A look back at the partition

[gandharva]

THE BUSINESS OF BLAMING THE BRITISH

http://voiceofdharma.com/books/muslimsep/ch4.htm


FAILURE OF BRITISH POLICY ON ALL OTHER FRONTS

The British had practised their policy of divide-and-rule not only between Hindus and Muslims; they had also tried to set several sections of Hindu society against each other. They had tried to embitter the ‘Dravidian South’ against the ‘Aryan North’ by selling the story of an ‘Aryan invasion’ even to our school-going children. They had encouraged the so-called scheduled castes and scheduled tribes to break away from the so-called caste Hindus. The princes had been isolated from their own people, and ‘native India’ from ‘British India’. The ‘martial races’ had been demarcated from ‘non-martial’ communities, and the ‘agriculturalist masses’ from ‘non-agriculturist classes’. The ‘non-Brahmins had been instigated against the Brahmins. Some Sikh scholars had been egged upon to protest that the Sikhs were not a section of Hindu society. Resentment had been inspired against ‘Bengali imperialism’ in Assam, Bihar and Orissa, and against ‘Tamil domination’ in Kannada, Malayalam and Telegu speaking areas. The cinders of some of those flames ignited by the British continue to fly in our faces every now and then, even after independence.

But when the chips were down and the British got ready to go, all these mutual misgivings were overcome. All segments of Hindu society closed their ranks and stood united like a solid phalanx. It was only the Muslim community which stood apart and stuck out like a sore thumb. The British policy of divide-and-rule had failed everywhere except among the Muslims. We have to find out the facts and forces which made the difference.


FAULTY PERCEPTIONS OF NATIONAL LEADERSHIP

The basic perception that the British policy of divide-and-rule did not make much difference to the Hindu-Muslim relations becomes clear if we reverse the context, and consider those policies which were evolved and pursued by the national leaders themselves entirely on their own, and which went a long way in promoting Partition. The British had absolutely no hand in inspiring or shaping those surrenders which the Indian National Congress made before the Muslim leaders at different stages. And those policies were endorsed by the tallest and the topmost among the national leaders.

Shri Seshadri has listed and commented upon many of these mistaken policies. But those great leaders of a great people have not suffered the slightest diminution in his estimation. He has not cast a single aspersion on their large-heartedness or their good intentions. All that he has done is to point out that good intentions alone are no guarantee of good results, more so when the vision falters due to faulty perceptions or lack of proper reflection.

We may add a word in order to emphasize that a bitter or indignant or value-loaded lament over British policies of divide-and-rule is neither here nor there, even when those policies did cause some great damage. The British had not come to India for picking roses. They had not come to India because they had fallen for her fauna and flora, or her folk dances, or her mysticism and metaphysics. On the contrary, they had come here for the very prosaic purpose of conquering, consolidating and conserving an empire which had proved progressively more profitable to them, and which was soon to catapult them from the status of a second-rate European nation to that of the most formidable world-power. They would not have been worth their salt if they had not played the patent game of all imperialists, in all ages. Blaming the British on that count is tantamount to conceding, in the first instance, the British claim that they had a civilizing mission in India, and then complaining that they had not lived upto that claim. The entire exercise is infantile and extremely puerile.

[SSridhar]

THE BUSINESS OF BLAMING THE BRITISH

http://voiceofdharma.com/books/muslimsep/ch4.htm


FAILURE OF BRITISH POLICY ON ALL OTHER FRONTS

The British had practised their policy of divide-and-rule not only between Hindus and Muslims; they had also tried to set several sections of Hindu society against each other. They had tried to embitter the ‘Dravidian South’ against the ‘Aryan North’ by selling the story of an ‘Aryan invasion’ even to our school-going children. They had encouraged the so-called scheduled castes and scheduled tribes to break away from the so-called caste Hindus. The princes had been isolated from their own people, and ‘native India’ from ‘British India’. . . . . The cinders of some of those flames ignited by the British continue to fly in our faces every now and then, even after independence.

This is absolutely true. The Three Round Table Conferences were a total disaster. The INC did not participate in the first. The Second and Third were deadlocked over allocation of seats between Hindus and Muslims and various other issues. The Muslims were fighting among themselves too. The Muslim League, then being led by Aga Khan and Fazl-i-Husain, effectiely shut up Jinnah who was there only at he invitation of the Viceroy, not as a Muslim league delegate. Ramsay McDonald, the then Prime Minister of GB, threatened that he would unilaterally announce his own decision if no progress was made. In the meanwhile Aga Khan submitted a petition to McDonald, responding to which he said, he was determined to "protect the minorities from a tyrannical use of democracy expressing itself solely through majority power". It was the same Aga Khan-led representation of elite Muslims that in c. 1906 met Viceroy Minto and extracted a similar promise from him. After the failure of the Third Round Table Conference in 1932, McDonald did announce his Communal Award, true to his word.

The INC was shocked because the British did not limit themselves to Hindus and Muslims. They wanted to divide the 'tyrannical' Hindus by treating the 'Depressed Classes' of the Hindus as a separate political entity. Following the Gandhi-Ambedkar Pact in Pune, which the British government accepted, the Depressed Classes were allowed to remain as part of General Electorate.

[Sanku]

Would you have known any of this but for this thread?

And for Jassoo's book (which no one would have read otherwise) and his expulsion?

