ISLAMIC FANATICISM STILL PREVAILS IN DARUL ULOOM, DEOBAND:
Reformist Vastanvi sacked as Darul Uloom's VC for Narendra Modi remarks:
Deoband: Darul Uloom Deoband's vice-chancellor Ghulam Mohammed Vastanvi was on Monday sacked for his comments praising Narendra Modi which had raised hackles of the conservatives soon after the reformist theologian took over the reins of the prominent Islamic seminary in January.
"Maulana Vastanvi has been removed from the post of vice-chancellor by Majlis-e-Shoora (governing council) of the seminary," said Maulana Abdul Qasim Nomani, who was appointed as Acting Vice Chancellor during an emergent meeting of the Shoora on February 23 that had spliced the powers of Vastanvi after the controversy erupted.
As per the decision taken by the Shoora earlier, Nomani, who is in his 60s, will be the new chief of the 145-year-old Islamic seminary, the country's largest.
A vote on the ouster of 60-year-old Vastanvi, who is an MBA with a Facebook page in his name, was held in a stormy meeting of the council.
The report of the 3-member inquiry committee on Vastanvi, which was constituted in February, was submitted at the meeting of the Council. While opposing the report, Vastanvi demanded setting up of a new panel, but his plea was turned down by the Shoora.
Crying foul, Vastanvi, who hails from Gujarat, said he was a victim of conspiracy and injustice has been done to him.
"This is injustice and a conspiracy against me," Vastanvi said and alleged that the report was incomplete and he was removed from the post for opposing it.
Nomani said that there were differences among the 14 Shoora members present at the meeting out of the 18. One of the members walked out before the voting while Vastanvi did not cast his ballot. He received four votes in favour and eight against.
"Now, I am the vice-chancellor of the seminary," Nomani said.
Source: http://www.sify.com
But what did Ghulam Mohammed Vastanvi say: You can get some idea from the following article, Published in Greater Kashmir, from Srinagar.
The VC's observations about Modi have also generated a massive media buzz with opinion bitterly split between the Maulana's right to say what he did and the sharp criticism of his attempt to exonerate Modi. Media, on its own, has watched at the development with a certain degree of affected impartiality and amusement, letting this crucial introspective turn in the Muslim understanding of Gujarat riots play itself out. The debate only became more interesting as Vastanvi added his own observations to it. Even though, he subsequently retracted his alleged praise of Modi, he didn't step back from his admiration of the economic progress in Gujarat during Modi's tenure and his earlier acknowledgement that minority Muslim community there was also its beneficiary.
The debate has since wound down without resolving anything. Vastanvi continues to be safe in his job. It, however, did offer a rare glimpse into the Indian Muslim mindset, their fears, apprehensions and grievances, marked by a conspicuous absence of hope.
One of the debaters on TV drew an interesting picture of the post-riots plight of Muslims in Gujarat, by dividing Muslim population in the state in three sections. One, which had completely lost hope and left themselves at the mercy of fate under Modi. Another continued to struggle for their rights against heavy odds. And third - like Vastanvi, the debater stressed - had compromised.
There are others who have passionately defended Vastanvi's right to have his opinion - even if in their wisdom it would mean a subtle defense of Modi. But all the same, Vastanvi who unlike traditional religious heads is an MBA and has a Facebook account, has found himself mired in the swirling controversy from which he won't be able to extricate himself for a while to come.
However, what makes the debate over Vastanvi's comments important is not the alleged internal politics of the Deoband where Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind is said to be seeking to regain control of the Darul Uloom - that is a distracting dimension - but the very nature of its having arisen in the first place. And that is the Muslim relationship with Modi. And he cannot and is not the past from which Muslims need to move on or reconcile with. There can and should be no problem if he always remains a hate figure.
Muslims in Gujarat, of course need to come to terms with the 2003 pogrom as a collective tragedy. How do they deal with this past: they might try to forget it, reconcile with it and then hopefully move on. These things happen as a matter of course, as part of an inherent natural process. But to move on from an unpleasant past they certainly do not need to absolve the people who made it painful for them.
Trouble with Vastanvi is that he in an unwelcome way has ushered Modi into this process. So, instead of dealing with the past and its painful memory, we start engaging with Modi as a person and along the way the emphasis on the serious priority of Muslims getting on with their lives appears like absolving the Gujarat chief minister of his all too apparent role in the riots. More so, when the detritus of this past is still strewn around us. And that, it is the Deoband VC who unsuspectingly or deliberately is aiding the exoneration of Modi has a certain troubling dimension that sits above the simplistic freedom of expression debate to which it has been reduced to. Nor is it the internal Deoband politics which needs to be stressed over and above the import of Maulana's utterances about Modi.
The larger question that hangs over the debate is whether Muslims or their leadership, both political and religious, can reconcile with Modi. Or whether there is a need and necessity to reconcile with him at all. Isn’t it just ok to just ignore him and move on.
Or is there a need to relentlessly fight Modi and his hate-mongering, divisive agenda that his administrative efficiency will never redeem. This is a Modi who has yet to apologize for the riots and proceed against the people guilty of the Muslim massacres. His government has stymied the legal action against an array of the activists who have publicly admitted their role in the killings forcing Supreme Court to move some of the more high-profile cases outside the state.
