Ban the Hate Letter Signed by 25 ‘Lecturers’ – Not Books by Maududi

‘Solely that historian could have the reward of fanning the spark of hope up to now who’s firmly satisfied that even the useless won’t be secure from the enemy if he wins. And this enemy has not ceased to be victorious.’ 

– Walter Benjamin, Theses on the Philosophy of Historical past.

Because of a letter addressed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and signed by 25 Hindu ‘lecturers,’ students Abul ‘Ala Maududi and Sayyid Qutb obtained uncommon media consideration.

The letter – ‘Demanding Whole Ban on Jihadi Curriculum’ in Aligarh Muslim College (AMU), Jamia Millia Islamia and Hamdard College – alleges that “the endless violent assaults on Hindu society, tradition and civilization are a direct consequence of such teachings” at these “Islamic” universities. The letter is concentrated on Maududi. 

AMU compliantly and swiftly eliminated not solely Maududi’s but additionally Qutb’s books, which the letter doesn’t even point out. Reporting the ban, Indian Specific described Qutb as “Turkish” and Maududi as “Pakistani.” The very fact is whereas Qutb (d. 1966) is Egyptian, Maududi (1903-1979) is Indian-Pakistani.

The letter demanding the ban is hateful. Armed with vile goals, it’s based mostly on deceptive sources, has a mind-defying conspiracy idea and is bereft of educational information, not to mention information of Maududi’s wealthy scholarship. The letter deserves applause, however just for surpassing colonial information within the sheer venom with which it incites division a la Carl Schmitt’s model of friend-enemy politics.

My argument is that it’s the terror-filled letter, not books by Maududi, which a simply democracy ought to ban. 

What’s educational within the letter by 25 ‘lecturers’? 

The letter calls Maududi “the fountainhead of Jihadi Islam.”

The poisonous allegation continues: “Maududi overtly requires genocide of non-Muslims all over the place on this planet.”

For a second, let’s settle for its nescience. On condition that the letter calls for the banning of his books, how is Maududi accountable for alleged wrongs lengthy earlier than he was born? Madhu Kishwar’s note, written after the letter, to the Vice-Chancellor of AMU solutions it. Accusing AMU of “taqiyya” (disguise), she warns that having recognized “the core ideas and…mandate of Islam,” “we aren’t so naïve anymore.”

The problem thus appears not Maududi however Islam itself.

Learn this unreferenced passage: 

“…immediately, these focused as Kafirs by Islamists [know]…this violent ideology that has induced infinite sequence of Hindu holocausts within the sub-continent…[T]he overseas Islamic invaders…dedicated unspeakable brutalities…to pressure non-Muslims to transform, broke and vandalized lakhs of Hindu…locations of worship …[and] additionally transformed them into mosques and tombs, smashed the murtis of our sacred Devi-Devtas, kidnapped lakhs of Hindu ladies and kids to promote them as intercourse slaves. “

Persevering with the hate, the letter relentlessly decontextualises thus:

“Internationally designated terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, and so forth, proceed to derive their inspiration from Maududi’s core ideology…”

No true educational will enact such seamless generalisations, that too with out an iota of proof. This methodology just isn’t even near educational reasoning, a lot much less to rigorous scholarship. It’s sophistry. 

Mark additionally the letter’s conspiratorial spirit during which Maududi and Muslims are proven to “destroy the remaining vestiges of Indic civilization and decimate the remaining share of native inhabitants in their very own homeland via Demographic Invasion…” This beats the conspiracy idea of terrorists Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant and different Christian racist teams. 

Going by the (il)logic within the letter about hyperlinks amongst Maududi, ideology, inspiration and terrorism, books by the Dalai Lama ought to be banned. Shoko Asahara, executed chief of the Japanese terrorist organisation Aum Shinrikyo had met him in India. The Dalai Lama hailed Asahara as “a really succesful spiritual instructor” and supported him in different methods. Although eclectic, Asahara’s inspirations had been Buddhism and Hinduism. The phrase Aum/Om in his outfit’s identify is Vedic. Ought to the logic utilized in Maududi’s case not be prolonged to the Asahara-the Dalai Lama-Hinduism/Buddhism-terrorism linkage? 

As “proof,” the letter cites Islamophobes like Praveen Swami and V.S. Naipaul. The latter has been known as “a brand new world Hindutva mascot”, who’s “known for his hatred for Islam.” As for Swami, his journalism militates against reality and objectivity. To the diploma “information” by Swami or Sultan Shahin (the letter cites him too) counts as one, it belongs to the post-9/11 securitisation of Islam, itself a part of the military-industrial-media-complex and its anti-knowledge. 