[Philip]

In the other thread on the book,I've shown how JS starts with the events pof 1857,the so-called "Mutiny" (First War of Independence),where to the utter horor of the British,"Mohammedans" joined forces with "caste Hindus" and almost defeated the British.From that time onwards,British paranoia that Hindu-Muslim unity would one day throw them out of India was paramount and they did everything to prevent that from happening,using the "divide and rule" policy pro-actively wherever possible.

In other parts of the Empire as well as India,the British/Europeans had intermarried with the natives.During the days of "John Company" (east India Co.),such intermarriage was encouraged.This resulted in a new ethnic group initially called "Eurasians",later "Anglo-Indians",and many such families came from the highest stock.Intermarriage took place at all levels including royalty.Many Europeans married into native royal familes .Lord Liverpool's (the longest serving British PM) grandmother was a Bengali lady.In fact,many British and European families had thanks to events of the time,Indian blood in them! Some examples below:

The historian Willian Dalrymple, who stumbled across a Bengali ancestor while he was undertaking research for his book White Mughals.

Nicolette Sheridan from Desperate Housewives and (previously) Knots Landing, whose great-grandmother was Punjabi.

Lord Liverpool, British Prime Minister from 1812-1827, who had Indian ancestry via his mother’s side of the family.

The actress Diana Quick, via her paternal family.

The model & presenter Melanie Sykes, whose mother is Anglo-Indian.

The impressionist Alistair McGowan, who has Bengali ancestry on the paternal side of his family.

The actress Rhona Mitra, who has also has Bengali ancestry on the paternal side of her family.

The late actor Boris Karloff, whose had both Bengali and Anglo-Indian ancestors.

The late actress Merle Oberon, born in Bombay, who had Sri Lankan ancestors via her Anglo-Ceylonese mother.

Gen.Dupleix's wife,"Begum Jeanne", had both Portugese and Indian ancestry too.

Col.James Skinner,famous cavalrymen (Skinner's Horse-Indian Army) reportedly had 14 wives and 80 children!

George Dick (well named!) Gov. of Bombay,Job Charnock (founder of Calcutta),Sir David Ochterlony-Resident of Delhi, and even Governor General from 1793-98 Lord Teignmouth (Foreign Bible Society founder) had native wives and mistresses!

In more recent times,famous entertainers Englebert Humperdinck (Arnold Goerge Dorsey from Madras) and Cliff Richards (Harry Roger Webb from Lucknow) are both Anglo-Indians.

Due to a revolt against the British in another corner of empire,where the mixed community had turned against their British masters,an abrupt about turn took place.The practice of co-habiting with natives was firmly put down.White women were imported from Britain and Europe for finding their matches with Britishers in India,to prevent the so-called "half-castes" from going "native"! A clear line was drawn between blue-blooded British and all the other ethnic groups in India,"who could not be trusted".These ethnic groups and minorities were each fed on their individual identities to prevent them from uniting against the British.

It was in this community-divided India, that our freedom fighters rose from ,and united themselves in an effort to throw off the yoke of the British.Unfortunately,the divisions were too deep and the leaders as we well know could not bridge the gap of mistrust,especially Jinnah and his ML,that they would get a fair deal in an Independent India where they would be in a minority.The British fed those fears and nurtured the divisions that eventually saw India partitioned.

[Pranav]

The interesting thing is that the British were supporting the replacement of the Caliphate by Ataturk. So what emerges is that Jinnah was promoting British interests, irrespective of whether he was against the Caliph or for the partition!

Jinnah Was Secular at One Time: KS Sudarshan ex RSS Sarsanghchalak

"Jinnah had many facets. If you read history then you will come to know that Jinnah was with Lok Manya Tilak and was totally dedicated to the nation. And when Gandhi started the Khilafat movement, with the idea that currently we are opposing the British and if Muslims join in then their support will help gain independence. But at that time Jinnah opposed it saying that if the Caliph in Turkey has been dethroned what has India got to do with it. That time nobody listened to him, which saddened him. So he quit the Congress and left for England and only returned in 1927," said Sudarshan.

Something funny is surely on! I am trying to step back from the debate and take a bird's eye view of the larger picture and things are not really that clear. Lots of smoke and mirrors abound.

[RayC]

I am very interested in knowing what the Indic, Hinduvta and professed RSS stalwarts have to say of this:

Former RSS chief K S Sudarshan, on being asked whether Jinnah was secular, said Jinnah had many facets and at one time was totally committed to the nation.

Jinnah was secular - Former RSS Chief

[satya]

Saw the clip where Sh. KS Sudharshanjee made some comments about Indian Freedom & Jinnah , remarkable was his clarity & confidence in putting his views forward & in a very clear cut way no ifs n doubts. No wonder Sh. Arun Shouriejee wants RSS to take over BJP .

[Yayavar]

I am very interested in knowing what the Indic, Hinduvta and professed RSS stalwarts have to say of this:

Former RSS chief K S Sudarshan, on being asked whether Jinnah was secular, said Jinnah had many facets and at one time was totally committed to the nation.

Jinnah was secular - Former RSS Chief

Isn't KS Sudarshan Indic, Hindutava, RSS stalwart? Or, are you asking if there were dissenting voices from vhp/rss?

