insignificant event, the result is a sea of murderous mobs on streets across the world, thirsting for revenge.

If it sounds hyperbolic, consider this. A few days back, a few devout Muslim women, covered in hijab, held placards in front of a mosque in Bhopal, appealing fellow Muslims to forego animal sacrifice this Id. Point to be highlighted – mere placards held by Muslim women, appealing fellow Muslims for an Id without animal sacrifice. Granted, many, who believe sacrifice to be intrinsic to Id, would be offended. But, the result of these placards was an attack on the women, their molestation and subsequent justification by the supposedly moderate Muslims, that Muslims were provoked into reacting the way they did.

Now, if the supposed silent majority are so much with the vocal supposedly, minority on almost all issues of importance, is it too much of a stretch of imagination to conclude that these imagination of a group of moderate Muslims is precisely that – an imagination, a chimera!

Some might still argue that there are indeed moderate thoughts among the Muslims. Of course, there are. But, most of these moderate strains of Islam are in those regions which continue to be heavily influenced by their Hindu/pagan past. The more you Arabicise Islam, that is, bring Islam truer to its moorings, the more rigid it becomes. In the vast lands of India, Bangladesh, North Africa and South East Asia, there are numerous organisations like Ahl-e-Hadith, which are precisely doing that. Making ‘true’ Muslims of people who are currently, Muslim only in name but culturally, close to the land of their forefathers. Till the time they do not start believing and acting like their brethren of the Arabian deserts, they can never be true Muslims.

And indeed, of the 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Hanbali and Maliki, Hanafi is seem as more liberal in treatment of non-believers as compared to the Shafi school. But, is it really liberal? When you consider that the for the Hanafi school, their liberalism (among many), lies in ‘granting’ the right of life to the Hindus (including Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs), in lieu of humiliating payment of jaziya, when the more puritan Shafi school would precise either of conversion or death?

If we consider Hanafi to be liberal, that would only mean that we have accepted that Islam would be more aggressive and more demanding; that non-Muslims can treat any concession as only some manna from heaven.

It is revolting that the Islamic apologists (read left-liberal brigade), defend atrocities in the name of Islam more doggedly than Muslims themselves (arguments on the lines of – they were provoked… they were oppressed.. it was not really religion…etc.). It is even more revolting that these apologists defend the silence of the supposedly moderate Muslims, claiming that they are under no obligation to protest against crimes committed in the name of Islam.

Very sorry to say, but they are. They are under this obligation firstly because they need to prove that they exist. They are even more of an obligation to prove that they are sincere. They need to stand up and say that irrespective of what the Quran and the Hadith say, Muslims should not, and will not, act in ways which are against basic human decencies. The way no amount of whitewashing will justify the ills of untouchability in Hinduism and the brutal medieval history of Christianity, no amount of beating around the bush will solve the problem of certain Islamic thoughts being against the civilisational virtues we stand for. There is lot of be proud of about Islam. There is a lot of positive which Islam has taught the world and continues to teach. Yet, these positives do not whitewash and stand independent of the goodness of Islamic thought. If the world can become a dangerous place because mobs across the world protest against any real or imagined slight to Islam, these protestors also owe to the world, their support of those who are being raped, killed, exiled, forcibly made to give up religion of their forefathers, simply because they happen to be non-Muslims or Muslims from the ‘wrong’ denomination. If the mythical moderate Muslim does exist, let him fight for the right causes, or simply, be true, to what he believes is the true meaning of his religion of peace.

As regards India, in words of Will Durant - ‘The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history of mankind’. In addition to being at the receiving end of invasions and the consequent proselytizing zeal of its invaders, India has, not long back, lived through the horrors of what a Caliphate would be like. The Mopallah revolt of 1921, which started off as an offshoot of the Khilafat movement, soon morphed into a jehad. A Caliphate was declared and consequently, Hindus, who are dhimmis par excellence under all the 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence, had to revisit the fate which their ancestors in different parts of India had faced many a times over in the last 1200 years. In words of Dr Annie Besant – ‘Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India.’ It was nothing but ironical that it was finally the hated British, against who the freedom struggle was being led, who clamped down on the bloodthirsty, jehad-crazed mopallah with an iron hand.

Many apologists of Islam claim that had Islamic rule really been barbaric, it would not have succeeded in extending its rule over large swathes of the world in less than 100 years of Islam taking form. But, it was precisely this barbarism, which facilitated growth of the Islamic empire. In any clash between the civilized and the barbarians, it is the civilized who are held back by the rules of civilization. The barbarians, free of such encumbrances, emboldened by primitive blood lust and promise of loot (wealth and women), will invariably triumph. Kingdom after kingdom fell to the marauding armies of Islam, which offered the vanquished population little option but conversion, slavery or death. Today’s growth and consolidation of ISIS owes much to its adopting the means of those early Islamic armies. Savages lose only when they are confronted with people with greater savagery. E.g. Islamic rules falling to Mongol hordes. Or, alternately, when confronted with a determined adversary, who has no illusions on the nature or intent of such barbarians.

