Monthly Archives: March 2022

Political positions have become a reason for discussion around the world. On social networks, the debates are even more profound and often even tend to exchange insults in a more aggressive environment. A necessary reflection, in the Christian scope, is the relationship between the thought of political ideologies and the biblical worldview.

To address the issue, the South American Adventist News Agency (ASN) spoke with David Koyzis. He holds a PhD in government and international studies from the University of Notre Dame (South Bend, IN, USA). In addition, he is the author of Political Visions and Illusions (2019), We Answer to Another: Authority, Office, and the Image of God (2014), and several articles. He currently writes for First Things, Christian Courier, Kuyperian Commentary, and Cateclesia Forum. He taught political science at Redeemer University College for 30 years.

Koyzis maintains a growing relationship with the Christian community in Brazil, which he visited in 2016 and where the second Brazilian edition of Vises e Iluses Polticas (2021) was published by Edies Vida Nova in So Paulo. He has given many remote lectures to audiences in Brazil in recent years on subjects related to his two books. A Spanish translation of Political Visions and Illusions is currently in progress.

Born near Chicago in the United States to Greek and American Cypriot parents, Koyzis now lives with his family in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Interviewer: In your book Political Visions & Illusions: A Survey and Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies, you talk about political ideologies and show weaknesses in these systems, especially compared to the biblical worldview. What do you highlight, for those who have not read your book, as the main shortcomings of ideologies that are very much defended today, even by Christians?

Koyzis: Well, the main flaw is that ideologies spoil by excess. This fits with a general human tendency to esteem the creature more than the Creator. Liberalism properly values the rights and freedoms of the individual, but makes the individual will the source of all other social phenomena, including the basic institutions necessary for a society to remain healthy and flourish. It tries to make each community a mere voluntary association, thus erasing the distinctions between these communities.

Various forms of collectivism, from socialism to nationalism to democratism, properly value community, but in so doing tend to neglect the legitimate interests of individuals and other communities. For example, socialism pretends that only one form of community can monopolize property, and that usually turns out to be the state. But a society dominated by a single community will be an artificially restricted society where everyone follows orders rather than initiating a variety of activities.

In effect, followers of ideologies create a god out of something created, failing to worship the true God and to express gratitude for the created goods He has given us. But more than that, ideologies tell a story of redemptionof how we humans are going to save ourselves from some perceived evil, be it foreign rule, class inequality, government, or oppression by an outside authority of some sort. Seldom do followers of ideologies examine their own hearts to see if they can take responsibility for the world's ills themselves. This is one of the main reasons why ideologies lead to conflict.

Interviewer: What do you think motivated a more recent phenomenon of strong polarized discussions, especially in the environment of digital social networks, about partisan and political aspects?

Koyzis: I think the polarization arises in part because we make different prudential judgments about which political group or party comes closest to seeking public justice. But I think there's more. Even when we claim to belong to Christ, we inevitably become captivated by the stories these ideologies tell us. Our hearts are divided when they should be united in loyalty to the kingdom of God. The only effective way to break through this polarization is to look into our own hearts and determine whether our loyalty to God's kingdom is genuinely sincere or whether we place our faith in something in His creation.

Interviewer: How do you see the importance of the Christian acting as a responsible citizen, also in your community, which certainly involves issues related to public policies?

Koyzis: Attention to our responsibilities as citizens is of utmost importance to Christians. We cannot brush them aside as intrinsically secular concerns that keep us from worship, prayer, church attendance, and so on. Indeed, a biblical understanding of life in Christ implies that we belong to Him in all that we are and do. This includes the many positions of authority we occupy throughout our lives. We are at once fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, teachers, students, employers, employees, colleagues, pastors, elders, church members, and citizens. Our calling before God is to be faithful in the exercise of each of these offices, recognizing that we are not our own but belong to God in Jesus Christ.

Interviewer: Finally, what do you suggest should be the attitude of Christians in the face of the political reality that surrounds them? What would be a biblically acceptable way?