[ramana]

Philip thanks for pointing out the ancestry of those folks. Also we shouldnt forget the erudite Frank Anthony the MP for so many years. I recall two Anglo_indians who made an imapct on my youth. The first was Miss Jean Patrick we used to call Jean Teacher. Her father was an Inspector in old Hyderabad State and sometime in early 60s they migrated to Australia. Jean Teacher encouraged reading beyond the school curriculum which instilled in me a love for reading. The other teacher was Miss Collins who taught math in the early grades. She too went off to Australia. I feel sad when I read about the racist attacks on Indians in Australia for these had gone their in search of better opportunities.

[RayC]

Isn't KS Sudarshan Indic, Hindutava, RSS stalwart? Or, are you asking if there were dissenting voices from vhp/rss?

No I was wondering of the stalwarts here!

[RayC]

Philip thanks for pointing out the ancestry of those folks. Also we shouldnt forget the erudite Frank Anthony the MP for so many years. I recall two Anglo_indians who made an imapct on my youth. The first was Miss Jean Patrick we used to call Jean Teacher. Her father was an Inspector in old Hyderabad State and sometime in early 60s they migrated to Australia. Jean Teacher encouraged reading beyond the school curriculum which instilled in me a love for reading. The other teacher was Miss Collins who taught math in the early grades. She too went off to Australia. I feel sad when I read about the racist attacks on Indians in Australia for these had gone their in search of better opportunities.

If you check the Anglo Indian websites, they effuse their emotions of their attachment to India.

No longer are they of the opinion of 'going back home'!

I remember my AI teacher with fondness!

[Sanku]

Isn't KS Sudarshan Indic, Hindutava, RSS stalwart? Or, are you asking if there were dissenting voices from vhp/rss?

No I was wondering of the stalwarts here!

I dont know who are the stalwarts there, but I can say that this is what JS says. This is what the RSS line has been all along (Arun Shourie's article on JS book)

I dont see an issue with saying that Jinaah was a moderate at one point of time. In fact the book by JS is the chronicle of how he changed and the exploration thereof.

---------------

Meanwhile the important thing is not that RSS said what it said, that is obvious and everyone knows, the question is why did it say it now post Jaswant.

[SBajwa]

Sir David Ochterlony

William Fraser and David Ochterlony lived in Delhi (Before 1857) with native wives. Ochterlony was called as "Loony Akhtar sahib" by Indians. While William Fraser was a lonely drunkard whom Mirza Ghalib called "Friend" and Fraser often Supplied Whiskey to Ghalib (whenever he got a fresh stock from Calcutta).

[svinayak]

Sir David Ochterlony

William Fraser and David Ochterlony lived in Delhi (Before 1857) with native wives. Ochterlony was called as "Loony Akhtar sahib" by Indians. While Mirza Ghalib would go to William Fraser asking for Whiskey.

Dont call "native" wives but Indian or Hindu wives.
"Native" is a western terminology giving a notion of lesser person.

[samuel]

Here, in February 1945, is what Baba Ambedkar had to say regarding the Gandhi, Jinnah business in the context of partition:

The Hindus are in the grip of the Congress and the Congress is in the grip of Mr. Gandhi. It cannot be said that Mr. Gandhi has given the Congress the right lead. Mr. Gandhi first sought to avoid facing the issue by taking refuge in two things. He started by saying that to partition India is a moral wrong and a sin to which he will never be a party. This is a strange argument. India is not the only country faced with the issue of partition, or shifting of frontiers based on natural and historical factors to those based on the national factors. Poland has been partitioned three time,s and no one can be sure that there will be no more partition of Poland. There are very few countries in Europe which have not undergone partition during the last 150 years. This shows that the partition of a country is neither moral nor immoral. It is unmoral. It is a social, political or military question. Sin has no place in it.

As a second refuge Mr. Gandhi started by protesting that the Muslim League did not represent the Muslims, and that Pakistan was only a fancy of Mr. Jinnah. It is difficult to understand how Mr. Gandhi could be so blind as not to see how Mr. Jinnah's influence over the Muslim masses has been growing day by day, and how he has engaged himself in mobilizing all his forces for battle. Never before was Mr. Jinnah a man for the masses. He distrusted them./1/ To exclude them from political power he was always for a high franchise. Mr. Jinnah was never known to be a very devout, pious, or a professing Muslim. Besides kissing the Holy Koran as and when he was sworn in as an M.L.A., he does not appear to have bothered much about its contents or its special tenets. It is doubtful if he frequented any mosque either out of curiosity or religious fervour. Mr. Jinnah was never found in the midst of Muslim mass congregations, religious or political.

