Islamic fundamentalism predates Hindu fundamentalism? - A response

Mehul Kamdar 

Published on February 13, 2007

 

WRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/28593 

Biplab,

Thanks for your post - first for your question about whether I have learned Indian history better than you and for your "analysize" ing of the situation.

For your information:

1. You say "Hindu == == Hindu nationalism grown out of British period as result of resisting force against British. We can look before it, but there is not much need. Since RSS is based on ideology of new Hindu nationalism of Vivekananda and Dwananda saraswati."

From the RSS's website: http://www.rss.org/New_RSS/History/Evolution.jsp  "What started as a tiny stream in an obscure corner of Nagpur in Maharashtra 7 - 8 decades ago has now swollen into a mighty river engulfing the remotest villages of the country."

So much for your assumption about the RSS' origins and your indirect hint that it is the embodiment of Hindu fundamentalism. Also, your effective diktat "We can look before it, but there is not much need" is strange considering that you are content to string about confused words and facts without knowing their full import. Historians like Stanley Wolpert and Francis Watson have dated Hindu fundamentalism much earlier than the colonial or even the Islamic era with Watson, if my memory serves me right, dating it to coincide with Cyrus the Great's conquest of Gandhara. If you would like to discuss Indian fundamentalism from the 1800s alone, we could do it as a separate subject and not on this thread. Yes, I cannot read Bangla and would welcome an English article from you in this regard to which I shall respond with an article of my own. If you would like any other format for this separate discussion, I am more than glad to get involved without worrying about whose learning is "superior" and merely to put points forward for debate. I look forward to your agreeing to this.

2. You say "There were Muslim fundamentalist movements > (Wahabi) against British and Hindues before 1830-80, growth of new Hindu nationalism "

I would like to remind you that in 1857, the movement to fight the British and restore Bahadur Shah Zafar was led by three powerful Hindus - Tantiya Tope, Nada Phadnavis and Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi. The history of invasions of India by Muslims over several centuries also is a history of Hindus fighting as mercenaries in Islamic armies whether it was Taimur (some say that he was not even a Muslim himself) or Mahmud of Ghazni or any of the later invaders with the possible exception of NAdir Shah who led a predominantly Persian army.

3. You have used the word "wahhabism" twice talking about incidents in India. The fact is that the Ibn Tamiyya Kitb AL Tawheed which the followers of Muhammad ibn Abd Al Wahhab follow had no clout at all for almost 500 years after it was written until Wahhab's own lifetime when he propagated it as a counter to Sufism. Indian Muslim fundamentalism is from a different school - Deobandism - and it was not until the Afghan occupation by the Societ Union that these two schools of fundamentalism in Islam found common cause. It wuld not hurt to check out a history of the Deoband Dar ul Uloom at http://darululoom-deoband.com/english/index.htm 

4. You say "Hindues were mostly deist and divided. Gita was brought in as chief source of Hindu philosophy, to promote monotheism like Islam, so that Hinduism can grow in power against monotheist religion."

Considering that most scholars date the Gita to about 1000 BC, the writers of the Gita must have been remarkably prophetic individuals to write a book that would promote a counter to a religion that did not exist for a further 1700 years and which would not conflict with Hinduism for several more centuries.

5. You end your post saying "So, a historical discourse of development of Hindu nationalism will tell you that my hypothesis is correct and your assumption does not stand any historical support but flawed utopian thinking."

Considering that you have failed to distinguish between two similar and yet different schools of Islam that did not even come together until the last three decades of the 20th century, considering that you have decided that there is no need to study Hindu fundamentalism beyond the beginnings of the RSS just because you say so, and, considering that you flaunt your "learning" of Indian history despite putting together a most confused response to what you claim is my "utopian" post, perhaps, there is little need for anything more to be said?

Best wishes,

Mehul Kamdar.

         

Mehul Kamdar from Chicago is currently moderating Mukto-Mona forum. He was the editor of The Modern Rationalist under late M D Gopalakrishnan  and associated with various rationalist movements. He can be reached at [email protected]