Koyzis: We need to exercise our citizenship responsibly out of love for God and neighbor. We should not approach political life with an attitude of What do I and my family get out of this? We must rather recognize and support the legitimate role that government plays in our society, pray for our rulers as the Bible instructs us, and be ready to participate in public affairs.

This article was originally published on the South American Divisions news site

Originally posted here:

How to Deal with Political Ideologies in the Face of the Biblical Worldview - Adventist News Network

As the Telangana Rebellion began taking shape in the 40s, members of the movement deployed rural folk art as their weapon of dissent. In Andhra Pradesh, burrakatha became such a strong tool against feudal landlords and an unjust government that it was banned by two spheres the British government in Madras, and the Nizams government in the princely state of Hyderabad.

The Paperclip wrote that the rural community of oral storytellers, was banned by bothbecause they posed a significant threat to imperialism and feudalism. Burrakatha reached regions in India that governments could not, mobilising and uniting rural Andhra Pradesh against caste and class oppression.

Burrakatha evolved from another art form called jangam katha, which was thought to have been derived from bands of roving minstrels (jangam) who sang the praise of Lord Shiva as they travelled rural areas in ancient times, wrote the Cambridge Guide to Theatre (1995). When listeners social and religious affiliations shifted, the minstrels responded by absorbing secular materials into their shows.

Burra refers to the tambura, a stringed instrument worn across the right shoulder of the performer. Meanwhile, katha means story. The main performer, kathakudu, play the tambura and dances rhythmically, as he narrates his story. He also wears a hollow ring with metal balls inside on his thumb and holds another one in his hands. These ring to the beat of the basic tempo of the song. The drummer, called the rajkiya, stands alongside, commenting on contemporary political and social issues, even if the story concerns historical or mythological events.

In the 40s, the Indian Peoples Theatre Association, then closely associated with the Communist Party of India, used burrakatha to convey its political and social message. In Andhra Pradesh, the Praja Natya Mandali (formed to revolt against the Nizams during the rebellion) also used the art form to reach a vast number of voters.

During the Telangana Rebellion, burrakatha became a loud voice that punctured the silence and suffering that rural communities had been enduring for years. They sang songs to celebrate and praise how farmers toiled for decades to cultivate their lands and were beaten down by landlords who asked for taxes even during the time of famines.

Kashtajeevi, the first burrakatha, to be performed in Telangana, narrated the tale of how farmers were forced to roam about with rocks tied to their backs when they told the dora (landlord) that they couldnt pay tax because they had no produce that year. In 1954, the film Aggi Ramudu also narrated the story of Alluri Sitarama Raju, the leader of the Rampa Rebellion in 1922.

Like this, many examples exist of how the art form was used to express the lives of oppressed castes and classes. Sheikh Nazer referred to as the father of modern burrakatha, used the art to mobilise masses during the Telangana Armed Struggle and Indias freedom movement. For him, it was more important to highlight the caste struggle without involving mediums of violence.

As the nation gained independence, burrakatha, too, began evolving. Towards the 70s, it began its descent to obscurity, and the advent of televisions put the art at grave risk. In modern times, it has been used by various governments to spread awareness about electrification, toilets, social issues like child marriage, etc, but its cultural and historical significance remains virtually untold. The inception of the internet, which brought ease of accessibility to movies and plays, has only pushed burrakatha further into obscurity. Those who practice the art today barely earn enough to feed their families, and for most, it is no longer the primary source of livelihood.

The Paperclips full Twitter thread can be found here.

Edited by Yoshita Rao

Read more here:

The Ancient Art of Oral Storytelling That Struck Fear in the British Raj Government - The Better India

The Khwe (San) community living in Bwabwata National Park has claimed oppressive practices perpetrated against them when it comes to their rights as Namibians.

The claims come at the time when many celebrate the fruits of Namibias 32 years of independence.

The alleged oppressive practices range from selective application of the policy of national reconciliation to dispossession and disregard of land and land rights of the Khwe by government and fellow Namibians, loss of access to land rights and growing inequality and poverty.