Today one finds a complete change in Mr. Jinnah. He has become a man of the masses. He is no longer above them. He is among them. Now they have raised him above themselves and call him their Qaid-e-Azam. He has not only become a believer in Islam, but is prepared to die for Islam. Today, he knows more of Islam than mere Kalama. Today, he goes to the mosque to hear Khutba and takes delight in joining the Id congregational prayers. Dongri and Null Bazaar once knew Mr. Jinnah by name. Today they know him by his presence. No Muslim meeting in Bombay begins or ends without Allah-ho-Akbar and Long Live Qaid-e-Azam. In this Mr. Jinnah has merely followed King Henry IV of France—the unhappy father-in-law of the English King Charles I. Henry IV was a Huguenot by faith. But he did not hesitate to attend mass in a Catholic Church in Paris. He believed that to change his Huguenot faith and go to mass was an easy price to pay for the powerful support of Paris. As Paris became worth a mass to Henry IV, so have Dongri and Null Bazaar become worth a mass to Mr. Jinnah, and for similar reason. It is strategy; it is mobilization. But even if it is viewed as the sinking of Mr. Jinnah from reason to superstition, he is sinking with his ideology, which by his very sinking is spreading into all the different strata of Muslim society and is becoming part and parcel of its mental make-up. This is as clear as anything could be. The only basis for Mr. Gandhi's extraordinary view is the existence of what are called Nationalist Musalmans. It is difficult to see any real difference between the communal Muslims who form the Muslim League and the Nationalist Muslims. It is extremely doubtful whether the Nationalist Musalmans have any real community of sentiment, aim, and policy with the Congress which marks them off from the Muslim League. Indeed many Congressmen are alleged to hold the view that there is no different [=difference] between the two, and that the Nationalist Muslim[s] inside the Congress are only an outpost of the communal Muslims. This view does not seem to be quite devoid of truth when one recalls that the late Dr. Ansari, the leader of the Nationalist Musalmans, refused to oppose the Communal Award although it gave the Muslims separate electorates in [the] teeth of the resolution passed by the Congress and the Nationalist Musalmans. Nay, so great has been the increase in the influence of the League among the Musalmans that many Musalmans who were opposed to the League have been compelled to seek for a place in the League or make peace with it. Anyone who takes account of the turns and twists of the late Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan and Mr. Fazlul Huq, the late Premier of Bengal, must admit the truth of this fact. Both Sir Sikandar and Mr. Fazlul Huq were opposed to the formation of branches of the Muslim League in their Provinces when Mr. Jinnah tried to revive it in 1937. Notwithstanding their opposition, when the branches of the League were formed in the Punjab and in Bengal, within one year both were compelled to join them. It is a case of those coming to scoff remaining to pray. No more cogent proof seems to be necessary to prove the victory of the League.

Notwithstanding this Mr. Gandhi, instead of negotiating with Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League with a view to a settlement, took a different turn. He got the Congress to pass the famous Quit India Resolution on the 8th August 1942. This Quit India Resolution was primarily a challenge to the British Government. But it was also an attempt to do away with the intervention of the British Government in the discussion of the Minority question, and thereby securing [=secure] for the Congress a free hand to settle it on its own terms and according to its own lights. It was in effect, if not in intention, an attempt to win independence by bypassing the Muslims and the other minorities. The Quit India Campaign turned out to be a complete failure.

[samuel]

The Mahatma was an amazing and truly blessed Hindu. He brought us together, and others too. But, he failed to defeat islamism that Jinnah took refuge in. It was not Mahatma's personal failure and Jinnah's personal gain. Rather, I contend, it was the lack of a Hindu approach to deal with islamism.

For the Mahatma's method to work it is necessary to subscribe to the approach first. And like Hinduism, the Mahatma had no way to deal with the non-believers. Nothing, just nothing he could do about that but to say "you this mati ka, I this mati ka, one and same". There was no tool to eliminate the islamism threat through direct action as a just resolution, and one can't reason when they go on saying this is my way and that's that, and you can't ignore them in the same space. It's a sure way to lose and that's just what happened to Gandhiji.


Dealing with islamism is a lesson we should've learned a long time ago, but I wonder, I wonder why, it had to repeat in this way. Did no one see it sneaking up with Jinnah early enough?

[brihaspati]

the problem is that of modelling. Hindus tend to model the "other" as themselves. They define and try to understand "Islamism" as a "darshan" in the lineage of the Bharatyia. Even any syncretic tendency, has always been the pacifist and accommodating aspect of "Hindu" or rather Bharatyia approach towards understanding and assimilating "Islamism" - which always failed. A pacifist/accommodating Bharatyia approach works on a similar belief-value-system and not on aggressive proselytizing ones.

In the Partition case, the British education project reinforced this pacifist/accommodating aspect and erased out the militant/intolerant acpect (as this was necessary for Christianization and imperialism) in its reconstruction of "Hinduism". The "Hindu" had to be philosophical, pacifist, and accommodating, and submissive - this is why only the "Bhakti cults" had to be emphasized and projected as the dominant face of "Hindu". The LOI of the time, in spite of all their unifying brilliance, failed to question the British educational project, and failed to question their own understanding based on that education.

The same attitudes and demands on how we see "Islamism" still continues. For otherwise the continued hopes of a neo-imeprialist project on the subcontinent gets dashed.

[ramana]

samuel and brishapati, If anything else both your posts are worth preserving this thread and keeping all the non sequitors out at risk of my being typecast.
Thanks to both of you for your posts. No wonder the Vedics said "Namo Namah!"

You are truly sardaka namas!

[samuel]

So, what is the answer to this question that has caught us in its vice for ages, of which partition was but one example. We have a problem. We don't know how to deal with islamism and that is just what partition was, made feasible by the benevolent British. You can throw personal ambition and other factors in, for example, people were dying for freedom so much as to sacrifice unity, but was that unity ever really there?

We don't know how to fix islamism and this is not a problem that started today.

So, What fundamental principle in the Indian ethos guarantees survival of swraj? That would be a great question to ask in the leadership thread, would you please do the honors brihaspatiji? My own views is that Sikhs have shown us the way.

