Friday, 22 September 2017

Using Urdu as a tool of Islamic imperialism and India's role as number one Islamist country in the world

BBC presenter Aliya Nazki mispronounces 'Brahmaputra' as 'Bhramaputra' at 10:02 min. in this BBC Urdu newscast called ‘Sairbeen’.

This woman had part of her education in Delhi and has lived elsewhere in India!!

The mispronunciation may be inadvertent, but it seems that the controllers of Urdu language in the Indian subcontinent not only continue their chauvinistic eschewal of Hindi teaching and learning (i.e. in Pakistan), but continue with the practice of colloquializing the pronunciation of almost all Sanskrit-origin Hindi words that are used in Urdu.

That is despite the fact the majority of 'Urdu speakers' in the region, especially in India, are now better socialized and educated in Hindi than in Urdu.

For example, they continue, like silly poseurs, to pronounce 'prachaar' as 'parchaar', 'bhram' as 'bharam', 'var' as 'bar', 'graahak' as 'gaahak', 'vyaapaari' as byopaari', and 'grahasti' as 'garhasti'.

This cultivated avoidance of Hindi has pushed the institutionalized use of Urdu on to the path of hopeless Arabization and Persianization.

This institutionalized usage is already alienated from the soul of a language born in India.

Mispronunciation of Sanskrit-origin words is just one aspect of a larger picture; there is also deliberate misunderstanding of the meanings of those words.

The controllers of Urdu language thus knowingly continue with a pretense -- of misrepresentation and misunderstanding of an entire culture.

It's a cultivated misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

The fact is that Urdu has long come to be the tool of Islamic correctitude and imperialism in the Indian subcontinent.

It's the subtle and unsubtle means of acculturation to 'ideal Muslimhood' in the subcontinent, which is why a huge number of Muslims from not just northern parts of India but also eastern, western and southern parts tend to claim, quite counterfactually and unreasonably, that they are Urdu speakers, even if they can't manage even a smattering of idiomatic Hindustani.

For example, I have long heard the so called "Bihari Muslims" -- a number of whom continue to be stuck in Bangladesh and allegedly being discriminated against -- being described as "Urdu speakers", which is a laughable claim.

These so called "Bihari Muslims" hardly speak any Urdu that will satisfy even a primary teacher in a Madrasa.

The fact is that they speak the languages of the cultural areas (or anchals) they hail from, such as Bhojpuri, Maithili, etc.

Only a very small fraction of the "educated" Bihari Muslims can be said to have some knowledge of Urdu.

And the Bihari Muslims stuck in Bangladesh seem to have long forgotten whatever little Urdu they allegedly possessed once.

In a BBC report I checked on YouTube, even a young Muslim in Bangladesh whose family hailed from Odisha described himself as a "Urdu speaker" while he could hardly manage a sentence.

Why on earth?

The answer lies in Urdu's role as a language of Islamic imperialism and ethnocide, which resulted -- in the first place -- in the suppression of Banglahood, perceived by Islamic imperialists of the subcontinent as hardly 'Islamic' because of being too deeply rooted in Sanskritic culture.

The same mentality of Islamic imperialism works elsewhere in the subcontinent, especially in Pakistan (i.e. Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan) which was never an Urdu-speaking area beyond the limited sphere of some 'educated' people in Lahore and a few other places.

The use of Urdu as an imperialist tool is a manifestation of an Islamism that India has bred and nurtured for a very long time.

The story of this Islamism in all its lurid detail has never been allowed to be told in India in a language that people will understand.

I believe India had become the number one Islamist country in the world in the 19th century, thanks to Deoband, Barelvi, and a host of other Islamic madrasas in the area that's part of present-day Uttar Pradesh.

India-bred Islamism later influenced - and continues to influence - the foreign lands through organizations like the Tablighi Jamaat.

Taliban, for instance, who established the most medieval form of Islamic state in recent memory, were brought up as jihadis by Deobandi mullahs in Pakistan.

Needless to say home-grown Islamism created the conditions that culminated in the demand for a separate state for Muslims in India.

Based on whatever little I know about Islam, I don't understand what merit people find in attributing Islamic "radicalisation" to one form of Islam or another, such as Wahhabi, Deobandi and Barelvi.

Such hairsplitting is unneeded. Islam by the book – i.e. Islam by Quran and Sunnah (Mohammad’s utterances and deeds as borne out by collections of oral reports or Hadith) -- is lethal and ethnocidal, whatever label is given to it.

It's as simple as that.

I have not so far been able to gather anything that will explain to me as to how Deobandi is different from Wahhabi and how that difference, if any, affects Islam's baleful impact on human societies.

Mumtaz Qadri, who murdered Punjab governor Salman Taseer in January 2011 for an idiotic reason, was a Barelvi, which is supposedly a milder form of Islam.

So Islam is Islam. Its fundamentals are guaranteed to unbalance those who delve into them.

It's also a lie to claim that the so called 'Sufism' (whatever wishy-washy things it means to various people) flows from Islam.

I don't think Islam by the book allows any freethinking, free seeking and syncretism.

Whatever freethinking, free seeking and syncretism happens, it happens as a cultural phenomenon; it happens despite Islam, not because of Islam.

Syncretism, by the way, is a crucial concept.

