Marxism believes the nation-State to be an exploitative instrument of capitalists, just as Islam believes it to be the death of its faith

The recent war of words, law and politics began when Aryan Khan, the son of Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan, was arrested and kept behind bars for some weeks. The Left-Liberals vociferously alleged that that this happened because he is Muslim, forgetting that he is half Hindu. This controversy grew louder and worse when Indian bowler Mohammed Shami gave away a few runs to Pakistani batters in the recent T20 World Cup. I feel this is a baseless allegation; and I am neither Liberal nor Left. To make matters worse, Pakistani Home Minister Sheikh Rasheed declared “Indian Muslims share our sentiment”, which can mean that they are all Muslims first and Indian or Pakistani later.

At Etawah in Uttar Pradesh, the State’s former CM, Akhilesh Yadav has compared Pakistan’s founder MA Jinnah to Nehru, Sardar Patel and even Gandhi. “They had all combined to win independence”, said Akhilesh. UP CM Yogi Adityanath has taken strong objection to such comparisons, but no Muslim appears to have contradicted Akhilesh. There are innumerable such instances around the Muslim identity. The late Syed Shahabuddin repeatedly advocated the importance of Muslim identity above most issues. His pet expression was “Muslim Indian”; he refused to ever say “Indian Muslim”. Clearly, he meant that the pan-Islamic loyalty supersedes national identity.

The recent example of the Pakistani winners of the recent T20 cricket match emphasising that their triumph was that of Islam, and not merely of Pakistan, is by no means an isolated one. Some years ago, when Wasim Akram was the captain of a Pakistani team that lost a match to Bangladesh, Akram said he did not mind as Pakistan had lost to a “Muslim brother”. This clearly meant that the ummah is far higher than the nation.

This Islamic supra-nationalism is unpopular as was the Jewish sentiment of “Jew first, and German, British or French later.” The origin of supra-nationalism is probably a Judaic phenomenon. Jews were captured by the Egyptians to work as labourers to build stone upon stone. It was clear that there was no Pharaonic intention to ever release them. The Jews felt cursed, miserable and hopeless. When their Prophet Moses, with Herculean difficulty, released them and led them to Israel, they could only think of God and overlooked any State or country. Ironically, they did not have either for centuries until the British helped them after World War II, in 1948.

Supra-nationalism has often been described as trans-nationalism, whereby a citizen’s loyalty to his country is superseded by an allegiance beyond the borders to say, an empire, religion or something higher. In some ways, it is a suzerainty over and above sovereignty. A Jew’s supreme allegiance is to Judaism and not to a country. Even after the nation called Israel was attained in 1948, for a Jew, Jehovah commands a higher loyalty. Chaim Weizmann, the leading figure in the movement for establishing a separate homeland for the Jews and Israel’s first president, illustrated the point by saying, “There are no British or French Jews; there are Jews in Britain and France”.

It is telling that the acclaimed poet Mohammad Iqbal who wrote ‘Sare jahan se achha, hindustan hamara’ came back from Europe, turned supra-nationalist and remained so. Yet, he did not become a total separatist unlike Jinnah. In all probability, many a Muslim is similarly confused and is a prisoner of his feeling. Except the rich families, there is nowhere they can be welcome. Where then is there a place for supra-nationalist feelings? Have they, more particularly, not thought of what happened to the Jews in Germany and elsewhere?

The fourth Abrahamic sibling, Marxism too, is supranational in nature. Marxists, in adherence to their supranational nature and thinking, have destroyed their native countries. Does that mean that Muslims, who are also supranational, would end up being destructive of their countries? Well, without the country of nature, their countries become poor. Their ethos does not encourage production or a productive culture. This has been explained most eloquently by Prof. Timur Kuran, who has proved how Islamic laws have held back the Muslim ummah in economic progress.

In sharp contrast, the Jews, who are also supra-national are believed to have the Midas touch. Their priority is the pursuit of wealth and successfully so. But Jews were unpopular in Europe, because they were suspected of caring more for themselves than for their countries.

The Marxists are another community of supra-nations without any faith in any god. In fact, they deny god and call religion “the opium of the masses”. The objective of the communists is to unite the workers of the world. Their enemies were the rich or what they called the bourgeoisie, whose overthrow is necessary to what Marxists believe will be transfer of power to industrial workers or the proletariat. In a vicarious way, Marxists became enemies of even the small farmers by collectivising or taking over their farms. In the end, the Marxist ruined entire countries, as their history proves it.

In the pursuit of its supranational ideology, Marxism also believes that the individual nation does not matter much. In fact, Marxism believes the nation-state to be an exploitative instrument of capitalists, just as Islam believes the nation-state to be the death of its faith.

