Should Ulema be held responsible for all the shortcomings of the society?

A dangerous tendency: At the age of research work, quality education and divine power that had been empowering Muslims to face the challenges of every era moved out from them all over the world, another tendency has grown very rapidly among Muslims. It is the tendency to push the blame on the Ulema, holding them accountable for every failure, pointing fingers towards some specific Islamic laws, declaring the syllabus being taught in Madrasas and religious institutions as outdated and terming Madrasas as a symbol of old age – which is seen especially in the Muslim community in India.

4% Vs the rest: The Sachar Commission report makes the air clear about Madrasas - the percentage of Muslims who approach Madrasas for education is only 4, even the financial condition of Madrasas, teachers and students who study there is not much better. As it is known to all Muslims, Madrasas, except for some, have no good infrastructure due to very bad financial conditions as they are run solely by donations from Muslims. In such an atmosphere, is it just to expect the 4% to solve all the problems of Muslims, the problems being plenty?

Hide your failure: Laziness, dullness, distancing themselves from hard work, selecting short-cut ways to make money, wasting time in watching films and TV programs, or taking part in unnecessary works and making themselves busy in nonsense subjects, or trying to get awards and fame by making comments against the Ulema – indeed all these paved the way for majority of Muslims to put the Ulema on target so that the latter can cover their failure and no one would blame them for the deteriorating situation of Muslims in India.

Blame Ulema for everything. Pushing the blame on Ulema and pointing the finger towards Madrasas is a very easy task, but conceding our own faults and mistakes is very hard work for most of us. Do we forget what our behavior with the Ulema and Madrasas are? How do the Madrasa people get donations and how do they collect it from every Muslim so that they can arrange a free education to poor Muslims in Madrasas?

Is collecting donations an easy work? When the representatives of Madrasas knock the doors of Muslim homes and ask some donation for Madrasas, during the month of Ramzan or in normal days, what do most of us do? Why do we misbehave with them? Why do we treat them as if they were beggars? Even my own personal experience is very harsh; very few people treat them with respect and dignity, most of us close the door before them, some of us make excuses. Some of us ask them to come after two hours and when the representatives come after two hours, they are said there is nobody in the home and asked to come the next day. When these representatives come again, we do not open the door, or they are told from the window to go away and never to come. Some of us tell them we are against Madrasas, hence we will not give any donation. And if some agree to pay the donation, they give just 10 rupees or 5 rupees or 20 or 30 rupees.

And these representatives of Madrasas, despite this misbehavior, go from door to door, room to room, house to house, knock every door to collect 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 rupees. Some of us drive them off, some of us use abusive language against them, some advise them to leave the Madrasas, some of us say to them “you cheat the people” but no one asks them, ‘please come in my home, have a tea, have some cold water’, or ‘please have lunch with us today or tomorrow’. Most of us throw hundreds of questions on them for giving just 10 or 20 rupees, such as ‘where are you from?’ ‘Who are you?’ ‘Give details of the madrasa,’ etc. And at last, unwillingly, grudgingly and resentfully we agree to give a mere 10 or 20 rupees; while thousands rupees are being spent in purchasing an item just because our children like it.

This is the harsh reality of Muslims’ behavior with the representatives of Madrasas. We feel hesitation in donating just 10 or 20 rupees, while a particular class in the Muslim community always blames the Ulema, targets Madrasas and its education system. This class always demands computer education to be taught there.

Can anyone let me know how much the cost of one computer is? Can anyone let me know how much the cost of one computer is? How many people have gifted even one computer to any Madrasa? If anyone gives computer or funds to Madrasas, in return he wants to be listed as one among the members of the Madrasa and wants to interfere in the Madrasa’s education system. I ask the common Muslim how much he pays for the education of his one child in an English school. It may be Rs 5000 or Rs 6000 per month; however, the cost of education of a Madrasa student for one year exceeds no more than Rs 5000. Madrasas themselves bear the cost of books, breakfast, dinner and lunch and so on; no one goes there to ask the officials of Madrasas how they arrange meals every day for hundreds and thousands of their students.

We want high-class and well-rounded graduates to come out from the Madrasas. We, however, face trouble in giving a mere 10 or 20 rupees as donation. A family can spend thousands rupees just for the happiness of their children; a family can purchase puppets, video games, CD players, and so on and on but when donating a few rupees they think these Madrasa people have made them bankrupt and penniless.

Same is the situation of Imams in our country. An Imam is paid Rs 2000 or Rs 3000 normally, and it may come to Rs 5000 if the Masjid is big. Most of the Masjids are being run by donations and with the help of Muslims. Sometimes, the Masjid administration faces difficulties in giving even this salary to the Imam; how do we expect the Imam to sustain his family with such a small amount?

