A look back at the partition

[brihaspati]

Tell us about CY Chintamani please?

ramana ji,
Chintamani and Malvyia worked together as a team. In the crucial 1915-1925 phase, these two were the most ardent voices against concessions to Muslim demands of "disproportionate weighting". Congrez actually conceded disproportionate weighting. Again it was Bengal group which was adamant on reducing the muslim "weight" from proportional 50% [less than actual percentage 52%] to 33-1/3%.

This is a complicated history with fascinating twists and turns and "behind the scenes" stuff - which will not appear in expose websites. Congrez did a lot to support this program, and compromise formulae - even chastizing and taking a hardline against so-called "communalists" [meaning Hindu voices of opposition]. The yeevil, yeevil ML icon of Partition actually worked to get acceptance of joint electorate instead of separate electorate [and there is indeed actual evidence in the form of resolutions, actions on the ground in shifting meeting venues to legitimize decisions, that he indeed was quite sincere] based on these concessions.

What should have been studied as the greatest of mysteries is - as to what made the congrez suddenly get a cold feet towards its own compromise formulae after almost 10 years of political investment - and remain silent at teh crucial Calcutta meeting in 28 where all that work was trashed up.

Chintamani and Malvyia were the key arguers against "parity" and "disproportionate weighting". Not the other congrez voices - who in spite of noises actually conceded, and then suddenly withdraw without explaining their volteface.

I did not want to elaborate - as I was waiting for the whitewash campaign to find some vestiges of honesty and integrity by acknowledging the other side of the story - a story that they could not have not stumbled upon while searching for their evidence of choice.

[ramana]

From the web:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Y._Chintamani

...
Sir C.Y. Chintamani (10 April 1880 – 1 July 1941) was an Indian editor, journalist, liberal politician and parliamentarian of the early 20th century. He was born on Telugu new year day (ugadi) at Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. He was called "Pope of Indian Journalism" by Sri V.S. Srinivas Sastry.

He made history at the age of 18 by becoming the editor of the newspaper Vizag Spectator. He also organized Indian Herald and Standard.

He made a great impact as Chief editor of the Allahabad-based, The Leader between 1909 and 1934. His clash with Motilal Nehru, Chairman of the Board of Directors over issue of his freedom as editor, meant that Motilal left within a year, thereafter between 1927 and 1936, Chintamani was not only the Chief Editor of the newspaper, but also the leader of the opposition in the U. P. Legislative Council.[1]

'The liberals' are those people who broke away from the Indian National Congress for they were not prepared to participate in the Non-Cooperation Movement. This core value guided him and his comrades who formed the Liberal Party.

He did great service as Education Minister of Uttar Pradesh.

He was invited as special guest to attend the First Round Table Conference at London in 1930-1931.

Mahatma Gandhi and the British administrators and the Indian People were greatly inspired by his editorials.
...

Tribune article in 2000:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/200005 ... ain2.htm#3

....
C. Y. Chintamani
(April 10, 1880 — July 1, 1941)

APRIL 10, 1880 happened to be the new year's day for the Telugu-speaking people, and on that day was born a son to Chirravoorni Ramasomayajulu Garu, a learned man, well-versed in the Vedas and other scriptures. The proud father was a trusted religious adviser of Maharaja Sir Vijayarama Gajapati Raju of Vizianagram. Yajaneswara Chintamani, as the newborn was named, did almost everything too early in life. He was married before he was 10, and was appointed editor of a journal at 18.

The Maharaja's son Ananda Gajapati Raju made sure that his friend Chintamani got good education at Maharaja's College. By the time he enrolled himself for the First Arts course, Chintamani was already contributing articles to journals such as the Telugu Harp. His family members were not too happy with the activities of their otherwise brilliant child. They tried to persuade him to give up his 'seditious' ways but to no avail. All warnings went unheeded and Chintamani failed his F. A. examinations. But it was not entirely as result of his activities; he was ill at the time of the examinations. He was taken sent to Visakhapatnam for treatment. But if his relations thought he would mend his ways there, they were wrong. For the young man, whose idol was Sir Surendranath Banerjea, began to move about with local political figures. His articles began to appear in the Vizag Spectator, and soon he was offered the post of editor with what was then a handsome salary of Rs. 30. He later bought the journal for Rs. 300 and moved to Vizianagram, taking the Vizag Spectator along with him. Once in Vizianagram the weekly was rechristened Indian Herald. "I was not merely the editor," he recalled later, "I was foreman, proof reader, reporter, sub-editor, and manager all rolled into one." But in spite of its great popularity, financial problems forced him to fold up the journal in about two years' time. Times were bad for Chintamani, and to make matters worse, he lost his wife. Braving misfortune and ill-health, he moved to Madras, and worked on the staff of the Madras Standard for a year or so under the editorship of the famous G. Subramania Iyer.

At the time, Chintamani himself would have laughed at the suggestion of working in Allahabad, but that is exactly where destiny took him. He was invited to work for the Leader, a newspaper founded by Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya. With the arrival of Chintamani, Allahabad would never be the same again. He nurtured the paper and turned it into one of the best in the country. Fearless and forthright, he did not hesitate to take on the management if he felt his freedom as editor was being trifled with. Within an year of his editorship, he had a clash with Pandit Motilal Nehru, the chairman of the Board of Directors. In the end, Chintamani had his way, and Pandit Motilal Nehru had to part company with the paper. On Chintamani's 60 birthday, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru said: "Public life, thirty-five years ago in these Provinces was a stagnant pool. Chintamani stirred up its still waters and it was he who made many of us feel the need in those days of a public which could fearlessly and courageously give expression to our aspirations of those days. The result was the Leader."

Between 1927 and 1936, Chintamani was not only the Chief Editor of the Leader but also the leader of the opposition in the U. P. Legislative Council. He started his political career as a Congressman, but later disassociated with Gandhi non-cooperation and civil disobedience movements. In spite of his life-long ill-health, he continued to write for the Leader from his Council House to the very last day of his life.

The names in the Tribune article are well known to the family.

He was on the staff of the paper later known as Hindu!

CY Chintamani

The second lucky break for Chintamani was when he was invited by the late Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha to take over from him the editorship of the Kayastha Samachar, an English semi-weekly of Allahabad. The third–and most important–was when Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya started the Leader–an English daily–in the same place and offered him the first refusal of its editorship. That was in 1909 and it was, without doubt, his anna mirabilis. From that moment on he never looked back.



From 1909 right up to 1941–with an interregnum of three years from 1920 to 1923 when he was elevated to a ministership in U. P uynder the Montford reforms–Chintamani was the editor of the Leader. During the period of his stewardship the Leader held a position in the North what the Hindu has always held in the South: it was a name to conjure with. What the Leader wrote “went”, as the Americans say. And when one mentioned the Leader, one mentioned Chintamani, of course. The Leader was in the thick of the political fight always.



I still remember (with pride) the part it played in the Mahatma’s passive resistance struggle in South Africa, for weeks on end Chintamani’s editorials would be only on that historic struggle, emitting (patriotic) fire in every sentence and even in every syllable. He was a journalist with a mission, with a messianic urge, the larger mission of India’s political destiny and (within that framework) of the political destiny of his own party, the Indian Liberal Federation, as it was called when the old Moderates (as they were then) finally broke away from the (Extremist-controlled) Congress in 1917.



His guru was Gokhale, and Gokhale was one of his closest friends also: Gokhale was to Chintamani what Gandhi was to Congressmen. That was why he held fast by constitutionalism even at the height of the civil disobedience movement. Naturally he was the target of some of the bitterest, as well as of some of the vilest, of Congress fulminations.



Not a “Moderate”



Curiously enough, he was not a “Moderate” in any sense of the term: in the name of “Moderatism”–that creed on which he thrown like a cedar of Lebanon–he wrote the fiercest articles possible. No Congressman ever broke a lance in the cause of his cherished political principles as he did in the cause of his. Just as he was the Leader he was the Liberal party as well: his name was conterminous with both. After his death the one continued to exist, no doubt, but only as a shadow of itself in its palmier day the latter is no more.



