Ekkiswin Sadi Ke Afsane (vol.2)

Reading Ashar Najmi's novel 'Joker' made me feel like I was sitting in a theatre. Ashar Najmi has visualized his characters as if through a pen. Secondly, I have always felt that every piece of Ashar's writing contains a subtle edge of humor. This stream tears our self to pieces and we don't even know it. This streak is present not only in his last two masterpiece novels but also in his editorials, his essays and his reviews. In 'Joker', this streak is further enhanced. A novel cannot be written without a sense of humor. Ashar's sense of humor gives 'Joker' depth and poignancy. The entire novel is a parody of human vanity in which not a single character but every character wears a 'Joker' mask on their face, although the masks are of different colors. 'Joker' is a merciless carnival whose spectacle we can neither laugh nor cry. (KHALID JAWED, eminent fiction writer)

The Muslim population in India was historically a minority. As long as they retained political influence and control, they were largely unconcerned with the affairs of the Islamic world. However, as their political power diminished and they lost their position of authority, they began to address the challenges facing the Islamic world. When Kar approached the British, they were suddenly confronted with a lack of agency. At this juncture, two potential responses could be anticipated from them. Firstly, by establishing a collaborative relationship with other nations within India, a foundation was laid for engagement with this land. Secondly, the objective was to establish relations with the Islamic world. Muslims, on the other hand, opted for a different approach, seeking solutions to their problems beyond the boundaries of India. Similarly, Iqbal espoused this perspective and counseled the Muslim community in India to pursue unity with the Islamic world as a means of addressing their challenges. The concept of the 'Muslim Ummah' as espoused by Iqbal continues to exert a significant influence on contemporary Muslims. It is frequently asserted that the root cause of the suffering of Muslims is their disunity. This is based on the assumption that Muslims are not united and that this lack of unity is the basis of the problem. Furthermore, it is claimed that the rise of Muslims in the past was due to their unity. This assumption not only demonstrates a lack of historical knowledge but also represents a form of self-delusion. In fact, since the death of the Prophet of Islam until the present day, there has never been a period when Muslims were united. This situation is not exclusive to Muslims; followers of other religions and beliefs have also been engaged in conflict over mutual interests, as unity is not contingent on faith but rather based on common interests. The issue of political identity among Muslims emerged during the British colonial period when they became increasingly aware that under a democratic system of government, they would remain a minority under the Hindu majority. This sentiment of inferiority gave rise to the two-nation ideology.

Upon arriving in the coastal regions of South India as merchants, the Muslims exhibited a peaceful demeanor, seeking to maximize their commercial gains through peaceful means. The Hindu rulers of India treated the new Muslims with tolerance and kindness and provided them with a range of facilities and resources. Additionally, Arabs arrived in Sindh under the guidance of Muhammad bin Qasim. Following the conquest of Sindh, the question of how to treat the non-Muslim population arose. Hajjaj bin Yusuf, after consulting with scholars and jurists, decided to treat the Hindus as the People of the Book, taking into account the practical political considerations involved. They were to be treated. In contrast, the context was markedly different when the Muslims arrived in North India. The initial Muslim conquerors were of Turkic origin and had received military training. For these tribes, warfare was both a pastime and a profession, as they were accustomed to rising and fighting for their survival. While religion was seldom a factor in these conflicts, the invasions of India were based on expansionist ambitions and justified by reference to religion. These wars were therefore labelled as Jihad against the infidels. Those who perished in these conflicts were designated as 'Shaheed', while the victors were referred to as 'Ghazi'. To illustrate, Mahmud of Ghazni's military campaigns in Central Asia were primarily political, whereas his invasion of India was driven by religious motivations. For example, Babur refrained from commenting while fighting Ibrahim Lodhi at Panipat. However, when he confronted Rana Sanga, he not only broke cups of wine to arouse religious feelings among the soldiers but also delivered a powerful speech to encourage them. He bestowed the designation of martyrdom upon the deceased and 'Ghazi' upon the surviving combatants. After this triumph, he incorporated the epithet of 'Ghazi' into his appellation. It is beyond the scope of this discussion to elaborate further, but it is acknowledged that when Muslim rulers were compelled to engage in conflict with Hindus, they employed religious rhetoric to foster unity among the Muslim populace.