And this is a Modi who even seven years after the carnage which claimed around 2000 Muslim lives has yet to visit the Muslim refugee camps, and who some prominent national politicians have repeatedly said is a fit case to be tried in an international human rights court. This is also a Modi whom United States will not issue the visa to visit the country. This is what, more than anything else makes Maulana Vastanvi's Modi - Deoband VC, no less - remarks not only uncalled for but also unilateral and hence more hurtful to Muslims.
But what did Ghulam Mohammed Vastanvi say: You can get some idea from the following article, Published in Greater Kashmir, from Srinagar.
Muslims and Modi
Deoband VC’s attempt to bridge the divide made little sense
POINT OF VIEW BY RIYAZ AHMAD
SRINAGAR, WEDNESDAY, 28 SAFAR 1432 AH ; 02 FEBRUARY 2011 CE
Last week Deoband vice chancellor Maulana Ghulam Muhammed Vastanvi praised the functioning of the government of Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. He also called on Muslims in Gujarat to forget the 2003 Pogrom and move on. His remarks heaved a big rock into the otherwise quiet pond of Deoband seminary with many clerics and students alike expressing a strong disapproval of the VC's opinion. Across the country, predominant Muslim opinion looked at the VC's praise with disbelief, seeing it as betrayal from a person who effectively happens to be their top religious leader. Vastanvi soon offered to resign and now his fate will be decided by the Deoband Shura which is scheduled to meet on February 23. The VC's observations about Modi have also generated a massive media buzz with opinion bitterly split between the Maulana's right to say what he did and the sharp criticism of his attempt to exonerate Modi. Media, on its own, has watched at the development with a certain degree of affected impartiality and amusement, letting this crucial introspective turn in the Muslim understanding of Gujarat riots play itself out. The debate only became more interesting as Vastanvi added his own observations to it. Even though, he subsequently retracted his alleged praise of Modi, he didn't step back from his admiration of the economic progress in Gujarat during Modi's tenure and his earlier acknowledgement that minority Muslim community there was also its beneficiary.
The debate has since wound down without resolving anything. Vastanvi continues to be safe in his job. It, however, did offer a rare glimpse into the Indian Muslim mindset, their fears, apprehensions and grievances, marked by a conspicuous absence of hope.
One of the debaters on TV drew an interesting picture of the post-riots plight of Muslims in Gujarat, by dividing Muslim population in the state in three sections. One, which had completely lost hope and left themselves at the mercy of fate under Modi. Another continued to struggle for their rights against heavy odds. And third - like Vastanvi, the debater stressed - had compromised.
There are others who have passionately defended Vastanvi's right to have his opinion - even if in their wisdom it would mean a subtle defense of Modi. But all the same, Vastanvi who unlike traditional religious heads is an MBA and has a Facebook account, has found himself mired in the swirling controversy from which he won't be able to extricate himself for a while to come.
However, what makes the debate over Vastanvi's comments important is not the alleged internal politics of the Deoband where Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind is said to be seeking to regain control of the Darul Uloom - that is a distracting dimension - but the very nature of its having arisen in the first place. And that is the Muslim relationship with Modi. And he cannot and is not the past from which Muslims need to move on or reconcile with. There can and should be no problem if he always remains a hate figure.
Muslims in Gujarat, of course need to come to terms with the 2003 pogrom as a collective tragedy. How do they deal with this past: they might try to forget it, reconcile with it and then hopefully move on. These things happen as a matter of course, as part of an inherent natural process. But to move on from an unpleasant past they certainly do not need to absolve the people who made it painful for them.
Trouble with Vastanvi is that he in an unwelcome way has ushered Modi into this process. So, instead of dealing with the past and its painful memory, we start engaging with Modi as a person and along the way the emphasis on the serious priority of Muslims getting on with their lives appears like absolving the Gujarat chief minister of his all too apparent role in the riots. More so, when the detritus of this past is still strewn around us. And that, it is the Deoband VC who unsuspectingly or deliberately is aiding the exoneration of Modi has a certain troubling dimension that sits above the simplistic freedom of expression debate to which it has been reduced to. Nor is it the internal Deoband politics which needs to be stressed over and above the import of Maulana's utterances about Modi.
The larger question that hangs over the debate is whether Muslims or their leadership, both political and religious, can reconcile with Modi. Or whether there is a need and necessity to reconcile with him at all. Isn’t it just ok to just ignore him and move on.
Or is there a need to relentlessly fight Modi and his hate-mongering, divisive agenda that his administrative efficiency will never redeem. This is a Modi who has yet to apologize for the riots and proceed against the people guilty of the Muslim massacres. His government has stymied the legal action against an array of the activists who have publicly admitted their role in the killings forcing Supreme Court to move some of the more high-profile cases outside the state.
And this is a Modi who even seven years after the carnage which claimed around 2000 Muslim lives has yet to visit the Muslim refugee camps, and who some prominent national politicians have repeatedly said is a fit case to be tried in an international human rights court. This is also a Modi whom United States will not issue the visa to visit the country. This is what, more than anything else makes Maulana Vastanvi's Modi - Deoband VC, no less - remarks not only uncalled for but also unilateral and hence more hurtful to Muslims.