Other alarming concerns are lack of due diligence in land-based investments; reduced quality of land governance services; refusal to recognise the Khwe Traditional Authority; prohibition to perform cultural practices; denial and violation of the rights of the Khwe to own property; and the seizure of Khwe lands to use as a prison farm.

These concerns are contained in a petition initially aimed to be submitted to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs that undertook a fact-finding visit to Bwabwata in Kavango East from 14 to 16 March 2022.

Kletus Karondo, who is the chairperson of the parliamentary standing committee, yesterday confirmed they did not receive the petition, as it did not speak to the Hambukushu petition, which is why the committee undertook the visit.

The parliamentarians visit is in response to a petition submitted by the Hambukushu Traditional Authority in October last year.

The senior traditional leaders demand that the environment ministry come out clear and tell them where they should go, arguing Bwabwata is their ancestral land.

Karondo explained there are two sets of Khwe communities, one situated in the Zambezi and the other in Kavango East regions, extending along the Caprivi Strip.

We received the submission of the Khwe people living in the Zambezi. The Khwe of Kavango East region, their petition did not talk to the issue we went for on the Hambukushu, hence we didnt receive it and we advised them on the right channels to follow to raise the issue to the National Assembly, Karondo said.

Since the refusal to recognise Khwe Traditional Authority is among the raised issues, the petition was signed by the community headman Paulus Rambo; and community activists Calvin Kazibe; David Mushavanga, and Tienie Mushavanga.

The activists accuse the government of proclaiming Bwabwata, where the Khwe people lived since time immemorial, as a national park. Because of this, the Khwe feel effectively stripped of their right to land and their ancestral home. The enforcement of these policies violates a lot of rights, including our freedom of movement and right to practice our cultural traditions and customs. With the restriction of movement in the park, such rights are violated, reads the petition.

Furthermore, they said the resolutions of the first national land conference of 1991 have not been implemented.Most pertinently, they mentioned the resolution on access to land that all citizens should be able to settle anywhere in the country, provided they have regard to the customs applicable to the host communities, stating that priority is given to the landless.

The same resolution states there is a need to differentiated protection of the land rights of the disadvantaged communities such as the San and people living with disabilities.

Government dismally failed to implement these resolutions for more than three decades as they relate to the Khwe people, they said.

They reminded the government that Article 10 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) unequivocally declares thatindigenous people shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.

No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous people concerned and after agreement on fair and just compensation and, where possible, with the option of return, read the petition.

Equally, they accuse the government of consistently refusing to recognise the traditional authority of the Khwe people. In response to an application for recognition of Khwe Traditional Authority, the government rejected the application through the council of traditional leaders, claiming the Khwe do not have an area of jurisdiction and the area of jurisdiction in which the impoverished Khwe live belongs to the Hambukushu Traditional Authority.

The community argued governments decision and inaction in this regard is in stark contrast and inconsistent with Article 8(2)(a) of the UNDRIP.

It is historically known and accepted that the San people were the first inhabitants of southern Africa, way before the Bantu migration. It follows that Bwabwata, logically, has been occupied by the San, specifically, the Khwe people as their ancestral home. It is grossly inhumane to force people who are having their distinct tribe, culture, and tradition to practice their culture and traditions under a different ethnic group. We are Not Hambukushu, we are Khwe, stated the community.

anakale@nepc.com.na

Follow this link:

Khwe community claims oppression - Truth, for its own sake. - New Era

Various states have enacted laws limiting the teaching of "critical race theory" by various government institutions. Florida has recently limited "classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Keith Whittington has written about some of these laws as applied to universities; I'll speak about that in a separate post. But I thought I'd talk more about the big picture, and particularly K-12 teaching at government-run schools (though similar arguments arise as to internal training by government offices and the like).

[A.] Let me start with three hypotheticals, just to put the matter into broader perspective.

[1.] A state tells public schools (and therefore teachers) that they can't teach "critical race theory," defined for instance as "the theory that racism is not merely the product of learned individual bias or prejudice, but that racism is systemically embedded in American society and the American legal system to facilitate racial inequality." (I'm quoting here a North Dakota statute enacted recently.)