Sadly, with our National consciousness geared to beat breasts only for Gaza, difficult to foresee on why the land of Hind won’t be under Caliphate rule sooner or later. 

Defend Minority Rights - Liberal Style

How a society treats its poorest and most helpless citizens, often a minority group, is indicative of its strength. While this statement has been ‘Indianised’ to refer only to minorities, its righteous rhetoric cannot be ignored.

Since the protection and furtherance of all minority ‘causes’ is the life defining mission of our ‘liberals’, it is quite surprising to see that rather than protecting, they have ganged up against one of the most vulnerable minorities in India – the Vegetarians!

Contrary to the image of India being a vegetarian land, the vast majority of Indians consume meat. In 2004, as per the Anthropological Survey of India (as against a pop survey by CNN-IBN), barely 220 million Indians out of 1028 million (2001 census) were vegetarians. Even within traditional vegetarian communities, more and more families are taking up meat and fowl consumption. Hence, not only are the vegetarians a minority; horror of horrors, they are a declining minority in dire need of state protection to shore up their numbers and way of life! Without adequate safeguards, it is likely that they will be overwhelmed and consumed by the majoritarian meat-eaters in the country. What a travesty that would be? A beautiful strand of Indian diversity getting subsumed by that anaconda of majoritism! Even the die-hard meat eater will agree that an India sans vegetarians will militate against the very ‘Idea of India’, whosoever’s it is.

Then why, why is this hapless minority the butt of ridicule and attacks from the very people who are supposed to protect them?

The resident agony aunt of ‘secularists’ in India, the venerable Outlook ran a story of how Jains (a very small minority) are terrorizing the palate of Muslims by insisting that their sacred town, Patilana, be declared vegetarian. Soon after, the relapsed Open The Magazine ran another story on Vegetarian Terrorism, bemoaning how the evangelical vegetarians want all to survive on grass and yet again coming down on the Jain minority for seeking to protect, practice and propagate their religious beliefs. But, how could they? Jains, being vegetarians and numerically much smaller than Muslims are a huge (sic) minority. Then, should not the weaker minority be supported in the clash of two minorities?

It must be quite a lapse of judgement for the venerable Outlook to agitate against a sect which is double-minority and granting of minority status for whom, it celebrated only months back. After all, isn’t respect for minority practices a cornerstone of ‘liberal’ activism? Not only do these liberals need to stop protesting against these minorities, they should launch a campaign to protect those vegetarian property owners from those majoritarian meat-eaters who insist on becoming their tenants. The issue is of course not whether an individual’s right of ownership. It is simply religious identity. How can the majoritarian meat-eaters force minority vegetarians to dance to their tunes? Taking the campaign ahead, these liberals should fight for the right of those vegetarian run establishments who do not want meat to be cooked / warmed in their premises. As a next step ‘liberals’ need to get a hate law passed to protect the hapless vegetarian against jibes of her meat eating acquaintance, who asks with mock concern ‘ how do you survive on grass?’, ‘but what do you eat other than paneer in restaurants?’ ‘why don’t you try chicken/mutton/fish?’ This done, ‘liberals’ must pressurise the Government to legislate tough laws on the lines of dalit and women protection laws, to prevent harassment and intimidation of this vanishing minority.

As in the case of sexual orientation, vegetarianism is both a choice and a result of conditioning. So, why should the paternal protection sought for one not be offered to the other group?

Who exactly is a minority in India? The answer is a little complex. For the layperson, any individual or group, which is less than 50% of the total group of people, comprises a minority. However, in the Indian ‘secular’ parlance, the minorities are a broad spectrum group comprising of Muslims, women, tribals, dalits etc. Now, if some 90% of the population gets identified as minorities, how can a mere 10% of the population be considered a majority?

Very clearly, the assumption that minority must equal helplessness, weakness is flawed. After all, a handful of British ruled over India’s teeming millions. And, isn’t it the numerically insignificant tiger, which sits at the apex of the food chain, even when the jungle is full of herbivores?
 

But, paradoxically, for Indian ‘secularists’, some groups remain ‘minorities’ irrespective of absence of any weaknesses attributable to their being a ‘minority’. Hence, an Allahabad High Court judgement pronouncing that Muslims were not a minority (owing to their history, size and political influence) was treated with derision with many ‘secularists’ offering to teach basic arithmetic to the learned judge of the court. So, in India, the matter is settled. Any person who is not a Hindutvawadi, preferably an ‘upper’ caste, Hindu male, is a minority. Hindu here specifically excludes followers of Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism and for some, followers of Kashmiri Shaivism and the Lingayats.

So, any action by any person who belongs to this abominable group, if against any member of the numerous ‘minorities’ populating India, becomes a communal act. Hence, the crass actions of a Shiv Sena MP becomes an attack on Indian secularism only because the person who was at the receiving end of this ‘religious persecution’ happened to be a Muslim, who was fasting even at night! Wonder why non-Muslim students being denied mid-day meals or being forced to have lunch in school toilets in some North Kerala districts are not seen as worthy of concern, particularly when they too are minorities in those Muslim-majority lands?