He had a very low opinion of the Mahatma as a politician but, as an individual, he held him in the highest veneration. But the Congress, as a political organisation, was anathema to him, and what irritated him most in it was its sickeningly equivocal attitude to Muslim intransigence–especially to its “neither-for-nor-against” attitude to the infamous “Communal Award.” It was fortunate for the Congress that he died well before partition and the post-partition debacles: there would have been too many wigs on the green. His mantle has not fallen on anyone since his demise: the mould was broken when he was born.



As a Conversationalist



As a conversationalist he had no peer, and to hear him hold forth in English was a liberal education in itself. While attempting to combat the very widespread notion that Dr. Johnson was more a conversationalist than an author, Robert Lynd asserted valiantly:



“The truth is that Dr. Johnson built his fame with his writings, and put a tower on his fame with his conversation.”



The same can be said of Chintamani.

[brihaspati]

Chintamani and Malaviya led the opposition to separate representation and were prepared to accept this to get Muslim participation in the nationalist movement only temproararily [many articles by Chintamani in Leader], but they were bitterly opposed to reducing Hindu representation in order to grant weightage to the Muslims. Malaviya had presided over the session of the All-India Hindu Sabha at the end 1915, he and Chintamani appears to have concerned themselves more with the negotiation of the Pact as a member of the AICC.

CY Chintamani was unique - he was a member of the UP-PCC and worked alongside people like Samiullah Beg, or Pandit Jagat Narain, Motilal, Sapru, Munshi Ishwar Saran, Kunzru, and Malavyia in the PCC. From the Madras PCC, similar stand were taken by Subbarao Pantulu, Govindaraghava and CP.Ramaswai Aiyars.

Chintamani was outvoted in his opposition to concessions within the AICC. But at this stage it were the "communalists" who opposed disproportionate weightings, separate electorates.

[ShauryaT]

Nothing much was done for the Sindhis either as they were docile and did not forcefully demand territory or indulge in
communal retaliation. Most Sindhis are self-made and that too many have done well in distant countries.

I will just step in here, to say something quick. We all know that the first settlement of the Muslims in India was led by MBQ in 711 AD. Guess how much time did these hordes need to convert Sindh to a Muslim majority province? It was not until about 1870. A millennia of resistance was not the result of a docile people. But it is true that the Kshatriya branch of Sindhudesh and its Rajputs were converted to Islam by then. The majority of Hindu Sindhis were low caste, followed by the educated class and Brahmins in the cities and traders. It is the traders and educated class that could migrate out because they could afford to - this group was not docile but not trained to fight either. A large percentage of low caste folks could not and number nearly 6 million Hindus in Sindh today. The district of Tharparkar bordering India was Hindu majority till the 90's.

As we look back into the partition, while I do not think a division of Sindh was feasible, some districts could have been merged with Kutch/Rajasthan, by a determined and compassionate national leadership - who did not rise up to the challenge they faced. This step would have allowed a large number of lower class Sindhi Hindus to move more easily, making a huge difference - like in Punjab. I think a more holistic read is that the muslim hordes were tamed in the plains of Sindh by its millennia long resistance and by a non docile class and not to forget, it is the birth place of Sufism, which keeps Sunni theology tempered.

The lesson here is not to spare a determined enemy or it will keep striking back, and eventually consume your warriors.

[SBajwa]

by Shauray T

Guess how much time did these hordes need to convert Sindh to a Muslim majority province? It was not until about 1870.

not only Sindh but Kashmir, Punjab and other places in North were not muslim majority until Aurunga AAK-THOO(whom people call Aurungzeb) the worst person to commit sedition against his mother land decided to convert people to start facing Arabia and praying to the idols sitting at Mecca that in his mind were better than the idol of
Shiva/Rama/Brahma.

[Supratik]

Nothing much was done for the Sindhis either as they were docile and did not forcefully demand territory or indulge in
communal retaliation. Most Sindhis are self-made and that too many have done well in distant countries.

I will just step in here, to say something quick. We all know that the first settlement of the Muslims in India was led by MBQ in 711 AD. Guess how much time did these hordes need to convert Sindh to a Muslim majority province? It was not until about 1870. A millennia of resistance was not the result of a docile people. But it is true that the Kshatriya branch of Sindhudesh and its Rajputs were converted to Islam by then. The majority of Hindu Sindhis were low caste, followed by the educated class and Brahmins in the cities and traders. It is the traders and educated class that could migrate out because they could afford to - this group was not docile but not trained to fight either. A large percentage of low caste folks could not and number nearly 6 million Hindus in Sindh today. The district of Tharparkar bordering India was Hindu majority till the 90's.

As we look back into the partition, while I do not think a division of Sindh was feasible, some districts could have been merged with Kutch/Rajasthan, by a determined and compassionate national leadership - who did not rise up to the challenge they faced. This step would have allowed a large number of lower class Sindhi Hindus to move more easily, making a huge difference - like in Punjab. I think a more holistic read is that the muslim hordes were tamed in the plains of Sindh by its millennia long resistance and by a non docile class and not to forget, it is the birth place of Sufism, which keeps Sunni theology tempered.

The lesson here is not to spare a determined enemy or it will keep striking back, and eventually consume your warriors.

Actually I will have to disagree with you here. From what I gathered the Soomra and Samma Rajputs who ruled for long periods converted to Islam. Thereafter there was not much resistance within Sindh. This is similar to many Rajput-Jat-Gujjar and other ruling groups converting in the greater Punjab, Delhi, western UP areas. Without these converts there would be no Pakistan. These converts are some of the most rabid Hindu haters.

I am yet to come across any evidence that the Sindhi Hindus forcefully asked for something. They were after all about 25% of the population. From what I gathered they assumed the Sufi Sindhi Muslims would not harm them. They had not calculated for the Mohajirs. If you can show me some evidence may be I can learn.

[ramana]

A list of famous Freemasons in India

http://www.masonindia.org/WellKnownFreeMasons.htm

[abhischekcc]

Swamy Vivekananda was not a Mason, as given in the list above. Makes me wonder how authentic the list is.

[SBajwa]

http://www.1947partitionarchive.org

[Agnimitra]

Swamy Vivekananda was not a Mason, as given in the list above. Makes me wonder how authentic the list is.

Are you sure? I recall reading that at certian meetings in the US he introduced himself to his hosts as a fellow mason. In those days it was quite common. Masons and other such groups were forums that were attempting to create a synthetic one-world religious-ethical system. Controlled by Western elites, they were selecting and raising up proponents from non-Western traditions. From Morocco/Turkey, from Japan, from India. Usually they focussed on and wanted to highlight the monistic/non-theistic idea from these traditions.

[surinder]

SV was a Sanyasin, in the highest traditions of India's old Rishis & Munis. He was everything, and he was nothing. He was part of all groups and belonged to everyone, yet belonged to none. Please leave him out.

[devesh]

^+1.

I don't think Vivekananda was a western plant or spy. he was a Bharatiya. he died a Bharatiya. let's not throw dirt on him by making accusation towards his loyalty and desha bhakti.

[Agnimitra]

Devesh ji! I wasn't saying that the good Swami was a Western plant or spy! Not everyone who's been in a masonic lodge is part of some conspiracy! Its just that at that time those lodges were set up as crucibles for thought-seeding or thought-origination, with obvious networking going on between Indian and Western elites. I see no problem if Swami Vivekananda hung out at a lodge, or used those very networks to make a contribution or to gain leverage to spread his ideas. Its a principle of Vedanta that the respected leaders class of society must be converted to whatever idea one wishes the general population to emulate:

यद्यदाचारति श्रेष्ठस
तत्तदेवेतरो जनः
स यत्प्रमाणं कुरुते
लोकस्तदनुवर्तते [Bhagavad gita 3.21]

"Whatever action a respectable leader performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues."

surinder ji,

SV was a great sannyasi, but he did take sides, he was influenced and frustrated by the sectarian politics he saw in Bengal, and part of his mission was political. I think it was an appropriate ideology for his time in India. Its not taboo to discuss that now in view of present time. But that's prolly OT here anyway.