[2.] There's a movement to teach students Coastal Elites Theory, a theory that various coastal elites (in national government, higher education, Wall Street, Hollywood, and other such institutions) have been wrongfully exploiting Heartland Americans in what some label "flyover country." This has gone on, the theory goes, from the 1700s to now; "heartland" Americans have resisted it at various times throughout (note the echoes here, for instance, of complaints about New York financiers in Alexander Hamilton's day), but the oppression continues.

There is also a countermovement that argues that, though there are some plausible arguments for some such complaints, the theoryespecially when taught in K-12 schoolsis (1) in various respects mistaken, (2) exaggerates the magnitude of the problem, (3) foments divisions both among Americans generally and within each school (since in all places some students and families may be more linked to supposed Coast Elites and some to Heartland Americans), and (4) counterproductively undermines the education even of the students it aims to benefit, by causing them to focus on grievances and obstacles rather than on opportunities. As a result, a state tells public schools that they can't teach Coastal Elites Theory.

[3.] There's a movement to teach students Free-Market Capitalism, the theory that on balance economic liberty is a huge boon for mankind, and that regulations of free markets are usually counterproductive. (I should add that I think this is an important and respectable theory, and I'm inclined to think that it's mostly correct, though the question is always which regulations, however rare, are necessary.) But many in the Legislature disapprove of it, and tell public schools that they can't teach Free-Market Capitalism.

[B.] Now naturally one can conclude that one or more of these proposals is a bad idea because the underlying theory is a good theory and should be taught. But from a legal and constitutional perspective, they strike me as similar.

Someone has to make the decision about what the government says and doeswhat public schools teach, what training government employers require, and the like. Usually it's done by administrators within the relevant government agency: school boards and principals in education, department heads in other departments. Sometimes it's done by line employees, for instance if a school gives teachers considerable authority over a particular class (common in universities, less so in K-12 schools, I think). Sometimes it's done by local officials, such as city or county governments or school boards.

And sometimes it's done by the legislature, either in the first instance or, more often, in reaction to what executive officials have done. In my view, this is a complicated policy question, with no one answer being clearly the right one as a matter of general principle.

For instance, most legislators (and even often local school boards officials) don't have much experience with educating people; principals and individual teachers generally do. On the other hand, legislators and school board members are more representative of the people, including people who are paying for the schools and who are sending their children to the schools. School board members are generally closer to the voters than state legislators. State legislators can provide more statewide uniformity, which is sometimes helpful (and perhaps sometimes not).

Perhaps the right solution might be to leave most decisions to teachers or principals, and to have school boards or legislatures step in only in rare situations where the elected officials think the lower-level decisions are far wrong. Or perhaps it might be to do something else. But again some government officials have to decide what is going to be taught in government-run schools. The question is which government officials they should be.

[C.] But whatever the sound policy might be, the First Amendment generally doesn't speak to these questions (except in the narrow and different context of the teaching of evolution or intelligent design, which has been governed by Establishment Clause principles, see Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) and Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), and which I set aside here). While teachers have considerable rights, for instance, to say what they want outside class, when they are teaching on behalf of the school, their speech in class is the government's speech, and they have no special First Amendment right to dictate what that speech would be. To quote some federal appellate courts,

In very rare cases, courts have struck down such curriculum restrictions as being not "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns"; most prominently, the Ninth Circuit so held as to an Arizona law that "prohibits courses and classes that '[a]re designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.'" But even that decision reaffirmed the government's broad authority over the curriculum, upholding, for instance, other provisions that forbade public school classes that "[p]romote resentment toward a race or class of people" or "[a]dvocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

Again, it may sometimes be unwise to micromanage teachers on their choices of what and how to teach. But if higher-ups, whether principals, school boards, the state board of education, or the legislature, wants to control such speech, the federal Constitution doesn't constrain them.