The Road Much Travelled

It is not very often that communal riots, particularly which see the number of dead running into single digits, get raised in the parliament. At the same time, it is also not often that a local skirmish in a single village sparks off chain events in nine adjoining districts of the region. While it is sad that Jammu had to yet again undergo the cataclysm of riots, the only very thin silver lining in this otherwise dark cloud is a hitherto unseen appreciation of the fact that communal fault-lines in Jammu are strong enough to tear the region asunder.

For a very long time, the general public have been made to believe by the Government and the media that the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir is a non sectarian land and that a common thread of Kashmiriyat, seeded and nurtured by generations of Sufism, had made those citizens truly secular. So far as the secessionist movement is concerned, it has been painted as the result of disillusionment of the youth, a feeling which was completely independent of the religious identity of people demanding azadi.

If the contemptuous assertions that the Kashmiri Pandit migrated en masse of his free will and in connivance with the evil Jagmohan were not enough, we have been fed stories on how the Amarnath Yatra and the Kheer Bhavani fairs are supported by the local Muslims, the economic benefits being purely an irrelevant afterthought.

While the above tales were probably meant to control Hindu retaliation elsewhere, the general belief in the rarefield public decision making offices, which is supposed to be aware of ground realities, that the entire secessionist movement was restricted to the Kashmir Valley alone and that the general population of Jammu and Ladakh were absolutely pro-India, belies credulity.

This commentator may be accused of generalizing stray observations and presenting it as applicable for the entire region. However, when that generalization is seemingly proved by sequential events and evidence to the contrary seems absent, the hypothesis stands validated. Those interested in more details may refer to the post ‘Oh Kashmir’

It was only a few weeks back that Ramban was hit by skirmishes, instigated by a local Imam maliciously claiming that a copy of the Quran had been desecrated. The initial disturbances were only a precursor to riotous mobs chanting Azadi slogans taking over the town. Now, we have the spectacle of Azadi demanding mobs taking over Kishtwar and other Muslim majority areas of Jammu.

The reality was and still remains that other than the two and a half undivided districts of the Jammu region and the Leh district of Ladakh, the rest of the state of Jammu & Kashmir identifies itself as a body united in its desire for Azadi. This independence is not independence for political ends. Few even in J&K are unaware that residents of Pakistani occupied portions of the State have received a much worse deal compared to them. Hence, the demand for azadi is merely the yearning to fulfill the unfinished agenda of partition, which is securing a land of the pure, made even more pristine by the absence of those who do not follow the doctrine of the ‘pure’.

Communal riots in J&K are not a new phenomenon. The 1931 skirmish which resulted in cold blooded killing of 31 Muslims by the Dogra troops resulted in an uprising which immediately morphed into large scale attacks on Hindu lives and properties across all regions of the State. In 1947-48, it was not the Pakistani troops and Tribal invaders alone who targeted the Hindu population across areas which are called POK today. Perhaps only a few care to remember that not only did the towns of Mirpur, Muzaffarabad, Gilgit and Skardu have large Hindu populations, the countryside, right upto Gilgit had significant pockets of Hindu presence. Just a few weeks of mayhem and the entire POK was cleansed of non-Muslim presence.

The more informed amongst us, particularly of the liberal variety, justifiably condemn the disgraceful conduct of Dogra troops when they, by their inaction, became party to massacre of Muslims in some Hindu majority areas of Jammu. However, what many forget is that overall; the conduct of the Muslim Police in Jammu was all the more reprehensible as it was an active participant in the massacre of Hindus, particularly in areas of mixed population. Unlike what many would now like us to believe, the mayhem in Indian areas of Jammu were plain communal riots in which there were a large number of casualties from both the communities.

The events of 1947-48 were not isolated in nature. Riots have recurred with nauseating frequency in the districts of Ramban, Doda and Kishtwar. True, the casualties were never as high as those in many other parts of the country but unlike those riots, the design behind communal unrest in J&K has always been more sinister. On a very statistical level, the absence of a large number of dead does not necessarily denote that the riots were minor, particularly when the number of dead is juxtaposed against the small populations of these districts. The Kashmiri Pandit community too faced around a thousand direct killings in the last few years leading to their forced exodus. The relatively small number against the supposed much larger number of Muslim casualties are sought to be presented as proofs that the terrorist movement in J&K is non-sectarian in nature. However, this half truth cleverly glosses over the fact that the thousand odd dead belonged to a small minority of some three lakhs, who overall comprised only some five percent of the Valley’s population. In effect it meant that almost each extended family was directly impacted by the terrorist activity – in form of a dead cousin, uncle, nephew or in-laws.

The forced exile of Kashmiri Pandits was not an overnight event. Disempowered and discriminated against by the rulers, target of frequent riots, the targeted brutal public killings of 1989, threat letters and public warnings from mosques, the Kashmiri Hindu took recourse to the only option he had. He left, perhaps never to return, the land of his forefathers with only his life and barest of necessities as his possessions. The residual Hindu community, holed up in villages continued to be the target of both the terrorists and the locals alike and today, barely three thousand Hindus survive, if it can be called such, in the Valley.