[Hiten]

The Frontier Gandhi had passed away today in '88

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCTRs8_Bxbo

[Hiten]

Today is the 115th Birthday of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4l9UVfjO4

The political party he founded turned out to be a disappointment, though. Perhaps, his non-participation in its affairs was the reason

[Pranav]

Today is the 115th Birthday of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4l9UVfjO4

The political party he founded turned out to be a disappointment, though. Perhaps, his non-participation in its affairs was the reason

@Swamy39 Subramanian Swamy

@Ahm_Brhmasmi : Made up story by [Nehru]. [Netaji] was killed by J. Stalin to win over Nehru

https://twitter.com/#!/Swamy39/status/1 ... 8956701696

[member_19686]

All of this seems true enough, and would widely separate Bose from the garden variety of Nehruvian Secularists and Marxists who are, by design, hostile to the Hindu dharma without many exceptions.

And still, when it came to understanding Islam and its objectives, as a thinker and as a leader, it must be said that Bose was not very different from the other Marxist-Secularists. Bose is really an uncomforting case in point, that even deeply religious Hindus, of excellent intellectual gifts, untiring patriotism and great leadership acumen, can remain utterly gullible to the Islamic propaganda and keep causing self-injury to the nation. Bose remained deluded throughout his life when it came to understanding Islam, its goals & objectives and its history, and particularly its encounter with India. Laden with deluded understanding of Islam, great men only cause greater harm.

His beliefs in secularism were no different from the Gandhi variety and can be summed up as follows: a) without Moslem approval neither can Swaraj be won, and what is more, nor was it worth winning without their support; b) the onus of Hindu-Moslem unity lied on the shoulders of the Hindus alone, and the Hindus should be willing to make unlimited and extreme sacrifices to that end; c) only by adjusting to the Moslem sensibilities and removing their ‘misgivings’ was it possible to achieve that unity; and therefore d) appeasing Moslems should be made a core and visible part of any program, which is what he conscientiously belaboured to do throughout his political career. In his hostility to Hindutva also he was quite virulent just like the other Marxist-secularists.

Imprint of the above is visible throughout his career, from the 1920s when he started as a Bengal congressman under Deshbandhu’s wings, to 1930s when he rose to the central Congress as the Leftist rallying point and was elected its President for two consecutive terms, to the 1940s’ Azad Hind Fauj campaign and the events leading to the partition...

http://bharatendu.com/2011/02/10/subhas-chandra-bose/

[brihaspati]

Ah! we indeed need to know about this "Islamophilia" of Bose. I am all for it. But then we will also see, if we dig deeper, where that Islamophilia actually started off from. He was naive in many aspects. Not the least of which came from the peculiar ambience of his regional upbringing. But the peculiar politics of the early 20's, largely shaped by a strange euphoria over Islamism, led by MKG, will then get aired more.

Bose's mentor, CRD was instrumental. Why? Now that would be personal and unprovable. But this was a gentleman who had self-converted from a "hedonist" pucc sahib insanely successful barrister to one who took up defending Aurobindo, and went on to become a leading Swarajist - all on his own change of heart. Unlike other stalwarts who needed to do this change only under avataric finger touches of MKG.

These guys were facing a very real problem of having to deal with an entrenched mullahcracy and feudal alliance led by the Dhaka scion, Salimullah. Nothing like that faced other stalwarts in the upper reaches of GV and the western India, where the Marathas had cleared a lot of weeds in their heyday [or broke the camel's back].

I am not excusing CRD or Bose. But Bose was from the periphery, a hated outsider who did not stick to being only the Bengali moneybag like WCB who would finance pucca upper GV or Saurashtrian emperors - but also had the audacity to go for the top chairs. The amount of pushouts he was given, probably forced him into Muslim arms more than he would have liked to. I have reasons to think, he was inherently a "Hindu" and not an Islamophiliac.

He was impatient, naive, and a hothead. Someone should have asked him to hold his breath. But then, we as Indians (and Hidnus) believe that each life is a lesson that accumulates. Maybe in a future time he will compensate for his errors!

[brihaspati]

Today is the 115th Birthday of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4l9UVfjO4

The political party he founded turned out to be a disappointment, though. Perhaps, his non-participation in its affairs was the reason

@Swamy39 Subramanian Swamy

@Ahm_Brhmasmi : Made up story by [Nehru]. [Netaji] was killed by J. Stalin to win over Nehru

https://twitter.com/#!/Swamy39/status/1 ... 8956701696

There are three alternative hypotheses within the "killing" hypotheses. This is only one of them. But given another alternative that the Brits secretly killed him this hypo becomes part of the possible propaganda and counter propaganda lies that went on between the Allies at war. The source of the Stalin-killed-him version is based on Abani Mukherjee's alleged version or his son's version (or his son's version of his version). But Abani himself had connections with the British communist party and was asked by the British communists to urge Stalin not to help Bose -when it became known that Bose was in russia seeking help after his escape from Calcutta - and Abani's own vicious rivalries with fellow Indians, makes this entire storyline suspect.

[ramana]

Who is Abani Mukherjee?

[brihaspati]

ramana ji, his profile is on wiki biography. The story of Stalins supposed suspicion of Bose - and hence no warmth the first time Bose apparently approached Russian contacts in the extensive stays in Europe during the 30's - etc comes from two sources, both initimately connected to Abani Mukherjee. One is independent research that traces British communist party members urging Abani - who was active on the Comintern, - to try and dissuade Stalin from helping Bose. The other source is supposedly Abani's son Goga by his Russian wife, who was apparently imprisonedat the same time as Bose in Russia [after August 1945]. This contradicts other contemporary claims like that by an Indian engineer who heard from ex-German POW (who was supposedly in Siberia after '45) that the latter had met Bose and talked with him (having known him in Germany) but apparently bring driven by a chauffeur in a car.

I guess those few years after August 1945 were most interesting, and connects several international powers who all tried to use Bose/or Bose's memory/or his supposed existence to extract concessions from each other. Some hard cash or bullion could also be involved which might have been used to trap prominent people into keeping their mouth shut forever (mere release of the information perhaps would be enough to finish political career of entire parties). But the mystery over this could connect a lot of peculiar behaviour between the emerging JLN gov, China+Mao, Russia and UK - from 1946-1962.

[ManuT]

Ah! we indeed need to know about this "Islamophilia" of Bose. I am all for it. But then we will also see, if we dig deeper, where that Islamophilia actually started off from. He was naive in many aspects. Not the least of which came from the peculiar ambience of his regional upbringing. But the peculiar politics of the early 20's, largely shaped by a strange euphoria over Islamism, led by MKG, will then get aired more.

Bose's mentor, CRD was instrumental. Why? Now that would be personal and unprovable. But this was a gentleman who had self-converted from a "hedonist" pucc sahib insanely successful barrister to one who took up defending Aurobindo, and went on to become a leading Swarajist - all on his own change of heart. Unlike other stalwarts who needed to do this change only under avataric finger touches of MKG.

These guys were facing a very real problem of having to deal with an entrenched mullahcracy and feudal alliance led by the Dhaka scion, Salimullah. Nothing like that faced other stalwarts in the upper reaches of GV and the western India, where the Marathas had cleared a lot of weeds in their heyday [or broke the camel's back].

I am not excusing CRD or Bose. But Bose was from the periphery, a hated outsider who did not stick to being only the Bengali moneybag like WCB who would finance pucca upper GV or Saurashtrian emperors - but also had the audacity to go for the top chairs. The amount of pushouts he was given, probably forced him into Muslim arms more than he would have liked to. I have reasons to think, he was inherently a "Hindu" and not an Islamophiliac.