Nor is there a First Amendment problem with a state legislature asserting control over the curriculum rather than leaving it to local school boards. Generally speaking, from the perspective of the First Amendment and the rest of the federal Constitution, local governments are subdivisions of the state, and subject to control by the state:

"Political subdivisions of States never were and never have been considered as sovereign entities." They are instead "subordinate governmental instrumentalities created by the State to assist in the carrying out of state governmental functions." State political subdivisions are "merely department[s] of the State, and the State may withhold, grant or withdraw powers and privileges as it sees fit."

Indeed, this is true even of charter schools, when those schools are operated as government schools:

The First Amendment's speech clause does not give charter school teachers, Idaho charter school students, or the parents of charter school students a right to have primary religious texts included as part of the school curriculum. Because [the] charter schools are governmental entities, the curriculum presented in such a school is not the speech of teachers, parents, or students, but that of the [state] government.. A public school's curriculum is "an example of the government opening up its own mouth," because the message is communicated by employees working at institutions that are state-funded, state-authorized, and extensively state-regulated. Because the government's own speech is not subject to the First Amendment, plaintiffs have no First Amendment right to compel that speech.

[D.] Finally, it's possible that a state constitution may give some institutions some autonomy from the state legislature, but I set that state separation-of-powers question aside for this post. And again it's possible that it's wiser or fairer to leave such questions at the local level rather than at the state level, a question that of course arises as to a vast range of public policy and not just school curricula.

But I don't see why in principle the state government, which often pays a huge portion of the cost of public education, shouldn't have a say hereand, indeed, given the constitutional structure of our states, the ultimate control. (Whether federal government should exercise such control, including with conditions on federal funds, is a more complicated matter, because the Constitution doesn't generally view states as just subdivisions of the federal government, the way it views local entities such as school boards as subdivisions of states.)

UPDATE: I added the parenthetical that briefly mentions the evolution / intelligent design cases, which are governed by specialized Establishment Clause rules related to the religion-related motivation for the laws involved in those cases.

Read more:

Who Decides What Is Taught in Government-Run K-12 Schools? - Reason

The historic annual session of All India Muslim League from March 22 to 24 in 1940 at Lahore was called to scrutinise situation that had evolved due to the outbreak of the World War II and India's enforced entry into the war without consulting Indian political leaders, as well as to examine the rationale for the Muslim League's defeat in the general election of 1937 in the Muslim majority provinces. The Muslim League's general session adopted the Lahore Resolution in this three days session which was later pronounced as Pakistan resolution by the Congress influenced media. The events that steered towards the Pakistan Resolution traced back not only to the Round Table Conferences (1930-1932) and the brutal Congress ministries but also brewed deliberately since the mutiny in 1857 and even prior to that event.

Muslim rule in India is delineated to Muhammad bin Qasim's conquest of Sindh and Multan followed by Ghaznavids in Punjab and Ghoris in the northern India. Turko-Mongol Muslim dynasties, such as the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, began to establish themselves throughout the subcontinent from the late 12th century onwards; they adopted local culture and mingled with the natives. The Mughal dynasty materialised by Babur, controlled most parts of the subcontinent after 1526 when he vanquished Ibrahim Lodi, the last Pashtun ruler of the Delhi Sultanate, at the First Battle of Panipat.

English East India Company was founded as a monopoly trading entity on December 31, 1600, by a royal charter, so that England may participate in the East Indian spice trade, however, trade and colonisation for the English were intrinsically tied. The Mughal Empire after 1707 lost strength and territory to the Marathas and the EIC. The company later in 1757, following the last Battle of Plassey, embarked on ruling the subcontinent until 1858 when it lost its administrative powers as a result of the Government of India Act 1858, which was introduced following the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857. The government of India shifted from the directors of the company to a secretary of the state, so began the direct British imperial rule on India.