S

[brihaspati]

will try to put forth my views there! But a brief line of thought here ;

the "dasavatar" concept actually agrees to the "fact" that "dharma" retreats from the face of the earth, repeatedly, almost cyclically. And therefore to "resestablish" it "Vishnu" "descends" in human form. At one stroke this is saying, that "dharma" in itself does not have the component that prevents it from retreating. It needs an external agency or agent to "restore" it. The preservation of "swaraj" is therefore a constant struggle and ever-present vigilance and needs from time to time "action" that is external to "dharma" (not sourced from within dharma itself) to preserve it or restore it.

I am fond of inverting classical imagery and iconography to get at the possible dual meaning. Couldn't we interpret the "avataran" inverted as saying, that from within human leadership and human consciousness comes the necessary action that "restores" dharma when it is seen that "dharma" has weakened and retreated? Any human through whom such action is manifested can be taken to be a manifestation of the "supreme will"! Moreover, "dharma" at that period may not be "strong" enough to provide the necessary source of the action that will restore it to strength.

[RamaY]

S-ji

** Offensive portion removed **. [SSridhar]

Like B_ji said, we must use the right model to understand the problem and implement the solutio with determination. No need for genocides or forced migrations. All it needs is strong thought leadership that can sustain 100 yrs.[

[samuel]

OK, Rama, it has not been that long, in nation terms, since partition. The solutions you propose or we may propose would probably be known then too. It wasn't obvious then, it wasn't picked then, it wasn't ready then, it wasn't reasoned this way then.

We took a route of love and brotherhood that emanated directly from the Mahatma. That method is the ultimate pinnacle of the best of what Hinduism can be to man. It did not conquer islamism. All it took was for a Jinnah and a willing Britain to make a colossal holocaust as partition feasible.

Now, tell me, if this were all that easy, why was it not so prevalent in our Indian ethos that the country said, ah no problem, easy to deal with islamism. You, Brits, you want to dump and leave, ok you go, you want to stay, ok you stay, watch what we do about this separate muslim homeland crap though.

Even today, people say, oh thank goodness there was partition, or these musalmans would come and make our life hell and we would've been no better than somalia (not my words). With that kind of confidence, what, respectfully are you talking about. Can you kindly do this in the leadership thread (or I can move my post there)?

S

[SSridhar]

It is very easy to defeat Islam.

RamaY, I hope you meant to say 'Islamism' and not 'Islam' per se.

[Prem]

For strong leadership with clear view to emerge Ganga Jamuni politics need to be reformed . The dummitude of this belt keep India waste much enegry without purpose.

[RamaY]

S-ji: Devaguru's post answered your point already. I have a question for you and other learned ones. Did indian leadership ever try to remove Islam from sub-continent?

SS-ji: that is nitpicking IMVHO. One doesnt exist without the other.

[svinayak]

the problem is that of modelling. Hindus tend to model the "other" as themselves. They define and try to understand "Islamism" as a "darshan" in the lineage of the Bharatyia. Even any syncretic tendency, has always been the pacifist and accommodating aspect of "Hindu" or rather Bharatyia approach towards understanding and assimilating "Islamism" - which always failed. A pacifist/accommodating Bharatyia approach works on a similar belief-value-system and not on aggressive proselytizing ones.

This is one form of Bharatiya social engineering

[shiv]

Dealing with islamism is a lesson we should've learned a long time ago, but I wonder, I wonder why, it had to repeat in this way. Did no one see it sneaking up with Jinnah early enough?

Samuel I have a take on this - not completely formed in my mind, but the outlines.

If you ask why many civilizations were overrun by Islam and why this did not occur so quickly in India the answer might lie in the fact that it was possible to bend and "corrupt" Islam. Maududi was Islam's reaction to this "corruption" and Jinnah was present at the right time and place to ride on a combined Maududi-British train to divide India.

I stated in another thread and another context that Indians are quick to assign indestructiblility and invincibility to the US and China while india counts for nothing. The same tendency seems to occur when applying the effect of islam in India. The effect of Islam is India is discuused at length without talking too much about the effect of India on islam. It has become, particularly on this forum - almost the hallmark of a traitor, a pseosecularist, an congressite, a dhimmi to claim that India has any effect on Islam. It is however kosher to sidestep that and say "All that is maya. True Islam is like this (blah blah blah) and can never change". IMHO those who take that attitude are missing something.

[gandharva]

Samueal Wrote:

It was not Mahatma's personal failure and Jinnah's personal gain. Rather, I contend, it was the lack of a Hindu approach to deal with islamism.

Something similar here:

THE MAHATMA'S FAILURE : A FAILURE OF HINDU SOCIETY

There is ample evidence in the Mahatma's writings that he could see quite clearly the pattern of perverse behaviour on the part of Muslims. That was at the back of his statement repeated several times, that an average Muslim was a bully and an average Hindu a coward. But he refused to believe that this pattern was derived directly from the teachings of the prophet of India.
That however, is the story of Hindu society in its centuries-old encouter wtih Islam. Hindu society has always viewed Islam through the eyes of its own spirituality. Islam had shown its full face to Hindu society quite early not only in the devil-dance of its swordsmen but also in the pronouncements and prolific writings of its mullas, sufis and historians. But Hindu society had all along failed to draw the right concludions. It had continued to regard Islam as a religion. The folly has persisted till the present time.

