Ashraf Lone, Researcher of Urdu literature from JNU says: “There are still Indian people, mostly Muslims who hold Pakistan and Jinnah responsible for Delhi riots, as Congress has told them so, for last 70 years. But they forget that Jinnah had no hand in formation of RSS and BJP.”

My observation is those ‘mostly Muslims’ are those who are either under influenced of Jamiat Ulma Hind-JUH (we can say they have made their opinion after reading and hearing the Nationalist pro-Congress Deobandi Muslim clergy) or that are influenced by Jamat-i-Islami Hind-JIH, or they are influenced by those history which was written by Pro-Congress historians.

One thing is more important. Jinnah never glorified Shah Waliullah, Ibne Taymiyyah, Syed Ahmad Barelvi or Syed Ismail Dehlvi but clergy from Daruloom Deoband to JIH and from Jamiat Ahle Hadith Hind to modern pro- pan-Islamism organizations and clerics like Dr. Zakir Naik have glorified Jihadist even Takfiri ideologies of those persons mentioned above.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah (the Quaid-e-Azam) was not in support of the Caliphate Movement and he had no interest in survival of Ottoman Caliphate. He had opposed Gandhi and Muslim clergy and leaders who had started the movement and exploited the Muslims’ emotions. It was hypocritical politics of Gandhi and other Khilafti leaders which transformed the Secular Nationalist political movement for independence of India from clutches of British Colonialism into communal politics and paved the way for permanent communal division among Hinstuani Muslaman, Hindu and Sikh.

Congress pushed Jinnah to the wall and tried to disgrace him through its allies Muslim political religious parties like JUH, Majlis Ahrar, Shia Political Conference, Anujaman Ghurba-i Ahle Hadith Hind. Congress gathered bigoted, sectarian and religious hate mongers politicized clergy and gave it the task to disgrace Jinnah and others.

Particularly it was the clergy from Deoband and Ahraris ( majority of Ahraris were Deobandi and rest were Ahle Hadith) who attacked on Jinnah and other leaders due to sectarian bigotry.

It was leaders of JUH and Ahraris who first time used the weapon of Takfir and religious hatred and discussed Jinnah’s Shia identity as an insult and used vulgar language about his personal life including his marriage with Rati Bai. I searched deeply to see that whether even a single leader of All India National Congress had condemned the sectarian and religious based hatred movement against Jinnah, M. H. Ispahani, Raja of Mahmoodabad and others due to their Shia Identity or against Sir Zafarullah Khan because of his Ahmadi identity.

Even all Indian nationalist Muslim clergy who were allies and followers of INC’s Mahatama, Nehru even Vallabhi Patel) particularly in Punjab and U. P., Bihar drove anti-Shia and anti-Sunni Barelvi sectarian campaign against top leadership of AIML. They used puritan and Wahhabi card against those Pirs having Feudal elite background who were either contesting elections in Rural Punjab.

Many historians like Mushirul Hasan, Justin Jones, Hamza Alvi believe that riots in UP among Shia and Sunni Muslims were planned and conspiracy to break the strength and popularity of All India Muslim League in 1930s and main responsible for this were Nationalist clergy from JUH, Ahrars and leadership of All India Shia Political Conference – AISPC.

Vanguards of Tehreek Madah Sahaba (the predecessor of Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi) and Tehreek Tabarra were nationalist Deobandi and Shia clergy. According to Mushirul Hasan mourning rituals in Muharram and celebrating rituals of Milad in the month of Rabiul-awal were composite culture of all sects and religions except very tiny minority before colonial period and even in primary periods of colonialism in Indian Subcontinent but it was 1925s and then 1930s when Nationalist Deobandi, Ahrari and Shia clergy took such steps which made disputed these festivals in Indian Subcontinent.

Can you believe that president of JUH, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, General Secretary Hafeez-ur-Rahman Seuharvi, Prominent Ahrari leader Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, Zafarul-mulk right hand of Madani, all jumped in Shia-Sunni quarrel which started from Lucknow and then spread across many parts of India.

They all drove a sectarian, Takfiri movement against the Shia under banner of Tehreek Madah Sahaba, and All India Shia Political Conference reaction was in the shape of Tehreek Tabarra. So action and reaction both were from nationalist Muslim clergy belonged to two rival sects but their claim in politics was of secular nationalism. These secular nationalist Indian political clergy had used to tolerate Hindus, Christians, Paradis but not the other sects in Muslim community.

Even JUH’s big guns had friendly relations with Hindu Mahasabahis in Congress, same behavior was of Ahraris but their behavior toward Jinnah, Liaqat, Raja of Mehmoodabad and others was very rude, harsh, sectarian and even abhorrent. They negatively pointed out their sect identity and sometimes used Takfirism against them and would ask Muslims to make distance from them.

AIML’s communal politics negatively arose after Congress’s refusal of power sharing with AIML after winning elections in 1937 but Congress to combat the AIML’s campaign encouraged Indian Nationalist Clergy which dreadfully used blasphemy, sectarian and Takfiri weapons to defeat AIML, Pro – Jinnah Sunni Baralvi Pirs and Clergy and Shia Clergy against Sunni Baralvi and Shia masses which was so destructive and Wahhabi-Debandi Radical Jiahdism was also promoted in post colonial era from sections of these clergy which directly provided power the organizations like #RSS and #BJP.

Al-Qaeda in Indian Subcontinent, Indian Mujahideen, Lashakar Tayyaba, Jaish-e Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahaba, all such Wahhabi-Deobandi radical organizations were offspring of those who admired Tehreek Jihad of Syed Ahmad Barelvi and Shah Ismail, who has or had praised Muhammad Ibne Wahhab’s movement and has or had desired of transforming Hindustan into ‘Islamistan’. Congressite or Communist, left historian never dared to analyze deeply open sectarian, Takfiri and camouflaged radical pro so called Jihadist inclinations of Indian Nationalist Muslim clergy and they always painted them as great Indian Nationalist Secular clergy which they were not.