One other Maududi

In a rush to vilify him, the letter silences the complicated determine Maududi is. 

Born in Aurangabad, India, and buried in Pakistan, like Abul Kalam Azad, Maududi was extraordinary whereas nonetheless in his teenage. At 16, he revealed a biography (see picture to the correct) of Madan Mohan Malaviya, a frontrunner of Hindu Mahasabha and Indian Nationwide Congress.

Describing him “as one in every of ablest sons of Hindustan,” Maududi admired him for devoting his life to the “providers of group (quam) and nation (mulk).”

Maududi had additionally written a biography of Gandhi, which the British seized. In April 1947, Gandhi truly participated in a convention of Jamaat-e-Islami and remarked: “I listened to your speech fastidiously and I’m very joyful.”  

Given the letter’s try and depict Maududi as a fundamentalist, it’s important to indicate him as an financial thinker. In 1920, he wrote a critique of colonialism and the way it drained India’s sources to make it bankrupt. He seen exploitation of Indian working class as organically linked to world capitalism. He additionally supported the commerce union motion. In mid-Nineteen Thirties, Indian politics radically modified, so did Maududi.

The turning level was the 1937 election and formation of ministries by the Congress.

To Maududi, the Congress rule was like a “Hindu raj.” Disenchanted with the Congress- Jam‘iatul ‘Ulemae Hind alliance, Maududi turned to “Islamism.” In opposition to the letter’s illustration of Islamism and democracy as enemies, Maududi did certainly radicalise democracy.

In 1938, he wrote: 

“…[N]o sane particular person can disagree with the spirit of democracy…It’s assumed that due to a shared geography…we Hindus, Muslims, Untouchables, Sikhs, Christians are a single group and thus the grammar of democracy ought to be such that the state ought to be run by the want of the bulk group…[This]… has made Hindu nationalism and Indian nationalism coterminous. In distinction to Hindus, our situation is such that beneath this [democratic] system our group aspiration… [are] killed as a result of we’re in a minority.”

Arguably, Maududi was a uncommon political theorist to demand the right to recall elected representatives who’ve misplaced folks’s confidence. His dedication to democracy was not beauty. In Pakistan the place his occasion has commonly contested elections, he held that the state “shouldn’t be enforcer of the Sharia however the implementer of the desire of the folks.” 

Disregarding complexity in Maududi’s thought, the letter’s desperation to ban his books and vilify Islam owes its debt to Indology during which India equals “indigenous” Hinduism and Islam violent outsider. Recall Maududi describe Malaviya as a son of “Hindustan.” The usage of Hindustan, not India, is a decolonial gesture.

Historian Manan Asif demonstrates how colonial episteme effaced “Hindustan” as an inclusive concept and as a substitute instituted “India” as unique to Hinduism. Unsurprisingly, the letter phrases Maududi and Islamic curricula “anti-Indic.”  

On the ban by AMU 

AMU’s choice to ban books by Maududi and Qutb is just baffling, if not cowardly.

To start with, the letter demanding the ban itself shouldn’t have been addressed to the Prime Minister however to College Grants Fee (UGC) that governs universities. AMU was obliged to “act” if UGC demanded so. To ban books based mostly on a political letter shorn of educational credentials is unbecoming of the esteemed college that AMU is. Slightly than provoke a debate on what are “Indic,” mental freedom and educational autonomy, AMU caved in to the unjust, divisive demand for ban.  

Walter Benjamin’s thesis on this essay’s epigraph just isn’t solely about security but additionally integrity of the useless. The useless emperor Aurangzeb is routinely threatened in each day information, TV “debates,” avenue demonstrations and elsewhere. The letter by “lecturers” calls Maududi “Aurangzeb-minded.” 

Each useless, if Aurangzeb and Maududi are regularly threatened, so are we who’re alive. 

Irfan Ahmad is professor of Anthropology-Sociology at Ibn Haldun College, Istanbul, Turkey. Till early 2022, he was Senior Analysis Fellow at Max Planck Institute, Gottingen, Germany. He’s the writer of two monographs, most just lately, Faith as Critique (College of North Carolina Press, 2017) and (co)editor of 4 volumes, most just lately, The Nation Type within the International Age: Ethnographic Views (Palgrave, 2022). He tweets @IrfanHindustan.