In this land of the pure, Anantnag and Verinag of 1986 are history and will never be repeated. After all, one needs an adversary to riot against. Still, the Valley is not tranquil. Each summer, the Valley denizens manage to find some issue to rally around and vent their hatred for India. Be it Shopian, Amarnath Land Transfer, Summer of 2010, hanging of Afzal Guru or simply alleged army high-handedness, each demonstration becomes the excuse for vandalizing of a few more temples and beating up of the residual Hindus and migrant labour population in the Valley.

Some amongst us might remember that the in the immediate afterglow of success of their ethnic cleansing strategy in Kashmir, the terrorists had tried to replicate the same formulae of targeted killings and public warnings in the undivided Doda district of Jammu. A series of massacres, specifically targeting the minority Hindu community, raised the specter of yet another forced exodus in the State. Fortunately for the country, at helm was a Prime Minister, who believed in securing his countrymen. It was PV Narasimha Rao who was instrumental in creating the Village Defence Committees, which managed to secure the Doda district against the nefarious designs of the terrorists.

This bulwark against the secessionist movement and indeed the safeguard against yet another forced exile of the Hindu minority is obviously not palatable to the secessionist forces of the State. While the likes of Geelani and Yasin Malik have long called for disbanding of these committees, now the Chief Minister of the State has joined their ranks. That this demand does not arise from some intellectual conviction is starkly obvious when we realize that this worthy does not appear to know that February in a non-leap year has only 28 days! Be it the demand for revocation of the AFSPA or the pre-1953 autonomy for the state, there appears little difference in between the political and secessionist belief systems in the Valley. With a Central Government indifferent to their plight, it will not be long before the hapless Hindu minority of the Muslim majority districts of Jammu gets overwhelmed and is forced to share the fate of their co-religionists from across the Pir Panjal.

Not only should the Village Defence Committees not be disbanded, for the very simple reason that the secessionist movement is still on, it is imperative that the artificial state of Jammu & Kashmir, an agglomeration of disparate people and geographical entities, brought together only by the expansionist zeal of the Dogra Kings, be restored to its natural boundaries. Not only will a trifurcation of the State on geographical lines secure the Hindu and Buddhist minorities of Jammu and Ladakh, drawing of new borders and a new political establishment will ensure that secessionist sympathies in the new states are crushed comprehensively.

It is likely that any move to trifurcate the state will face resistance from the secessionists as the dominant view in those circles seem to center around allowing only the heavily Hindu majority districts of Udhampur, Reasi and Kathua to separate from the State. The National Conference, it its controversial report on Regional Autonomy, which suspiciously mirrored the recommendations of the ISI backed Kashmir Study Group, has sought division of the Jammu & Ladakh regions on communal lines. The Muslim majority districts of Jammu and Ladakh have been positioned as the Pir Panjal & Chenab and the Kargil divisions respectively.  Such arguments cannot be accepted as none of the Indian States with mixed majorities saw such granular partition. Had that been the case, Thar Parkar and Umerkote districts of Sindh and Chittagong from East Bengal would have been ceded to India. The trifurcation of J&K has to be on geographical lines alone, to protect the land and its people from an otherwise certain descent into chaos. The need of the hour is not some high sounding politically correct pontification but firm actions to secure large sections of our Nation from its adversaries.

The Dangers of Negationism

“The worst illiterate is the political illiterate. He hears nothing, sees nothing, takes no part in political life. He doesn't seem to know that the cost of living, the price of beans, of flour, of rent, of medicines, all depend on political decisions. He even prides himself on his political ignorance, sticks out his chest and says he hates politics. He doesn't know, the imbecile, that from his political non-participation comes the prostitute, the abandoned child, the robber, and, worst of all, corrupt officials, the lackeys of exploitative multinational corporations.”

Bertolt Brecht. 1898 – 1956, German poet, playwright, and theatre director

The survivors of most communal riots face an existential dilemma once situation gets ‘normalised’. Except for a handful who choose to migrate elsewhere, most are forced to continue on with their lives in their old localities, surrounded by the very people who had turned on them ferociously only a few days earlier. It is not always easy for the aggressor either to look into the eye of the survivor; particularly for those who otherwise had enjoyed congenial or even indifferent relations with the survivor. Not surprisingly, the ingenious human mind finds a way out and invariably, the rioters are declared to be ‘outsiders’, people from other localities or even villages, faceless and anti-socials beings! This transfer of culpability is not done by the aggressor out of guilt alone. The survivor too is complicit in this act, knowing fully well that he has no option but to share space with the aggressor even going forward and more importantly, to sate his need to believe that his friendly face of the yore couldn’t have turned beastly one day. Stories of such negationism (denial followed by fantasy) have been witnessed across riot torn people ever since the nature of riots became a subject of study. A few years after the partition, the very Punjabi who otherwise boasted of the number of men he killed or of the women he violated, started blaming the faceless 'other' for all ills of those riots.