Islam - like Christianity - rejects and execrates syncretism by rejecting and execrating 'Shirk' which means including others in the unique status of one and only Allah who is comprehensible only and only through a long dead person called Muhammad.

The following Web-links have been used in this post in the order of occurrence.




Tuesday, 12 September 2017

इस्लाम और मुस्लिम भाईचारे के नाम पर हिंसा और गुंडागर्दी को छुपाओ. यह है रवैया, अमूमन, बड़े मीडिया का.

न्यूज़ मैगज़ीन Lallantop के अनुसार जयपुर में 8 सितम्बर को शुरू हुए हिंसक फ़साद के बारे में फेसबुक पर कुछ भ्रामक और भड़काने वाली सामग्री दी गई है.

Lallantop के इस विडियो के अनुसार, दिनेश भाटी सियाणा नामक एक फेसबुक उपयोगकर्ता ने अपनी वाल पर फर्ज़ी सामग्री की मदद से 'हिन्दुओं' को 'मुसलामानों' के खिलाफ भड़काने का प्रयास किया है.

Lallantop की इस रिपोर्ट पर पेश हैं मेरे कुछ विचार.

मैं फेसबुक सब्सक्राइबर नहीं हूँ. दिनेश भाटी सियाणा ने यदि भ्रामक और भड़काऊ प्रचार किया है तो वह निंदनीय है. 

पर Lallantop और अन्य मुख्यधारा के मीडिया वालों का रवैया सियाणा से भी अधिक भ्रामक है क्योंकि वे इस्लाम और मुस्लिम भाईचारे के नाम पर किये जाने वाले दंगो और हिंसा को न तो इमानदारी से कवर कर रहे हैं और न ऐसी हिंसा की भयानक सच्चाई को उसके यथार्थ नामों और विशेषणों से पुकार रहे हैं.   

परिणाम यह हो रहा है कि यह भयानक सच्चाई न तो जनता तक पहुँच रही है और न उस पर तबसरा और समालोचना हो रही है. 

सूचना और समझ का अभाव एक बड़ी वजह है कि सियाणा जैसे सोशल मीडिया उपयोगकर्ताओं की पोस्ट को हज़ारों व्यूज़ मिल रहे हैं.

पश्चिम बंगाल में बसीरहत में जुलाई में सैकड़ों लोगों ने इस्लाम के नाम पर दंगा किया और हिंसा की. 

वहां मुसलमानों के हजूम ने पुलिस स्टेशन को घेर लिया था और एक नाबालिग़ लड़के -- जिस पर इस्लाम कि तौहीन का इलज़ाम था -- को जान से मारने की मांग कर रहे थे. 'हिन्दुओं' के घर और दुकानें जलाई गईं. एक 'हिन्दू' का क़त्ल भी किया गया.

अधिकतर मीडिया संस्थाओं ने इस इस्लामी उत्पात को या तो नज़रंदाज़ किया या दबे हुए, छुपाने वाले लहजे में बयान किया.

यदि आपने पिछले दिनों इंडियन एक्सप्रेस पढ़ा है तो आपको जयपुर में हुए दंगे पर भी 'इस्लाम' और 'मुस्लिम' भाईचारे की छाप साफ़ नज़र आयेगी.

(हालांकि इंडियन एक्सप्रेस ने भी कभी इस्लाम या मुस्लिम भाईचारे के नाम पर की गई हिंसा और गुंडागर्दी को ठीक से रेखांकित नहीं किया है.)

जयपुर में भी सैकड़ों लोगों की भीड़ ने पुलिस स्टेशन को घेरा. ख़बरों में एक रिक्शे वाले की मौत का उल्लेख है जिसे  देख कर लगता है इस के ज़िम्मेदार दंगाई थे.

आनंद रंगनाथन और कुछ अन्य पत्रकारों ने मुख्यधारा की मीडिया संथाओं के इस भ्रामक रवैये को तथ्यों और आकड़ों से उजागर करने का प्रयास किया है, और इसकी आलोचना भी की है. 

रंगनाथन के अनुसार क्षेत्रीय और हिंदी मीडिया ही है जो कुछ हद तक तथाकथित 'अल्पसंख्यकों' के आतंक और हिंसा को उजागर कर रहा है. बड़ा मीडिया ऐसी ख़बरों को देख कर भी अनदेखा कर रहा है और इस अनदेखी को अपनी 'असाम्प्रदायिकता' की दलील समझता है.  

नीचे मुसलामानों द्वारा किये गए उत्पात, दंगे और हिंसात्मक हरकतों की कुछ ख़बरें हैं जो क्षेत्रीय मीडिया ने तो छापीं पर राष्ट्रीय मीडिया ने नज़र-अंदाज़ कर दीं.

इस पोस्ट में आनंद रंगनाथन के tweets के अतिरिक्त निम्नलिखित वेब लिंक्स दिए गए हैं.



Here’s how Sonia, Manmohan, Modi, Left and others sold out India to Bill Gates and other globalist criminals and are conspiring to enslave 135 crore Indians to a totalitarian world government

By Kapil Bajaj Rajiv Gandhi Charitable Trust (RGCT), which is chaired by Congress president Sonia Gandhi and has her son Rahul Gandhi as a t...