He was impatient, naive, and a hothead. Someone should have asked him to hold his breath. But then, we as Indians (and Hidnus) believe that each life is a lesson that accumulates. Maybe in a future time he will compensate for his errors!

Bji, why shouldn't MKG's views and neta jis vision on "Islamophilia" be considered similar then?

Why not consider it "a sign of the times", rather than introducing a variation? Or why not say, Different starting points, but they reached the similar inaccurate conclusions about the matter, at that time. i.e. literal islam can be appeased. That's all.

They were both looking for a Free (undivided) India, everything else was different about the two personalities and their politics.

(A long time ago, I had borrowed a book Bose's speeches broadcast from Germany, Japan and other places, a long time ago. It is out of print now and only parts I can remember.)

[brihaspati]

^^^Oh there are plenty of differences in their Islamophilia. While MKG kheered over Islam itself, Bose didn't. Bose's attitude seems to have been - we can apply an iron hand on the mullah, but no need to penalize the ordinary Muslim (he definitely was for an authoritarian, nearly military, regime for a sufficiently long time he felt would be needed to iron out the "differences").

But he is not gushing and blushing like the others from the congrez side, especially the more garrulous ones, about how good Islam was as a system and faith and they saw no evil in it. Bose was always a stickler for details, organization and practical (what he thought as practical), and an impatient man to boot. But his attitude towards state building appears to be a near-military way.

This is the important difference : Bose took Muslims as Indians and sought to incorporate them as part of a militant movement, but did not feel the urge to sanitize and whitewash the ideology of Islam itself. MKG did exactly that, and some of his followers took this to an extreme of self-contradiction - while whitewashing the ideology, but chastizing individuals and Muslims as a group who could not be trusted among themselves (yes in spite of the so-called "nationalist Muslims" - which itself is ironic - because it implies that there can exist Muslims and a whole Muslim group - who are "antinationalists"). Whenever you show such reaction on a whole group you are carrying out the height of self and other-deception.

MKG was not under such vicious Muslim activity as in the east, upper GV and Gujarat was pretty well subdued for Islamist atrocities on a significant scale - but not true for the delta in the east. Yet MKG took upon the extra mile of whitewashing of the ideology over and above the need to incorporate Muslims into the nationalist movement. In the process he provided a handy tool for both the Brits as well as the Muslim elite to be used back on him.

Bose on the other hand, recognized the need, saw the problem, and decided to rely on uncompromising state power to bring the Muslim into "line" and eliminate anything else.
Which one would you say was really guided by circumstances?

Circumstances provide you restrictions of choices : does not force you to choose one option over the other - if both are available and feasible. Who chooses what - reveals what they were made up of.

[Atri]

Today is the 115th Birthday of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4l9UVfjO4

The political party he founded turned out to be a disappointment, though. Perhaps, his non-participation in its affairs was the reason

@Swamy39 Subramanian Swamy

@Ahm_Brhmasmi : Made up story by [Nehru]. [Netaji] was killed by J. Stalin to win over Nehru

https://twitter.com/#!/Swamy39/status/1 ... 8956701696

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1017089

Where the hell is Vilayat, these days?

[SBajwa]

Blighty (1) England. (2) A wound sufficiently serious to necessitate the recipientís removal to an English Hospital. Hindustani, Vilagaty, bilate, provincial Europe and English.

(1) General army. Probably pre-World War I (Green).

This sense was probably first used by those in the Indian Army, but gained wide currency in World War I. B&P allude to how great meaning was attached to the word: ëIn this one word was gathered all the soldierís home-sickness and affection and war-weariness.í ëBlightyí was derived from the Hindustani ëbilayatií meaning ëforeign, and especially Europeí. The Hindustani came ultimately from the Arabic ëwilayatií meaning ëprovinceí (Elting).

[SBajwa]

---

[ramana]

Sbajwa, He is referring to the BRF member with handle Vilayat.

[ManuT]

Bji thanks for the response.

Another question, only to amplify what you have written.

How was MKG's views different than Nanak's or Dara Shikoh or Bulle Shah or with people who were trying to find a common ground of tolerance or 'sulh-i-kul'?



Second requesting clarification, as I am not sure if I am reading it right. Are you sure, the first 'east' you mentioned is not 'west'.

MKG was not under such vicious Muslim activity as in the east, upper GV and Gujarat was pretty well subdued for Islamist atrocities on a significant scale - but not true for the delta in the east.

I find it difficult to believe (in response to the attempted partition of Bengal previously & say the influence of Tagore), that pro-Partition Muslims in what is now BD were bigger troublemakers than AMU, or in the West, but then, Direct Action Day happened in Calcutta.

[brihaspati]

ManuT ji,
my bad -I should have put a "full-stop" instead of a comma. I meant not as "bad" as in the east - the west had it better. The Maratha, and to a certain extent some of the later Rajputs (like the Mewaris) had done a lot to clear off the Muslim institutional regeneration capacities for a long period of time. The hinterland up NW was cleared to a certaine xtent by the Sikhs. This is the reason around the Guj coast and Maharashtra you do not see a revival of the Islamist as much as it happened in UP and Bengal and upper Punjab. It coincides with the anti-Muslim safai effort's geo-political centre of gravity.

To understand the picture in the east - you need to get two complicated trends together: the constant resistance by the Hindus who got cornered and marginalized to the south-east. There were continuous struggles actually - and that is a long history. But ironically the east had also simultaneously to face the onlsaught of the upper GV. Thus the combined Hindu-Muslim collaboration that developed in upper GV often found expression in moves against the east on eastern "Hindus", as well as intra-Muslim Afghan clan catfights - which therefore over time helped a Hindu-Afghan alliance to develop.

A section of Hindus have always salivated at the sight of external invaders whom they hoped to use against fellow Hindu rivals - to teach them a lesson for hurting egos perhaps. This upper GV lower GV mutual intolerance has contributed a great deal towards sapping the resistance of GV. It has produced a greater polarization in eastern society - from where you will find a greater intensity of radicalism.

To be fair there has always been an eastern component which has looked west (within India) for acknowledgment and acceptance - and been kicked in the shinbone usually in return - by the "west". Long rivalry perhaps - but yets thats a reality.

Nanak or others you mention - did not whitewash Islam. Did not deny the atrocious parts or roles or experiences. MKG and his cohorts denied all that and reconstructed a history ansd theological character that never was. That is where they differed from the previous apparent "common grounders".

[brihaspati]

The viciousness of eastern Islamism is covered up now under whitewashing. The real history is far more intense.

[member_19686]

"Hindu-Muslim" harmony or "tolerance" was never the prime aim of either Nanak, Kabir etc like it was for Gandhi.

In fact they were very harsh critics of what they found objectionable in Islam and the nirguna bhakti school reconverted several Muslims.

Kabir in his own life time had disowned his son who had reverted to Islam, Muslims now revere him as a saint.

The following posts by Sarvesh Tiwariji (http://bharatendu.com/ blog writer) are relevant in understanding the school of Guru Nanak, Kabir etc.

All the following I got from various debates.

All time best research on kabIra was done by Acharya Hazari Prasad Dwivedi, Prof and Head, Allahabad University, in 1920s. His magnum opus "Kabir" is still the most complete and unsurpassed work on the life and work on the saint. The book is available in Hindi.

Acharya Dwivedi shows, with undeniable evidences, how kabIra represents that neo-mass-converted second generation which was craving for its roots again. (Kabir's parents had converted to Islam, along with the enrtire julAhA caste of that time and region). He also demonstrates how kabIra is a continuation, although with different expression and methodology, of nAtha yogI-s.

On Sufi's one must refer to History of Sufis by Syed Athar Ahmed Rizavi of AMU. Also Jadunath Sarkar's Nawabs of Bengals sehds some light.