While this negationism does manage to bandage the wound sufficient enough for life to progress, is this fair to those who suffered in riots? And how effective is denial in ‘reforming’ those who engage in riots?

Why does any society, howsoever primitive, possess a code of law which seeks to punish those who digress social mores? Simply speaking - to restore the societal balance, to provide justice to the harmed and most importantly, to punish the culprit for the crime so that the fear of punishment acts as a deterrent were he to stray from the societal path again.

But imagine a situation where the culprit is sought to be hidden and blame assigned to faceless people? Is the society then doing enough to redress the harm caused to the victim? Even more importantly, is it performing its moral obligation to hold a mirror to the culprit and show him his face made ugly by the crime? Punishment obviously cannot be imposed when the culprit is not even identified. So, is the culprit deterred by this denial? No. Is he emboldened further? Ys, as he knows no fear of punishment, secure in knowledge that he will neither be identified, nor shamed nor punished!

While the need for those involved in riots to engage in this exercise of denial can still be understood, what is inexplicable as to why do Governments and media-person engage in negationism? One generous reason could be their genuine belief in efficacy of denial. The second and more tragic reason is their pandering to their respective ideologies and biases. Hence, homilies abound whenever reporting of riots have to happen. If possible, riots don’t get reported if a particular community is the culprit and if too large to be ignored, blame is assigned to the victims. Readers shaking their heads in disbelief at this assertion would do good to take a single case - Bareilly, which has witnessed 3 riots in the last 2 years. The riots of March 2010, when the mob celebrating birthday of the Prophet attacked Hindu homes was sought to be blamed on Bajrang Dal. The July 2012 riots when mobs attacked Kaanwarias was sought to be blamed on music being played by them and riots again now, where scapegoats are still being found. A person reading news-reports of these riots will be stuck by the absence of any reproach for the Muslim mobs. If, even for arguments sake, it is agreed that music is abhorrent to Muslims, does it give them the right to murder and commit mayhem?

What will help in restoring order? A Government which identifies the culprits and punishes them or a one which only seeks to blame the victim?

An indulgent mother, who chooses to blame other kids for the shenanigans of her bully child only paves the way for her child becoming a hardened criminal. If only she had overcome her immediate maternal instincts and chosen to punish the child for his wrongdoings, her child still could have had a chance at being reformed. Sadly for the Nation, this attitude of successive governments and powerful media houses will only spell doom for its tottering fraternity. For too long has the Government and media indulged in this dangerous game of negationism. Will it have courage to recognise that their short term selfish interests are creating a Frankenstein which will devour them, in not so distant a future?

Let them have some courage, courage to see and report truth as it is. Let them develop a conviction strong enough to recognise that even the genuinely aggrieved, irrespective of their community, don’t have the right to riot and kill innocents. Let them be brave enough to recognise that there people who have grown on a narrative of victimhood can be the oppressors too.

Mopallah Rebellion - Part 2, 3, ...., n?

The year was 1921 and large swathes of India were in throes of an agitation. An agitation to force British to cede power to Indians and also to force them to reinstate the Caliphate in Turkey.  Interestingly, this Khilafat movement did not originate in Turkey, the seat of the erstwhile Ottoman empire. It did not originate in Iraq, the seat of among the most glorious of Caliphates. It did not originate in Saudi Arabia, the land of the two holy mosques either, nor did it originate in Iran, the seat of among the mightiest empires the world has seen. Not only did none of these Islamic Nations rise in protest against abolition of the seat of the Caliph, the spiritual and temporal head of Muslims worldwide; none of these Nations' protests came even close to the intensity  displyed by Khilafat in India. 

For most people, the act of deposing a never seen, never heard, never knew existed, nominal King in very very distant lands would not even register into consciousness. Inexplicably though, the issue was potent enough to harness the collective rage of large masses of Indian Muslims against the British. For the first time after the 1857 War of Independence did the Muslims see the British as enemies and they, as a body, for the first time joined a quasi struggle for freedom against the British. 

A movement for India, which was built around a cause irrelevant to India was bound to unravel and fail. Within a few months, the Khilafat movement morphed into the bloody Mopallah riots of Malabar, where the Muslim Mopallah, having been beaten by the British, turned its wrath to the hapless Hindu community. No distinction was made in between the peasant, the outcaste the jenmi (Landlord) and the Namboodiri (Brahmin), nor was any thought spared for the women and the old. Dr Annie Besant reported that Muslim Mappila (Mopallah) forcibly converted many Hindus and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise, a number totaling to one lakh!

The Mopallah rebellion was the first among the many pogroms which preceded the state of Pakistan and showed what the Hindu could expect in a state governed by Islamic Law. While discussion on the massacres preceding and succeeding creation of Pakistan can take Gigabytes and Gigabytes, what is noteworthy that the ‘path’ shown by the Mopallah has been faithfully followed by the agitating Muslim even 90 years into that gory chapter of Indian history.