No doubt, there are hundreds and thousands of Muslims whose donation, help and sacrifices are helping the owners of Madrasas to run these institutions without a hope of prize or award.

I would like to say, the Ulema have besieged themselves within the boundaries of Madrasas and religious education only. Rest of the field is left free for the entire Muslim community. Why are they not trying their luck in these fields? The Muslim community is in need of good doctors, engineers, scientists, architects and so on.

When it has been made clear that only 4% or less than 4% go to Madarasas for education, what about the rest 96%?

There are many rich Muslims, and there are hundreds of scholars, professors and others whose salary and monthly income is more than one lakh and who have great respect, relations and sources within and outside the community. Why are they not trying to build another university? Why can’t a network of schools and universities be deployed across the country?

In these 63 years, the Ulema established a network of Madrasas throughout the country, collecting one rupee and two rupees and suffering a lot of difficulties. Then why can’t these powerful leaders gift any new university to Indian Muslims?

First we have to change our attitude, our behavior and our manner. Change our minds and be ready to make sacrifices; nothing will change if we continue to blame the Ulema and madrasas.
Differences and oppositions have a place in every community, but in the Muslim community it is being used as a tool to escape from discharging the responsibilities.

If every Muslim does his own work, I think no one can stop them from arriving at a higher position in the world. If every professional Muslim does his work in his field well he will see the result in just a few years. The society will be changed and Muslims will shine, if only they do this.


Many times, we saw in Delhi, non-Muslim boys and girls from very poor families reading, studying and finishing their home work sitting on small broken beds beside the road, where there were noises and crowds of rikshaw-pullers and passersby. In spite of all this, and under the heat of the sun, these boys and girls were busy studying. Can Muslims take a lesson from them instead of blaming the Ulema and Madrasas?

I would like to say to all Indian Muslims that their problems could be put to an end within just a few years if every Muslim decided to play a pivotal role in building the community and the country.

Abdul Hannan Siwani Nadwi in Two circles. More Here

Kerala Ameer's statement on Hamid Vanimel and Elections

More Here

Revolution in the Middle East: America yet to recover from shock and awe

The recent developments in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and Arab world have bamboozled the American think tank. They are yet to recover from shock and awe.  It is palpable from an interview given by Zbigniew K. Brzezinski to Amar Bakshi of CNN


Zbigniew K. Brzezinski served as national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977-1981. In this role, he was intimately involved in brokering the Camp David Accords and wrestling with Iran's transition from a U.S. ally to an anti-Western Islamic republic. Brzezinski is currently a professor of American foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He was the one who first drew the post cold war chess board and considered to be influential in diplomatic circles.

You might notice his sense of shock and awe over the developments in the Middle East. The grand old diplomat wants to create rivalry between Turkey and Iran.
Amar C Bakshi spoke with Brzezinski to get his take on events unfolding in the Middle East and the consequences for Egypt, Israel, Iran and the United States.

Amar C. Bakshi: Do you support the intervention in Libya?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: I support the intervention in Libya because I have the strong sense that if we did not [intervene], our credibility in the entire region - which is already very much at stake - would be shattered and Gadhafi would emerge as the leader and symbol of Arab radicalism.

Do you see what’s unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa as a grand reconfiguration of the region? And, if so, how would that affect U.S. concerns?
It is a reconfiguration, but it may not be quite what people here expect. I’m not all that confident the net result is going to be the surfacing and then the flowering of this series of democratic states.

Also, I emphasize in my own work for many years now the fact that a political awakening tends to be a rather extremist in its initial phases, irrespective of the vocabulary that it uses.

My expectation, therefore, is that what we’ll get in the Middle East is indeed a series of regimes more responsive to popular attitudes. But these popular attitudes are, in many respects, quite critical of American foreign policy - and especially so in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. As a consequence, I think, we’ll have a more difficult time in dealing with that problem, and we may end up paying a higher price for not dealing with it seriously.

What are the chances that if the Muslim Brotherhood became an influential voice in Egypt, for example, the Camp David treaty would be revoked?
I don’t think that it would be revoked outright. But I think the kind of passive acquiescence that we have seen in recent times on the part of the Egyptians is going to be a thing of the past. I think we underestimate the extent to which Arab public opinion on the popular level is truly preoccupied - and in some respects even impassioned - regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

There are some very good public opinion polls by Shibley Telhami, a professor at Maryland, which clearly indicated that issue is at the base of a lot of anti-American or anti-Western Arab sentiments. We also know ... that [Osama] bin Laden repeatedly – and I emphasize, repeatedly - has mentioned it as his principal-motivating impulse in his quest to damage America.