Hindu-Moslem syncretism in kabIra is a myth. At the practice and philosophy level, kabIra is as much a Hindu as, say, dayAnanda. Just because dayAnanda criticised many prevailing aspects of Hindu soceity does not make him a non-Hindu.

Warm Regards
Sarvesh Tiwari

Now you have bypassed my main point, which is that heathen in general did not
care to intellectually tackle Islam, and not just the brAhmaNa-s, but almost all
heathens.

"all bhakti saints had their frame of reference oriented from standpoint of
Brahmin"

"Kabir's critique of untouchability [in his Bijaka] has invariably a brahmin
posited against the untouchable, and not any other caste."

This is simply wrong. I guess you are confused between a "Brahmin" and any
saintly guru. Particularly, in exact contrast to what you are saying, Kabir
draws his ideological datum from a totally non-brAhmaNa framework: that of the
nAtha-s, in large bulk. In above 85% of bIjaka he is fighting the strawmen of
"gorakha" and "avadhUta", and not a Brahmin; himself being an out and out
although heterodox nAthayogI even though he wouldn't acknowledge it. Where he
is positing an imaginary "paNDita" as his opponent in some discussions in
bIjaka, it is first of all very rare, and then too, it is generally in context
of typical nirguNa pre-occupation of criticising the karma-kANDa supremacy,
shAstra-mongering, tIrtha-importance etc., but to the disappointment of modern
counter-brahmin casteists not so much about untouchability. As for his
self-identity, he is pretty comfortable recognizing himself with his jAti: in so
many of his sabada-s he calls himself julAhA and koirI without anr remorse of
any kind. This is far more amplified in his peer and gurubhrAtA ravidAsa who is
content and at peace with being a "chamArA" which is his self-epithet in almost
all his pada-s; far from any social rebellion against the so-called "brahminical
tyranny", ravidAsa has no trouble with his "ocHI jAt" (his words), has no
problem giving gurumantra to high-caste mIrA, and has absolutely no quarrel with
Brahmins no doubt again disappointing our caste-sociologists.

"To see, most bhakti movements as a reaction to societal perception of
Brahmanical inadequacies against Islam [vis a vis social cohesion,
egalitarianism and dignity amongst believers, active communication with the
godhead in absence of priestly intermediaries is then understandable."

One debases bhakti by using marxist model of saying that these movements were
simply 'social' (thank god not economical) "reactions". If you asked bhakti
masters, they would just laugh like mad. These movements were genuine and
sterling human expressions of universal spiritual seeking, nothing more, thank
you. With these though, like any other human activity, there are special
attributes of other human aspects related to soceity and traditions and so on in
which they are situated. And by the way bhakti, especially of nirguNa ones, did
not remove an intermediary between seeker and godhead. It just replaced a
priest with a superhuman "guru".

Now, since you are already familiar with the work of Prof Rizavi, I recommend
please also read his good work 'Alakha Vani', preface and introduction, where he
says that actually it is Islam that got informed by the bhakti and nAtha
movements, and not the other way round. He built his theme further in his two
volume work on Sufi-s.

"I believe, the Bhakti movements most of which originated post Islam could not
develop critiques of Islam since, they, by their very origin, were limited, by
their pacifist nature."

The nirguNa component is anything but pacifist, indeed they are quite virulent
in their own way at times. Just see them when they criticise the things like
the tIrtha-s, the karmakANDa-s, the learning of shAstra-s, and of course the
veda-s (of which they have no inkling but that does not deter them from
criticising it with worst kind of words). And this does not spring from any
jAti dynamics -- no, a high caste nAnaka is as much, or more, virulent than low
caste kabIra in his criticisms of these.

They are not pacificts, they are seculars: they sentimentally put "Hindu" and
"Turaka" in the same bracket vis-a-vis their own viewpoint. This is most
amplified in another high caste nirguNa santa palaTUdAsa, great no doubt, but
secular nonetheless. Read palaTUvANI and you see any secular that comes. The
modern figures like TL Vasavani and others are likewise their continuation:
secular and not pacifists. Secularism is the blinder that stops them from
critiquing Islam, not pacifism. Vasavani even wrote a whole book in praise of
Islam, its prophet and Idian Moslems; just in next decade he got kicked out of
Karachi along with other Sindhis, moved to Bombay and continued selling his same
ideology here without any change.

This is what I say also for the jainist and bauddha-s. Being as hardcore
disputers as any, it should come naturally to them to develop anti-Islamic
polemics. The contemporary Jaina writers were not at all pacifists; in my eyes
they were as bigoted as they come, in continuing their irrelevant criticism of
all things Astika like a broken record. Hardly pacifists they can be called:
their "pacifism" does not prevent them from abusing draupadI and kuntI as just
short of prostitutes. A jaina medieval work would not got completed without
somehow getting into the typical oneupmanship against the brAhmaNa-s. But the
same jainists become dhimmI-s when it comes to criticising Islam, why? Read
saMskR^ita text vijaya-prashasti written by the disciples of famed AchArya shrI
hIravijayasUrI, which gives the glimpses of jainist work at the Akbar's court.
Here they are so elated explaining how the jaina criticism of braAhmaNa concepts
impressed the pAtisAha: the fools are silent on more pertinent subject the
criticism of Islam.

The saguNa Astika component, on the other hand, possibly because of being closer
to more traditional thought, and also because of they being mostly from brAhmaNa
background, spared both the criticism of Hindu traditions, as well as this
Hindu-Moslem equating. sUradAsa, tulasIdAsa, haridAsa, vallabha and such, do
not care about turaka at all and just focus on their own. My point being, the
absence of Islam-critique does not come from the "pacifism" but something else,
which is for the nirguNa-s their secularism and for the saguNa-s their typical
habit of just ignoring the presence of the enemy.

"castes like the Kayastha despite sufficient intellectual acumen remained in
awe of Brahmin intellect and priestly power"

kAyastha impressed and awed by brAhmaNa, what the ****! Anyone knowing anything
basic about kAyastha knows that kAyastha-s never accepted brAhmaNa-s as any
superiors. They did not cultivate affiliations to what you folks generally call
brahminism. kAyastha is the sole exception in the forward jAti-s that happily
and voluntarily renounces privilages like yaj~nopavIta, with some outliers such
as prabhu-s of maharaTTA country. Steadfastly Hindu by religion no doubt, but
kAyastha never accepts himself inferior to brAhmaNa in any sense spiritual or
temporal, and he is a freethinker and scholar by spirit. They did produce
extremely learned saMskR^ita scholars (e.g. Rajendralal Mitra) and as brilliant
Historians and Archaeologists besides social thinkers and reformers; and still
kAyastha proved to be a hard core Hindu dhimmi that ever was!

"Similarly, the Vaishya despite his education, knew his place in the caste
heirarchy was not eventful. For him, keeping the rulers in good humor, whatever
their faith and ideological orientation was imperative. In less strenuous
circumstances, it is unlikely he would have explored the distinctions between
Islam and his native faiths."

Come on now! vaishya is happy with whatever is his "place in caste heirarchy",
anyone heard any complaints from him? Why would his place is caste heirarchy
stop him from studing Islam? He did study many other things. And by the way,
it is finally Sita Ram Goel, a vaishya, and his other vaishya-kAyastha
colleagues of UP-dillI who ignited the true study of enemy, and thus the Hindu
revival now doubtful.


"Absence of organization. The idea of mass religious organization transcending
barriers of geography and ethnicity is usually unknown to "heathens" Built upon
multicultural structures, monolith formation becomes difficult for him."

Whatever the explanation, you do now see that almost no heathens did do what you
expect brAhmaNa-s to have done. I do consider this as a failing on his part,
and a great failing, but not his alone. Let us move on.

