A look back at the partition

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by svinayak »

Prem wrote:Acharya Sir
Chacha ji was supposed to be Indian leader taking care of Indian interests just like Mount Batton was British. Jinnah died within few months and delaying tactics by Gandhi could have not only bought time for Kaffirs stuck in Islamist majority regions of Pre 47 India but also could have resulted in different outcome for Baki Bowl movement by Islamists of that time. As Surinder guessed, Baki Boundaries could have been shrunked considerably if H and S were organised like ML with full knowledge ofo pending partition.
Read Sarvarkar and he warned of exactly the same thing and he warned Congress will fail India
Do not think Indians are stupid. H and S were organised actully. They understand but they dont back the right leadership

Hindu nationalism: origins, ideologies and modern myths By Chetan Bhatt
http://books.google.com/books?id=zhy4Jb ... in&f=false



Veer Savarkar Father of Hindu Nationalism By Jaywant D. Joglekar
LONE FIGHT FOR UNITED INDIA

http://books.google.com/books?id=1J3uk3 ... ed&f=false
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

This you get from wikipedia:
Through the 1940s, Jinnah suffered from tuberculosis; only his sister and a few others close to him were aware of his condition. In 1948, Jinnah's health began to falter, hindered further by the heavy workload that had fallen upon him following Pakistan's independence from British Rule. Attempting to recuperate, he spent many months at his official retreat in Ziarat, but died on September 11, 1948 (just over a year after independence) from a combination of tuberculosis and lung cancer. It is said that when the then Viceroy of India, Lord Louis Mountbatten, learned of Jinnah's ailment he said 'had they known that Jinnah was about to die, they'd have postponed India's independence by a few months as he was being inflexible on Pakistan'.[citation needed]
Did the British know Jinnah had TB and lung cancer?
And, Restate what mountbat said as:
had they been ignorant of jinnah's condition, they might not be in a rush.

If one is diagnosed with lung cancer and spends many months to recuperate, then they do NOT have lung cancer. In 1947, it would be difficult to diagnose early stages of lung cancer, it still is, and if he was stage 3 plus, doc correct me, 6mos to 18 mos is his median survival time from diagnosis. He died 9/48. It is possible the brits new he was on short final for a full stop landing around 3-4/47.

When did mountbatten accelerate the date?


I would not be surprised if he was killed, but that is too radical a hypothesis.

S
PS: Mounted and beaten by wife and husband, jln i.e. sorry, he has passed.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25382
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SSridhar »

Samuel,

I do not have a link to the following, but I have saved this from an article that appeared in the now defunct The Independent.
The disease was actually discovered by his friend and physician Dr J. A. L. Patel in June 1946, when he X-rayed his lungs. In May1946, while sojourning in Simla, he had an attack of severe bronchitis and had to be taken to Bombay by train. His condition was quite bad, and Dr Patel had whisked him away from a suburban railway station to avoid the grand reception waiting for him at the Bombay central station. The Quaid remained in hospital for some time. His doctor wanted him to rest in a sanatorium for recovery, but he was at that time in the thick of battle and could not afford to abstain from leading the Muslims of India at that critical juncture. Thus doctor promised to keep the disease secret and reluctantly let him go to his residence. The Quaid was always a frail person. Before war, he had been treated in Berlin for complications of pleurisy. Thus after that discovery in 1946, and a year after the partition of the subcontinent, he mostly survived due to his enormous willpower. At that stage it was in the fitness of things to keep the whole thing secret and Dr Patel religiously kept his promise. If Mountbatten had sniffed out the secret at that stage, the destiny of the Muslims of India would have been different.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

This book has an entry

http://books.google.com/books?id=lCEiH5 ... is&f=false

Did he also have lung cancer as claimed?

It is incredible almost absurd that something like this could be kept a total secret. If true then we know at least Jinnah had a motivation for rushing. If the Brits knew it, then it connects very strongly to why they would move the date forward. Finally, if Nehru knew it...I suppose his action would depend on what kind of ultimatum came with that.

S
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

1946 was like no other year for India.