Modern Hindu ansd Sikh scholars have done something worse. They have presented Islam not only as a superior religion but also as a superior social system. This is obvious in hundreds of books written by them about the nirguna saints like Kabir and Nanak. These saints alone had the courage to question the exclusive claims of Islam while they sang in the advaitic tunes set by ancient Hindu spirituality. Islam had no impact on their teachings. But modern scholars have paraded these saints as monotheists who were in revolt against the multiplicity of Hindu gods and goddesses, as iconoclasts who were against image-worship in Hindu temples and as social reformers who denounced the so-called caste system under the "influence of an equalitarian Muslim society." The saints have thus been turned into tawdry social reformers. Falsehood can go to farther.

http://voiceofdharma.com/books/pipp/ch7.htm

[Prem]

Shiv Ji,
Did India make Islamists Dharmic ?

[svinayak]

Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Kosla Vepa <[email protected]> wrote:

DR. K, Jaswant Singh's thesis is not at all credible. The most knowledgeable book is that of Narendra Sarila who has the insiders view of the events . MY BOOK THE SOUTH ASIA FILE gives the rationale behind partition. The real truth of the matter is that Britain had long ago decided (in 1857) to encourage the Muslims to separate from India and set up a a Sunni islamic power in the subcontinent. The Brits never trusted the intellectual leadership of India right from the beginning and like all imperial powers denigrated them in many subtle and not so subtle ways. The unfortunate thing is that they succeeded in doing so. This was not out of great love for the muslims (they went on a killing rampage and killed thousand so civilians in Delhi after the great uprising, blinded BAhadur Shah Zafar and killed his sons ) but to use them as a means to check the inevitable showdown with the Hindus. It was then they decided that they would leave a poisons pill behind as a parting gift to India .


They obviously did an excellent job that we are still bickering amongst ourselves as to who did the terrible deed even when it is so obvious . i STRONGLY RECOMMEND all the people who read this to hold your breath (and loosen your wallet) and spring the 500 rs to buy the book (The south asia file) . It is available at several indian outlets. I dont get anything out of this deal , so dont do it for me but to know the truth behind these sordid events. It is not a particularly elevating thought that neither the Indians nor the Pakis had much to do with partition - it was left behind as a poison pill to keep the 2 countries constantly bickering with each other and was preordained as early as 1857. The proof of the pudding will be the contemptuousness with which they will dismiss this book.

http://www.flipkart.com/south-asia-file ... reviewbook

The South Asia File :a Colonial Paradigm Of Indian History Altering The Mindset Of The Indic People
(Hardcover - 2009)
by
Kosla Vepa

The South Asia File :a Colonial Paradigm Of Indian History Altering The Mindset Of The Indic People
Book: The South Asia File :a Colonial Paradigm Of Indian History Altering The Mindset Of The Indic People
Author: Kosla Vepa,
ISBN:818454085X
ISBN-13:
9788184540857
978-8184540857
Binding: Hardcover
Publishing Date: 2009
Publisher: Originals
Number of Pages: 210

[SSridhar]

SS-ji: that is nitpicking IMVHO. One doesnt exist without the other.

No, that is not nitpicking. You were talking of defeating 'Islam' which is unacceptable to this forum. We can discuss issues in a religion, but not defeat of a religion or its banishment from India. Edit your post or I will have the offending portion removed.

[shiv]

Shiv Ji,
Did India make Islamists Dharmic ?

I have written about this in detail in the past in other threads - particularly in the gaming thread. Islam-"ism" is a trick word. An Islamist has a clear mandate to follow a certain narrow path. It is possible that some rules in that path fit in with what is dharmuic. Many other things are adharmic. So the question is like "How many centimeters in a liter of water?"

A lot of dharmic people who became Muslim (by force, trickery or whatever) remained dharmic while under the constant exhortation that they need to flout dharma in favor of dictates from the book. That is a short answer.

More difficult to say is the fact that some rules that became embedded in Islam (perhaps from pre-Islamic tradition) and are followed under islam without question are dharmic from a Hindu viewpoint as well. Respect for elders, the concept of joint families with a patriarchal head produced no conflict. Even if these attributes are not Islamic (and are actually Indic) - they are not actively combated in islam.

Another difficult thing to say without being dubbed a traitor is that in any given ancient Indic population one could hardly have expected every person to be dharmic. Dharma is an ideal to follow and humans can be pretty adharmic. For such adharmic people - accepting adharma would have been easy. By the same token, dharmic people existed among Muslims.

Muslims and Hindus reached a state of coexistence by adjustment under some circumstances and continued to wage war in other circumstances. Neither the coexistence nor the warriors could have been dubbed "dharma versus adharma" unless you say "Hindus are always dharmic" and Muslims are always adharmic". But such a definition is fundamentally wrong IMO. We have always got bogged down in discussions of dharma because in my experience of BRF 90% of people who talk of dharma are unable to state what it is and tend to refer to it as some ethereal ideal that needs to be worshipped unquestioningly without definition.

Totally off topic..

[Sanku]

I am fond of inverting classical imagery and iconography to get at the possible dual meaning. Couldn't we interpret the "avataran" inverted as saying, that from within human leadership and human consciousness comes the necessary action that "restores" dharma when it is seen that "dharma" has weakened and retreated? Any human through whom such action is manifested can be taken to be a manifestation of the "supreme will"! Moreover, "dharma" at that period may not be "strong" enough to provide the necessary source of the action that will restore it to strength.