(This is part of an ongoing series on Indian Partition. The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Marxism believes the nation-State to be an exploitative instrument of capitalists, just as Islam believes it to be the death of its faith

The recent war of words, law and politics began when Aryan Khan, the son of Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan, was arrested and kept behind bars for some weeks. The Left-Liberals vociferously alleged that that this happened because he is Muslim, forgetting that he is half Hindu. This controversy grew louder and worse when Indian bowler Mohammed Shami gave away a few runs to Pakistani batters in the recent T20 World Cup. I feel this is a baseless allegation; and I am neither Liberal nor Left. To make matters worse, Pakistani Home Minister Sheikh Rasheed declared “Indian Muslims share our sentiment”, which can mean that they are all Muslims first and Indian or Pakistani later.

At Etawah in Uttar Pradesh, the State’s former CM, Akhilesh Yadav has compared Pakistan’s founder MA Jinnah to Nehru, Sardar Patel and even Gandhi. “They had all combined to win independence”, said Akhilesh. UP CM Yogi Adityanath has taken strong objection to such comparisons, but no Muslim appears to have contradicted Akhilesh. There are innumerable such instances around the Muslim identity. The late Syed Shahabuddin repeatedly advocated the importance of Muslim identity above most issues. His pet expression was “Muslim Indian”; he refused to ever say “Indian Muslim”. Clearly, he meant that the pan-Islamic loyalty supersedes national identity.

The recent example of the Pakistani winners of the recent T20 cricket match emphasising that their triumph was that of Islam, and not merely of Pakistan, is by no means an isolated one. Some years ago, when Wasim Akram was the captain of a Pakistani team that lost a match to Bangladesh, Akram said he did not mind as Pakistan had lost to a “Muslim brother”. This clearly meant that the ummah is far higher than the nation.

This Islamic supra-nationalism is unpopular as was the Jewish sentiment of “Jew first, and German, British or French later.” The origin of supra-nationalism is probably a Judaic phenomenon. Jews were captured by the Egyptians to work as labourers to build stone upon stone. It was clear that there was no Pharaonic intention to ever release them. The Jews felt cursed, miserable and hopeless. When their Prophet Moses, with Herculean difficulty, released them and led them to Israel, they could only think of God and overlooked any State or country. Ironically, they did not have either for centuries until the British helped them after World War II, in 1948.

Supra-nationalism has often been described as trans-nationalism, whereby a citizen’s loyalty to his country is superseded by an allegiance beyond the borders to say, an empire, religion or something higher. In some ways, it is a suzerainty over and above sovereignty. A Jew’s supreme allegiance is to Judaism and not to a country. Even after the nation called Israel was attained in 1948, for a Jew, Jehovah commands a higher loyalty. Chaim Weizmann, the leading figure in the movement for establishing a separate homeland for the Jews and Israel’s first president, illustrated the point by saying, “There are no British or French Jews; there are Jews in Britain and France”.

It is telling that the acclaimed poet Mohammad Iqbal who wrote ‘Sare jahan se achha, hindustan hamara’ came back from Europe, turned supra-nationalist and remained so. Yet, he did not become a total separatist unlike Jinnah. In all probability, many a Muslim is similarly confused and is a prisoner of his feeling. Except the rich families, there is nowhere they can be welcome. Where then is there a place for supra-nationalist feelings? Have they, more particularly, not thought of what happened to the Jews in Germany and elsewhere?

The fourth Abrahamic sibling, Marxism too, is supranational in nature. Marxists, in adherence to their supranational nature and thinking, have destroyed their native countries. Does that mean that Muslims, who are also supranational, would end up being destructive of their countries? Well, without the country of nature, their countries become poor. Their ethos does not encourage production or a productive culture. This has been explained most eloquently by Prof. Timur Kuran, who has proved how Islamic laws have held back the Muslim ummah in economic progress.

In sharp contrast, the Jews, who are also supra-national are believed to have the Midas touch. Their priority is the pursuit of wealth and successfully so. But Jews were unpopular in Europe, because they were suspected of caring more for themselves than for their countries.

The Marxists are another community of supra-nations without any faith in any god. In fact, they deny god and call religion “the opium of the masses”. The objective of the communists is to unite the workers of the world. Their enemies were the rich or what they called the bourgeoisie, whose overthrow is necessary to what Marxists believe will be transfer of power to industrial workers or the proletariat. In a vicarious way, Marxists became enemies of even the small farmers by collectivising or taking over their farms. In the end, the Marxist ruined entire countries, as their history proves it.

In the pursuit of its supranational ideology, Marxism also believes that the individual nation does not matter much. In fact, Marxism believes the nation-state to be an exploitative instrument of capitalists, just as Islam believes the nation-state to be the death of its faith.

(This is part of an ongoing series on Indian Partition. The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)