-- The INA trials.
-- The RIN/RIAF mutiny, threatening to reach RIA.
-- Jinnah gets Cancer and knows has TB. There is a little controversy about who knew what. Conventional wisdom has it that it was a top secret, which sounds like oh so much bullsh!t.
From http://sherryx.wordpress.com/2009/08/14 ... of-a-myth/
In 1997, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of India-Pakistan Independence, Patrick French published a book, Liberty or death. After his own investigation, French refutes the whole story narrated by Collins and Lapierre. According to him: “The idea that Jinnah’s poor state of health was a closely guarded secret is absurd: it was referred to in the press at that time, and it is obvious from photographs taken in the mid-1940s that Jinnah was unwell.


-- Then, Atlee had this to say:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RA ... 1&dq=india

I am left with several basic questions still:

1. Why the endgame rush?
2. Why is Gandhiji an endless mystery?
3. What melding was happening ground up in H/S & M communities that has disappeared?
4. How did power flow in ML?
5. Exactly what role did mountbatten play?
6. When was Nehru truly "compromised"?

I've read through some suggested books. Esp. the future of islam; but a gap remains between it and the machinations. Will post later

Tx
S
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25382
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SSridhar »

samuel wrote:-- Jinnah gets Cancer and knows has TB. There is a little controversy about who knew what. Conventional wisdom has it that it was a top secret, which sounds like oh so much bullsh!t.
From http://sherryx.wordpress.com/2009/08/14 ... of-a-myth/
In 1997, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of India-Pakistan Independence, Patrick French published a book, Liberty or death. After his own investigation, French refutes the whole story narrated by Collins and Lapierre. According to him: “The idea that Jinnah’s poor state of health was a closely guarded secret is absurd: it was referred to in the press at that time, and it is obvious from photographs taken in the mid-1940s that Jinnah was unwell.
Samuel, the above quote is ambiguous and vague. It is not referring to the life-threatening nature of Jinnah's illness discovered in 1946 and what appears to have been kept a secret. Your earlier post referring to the Google book confirms what I had posted prior to that. Jinnah was always frail and had undergone treatment for pleurisy earlier on and that was well known.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by brihaspati »

samuel wrote
1. Why the endgame rush?
There is only one major possibility - mutual blackmail all around, everyone blowing up the size of the fear in the others, not necessarily realistically. Stalin could have threatened to use Bose, the Brits could have fabricated this threat to JLN, MKG and JLN could have threatened the Brits that if they themselves were not quickly installed otherwisew all power will go to more radical elements if not Boseites, Brits could have threatened US with "communistification" of India, Brits could have threatened the ML with the possibility of going under "Hindu" rule if they did not step up their "agitation", ML could have threatened Brits with the loss of Muslim support to the Brits and strengthening of alternative "nationalist" stands within IM (like the proposed attempts with Fazlul Haque or Moulana Vasani in the East), US threatening the Brits with losing all toehold in the subcontinent to block advance of "communism" and Russia.
2. Why is Gandhiji an endless mystery?
MKG realized that he had "royally" messed up in removing all opposition or obstruction in the way of JLN. It was too late for him to do anything about his own possible realization that JLN would be putty in Brits hands and would serve Brit purpose because of his bombastic, naive and emotional self-delusions. Moreover, MKG served as the bridge between the Indian big-bourgeosie and the "masses". He was always being pulled in contradictory directions in his need to balance out the interests of the two. Much mor ethan Marxists, I think he realized clearly the importance of blancing both forces and combining them in the appropriate mix at that stage of political development to harness the force he needed to his concept of "national self assertion".
3. What melding was happening ground up in H/S & M communities that has disappeared?
There were alternative strands within the IM which were moving towards better accommodation of the "Indic" and seeking a more secualr modernization. They were forced to move over to the extremist ML side by the machinations of the Partition. Moreover any strands within the "Hindu" that was inclined towards accepting a reconstructed truly Indian Islam as being part of a new "Indic" were forever psychologically scarred into hardening the attitude that no part of the Muslim community can ever be "Indic" - we see this in the immense demand to bash up people who "Jihadize" but a refusal to engage with Islam proper. The "Hindu" has taken the defensive initiative to keep "Islam" as it is and not deconstruct the theology into something more slottable into the Indic - this process was not there before the Partition.
4. How did power flow in ML?
Complicated - but mainly driven by the feudal establishment. There appears to have been three components - feudal backbone of the Barelvi type, mostly converted from "Hindu" landed aristocracy, who wanted their feudal rule protected under Islam. A small articulate modern-educated professionals without the feudal establishment origin or acknowledgment looking for recognition who then formed a mutually benefiial association (the professionals could be better negotiators with the Brits). And then the foot soldiers - the vast poor and lumpen elements, especially the demobilized WWII Muslim soldiers. It appears that the legendary "Army" discipline and military ethos is quite transitory - for many of them were involved in leading the formal Ghazwas of loot, massacre and rape against the non-Muslims.
5. Exactly what role did mountbatten play?
Carrying out Churchill and other Brit imperialist agenda for the subcontinent. Probably instrumental in blackmailing and pumping up JLN's ego at the same time. Using the wifey to beguile and soften up an "important" man was always part of the cold calculations of aristocratic "marriages" in Europe. Churchill used his daughter-in-law more as a high class "w****" in obtaining favourable swings from the US side.
6. When was Nehru truly "compromised"?
Most likely at the meeting with Mountbatten and Edwina at Malay. JLN had been increasingly shrill and radical before - changed his mind and position almost 180 deg immediately afterwards. Again, "Bose" - imaginary or real could be the clincher.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

