By TwoCircles.net News Desk,
New Delhi: Former Member of Parliament Syed Shahabuddin has defended Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind on Vande Mataram issue and condemned Muslim secular progressives for criticizing the Jamiat. “Muslim secular progressives denigrate Muslim organisations and institutions to gain favour and benefits. In the process, they strengthen on anti-Muslim forces,” Syed Shahabuddin said today in a statement.
“The sharp reaction by some so-called Muslim ‘progressives’ to the resolution on recitation of Vande Mataram adopted by the 3oth session of the Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind (JUH) on 3 November 2009 shows the gap between the Muslim elite and the Muslim masses. The former are unable to appreciate the distinction between Kufr and Islam and the rationale behind long Muslim resistance to Vande Mataram which Tagore’ did. On his advice the Indian National Congress limited the national song to only the first two stanzas,” Syed Shahabuddin said.
“The ‘progressives’ also failed to note that the Supreme Court has ruled against any compulsion for singing even the national anthem, which certainly applies to the singing of the national song,” the eminent Muslim leader said.
Only last week a group of Muslims had issued a joint statement condemning Jamiat on Vande Mataram issue. The signatories to the statement included poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar, social activist Shabnam Hashmi and actor Shabhana Azmi.
“What is factually incorrect is that the signatories of the statement have accused the JUH of ‘reviving’ the Vande Matram controversy. Apparently none of them have read the Resolution which clearly refers to continuous provocation by the Hindutva forces in Deoband and neighboring areas for sometime and their deliberate campaign to incite the Hindu community against the Darul Uloom by digging up an old fatwa of the Darul Uloom on Vande Matram. This provocation had preceded the JUH session for months and was carried out in an organized manner in a bid to create Hindu-Muslim tension & law and order problem in order to disturb the JUH Session, while authorities remained silent spectators. In fact the Resolution itself is very mildly worded and merely calls upon the Muslim to resist compulsion to recite the song,” he said.
He, however, has admitted that JUH could have ignored the issue.
“There is no doubt that of the nation-wide Hindutva campaign in which the song has been made a test of Muslim patriotism has kept the communal fire burning. It can however be argued that the JUH should have ignored the provocation in order to defeat the object and purpose of the Hindutva agitation. In this sense the resolution was not necessary and has served to divert media attention from all other resolution,” Syed Shahabuddin said.
He also defended Jamiat on its resolutions on Muslim girls education.
“The Resolutions of the JUH session related to girls education, participation in national education system, the government proposal of establishing a Central Madrasa Board and proposed reservation for women in the legislature. The Progressives should know that the national authorities have accepted the need for separate secondary schools for girls in Muslim areas; no Resolution advised the Muslims to shun government schools. Indeed, the major thrust of all Muslim organizations is on that the Government must more open primary and secondary schools in all Muslim concentration areas in accordance with the national norms as they all suffer from school deficit. The Resolution also calls upon the Muslim to establish more minority schools & to form an Examination Board for them since they are not readily recognized or affiliated by Government Boards. The idea of a Central Madrasa Board has created an avoidable & unnecessary controversy because the Muslim community finds it ironical that the government appears to be so anxious for 3% Madrasa-going Muslim children, while ignoring the remaining 97%.”
“It is unfortunate that the Muslim elite who are committed to secular values see Muslim communalism in any assertion by the community of its identity legitimate rights, interests and aspirations, and any more as well as to secure its political, economic and social rights.”
“The statement of the ‘progressive’ accuses the JUH of strengthening the Hindutva forces. Ironically it is their statements designed to find fault with the Muslim community, which fortify anti-Muslim forces. Muslim secular elite is, it appears ever anxious to catch the eyes of the authorities in order to keep harvesting privileges, benefits and advantages for itself.”