For those among us who mutter in muted tones on why should Muslims riot in Mumbai for supposed atrocities committed on their co-religionists in Myanmar (a foreign country), and Assam, they probably forget that such rioting has historical and recent precedent. Be it US attack on Iraq or a demonstration in support of Osama Bin Laden, the presence of Taslima Nasreen or attack on Afghanistan, the aggrieved Indian Muslim has rioted, killed and damaged public and private property. A little earlier, it rioted when Satanic Verses was banned, when the British invaded Suez and when the hair of the Prophet at Hazratbal was stolen. Note that in none of these riots could the average Hindu or even his co-religionist anywhere, could be accused of ‘hurting’ the Muslim but the former was the inevitable target of these riots. Seems that we will live to see a thousand more Mopallah rebellions on our lands.

Refer to Riots after Riots for a more detailed note.

PS:

Sadly, while our media discourse stretches credulity when it would make us believe that only an aggrieved minority has the right to protest, it goes far beyond the borders of negationism, when it manages to justify violence committed in course of unrelated protests. One gentleman from Times of India, today reports that 50 people, ‘dressed’ as Muslims protested at Lucknow today. This, when even TwoCircles.net reports that Muslims rioted in Lucknow and Allahabad and as per Rediff, this protesting mob was around 25,000 strong.

It is only a matter of time...

“My heart goes out for the people of Assam” so said Jawaharlal Nehru, when the hapless people of Assam were staring at the prospect of being invaded by the marauding Chinese. Nehru did not wash his hands off the North East with these immortal words. His Government ordered district treasuries to burn Indian currency lest they fell into Chinese hands and facilitated the exodus of civil servants from the state scrambling to escape the Chinese Invasion.

Much to Nehru’s surprise, the Chinese withdrew and Assamese realized that they were still an Indian state. Only, now with a realization that they were dispensable and mattered little to those dictating India’s destiny from their hallowed quarters at Delhi. Nehru and successive Governments have done precious little to allay the security concerns of our people from the North East. For decades, no roads were developed or bridges constructed out of the fear that they will aid the Chinese troops when they invade the North East next! Some border road development does seem to be happening now, now when the Arunachal border is connected to the Chinese mainland with all weather railway lines!

Successive governments at New Delhi have not been oblivious of the fact that armed invasions are not the only means to subjugate a people. Since we left the North East to its fate when they suffered an armed invasion, isn’t it fair that we leave them on their fate in face of other invasions too? If not the Chinese, why not the Bangladeshis? Assam has to be subjugated and preferably cut off from the rest of India and any means would do!

The recent bloodshed and humanitarian tragedy occupied a full 4.5 days of our National Media. Quite an achievement when the Guwahati molestation continues to stir up outrage and Rumi Nath continues to get new defenders of faith! Very clearly, for the National media, the death toll of 50 (official) and 4 lakhs of refugees mean little. But why did the same media go apoplectic when less than a tenth of these figures were affected by the Kandhamal riots, triggered off by the dastardly assassination of a venerated Hindu saint and his disciples? Let us not even talk of their Gujarat cottage industry where it would seem that massacres in African states took inspiration from the badlands of Gujarat.

Is it because it is quite inconvenient to visit Assam, particularly the affected districts? Or is it because the people don’t really resemble the ‘mainland Indians’ that much? Or is it because they believe that the North East is made of savage barbaric tribes who fall upon each other periodically just to sate their primeval bloodlust?  Or is it because the riots were between Hindus and Muslims, in which, horrors of horrors, atrocity on the Hindus, were too stark to be swept under the carpet? But try they did. Read any news-report and you will find it beginning with sorry tales of Muslim victims before it apologetically puts in a few lines for the Hindu victims too! One wonders what would have the police reaction been in case the ‘Promotion of communal violence bill’ been law? As per that Act, the Hindu refugees would have been treated as criminals and put behind bars!

Sadly, even those news anchors and columnists who are not unsympathetic to the plight of the Assamese Hindu, have adopted the moniker of ‘immigrants’ for the Bangladeshi swarms on Indian land. They are not ‘immigrants’. They are infiltrators. Period. 

Again, these people would like us to believe that this is not a Hindu vs. Muslim issue. Certainly, the Assamese Hindu sees both Hindu and Muslim Bangladeshis as people who have no rights over Assam but does the Assamese Muslim see it the same way? The answer is a clear no, with Muslim leaders vehemently protesting even the articulation of the idea of infiltration. If this is not about religion, why does the Assamese Muslim stand up with his Hindu counterpart to decry this demographic invasion? Why do all minority bodies in Assam promote and support the continued infiltration from across the border? Why do these leaders prefer to ignore the reality of Bodo refugees and claim that Muslims bore the brunt of the riots?