I don't see any reason you have served by quoting English translation of some
three snippets from bIjaka. This is what I had said: "In above 85% of bIjaka he
is fighting the strawmen of "gorakha" and "avadhUta", and not a Brahmin; ... but
to the disappointment of modern counter-brahmin casteists not so much about
untouchability."

And I reiterate the above along with some statistics. Of over 250 compositions
in bIjaka, there are total of about TWELVE in which kabIra addresses a "paNDita"
or "pANDe". Of these twelve, only 2 mention untouchability. The main bulk of
bIjaka, especially the parts where kabIra is most critical and typically acidic,
it is NOT the "caste system" and such, but, like I earlier told you, vAhyAchAra
and karmakANDa. And a large bulk of the rest of bIjaka criticism is addressed
not to brAhmaNa-s but to the nAtha-s (addressed as "gorakha" or "avadhUta"). So
while I am not sure if you still got the point, but what I am saying is this:
The caste business is just far too low on his priorities, almost absent when you
put it in kabIra's thought as a whole, and the phenomenon of kabIra is not
driven by so-fantacised "caste reaction", but of a much higher purpose and
complex chemistry.

Now, since you quoted the translation, I must point out something else too. You
quoted:

"from, since you believe in it. Mix red juice, white juice and air- a body bakes
in a body. As soon as the eight lotuses are ready, it comes into the world. Then
what's untouchable. Eighty four hundred thousand vessels decay into dust, while
the potter keeps slapping clay on the wheel, and with a touch cuts each one off.
We eat by touching, we wash by touching, from a touch the world was born. So
who's untouchable, asks Kabir. Only he who has no taint of maya"

"The Bijak of Kabir, Linda Hess, Sukhdev Singh, MLBD, p.17 "

The above is a HORRIBLE, and to anyone having even basics idea of medieval
Northern IE, a

total mis-translation!!!

I have not seen the Hess book, nor desire to, but if above is a right sample
then I just wonder if this is on what our westerns Indologists base their
assessment of kabIra!!! No wonder their conclusions are so ridiculous.

Let me demostrate using this example alone. While you did not quote the original
reference, as far as I can make it by randomly scanning, the above is 41st
shabada of bIjaka (kabIra-chaurA kAshI edition), and the original texts goes
something like:

paNDita dekhahu mana mahi jAni
kahu dhauM cHUti kahAMte upajI tabahi cHUta tuma mAnI
bAde bande rudhira ke saMge ghaTahI mai ghaTa sapachai
asTa kavala hvai puhumI AyA cHUti kahAM te upajai
lakha chaurAsI nAnA bAsana so sabha bhari bho mATI
ekai pATa sakala baiThA.e cHuta leta dhauM kAkI
cHUtihi jevana cHUtihi aMchavana cHUtihi jagata upAyA
kahahi kabIra te cHUti bibarajita jAke saMga na mAyA

Proper translation should be: "Look here paNDita, and consider it over in your
mind. Say, from where does this pollution originate, from which moment do you
consider a being polluting to touch? Isn't every beaing ('including you' is the
sense) that is born, conceived in blood by mingling (of raja and vIrya),
nourished in the womb, and when ready, born by passing through the orifice of
the aShTa-kamala (meaning vagina). (Now, this being the same for every being
that is born) who is polluting to touch? Does'nt That Potter (God) create all
the vessels on the same potters-wheel using the same clay that each of the
Eighty-Four Lakh vessels (meaning all the creatures of different yoni-s) is
reduced to? Then which one would you avoid to touch? By touch alone can you
eat, by touch alone can you wash yourself, indeed the whole business of life
goes on by touch alone! Says kabIra, those who have transcended the mAyA itself
should find nothing untouchable."

Go figure out the difference between what Hess told you and the above. I will
not go and look up other quotations, but am happy that I dont need a Linda Hess
to tell me what kabIra is saying.

"But she (mIrA) is a woman who faces discrimination from male and brahmin
priests"

O My Goodness! So mIrA, if not a low caste, is accepted in the fold of ravidAsa
because she is a suppressed woman!!! Co-opt and bring in the feminist
"subaltern" where casteist one does not work!

If Caste and Gender Suppression is all that matters, what explains kabIra's
preferance for a high caste male, that is santa dharmadAsa, to be declared his
heir? What explains AmanadevI, sahajobAI and dayAbAI, who were highcaste
females being appointed by their high caste guru-s as their heirs? What
explains a large high caste male following of kabIra and ravidAsa in their own
time?

" Do you mean to say, no upper caste and brahmin expressed
disapproval of any lower caste sect and all such claims are historical
fabrications of marxist historians?"

Those who expressed disapproval of kabIra and others did so not on grounds of
his caste, but for the principles of his teaching. Same way when kabIra is
expressing his disapprovals, it is not because of the caste of his or his
opponents, but on their principles and beleifs. Seeking "Casteism" in the whole
high affair is, like Ramesh Ji said in a different post, in minds of the
casteists and not in those of kabIra and his opponents.

Let me give you an example. tulasIdAsa disagrees with kabIra that "rAma" is
just nirguNa, is not that prince whose father was dasharatha and who slayed
rAvaNa, so he does critique kabIra in his mAnasa using a dialogue between
mahAdeva and umA, and proposes his own explanantion how "rAma" is both a nirguNa
rAma of kabIra and a saguNa of his own, and also beyond both. But in this,
there is no criticism of his being of lower caste and being a teacher. Why, he
first prays to a low-caste vAlmIki in the preface of mAnasa, seeks first his
forgiveness for having to create another rAmAyaNa while the work of vAlmIki was
blameless and perfect.

"Did it not occur to you that why were precisely such bhakti movements totally
absent for over two milleniums."

And did it occur to you before you accepted this for a fact that these movements
were "totally absent for over two milleniums", that the reality could have been
different?

In eyes of Marxists, kabIra and ravidAsa simply happened as a social reaction
out of caste dynamics, and Islam showed them the way!! They just don't know
that the total lineage of this thought is extremely old. Some however do. Even
a Marxist scholar, though a more honest than the rest, rAhula sAMkR^ityAyana has
shown with his own discoveries of many apabhraMsha texts from nepAla, triviTapa
and siMhala, that were considered lost, that these alternative movements not
only pre-existed in India when Islam was not even born, but have left their
sound textual footprints since at least 6-7th century. And then too, it does
not mean their origin from then - because they had no respect for textual
collections, redactions and scholarship, that their earlier footprints are less
evident or absent. (Even kabIra did not compile any of his words. He was an
illiterate. It was his high caste disciple dharmadAsa who compiled what he
could find, in bIjaka. Same way as nAnaka and others of this line compiled
nothing).

I will give you one example, just using the above of your bIjaka quotation whose
translation I provided above. Compare the argument of kabIra with this 7-8th
century apabhraMsha pada:

brahmaNehi bha jADanta hi me.u
evai paDhia.i e chau ve.U
maTTI pANI kusa la.i paDhanta
gharahi basai aggi huNanta
kajjai virahai hua.vaha home
akkhi DahAvi.a kaDue dhumme

"brAhmaNa-s are said to have issued from the mouth of bramhA; so it maybe in
those days but today aren't they born just like anyone else, then how come are
they gaing their sacred privilages (by birth)? Maybe it is because of the
saMsakAra-s they become sacred, if so, I say give the same saMsakAra-s to all,
and let all become sacred! Maybe then that it is because of the karma, of
holding kusha and water in hand and pouring dhR^ita in holy fire, if so, I say
allow everyone to do that and gain mukti; But Hey I know, by this type of ya~jna
no mukti is gained, maybe just some strain in the eyes from all that bitter
smoke."

Now, this, written by not any low-caste, but sarahapAda, a learned brAhmaNa
himself. He criticises his fellow brAhmaNa-s, not due to any "social science"
related compulsion but because of his spiritual-ideological position. (Of
course he was out-casted due to rejecting to follow his jAti dharma, and he is
fine with it)

So such "rebel" tradition is of course not only present, but those who have
studied it find it wide spread, and continued down to the times that marxists
think is a "sudden eruption of social reaction" into something called a bhakti
movement. I can provide you with several examples of pre-Islamic period where
the "rebel" of same vareities are to be found.