OK, Rama, it has not been that long, in nation terms, since partition. The solutions you propose or we may propose would probably be known then too. It wasn't obvious then, it wasn't picked then, it wasn't ready then, it wasn't reasoned this way then.

Thats why reading of Anand Math should be in Jingo 101, but Alas....

Why did Bankim put "Hare murare...." (Dashavtar Shloka) in that book, from Swamiji's mouth carefully inserted when one of the leading characters is going through a tough time?

"Maalech nivahe nidhane, kalyasi karvalam......"

Actually given the psec environment, its a surprise the book isnt banned really

[Philip]

There is a crucial period in Jinnah's life not researched enough when he returned to Britain (London).During the War (WW2),the Conbgress leaders were imprisoned thus giving Jinnah the time and space to build up the ML and force his demand for Pakistan.What happened in Britain,the discussions that Jinnah had with his Britisdh masters is unknown (probably in some secret file as yet undisclosed),as Jinnah never left a diary of those events.I suggest (without any evidence),that Jinnah was encouraged by the British during his time in London and during the war years when the Congress leaders were not on the scene,perfectly in tune with their divide and rule tactics,to keep fighting for his "rights" as the tallest leader of Hindustan (and we know from even a former RRS chief that he was at one time a devoted nationalist, the equal of any of the Congress leaders) and not to succumb to the diktat and ambitions of other Congress leaders,meaning Nehru of whoim he was very jealous of.The sartorial "WOG" that Jinnah was, was far more acceptable to the British than western educated Nehru who had gone "native".The other facts I've pointed out from the book that the Indian Army,mostly comprised of British officers "wanted" a Pakistan,to serve Britain and America's post war strategic interests indicates that Jinnah's ambitions for Pakistan were also Britain's!

India was doomed to Partition from whichever way you look at it.As another member pointed out,if there was no Jinnah,the British would've found another joker for their purpose.As MGS Narayan in India Today wrote ,"first Accused,Britain (Churchill),Second Accused Jinnah,Third Accused Nehru.Though Nehru could be absolved for his services to the nation.

[RayC]

Dont call "native" wives but Indian or Hindu wives.
"Native" is a western terminology giving a notion of lesser person.

There were Muslim wives too!

I wonder if native is a derogatory word. The Anglo Saxons are native to Britain. Does not sound insulting, or does it?

Why wear a chip on the shoulder?

Would the word desi appear inferior. Maybe, when one could use 'Indian' instead. How come no protest?

Philip,

Thanks for the details on the AI.

Skinner and Hodson of the 1st Horse and 4th Horse were said to be AI themselves! I am not too sure of 2nd Lancers of Gardiner. He could have also been an AI.

Cliff Richard, the singer, is one! He does not accept, but check his accent. It is the only one we can understand word for word!

Dr Graham's Home was basically for abandoned mixed blood.

Native means belonging to a locality or country by birth, production, or growth; indigenous.

In those days, there was not the Political India that we have today. There were many independent kingdoms.

[RayC]

SS-ji: that is nitpicking IMVHO. One doesnt exist without the other.

No, that is not nitpicking. You were talking of defeating 'Islam' which is unacceptable to this forum. We can discuss issues in a religion, but not defeat of a religion or its banishment from India. Edit your post or I will have the offending portion removed.

I totally concur.

India is made up of all types of people, communities and religious and linguistic group.

While one can factually contest issues, one should not give in to the biases as if God Spake!

Intolerance is not the bottomline of this forum!

This type of statement insults the many Muslims who have given their lives for the Nation and those who debunk Pakistan on TV channels! Are they not Indians as as proud to be one as anyone here on the BRF?

Disgraceful narrow-mindedness! And sadly, these people are not the majority of Indians!

I am sorry, but then such unfair and unsubstantiated remarks rattles and hurts!

[brihaspati]

Most people are not "native" if we go back sufficiently in history. Both Angle's and Saxons were not native to Britain, if we go back a couple of thousand years. Saxons appeared as mercenaries and colonizers in Britain after the withdrawal of the Roman legions from Britain. They derive from "Saxonia" in Germany.

One of the problems about those who mock people raising concepts of "Bharatyia" or "Hindu" as abstract, ephemeral and constructed and not reality usually glibly also talk of "Indian" as if it is not abstract, ephemeral and constructed as a civilizational category. Legally, it is possible to define a category of "Indian" by saying all who are Indian citizens. Is that sufficient to characterize the civilizational aspect of "Indian"? But people refuse to see the jump they are making in starting from the legalese characterization and constructing a whole homogeneous civilization from it.

"Indian" is as much an abstract concept and hoped for construction as "Bharatyia" or "Hindu". There is no need to mock one at the cost of the other. "Indian" is the category now sought to be created which hopefully ignores all the divisions and fractures - especially that of the Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic. But fun part of this is that "Indian" is insisted on to be the only acceptable category as a single homogeneous one that maintains at the same time the distinctive, separatist claims of the Abrahamic. So we have a supposed homogenous identity which can only be defined by either a legal term (which again by even law does not treat all "Indians" uniformly in civilizational terms and claims) or an abtract "homogeneous" concept that can only be defined as a conglomerate (and not a merger) of distinct faith based claims of identity.