No amount of obfuscation would cover the fact the demographic invasion from Bangladesh has resulted in the native people becoming a threatened minority in their own lands. A proud race which withstood Islamic invasions and chased the Mughals out of their lands stand subjugated today, defeated by its very own Mir Jafars and Jai Chands. Lower Assam is as good as lost to us now, with the ethnic cleansing in this round of riots resulting in exodus of the remaining Hindu population from those districts. It took less than 3 years to cleanse Kashmir valley, 20 years to cleanse the West Pakistani lands to erase its Hindu population, and 25 years to irretrievably Islamise the East Bengal Lands. It has taken barely a century to silently invade and cover large swathes of Assam and adjoining states. The fact that the initial Bangladeshis were refugee Hindus does little to soothe the angst of the overwhelmed people. Who, in his right mind would be so generous so as to take in so many dependents that he turns to being a dependent himself? Unfortunately, for the North Easterners, the Tripura tribal has lost the land of his forefathers to refugees from the other side. The same way, Barak valley had turned into an outpost of Bengal long before the problem of Muslim infiltration had raised its head.

Some columnists have tried to give a spin to this entire saga by claiming the Bodo angst to the chauvinism of MNS. Are these people even aware of the import of what they are speaking about? To claim that the Bodo hostility to the Muslim infiltrator, if not controlled, will spill over to the Adivasi, to the Assamese and then the Indian is Goebbelsian propaganda of the worst order. Which Nation in this world would grant infiltrators rights? Forget about rights on an equal footing with its citizens? Even the celebrated Human Rights icon Au Sang Su Ki draws the line when it comes for ‘rights’ for the Rohingya Muslims, who by all accounts, are not Myanmarese citizens but descendants of Bangladeshi infiltrators. And since Myanmar won’t accept them and Bangladesh has little use for them, what better than to accommodate them in India? One can only wonder on how could over four thousand of them manage to supposedly cross Myanmarese borders and travel across Assam, Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh to reach New Delhi to demand rights on our lands?

Over millenniums, India has been a melting pot of people from various races coming, settling and then finally mingling with the Hindu society. These people adopted the Hindu way of life, their dress and the language such that we cannot even make out the origin of people in our midst. But, these were people who wanted to be one amongst us. How can the Indian Nation embrace people who come stealthily, displace and dispossess us and wish to become masters of our destiny?

Is it only a matter of time that another feckless Prime Minster will exclaim ‘My heart goes out for the people of Assam’ once again?

Who are we and how do we determine if the ‘others’ belong to this collective we?

One of the paradoxes while many readers of history may have noticed is the subliminal belief among most Indians that the Ghaznavis, Ghurids and the Mughals were foreigners even though they belonged to areas corresponding to the northern ranges, which mythologically and historically had formed a part of the Indian civilization and which supposedly, still figures in the Undivided India dream of the Hindu Nationalists. If the Hindu Nationalists so strongly believe that the land in between the Oxus (Amu Darya) and the Indus was very much India, how could people belonging to those regions and a little beyond be foreigners, that too, in perpetuity? This particularly when we don’t necessarily see Kushanas, the Sakas and the Hunas as foreign invaders once they established their rule in the country?

Probably, this is the reason, why most ‘eminent’ historians of the pink variety took it upon themselves to declare in sanctimonious tones that while the British were certainly foreigners, the Muslim Invaders, weren’t.

The reality certainly lies somewhere in between! The concepts of ‘Us’ and ‘Others’ are not static but evolve with time. When population expands, we may not know or be personally related to all who stay with us. We take recourse to external symbols and practices to identify those who are like us. And these symbols could be clothes, (fabric, color and style), ornaments, food habits, language and religious rituals

The traits of Territorialism and clannishness are present in most mammalian creatures, humans being no exception. Hence, it is of little wonder that since the dawn of civilization, tribes have identified the human race as comprising of two groups, ‘Us’ and ‘Others’. Defining ‘Us’ was relatively easy to begin with – people associated with familial links formed the initial ‘Us’ and with growth of population, expanded to include those sharing similar food habits, language, religion and culture. Defining ‘Others’ was as simple – anyone not falling within the category of ‘Us’ belonged to ‘Others’ – treated with suspicion and quite often, hostility. Probably, it was a primal fear, of being overwhelmed by the ‘Other’ and losing access to one’s resources or a simpler fear of loss of limb or life or a more sophisticated dislike of cultural poverty of the outsider – almost all civilizations had had very clearly defined groups of people who were not ‘Us’. For the Chinese, all races beyond the middle kingdom (which had to expand continuously to include the frontier people), were the barbarians, while for the Ancient Indians, people inhabiting lands beyond the Northern ranges were ‘impure’. Even within, those who did not fall under the pale of the much maligned Varnashram Dharma, became the dasas, mostly living beyond the pale of regular Vedic and post Vedic civilization. In ancient Greece, slaves were clearly demarcated from the citizens and stayed in separate quarters while in Islamic societies, a better solution existed, force the vanquished to embrace Islam so that the question of the ‘Others’ is taken care of in toto! On a more serious note, it will be rare to come across any such instance of history where the victor race, particularly when not sharing a common cultural heritage with the vanquished, has treated the vanquished as ‘We’. So, while today, we may see Iran as a belligerent Islamic Nation, we cannot lose sight of the fact the Islam of Iran is Persian and not Arabic and that this ancient civilization became important only when the Persians overthrew the Arabs to establish Persian rule, though Islamic in nature.