Sridhar,
Indeed it is vague and that too out of a blog. Jinnah was treated for pleurisy and he got TB and lung cancer. I am not sure what else is left to get.

He got diagnosed with TB in 1946, some put it at June 1946 crediting Lapierre et al.
If the world had known he had TB by 46, then it would've been over. No partition.

But the world did not know or did it not?
Did the British know, when?

Going out on a limb gathering info, here
http://living.oneindia.in/expressions/f ... arist.html
Jinnah died on 11 September 1948 due to TB. But Jinnah' doctor in Bombay Dr JAL Patel had diagnosed the problem in June 1946, says Collins and Lappire in 'Freedom at Midnight'. This was perhaps the best-kept secret of Partition. Interestingly, it is acknowledged by many, Jinnah gave no public indication of this reality continuing with his usual ration of Cigars, and attributing his cough to bronchitis. Lord Wavell's diary talks of this, giving testimony to the fact that British were well informed about the illness of Jinnah.
Can we or is there a way to access Wavell's diary as this author claims? Anyone know how?
svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4727
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by svenkat »

Samuel,
While no doubt strategic issues were involved,you forget that the Congress was a mass based organisation believing in democracy.It had become clear that muslims were not interested in united india.They would have caused mayhem in punjab and chaos within.The British swore by democracy.How could the Congress leaders who were mass leaders not accept the demand for pakistan.The alternative was balkanisation.JLN,MKG and SVP were just not indviduals,they were also spokesmen of that part of Hindu India which had decided British rule had its day.Even Babu Rajendra Prasad acknowleded the democratic ideals(?) of the British in his address to the constituent assembly on the night of 14th August,1947.I am no admirer of reservation and goondaism,but can one deny the democratic upsurge today has to be traced to our interaction with west.Nirad Chaudhary dedicated his book to the British Empire which threw out a challenge to us,quickened our sensibilities and to which we are still responding.

We are now almost there where we will not just have to respond to others but will take decisions and chart paths on our strengths.Even now,we face so many challenges.How much more the Congress had to face then.

Rahul Mehta,
I am stunned that a candidate for parliamentary election and believer in jury system should see JLN,SVP and MKG as mice.The people of Gujarat are known for vegetarianism,friendly spirit and trade.Yet it was in Gujarat,two of the mightiest men in our freedom movement came.They mobilised the masses-the farmers,weavers,salt workers,intelligentsia,business men.You have grossly caricatured the power of the mass movement in gujarat(or elsewhere) in 1940s.The Quit India movement,however ill advised,had to be violently repressed.You know the influence BJP workers have to make Modi ban the book.How much more this spirit must have been then.
I am astonished that you are advocating an anarchist communism for India.