Is there a possibility that Israel could benefit from the upheavals sweeping the region, or is this likely to be against their interests?
I think [Israel] might benefit in the short-term, but largely on the basis of shortsighted expediency. Namely, it may provide them with a seemingly good argument that this is not an opportune moment for negotiations, which require mutual concessions.

But in the longer run, I think that will further preclude the possibility of Israel becoming a viable, creative and influential participant in a more accommodated and peaceful Middle East. I think the longer-range implications of that for Israel’s future are ominous.


Is Iran benefiting from all of this?
Yes.

What should U.S. policy be towards Syria and the Syrian opposition?
It seems to me we have to encourage some concessions towards democracy, but we also have to be conscious of the fact that not everywhere is our voice decisive. And if we’re not careful, we might unintentionally increase Iran’s influence. If we are prudent and careful, we might increase Turkey’s influence, and I think that will be all to the good.

Does this demonstrate declining U.S. influence abroad? Is our leverage in the region less than it has been years ago?
I think we’re facing, in fact, a significant decline of American influence in the region and perhaps the beginning of the process which, in the future, will be viewed by the peoples in the region as the second decisive phase in the decolonization of the region in the wake of first, World War I, and then even more so World War II.

From CNN. More Here

Indians have murdered cricket

It is thought that India loves cricket. This is incorrect. The local cricket match in India is unattended. Even World Cup matches featuring two other sides will be played without spectators, no matter what the calibre of the players. This is unlike World Cup football, or American football and basketball. What attracts Indian spectators isn’t cricket the sport in that sense.

Let us observe the pattern of crowd behaviour.

Indian spectators express themselves physically, through dancing, screaming and jumping about. This is done communally, in groups often including middle-aged men. It is done emotionally, with strong facial expression. Sunil Gavaskar says he was amazed to first play at Lord’s 40 years ago because of the way the audience applauded. It was, he said, always three claps. Clap-clap-clap-silence. But that is why cricket is an English sport. We behave like a WWF audience. Strange things excite us. Like Kolkatans setting their stands alight at the end of a match, a neanderthal fascination with fire.

In European nations (I mean race, not geography and so: England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand), spectator behaviour is more individual. Where communication is visual, it is not through facial expression, but fancy dress.

One unique thing is how Indian spectators are silent when the other team scores. On television it’s as if the screen has gone mute. It’s not about enjoying a sport and appreciating the ability of professionals to play it. It’s about nationalism, which in India is narrow and zero-sum. If they score even a little victory, a boundary, our tumescence droops. The Bengali thinks he’s different, but this is untrue. Imminent defeat against the Lankans in 1996’s World Cup resulted in Kolkatans rioting in Eden Gardens, and, as Indians tend to do, damaging the property that they could barely afford.

The Indian team is overrated because our fierce nationalism inflates its capacity. This has been amplified recently because of our economic power. Ten years ago, opponents thought little of us, and rightly. Against the quality team, India’s record is to fold. We regularly get a thrashing from Australia (won 36, lost 61), old enemy Pakistan (47:69), and newcomers South Africa (24:40). Even West Indies, 25 years in decline, have a superior record (39:54).

Usually, Indians are happy if their team wins the skirmish and loses the battle. This is because national honour is often safeguarded by the hero. The astute Ian Chappell noticed that Indians were content if Sachin Tendulkar scored his hundred even if India then lost. In Australia, this would never happen, he said, and it would be seen as defeat, which it is. Since his audience telegraphs this, the Indian cricketer plays for himself much more than players of other sides. 

An analysis of Tendulkar’s scoring pattern between 90 and 100 will be interesting.

On all Indian grounds, a wire mesh now separates players from the unpredictable Indian audience. This is shameful, but passes unnoticed in our culture. In Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies and England, this isn’t needed.

The policing here is excessive, but necessary. Geoffrey Boycott was upset after his sandwiches were confiscated by security in Delhi in February. I sympathize with him for being forced to eat the crew’s Mughlai lunch. Sir Geoffrey is working class and sees no appeal in the exotic. I think a bit of racial profiling is fine, and we should be firm only with Indians.

The greatest commentators in sport are Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen who for years have guided Tour de France viewers through the countryside. Their quality has elevated the event. Second best is Channel 9’s team of Richie Benaud and Ian Chappell (I don’t like Bill Lawry: too excitable). Of the others, West Indians Michael Holding and Ian Bishop are first rate: polished, elegant speakers.

Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri are second rate: no lucidity, little insight and speaking only in stock phrase and cliche. In Shastri’s case, this is often incorrect cliche: “You can be rest assured...” Sanjay Manjrekar is better and so, though more evidence is needed, is Sourav Ganguly.