Looking at India, we have a strange situation where very clearly, the ‘Uttarpath’ land neighbourly to ancient seat of Vedic civilization in Punjab became forbidden territory by the later Vedic Period. Likewise, its people, in spite of the others’ acceptance of their beauty, wealth and perfectness of Sanskrit, spoken by them, had begun getting seen as the fallen Aryas, a land where Varnashram Dharma was no longer followed. Things changed with advent of the Mauryas and close association with the Gangetic civilizations ensured that the land and the people were seen as Bharatiya. But even here, the people of northern ranges were seen as being different to other Indians, like today we see a Tamilian as seen as being different to a Kashmiri.

Whatever difference there was, got accentuated with the advent of Islam in those regions. The first important central Asian, who invaded these parts of India, was Subuktgin, belonging to the lands around Samarkand, not really an extension of Asian India. He established his reign in Ghazni and his notorious / illustrious son Mahmud, the iconoclast plunderer, raided deep into the Indian mainland. Since Mahmud and the later invader, Ghori were based out of Afghanistan, can it be said that at least Ghori, since he was partially of the Afghan stock, was an Indian and that his invasion was not a foreign invasion?

The tricky question of ‘Us’ versus ‘Others’ begs answering here. For the animal world, identifying the ‘Other’ is easy, for the human beings, this is where we begin to acknowledge that culture at times, becomes more critical than birth in identifying the ‘Others’

The ancient invaders, Kushanas, Sakyas and the Hunas certainly did not belong to those lands which formed a part of ancient India. However, very soon they adopted the culture of the country which they had invaded and became assimilated among ‘Us’. On the other hand, people inhabiting the Northern ranges moved furthest away from the Hindu culture with Adoption of Islam and more importantly, looking westwards (Persia and Arabia) and Northwards (Central Asia) rather than to the East for spiritual and cultural inspiration.

Interestingly, while the Ghurids were seen as despicable mlecchas, the Islamic rule in India for over 3 centuries resulted in a scenario where the Suris were not seen as outsiders and in fact the battles against Babur in which the Afghans fought hand-in-hand with the Rajputs were seen as struggles against a foreign invader, a usurper who had conquered Kabul but did not belong to the historical Indian lands. Why was that? Is it because the Afghans had made peace with the Hindus, because Kabul and Zabul still had some Hindu influence or more importantly, the prospect of a ruler from Central Asia, related to the Mongols and the Turks made the Hindus feel that the Afghans were at least ethnic cousins? Or was it simply because 3 centuries of Turko Afghan rule had made Hindus indifferent to their distinct practices.

That begs another question. If three centuries of Islamic rule in the early millennium had sort of assimilated Afghani Muslims, why was the Mughal rule seen as foreign till the nether years of that empire? After all, the Mughal ruled only those areas which were historically Indian and in spite of all of Babur’s lamentations and pining for the cold lands, delicious fruits, beautiful gardens and luscious men, Babur died in the country he so hated and none of the later Mughals too succeeded in transcending the Indian boundaries. Probably the rule was foreign till the very last as the Mughals looked to Persia for inspiration and ruled as rulers over the ruled race. The court language, the administration system, the festivals, the jurisprudence, all were lifted from Persia and the Mughal emperors styled them after their Persian counterparts. Seems familiar with the British rule, doesn’t it?

In our effort to be politically correct, we miss out that the concept of ‘Us’ vs ‘Others’ is relative and the key to this segregation is the strongest identity the people have. We do not miss out on saying that all humans are not alike but at the same time fail to appreciate that when ranged against other families of the same tribe / clan, a family assumes a uniform identity different from the rest of its ilk. Likewise, a state may have different regions, a language different dialects, but in a Nation, a state has a singular identify, against other languages, all dialects merge their identity with the mother language. Likewise, people may cry themselves hoarse claiming that Muslims are not a monolith and that they have numerous castes and sub-castes, but so what? For Muslims belonging to the ummah, their identify subsumes all other identities. Some erroneously claim that Bangladesh was a negation of the concept of a Muslim identity? How is that so? Bangladesh remained Islamic and never expressed a desire to merge with India. There are 49 Muslim countries in the world today and a Shia Iran hates what the Wahabbi Arabia stands for. That does not mean that these nations do not share a singular Islamic identity. Their scriptures have made them see as one people, irrespective of their race and Nationality. The Han Chinese see themselves as one people and so even Taiwan does not have a world view which is different from that of mainland China

For the Hindus, fortunately or unfortunately, their identity as religionists have been subordinate to their identity as a caste, the feeling. Very clearly, how we see ourselves and others is a result of both our primal instincts and conditioning. In a larger group, we search for similarities to perceive ourselves as more powerful against the others and in smaller groups, stress on differences to place ourselves apart from the others.