"Historical interpretation demands application of social and economic
conditions which fueled bhakti"

And I never said it does not. I am only saying that historical interpretation
does not mean negating the fact that primary driver of bhakti movement is
spiritual seeking, all else was secondary. But then that is not the marxisrt
template of things where all actions are reactions of some eternal class war of
good and evil.

and so on in which they are situated. And by the way bhakti, especially of
nirguNa ones, did not remove an intermediary between seeker and godhead. It just
replaced a priest with a superhuman "guru".

"Where do I find Palatuvani? Kindly suggest a source"
In two Hindi volumes under that title, published by kAshI nAgarI prachAriNI
sabhA.

"While Sant Kabir's social criticisms are very popular, there are only very
few takers of his spiritual/metaphysical view among the Hindus and almost none
among the muslims today."

But unlike the myth, there never were any Moslem takers of Kabir. Among them
though his son is a celebrated "Kamil Faqir" but not Kabir!
Kabir in his own life had disowned and denounced his son Kamal, who is today
revered by Moslems as a sufi. There are Kabir's own sayings recorded against
Kamal such as "bUDA bansa kabIra kA upajA pUta kamAla": 'Says Kabir consider my
bloodline finished, such is the son born to me'; and he publicly declared a
vaishya shiShya, dharmadAsa, to be his successor after him.
On the other hand, all the Sant Mat in North with its numerous varieties, is but the doing of
Kabir's thought alone.

Bhakta Mala says that the "bhakti" born in South was imported to North by
Ramanand, but it was Kabir who made it accessible throughout "the seven
continents and nine divisions".

(upajI bhakti drAviDI laye rAmAnnda,
kabirA tAhi prakAsiya sAta-dvIpa nava-khaNDa)

"Kabir Das, for example, called himself a child of Ram and Allah."

Neither Kabir's Ram was the Ram of Ramayana, nor his Allah the Allah of Qoran.
Whenever he uses any of these symbols he does so allegorically. For instance
when he says "Nabi" he does not mean the prophet but Aj~nA-chakra. ("kabirA
nainon bIcha nabI hai") In this he is only following the tradition of sahaja
yogis from at least 7th centuries of utilizing double meaning sAndhya bhAShA
which commoners will interpret in one way and initiated in another.

"This shows that he had never bothered to understand either
the Quran or the Ramayana."

He never read Qoran. But he did read Ramayana as he refers to many characters
(Ravan, Sita, Dasharatha) and its events throughout his sayings.

"A silence would have been understandable but declaring Allah to
be one's parent is a sign of Islamic conditioning."

Of course it is, but why forget that Kabir was born a Musalman, in a
semi-converted first generation Moslem family. In fact, he goes against his new
religion of birth back to the path of his grandparents, the nAtha yoga, is
something to marvel at, not at his Islamic conditioning which is natural anyways
as he was born a musalman.

"But Kabir Das would show his "courage" towards the defenseless Brahmins
by satirizing them even though the Brahmins were facing the brunt of the Islamic
sword"

Just 6/7 out of 300+ padas of bIjaka are addressed to the brahmin, and not more
than 4 are satiring the paNDita (not brahmin), and satiring not for anything
else but spiritual-ideological difference. Such as, in example of "paNDita lAde
baila..", he is criticising the preference of paNDita for scholarship over
spirituality. In about 3 padas of bIjaka he does criticise what can be called
Brahmin, for the untouchability.

Correction in what I had written:
"But he did read Ramayana as he refers to many characters
(Ravan, Sita, Dasharatha) and its events throughout his sayings."

Kabir was illiterate, so could have read nothing. What I meant was awareness
not reading.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Indi ... ssage/8988

The following are a couple of translations from bijak:

Kabir to moslems slaughtering cows

O ignorant foolish idiots!
Not knowing Rama to be in each breath
You pounce upon helpless cows
and slaughter them slitting their throat!
You take life out of a living being
and say you have made it halal !!
That meat which you praise as Pak
Have you considered its origin?
Listen is it not produced by that semen
(which is considered dirty in Islam)
but you hapily eat that unholy thing calling it Pak!
You do not see your own dirty deeds
(and call us dirty)
I say murder of his be on your hands
whose teachings you follow

"It is surprisingly brutally written"

Kabir certainly comes out as brutal, harsh, stern, rude, and polemical in his
criticisms; but that is far from surprising. This way of speech, along with
esoteric sAndhya bhAShA, is common with the other nAtha and sahaja mystics of
which line he was but one. This type of crude language is also natural
considering the social and educational level of Kabir and the kind of gentry
among which he lived and worked. However in spite of this, in Kabir we also
find along with this rudeness, a great and gentle feminity which comes out when
he speaks of meditation, love, devotion, longingness, and unconditional
submission towards Rama and towards his Master; in fact this is the dominant
face of Kabir but few care to see that face. One good analysis of Kabir's
thought that I have seen is from Acharya Rajanish, where he rightly says that in
Kabir as if two distinct personalities coexist, a manly Nanak and a feminine
Mira, both together in one. However, the most scholarly, outstanding and
complete research on Kabir so far is by Acharya Prof. Hazari Prasad Dwivedi
("Kabir", Banaras Hindu University Press, 1941), which is in Hindi and not yet
translated in English.

"How can we be sure that that is what Kabir wrote? Are there any references?"

The passage I had quoted in devanagari is from Bijaka, sabada #85; translation
mine.

Kabir - abandon Qoran come utter the Ramanama

What Miracle of Qoran you so much gloat about Qazi!
In reciting that book your folks waste their days upon days, (I have seen) not
one of them gaining any spiritual progress!

Qazi, enough already of your murderous creed, even now abandon Qoran, come and
utter the Ramanama
Bhakti is the last resort let Kabir tell you, but when do Qazis heed in their
crazyness!

You won't find Gandhi ever telling Muslims to abandon the Quran and take to chanting Ramanama.

Nanak belonged to the same tradition (Kabir is the largest contributor excluding the Guru's themselves in the Guru Granth Sahib) along with many others.

[Prem]

Whenever an Indic say Allah using poetic liberty , he or she is referring to Parbrahm applying Indic atributes and nothing else. This aint the Allah of Qoran or any Semetic God which is a specific entity or phenomenon with specific qualities, localties, formalities subject to duality.

[ManuT]

Bji
Would you consider Maulana Azad to be part of this cohort, because there are 2 problems with him.

1. By holding the last 30 pages of his book it was in the news when they were initialy published as a low blow i.e. by releasing the pages after death he excused himself from being for cross examined.

 2. He was the education minister, and had issues with part of history of freedom struggle. I do not know if this was a one of case or a pattern.

I am trying to understand you bring him as a 'witness' for which side, and in the light of above 2 statements (which are no surprise to you) would you consider him to be a 'reliable witness'.

[ManuT]

Sursena ji,
To begin with, I would imagine, Nirgun and Sagun to be two opposite premises. You are free to choose.

The other thing in the article I could follow in a quick read is, a condemnation of beef eating specific to Muslims. Or you can take expand it a little bit and say it promotes vegetarianism (a condemnation of the inherent brutality of animal killing) otherwise it turns into a chicken ok beef not ok, kind of an argument.

About Nanak I have a view different than yours.. Of course I need to read more, but he Nanak was someone who questioned and tried to apply reason in his quest to existing moores like watering his fields in Punjab from banaras, see if it works. Also, his travels to other lands (which would be considered distant lands in his time), in his spiritual journey.

Secularism has different models. History itself is secular, unless stated with a view to shaping an agenda. Quoting the much respected Jagunath Sarkar here, which IMO sets a pretty high bar.