Moreover, the attitude appears to be that only the claims of the "Hindu" as an identity should be mocked or suppressed, but none at all of the Abrahamic. There is a consistent line from the British times, that "Islamism"
and "Islam" should be completely separated. The strategy appears to be to create a false separation between the two. This helps in passing off those aspects of Islam that make it difficult to sustain in the face of altered concepts of humanitarian values in the modern period, as something not rooted in "Islam" proper, but in "Islamism". To be fair this can be imagined to help in a reverse social engineering - based again on the false calculation that the Muslims themselves will buy into this disjunction and not be persuaded by the texts in original Arabic (the only medium through which theology is drilled in at the higher levels).

But those who follow the persistent trends in islamic scholarship and continuing modern representation of Islam by Islamists note that the disjunction is adopted only when the audience is known to contain non-Muslims. Within Islamic circles this disjunction is never accepted. There are many documentaries and investigative reports as well as academic studies (many of which are restricted to general or unlimited public access) on this.

We, non-Muslims can hope to propagate this myth that "Islamism" is not sourced from within "Islam", and pretend to believe when "Islamists" say - "oh so and such is not supported by Islam - these are deviations by people who have misunderstood" (ask them if they would declare this as "ANTI"-Islamic punishable by the full penalty under Islamic jurisprudence meant for Muslims who do anti-Islamic activities - you will get a big blank stare, at most a mumble that Islam is "forgiving" and that these "misguided" interpreters should be "persuaded" to "correct" themselves). But those who insist that we must believe in this myth ourselves are doing as much disservice to the "nation" (yes even their constructed homogeneous "Indian" nation) and even towards those "Muslims" they claim are "nationalists" just as a whole lot of characters have done in the past like Siddharaja Jayasimha of Gujarat - who seems to have turned himself blind to the activities of Islamists in his kingdom perhaps swallowing the glib myth of "Islam" being completely separate from "Islamism".

[Philip]

I think not enough credit has been given for the millions of Muslims,far more than those who became part of Pak, who voted with their feet against Partition and JInnah and stayed on in India.Turning Muslims into fundamentalists and Islamists,whom we are fighting against has been a more recent phenomenon dating back from the Cold War era.

[harbans]

^^ Philipji it's not entirely true. Ironically it was NWFP under the leadershhip of Frontier Gandh that was the most against province against partition..

In the elections to the Central Assembly, the Muslim League secured all the 30 Muslim seats, with 87.7 percent vote being in its favour. In the provincial polls, the Muslim League won 113 out of 119 seats (94.95%) in Bengal; 79 out of 86 seats (91.9%) in the Punjab; 28 out of 36 seats (77.8%) in Sindh; and 17 out of 36 seats (47.2%) in the Frontier (but polled more votes than the Congress; 41.65% against (38.34%)). Remarkable was the vote in Pakistan's favour in the minority provinces; 31 out of 34 seats (91%) in Assam, 34 out of 40 seats (85%) in Bihar, 54 out of 66 seats (82%) in the U.P., 13 out of 14 seats (93%) in the Central Provinces (C.P.) and all the seats (100%) in Orissa, Bombay and Madras.

A breakdown and analysis of the election results, region-wise, indicate the following. On an all-India basis, the Muslim League won 87.7 per cent of the central and provincial Muslim constituencies. In the Muslim majority provinces (Bengal, Punjab, Sindh and the Frontier), its aggregate of seats was 84.5 per cent.

More important, the "key provinces" of Bengal and the Punjab had voted overwhelmingly in Pakistan's favour. The League's score in Sindh was flawed due to the post-nomination rebellion of G. M. Syed, but a mid-term election in December 1946 returned a massive verdict in Pakistan's favour, rectifying the previously flawed situation. The Frontier vote was somewhat disappointing (although not too inextricable because of a host of reasons); but the call for Pakistan really picked up during 1946-47, to a point that in the Frontier Referendum of July 1947, the vote in Pakistan's favour was 99 per cent of the votes cast and about 51 per cent of the total electorate.

In the Muslim minority provinces, the aggregate percentage of seats won for Pakistan was 89.9.

http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=9 ... =&supDate=

[Abhi_G]

Thats why reading of Anand Math should be in Jingo 101, but Alas....

Why did Bankim put "Hare murare...." (Dashavtar Shloka) in that book, from Swamiji's mouth carefully inserted when one of the leading characters is going through a tough time?

"Maalech nivahe nidhane, kalyasi karvalam......"

Actually given the psec environment, its a surprise the book isnt banned really

Sanku-ji, the dasavataram shlokas in Anandamath are written by Jayadeva Goswami. MS Subbulakshmi has a vocal rendition of this. I would not be surprised by attempts to ban the novel in the near future, given the level of accomodation that is being forced upon in the name of tolerance of "separateness". The first step has manifested in the resistance against Vande Mataram.

Samuel-ji, what do you make of Gandhi's suggestion to Hindus to accept death and rape in a certain way so as to calm the riots? Is that a slip of tongue or an extremely insensitive way of washing off hands from responsibility using his elevated almost divine status? Is it a collapse of a system of dictatorship, where according to Brihaspati -ji's theory (if I understood correctly), the entire machinery was dependent on personal charisma of one person? When that person failed, the entire machinery failed.

There is no comment to make about JLN - he wanted to use bombs and machine guns to silence the Bihar riots where Hindus retaliated in reaction to Direct Action in Kolkata. But he was silent on muslim league's pogroms in Noakhali.