Muslims were dismantled of their livelihood in the aftermath of the mutiny. Despite the fact that the last Mughal king, Bahadur Shah Zafar, was a reluctant front man for the anti-British struggle, the Muslim population as a whole was blamed by the vindictive British Empire. Thousands of Muslims were hanged to death and shot, entire localities in Delhi were razed. Many more were exiled and died in prison, including the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar. Hindus, on the other hand, faced no all-out consequences and welded themselves to bureaucracy and politics in the British Raj. Events like the Urdu-Hindi controversy was yet another issue that escorted the Muslims to acknowledge the petty-minded manoeuvring of Hindus who were in majority.

Muslims were devastated and retreated inwards. Few Muslims were able to compete when western education became a necessity for government posts. With his Aligarh University, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan attempted to reverse this thinking, but Muslims in general, were hesitant to accept their surrender of authority to the British Raj. He also laid the foundations of Two Nation Theory and made the Muslims aware that their political involvement is a prerequisite if they wish to exist meaningfully.

Concurrently, an ex-English ICS officer A.O. Hume had the vision of organising a political party in India and met prominent English administrators for this aim, resulting in the formation of Indian National Congress (INC) in 1885 under the British supervision and with local Indian contributions. Congress was formed with the aim to represent the people of India alike, regardless of their faith but its top tier was monopolised by the extremist Hindu leaders like Tilak, Rash Behari, Medan Mohan and Banerjee who pushed Muslims to the wall for their religious customs including cow slaughter. Congressmen endorsing movements like Shuddhi and Sangathan of the Arya Samaj for conversion of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism unveiled their hypocrisy and verbal claims of equality and emancipation of all ethnic groups residing in India.

Despite the Congress anti-Muslim initiatives, a number of Muslim politicians remained committed to Congress and the idea of a united and equal India. Important political figures like Mohammad Ali Johar, Maulana Azad, and even Jinnah believed that despite the freshly growing Hindu-Muslim tensions, there was likelihood for them to unite.

During the All-India Muslim Education Conference's annual meeting in 1906, the Nawab of Dhaka, Khwaja Salimullah, proposed the formation of a political party to serve the interests of Muslims in British India. The conference unanimously passed a resolution, resulting in the creation of the All India Muslim League (AIML).

On October 10, 1913, Jinnah joined AIML and was influential in convincing the party to revise its constitution to include an acceptable form of self-government under the British Crown. At Lucknow, in 1916, while being a member of both INC and AIML, he facilitated a pact for separate electorates for the Muslims and Hindus. Sarojini Naidu, a dynamic political figure of the time, called Jinnah as the Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.

Demand for self-rule gained fame in India after a million Indian soldiers fought on behalf of Britain. To pacify the people GOI Act 1919 was passed which due to its exclusive diarchal nature, confronted cosmic opposition from both the leading parties. The Jalianwala Bagh incident and Khilafat movement proved momentous in coaxing Indians towards independence. Congress in 1920 launched Non-Cooperation Movement while Jinnah, an adherent of political struggle, resigned from Congress calling the move political anarchy and moved to London where he spent most of the roaring 20s.

PM Baldwin appointed a commission under John Simon in November 1927 to present a report on the GOI Act 1919 but this commission too got repulsed by both Congress and Muslim League as none of the seven members were Indian. Lord Birkenhead who was the then secretary of state on Indian affairs challenged Indian political parties to frame a constitution for themselves if they were capable enough and this underestimation resulted in All Parties Conference (1928) which in its fourth session at Bombay presented Nehru Report as preamble for the constitution of united India. Muslim League rejected Nehru Report and Jinnah came up with his famous fourteen points demanding provincial autonomy, one-third Muslim representation in the central legislature and reserved seats for Muslims in Punjab and Bengal's provincial assemblies. Jinnah who was once an Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity was now convinced that in a Hindu majority India, rights of Muslims cannot be sheltered in true essence.

Sir Muhammad Iqbal too was once an enduring enthusiast of Indian nationalism but soon recognised the existential threat that loomed over the Muslims of India and in his presidential address in the 21st annual session of AIML at Allahabad on December 29, 1930. He critically advocated Muslim identity and religious nationalism. Iqbal recommended that Punjab, the North West Frontier Province, Balochistan, and Sindh be amalgamated into one state as a lasting solution to the Muslim Hindu conundrum.