I would not care whether truth is pleasant or unpleasant, and in consonance with or opposed to current views. I would not mind in the least whether truth is or is not a blow to the glory of my country. If necessary, I shall bear in patience the ridicule and slander of friends and society for the sake of preaching truth. But still I shall seek truth, understand truth, and accept truth. This should be the firm resolve of a historian.

I am only learning here, and have been doing it for some time. No doubt it is shaped by my experiences some random, some pre-determined for me. The people from the past have put out their markers, their ideas, based on information available to them. It is worthwhile to read them. Reading about them is only a step, but it is not a ladder in itself. Doesn't mean anything till it is practiced, corrected and refined.

[ManuT]

Jhujar ji
Can we call it conditioning due to local conditions. Even in ignorance, but maybe the same entity is being refferred to i.e. if it exists, it would be the same. The eternal force, energy with the power of creating and destroying universes. Believers cannot hold the entity accountable to their idea of the entity, only the other way, I would imagine.

[brihaspati]

Bji
Would you consider Maulana Azad to be part of this cohort, because there are 2 problems with him.

1. By holding the last 30 pages of his book it was in the news when they were initialy published as a low blow i.e. by releasing the pages after death he excused himself from being for cross examined.

2. He was the education minister, and had issues with part of history of freedom struggle. I do not know if this was a one of case or a pattern.

I am trying to understand you bring him as a 'witness' for which side, and in the light of above 2 statements (which are no surprise to you) would you consider him to be a 'reliable witness'.

I think I had once raised his controversial standpoints on certain things concerning the direction/fate/desirable outcome for Islam on the subcontinent. But did he whitewash? That would be debatable - he usually avoided that aspect altogether.

Regarding his post mortem burqa opening clause : it was long suspected that he might have things unpalatable for the dynasty. This led to panicked queries from certain quarters to his publishers on the eve of full release. The query itself was most revealing - apparently, it asked for assurance that nothing nasty was said of JLN. So the main obsession seems to be not about history - but preservation of mythical images of icons long physically dead.

His behaviour about keeping it for after his death, is understandable for me. He was showing a peculiar idealist commitment to solidarity - often at the cost of loss of personal integrity, and knowing well that a grave injustice was being done in keeping this solidarity. I have seen it first hand in some of the younger remnants of these circles. It probably came out of a tough fight with the colonial gov, where they had to put trust in the unity of the group above everything else. Band of brothers stuff.

He solved his moral dilemma by not betraying the "honour code" as a living person. There are some clues in certain strands of Islamic belief that would explain such a thought process. However, his other part of idealism and conscience would also make him feel guilty at being part of something that he saw as a larger betrayal to the "cause". He did what would be like a confessional.

I have great doubts about his Islamic beliefs. But the fact that he wrote what he wrote, shows his intense internal battle. Even if he wrote it to absolve himself from Partition and its trauma, it shows that he did feel guilty and bad about it - something, I do not see in JLN. Never and ever - he takes it rather coolly, ordering shooting of Hindu mobs bent on taking revenge on Muslims, while keeping mum and even giving legalese excuses for not initiating or urging similar action against Muslim mobs - and the unpardonable statement about the feminized nation simply suffering a natural birth-pang - thereby no-one being responsible after all.

Ten years ago, I had a rather black and white view of him. Ironically, as my clarity and hardening of stance with regard to the generic maulanas has increased, I have found an increasing appreciation of this man as a human who at least faces up to his guilt. Not seen in JLN.

[member_19686]

About nirguna and saguna, there are many discussions including by Surdas where he posits Kabir as his imaginary opponent and justifies both.

Tulsidas likewise discusses how his Ram is both saguna and nirguna and also beyond both.

Shankaradeva of Asom, several aspects of his thought were nirguna but other aspects were saguna.

About beef and chicken, well Kabir was personally an advocate of vegetarianism.

But all this is going OT, if you want to find out more then the best way in addition to reading the originals (Bijak, SGGS etc) in their original language (if you can because translations are often distorted especially that Linda Hess translation of the Bijak), also Hazari Prasad Dwivedi's Kabir and Prof Rizvi's Alakh Vani and his 2 volumes on the Sufis are helpful.

But my own point was more about how they differed from Gandhi, Gandhi's main plank was Hindu-Muslim unity at all costs even if it means the extermination of Hindus (no exaggeration) and he wouldn't utter a word about any unsavory aspects of Islam or Muslim behavior.

The nirguna sants never made Hindu-Muslim harmony or "tolerance" their main plank though that is the image promoted, in fact they were quiet virulent in their criticism of whatever they found objectionable in any tradition and Islam too was not spared of criticism. Go through the collected works of Gandhi and see if you can find anything remotely similar to what Kabir is saying to the mullah's, in fact had Kabir lived then and said the things he did then Gandhi would have labelled him as an intolerant Hindu fanatic or "misguided" (he did say Guru Gobind Singh, Rana Pratap,and Shivaji were "misguided" patriots).

[ManuT]

Bji,

That explains the first part, and for other stuff, I might bother you again later. Thanks for responding to my queries.

Here is the second part, maybe you are unaware.
This is from RC Majumdar part of his eulogy for Dr K M Munshi.

Our discussion on some disputed points of what I worte was always carried on in a very cordial spirit. He used to read the type-script of each volumne before it was published. Occasionally, though very rarely, when he felt some difficulty in accepting some statement in any volume, he discussed the matter with me. There was a tacit understanding between us that no objection would be made to any statement based on fact and supported by reasonable argument. In other words, we both agreed to accept, without hesitation, whatever is proved to be true by all canons of historical criticism, however unpleasant or disagreeable it might appear to us. I specially lay stress on this point, as I have from personal experience that men in high position in India seldom exhibit this spirit. When. as the Whole time Director, I prepared a draft of the History of the Freedom Movement in India, sponsored by the Government of India, I met with constant interference and obstruction from men in authority, having no knowledge of history, and I could not help contrasting their attitude with that of Dr K M Munshi. When this unpleasant situation was reported to Munshiji by an important member of the Board of Directors for the compilation of the History of the Freedom Movement in India, Mushiji said: "Leave the matter of writing to Dr Majumdar as I have done, and don't interfere with his freedom subject to the final discussion and decision by the Board of Editors". If Munshiji's advice were followed, the History of the Freedom Movement would have been published fifteen years before it has been actually published, and several lakhs of rupees would have been saved.

Rest I pieced together from wiki, as to who was the person was.

[brihaspati]

ManuT ji,
I am aware of quite a bit about R.C.Majumdar's relationship with the early post-independence gov. For various reasons, I am aware of quite a bit of RCM, Jadunath Sarkar, or Kalikinkar Dutta. If you are guessing the interference only lay at the door of the Maulana, you would be wrong. Maulana, most of the time was the messenger, and a diffident one at that. One who almost always gave up his position to desperate demands. But I think I explicitly expressed my doubts over his vision for Islam and Islamism for the subcontinent. So I am not whitewashing him in everything.

As for history of independence, it is yet to be properly written, and will never be possible until the very roots of congrezism gets removed. RCM could only do so far and not more. If you collate all the info available for every issue in the freedom movement, you will see that the picture on ground was far different from the personal hagiograpies we are demanded of, to submit to.

What you are perhaps heading towards - is something that is coming up repeatedly in the BD trial of war-crimes: the reliability of a witness based on aspects of his supposed character not related to the alleged crime at hand. The standrad procedure for witness acts in most countries is that just because say a witness was once reported to have stolen a cock/hen, his testimony in a murder trial where he has ample reasons to be present - is not thrown away. The witness needs to be cross-examined on the specific issue of the murder and the court needs to be assured of his testimony in the matter at hand.

Whether he stole a hen or an egge has no bearing on this.

[ramana]

Surasena, I don't understand why you bring in Hindu philosophy in every thread and quote OT links to the thread topic. Please exercise some restraint or else all the threads become Hindu philosophooey threads.