The one way Indian commentators could immediately improve would be to talk less. Gavaskar says his best lesson in commentary was in Australia when he was with Benaud. When an Indian batsman hit his hundred, the crowd applauded. Gavaskar brought the microphone to his mouth, but stopped when he felt Benaud’s hand on his wrist. Gavaskar said later he realized Benaud wanted the TV audience to take in the moment of the batsman in his solitude, a gladiator in an arena.

Between its spectators and commentators, Indians have ruined cricket for everybody. With the growth of our economy, this has got worse. Indian money has been poured into cricket, sloshing in its crevices, spilling out of its guts.

For Indian players this has meant more cash—vast sums from advertising. For Indian spectators it has meant more advertising. Advertisements between overs, advertisements between balls. Intrusive, invasive, relentless, shameless flogging. Strokes renamed by sponsors, sixes renamed after sponsors. Such vulgarity is not off-putting to Indians, which is why it continues and has increased in time.

This could never happen in Australia or England. These places are the refuge for fundamentalists who like cricket played, shown and seen in the orthodox fashion.

Aakar Patel in Mint. More Here.

"Obama is thirsty. Give him blood."

How long does it take a mild-mannered, anti-war, black professor of constitutional law, trained as a community organiser on the South Side of Chicago, to become an enthusiastic sponsor of targeted assassinations, 'decapitation' strategies and remote-control bombing of mud houses at the far end of the globe?

There's nothing surprising here. As far back as President Woodrow Wilson, in the early 20th century, American liberalism has been swift to flex its imperial muscle and whistle up the Marines. High-explosive has always been in the hormone shot.

The nearest parallel to Obama in eager deference to the bloodthirsty counsels of his counter-insurgency advisors is John F. Kennedy. It is not surprising that bright young presidents relish quick-fix, 'outside the box' scenarios for victory.

Obama’s course is set and his presidency is already stained the familiar blood-red

Whether in Vietnam or Afghanistan the counsel of regular Army generals tends to be drear and unappetising: vast, costly deployments of troops by the hundreds of thousands, mounting casualties, uncertain prospects for any long-term success ­ all adding up to dismaying political costs on the home front.


Another Democrat who strode into the White House with the word 'peace' springing from his lips was Jimmy Carter. It was he who first decreed that 'freedom' and the war on terror required a $3.5bn investment in a secret CIA-led war in Afghanistan, plus the deployment of Argentinian torturers to advise US military teams in counter-insurgency ops in El Salvador and Nicaragua.

Obama campaigned on a pledge to 'decapitate' al-Qaeda, meaning the assassination of its leaders. It was his short-hand way of advertising that he had the right stuff. Now, like Kennedy, he's summoned the exponents of unconventional, short-cut paths to success in that mission.


In such enterprises two outcomes are inevitable. Identification of the human targets requires either voluntary informants or captives. In the latter instance torture is certain, whatever rhetorical pledges are proclaimed back home. There may be intelligence officers who rely on patient, non-violent interrogation, as the US officer who elicited the whereabouts of al-Zarqawi claims he did.


Already in Afghanistan public opinion has been inflamed by the weekly bulletins of deadly bombardments either by drones or manned bombers. Still in the headlines is the US bombardment of Bala Boluk in Farah province, which yielded 140 dead villagers torn apart by high explosives, including 93 children. Only 22 were male and over 18.

Perhaps 'sophisticated intelligence' had identified one of these as an al-Qaeda man, or a Taliban captain, or maybe someone an Afghan informant to the US military just didn't care for. Maybe electronic eavesdropping simply screwed up the coordinates. If we ever know, it won't be for a very long time. Obama has managed a terse apology, even as he installs McChrystal, thus ensuring more of the same.

Obama is bidding to be as sure-footed as Bush in trampling on constitutional rights

The logic of targeted assassinations was on display in Gaza even as Obama worked on the uplifting phrases of his inaugural address in January. The Israelis claimed they were targeting only Hamas even as the body counts of women and children methodically refuted these claims and finally extorted from Obama a terse phrase of regret.

He may soon weary of uttering them. His course is set and his presidency already permanently stained the ever-familiar blood-red tint. There's no short-cut in counter-insurgency. A targeted bombing yields up Bala Boluk, and the incandescent enmity of most Afghans. The war on al-Qaeda mutates into the war on the Taliban, and 850,000 refugees in the Swat Valley in Pakistan.

The mild-mannered professor is bidding to be as sure-footed as Bush and Cheney in trampling on constitutional rights. He's planning to restore Bush's kangaroo courts for prisoners at Guantanamo who've never even been formally charged with a crime! He's threatening to hold some prisoners indefinitely in the US without trial.

He's even been awarded a hearty editorial clap on the back from the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that civilians courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favoured by Dick Cheney."

It didn't take long. But it's what we've got ­ for the rest of Obama-time.

Alexander Cockburn in The First Post. More Here. and Here and Here