Three Round Table Conferences were called on by Prime Minister Ramsay McDonald to shape a future constitution for India after it was felt that Nehru Report alone was deficient. To summarise, the first Conference ended in failure due to the absence of the Congress, and the second Conference failed due to the arrogant attitude of the Congress, which elevated the level of resentment between Hindus and Muslims, and the communal award confirmed to be the death blow to relations between the two communities of the Indian subcontinent. On July 4, 1935, a new constitution was ratified by both houses of the English Parliament and through royal assent enacted in India. The GOI Act 1935 proved helpful regarding separate electorates and provinces were empowered as the diarchy introduced in GOI Act 1919 was axed but the strings of power remained entangled.

Though not immediately noticeable after the Act's enactment, the provincial elections held under its provisions in I937, and the outcomes thereof, brought this crossroad in Indian nationalism to light. Congress formed government in eight out of 11 provinces while AIML cracked into divergent ideological factions, lagged to gain public credence and was not able to form government in any province. Although, Congress and ML failed to procure a conclusive Muslim majority but Muslims still anticipated the Congress government to be fair and religiously neutral, given their overwhelming support. The new government, however, treated Muslims with oppression and despotism, which was dismaying for Muslims who underpinned Congress in the polls. Hindi became the national language, the Congress flag became the national flag, cow slaughter was outlawed and Vande Mataram became the national anthem adapted from Chandra Chatterji's novel Anandamath. Warda Teleemi Scheme was aimed to engineer Muslim youth against Two Nation Theory. Congress made a colossal error and misjudged the consequences, which manifested themselves as Muslims alienated from the Congress.

Muslim League was not dormant during this time; the organisation mobilised the Muslim youth politically, made them aware of the Hindus proclivity for theocracy. Several reports including Pirpur Report and The Sharif Report and Muslim Sufferings under the Congress Rule by A.K Fazul ul Haq were issued during this time to accentuate the dissatisfaction Muslims had with the Congress rule.

The British were battling the Axis Powers once World War II broke out and Indias involvement was proclaimed by the Viceroy without engaging Indias ruling party. Congress was unhappy over the move, the party resigned from government in 1939, while Quaid-i-Azam seeing a promising opportunity for Muslim political empowerment asked them for honourable co-operation at the critical and difficult juncture. The nightmare regime that had tormented the Muslim population beyond imagination came to an abrupt end. Jinnah urged Muslims to commemorate 22nd December as a Day of Deliverance without malice against other nations.

A year later in Lahore during the three-day annual convention of AIML, Lahore Resolution was passed demanding a separate homeland for the Muslims of India which was projected as Pakistan Resolution by Indian press while taking the word Pakistan from Choudhry Rehmat Alis pamphlet during the third Round Table Conference (1932) by which he referred to the five northern units of India. The struggle for a separate homeland continued till 1947 but the resolution and its history provided a blueprint for the future course of action.

Today, Two-Nation Theory is revised in India as Narendra Modis government is branded with anti-Muslim sentiments and religious intolerance peaking high. However, todays Pakistan characterised by extremism and political disability too has deviated by miles from the ideals envisioned by the founding fathers. Muslim League and Jinnah particularly had facilitated womens proactive political involvement but instead of evolving for better with the advancing intellect and human reason, we evolved for the worst and today the rights of minorities and women exist only on papers.

History has the power to guide the future, unfortunately though, in todays Pakistan where landmark events are memorised for the sake of profession and the fourteen points of Jinnah for a college degree, the true essence of non-violent struggle, diplomacy and tolerance is burdensome for the youth to translate. We all have to contribute in blocking the chaos and diffusing peace so that no human has to fear for their lives. We will have to strive together, by eliminating discrimination and internal biases among ourselves to thrive as a nation.

-The writer is a grad student of Political Science at SPIR, QAU. He can be accessed at: kashifafridiinfo@gmail.com.

See the article here:

The building blocks of 23rd March - The News International