Surinderji,
Gandhijis theatrics on punjab are comical.But still democracy and demographics went against Sikhs/Hindus in West Punjab.The interests of West Punjab/East Bengal were sacrificed.But the West Punjabis/East Bengalis are full citizens of India.The EastBengali sub-altern have had a tougher time,but their lot is better than dhimmitude in BD.
Acharyaji,
I would argue that the average hindu led a placid/humdrum/tortured existence till 1990.The status quo of the Congress held.There was one serious problem-Punjab whose genesis has to be the unfinished synthesis of Sikh ideology with Hinduism.Only democracy could accmplish that.The old social structure could not accomplish it.The British tried to misdirect the Gurumat.
The Congress was losing ground in the states.Yet it held on at the centre.VP singh for all his maniac tendencies saw the rotting structure.You must credit his evil instincts.He unleashed mandal,which means peasant castes in the Gangetic plains have also found voice.When one reads of the shootcase culture of YSR,it fills my mind and heart with dread.Yet India has to pass through this intermediate stage.I am not a part of the elite.I dont say this with lofty condescension.A Jnanadeva influenced Shivaji after 500 years.Veer Savarkar was not a saint.The Hindus were in no position to understand his message.A few marathas might have understood it.
But when one sees the antics of the Congress today,if Hindus do not understand the need for 'unity',then may be that is what we deserve.
Airavatji,
While I agree you with in general,the British would have had trouble dealing with Sikhs.No way would they accept domination by muslims.The real point is the Congress leaders were Hindu upper castes who believed in democracy as understood by them.Every where in the world,politics is informed by the social cultural traditions of the place.The muslims wanted a sterile status quo.The Hindu upper castes ‘wanted’ a dynamic social order..Ofcourse,they talked of a new social order etc.The confidence of the Brahmins made the descendants of kaabila even more nervous.There was nothing in Islamic lore which could make sense of their predicament.The Brahmins and Banias were prime movers.Brahmins as the intelligentsia and the Bania with great potentialities.The Rajputs had feudal pretensions,the Jat Sikhs some identity issues.Their sensibilities would be respected,but everyone including Brahmins will have to move on.Otherwise,they would be consumed by Time.The Congress leadership instinctively understood that all these sections will be accommodated but the pakjabi,UP mussalman,Jinnah supported by Brutish,were in no mood to acquiesce.

Even after 60 years,after GUBOing by every customer,they still maintain their spirits.In the 1940s they believed in 1 TFTA=10 SDREs.How was accommodation possible?

Bji,

There was no way the elite UP mussalman could have been accommodated.He was an invader.When the national movement came,he was finished.The pakjabi could have been accommodated.In fact,the Sikhs had put them in place. The British resurrected them- a false start.It was just the beginning of endless GUBOs.The pakjabi now can never be accommodated.He accommodates everyone/everything the latest being mobiles.As you said in the future scenario dhaga,the only way out is not very politically correct.
svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4727
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by svenkat »

Also it would have been difficult for the Congress to negotiate with Pakjabis,Pakthoons,Hyderabadis and Baluchs.The Baluchs would have posed the least problem,the Hyderabadis a headache.But the pakjabis with Pathans were formidable.This alliance has stood the test of time.We are still waiting for the alliance to unravel.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by svinayak »

Jinnah not secular for Sheikh Abdullah

The ghost of Jinnah, founder of Pakistan, has overtaken BJP, ever since L K Advani raised the controversy over Qaid-e-Azam, who is held responsible for dividing the subcontinent. Jinnah’s apparition has of late plundered the BJP of inner party discipline that it was boasting of. Cracks are visible. The main opposition party is in a state of delirium, to the delight of the Congress.

While Jinnah was garlanded with shoes in the Muslim-dominated Kashmir valley by the activists of the then National Conference, led by Sheikh Abdullah, Jaswant Singh, a BJP stalwart for 30-years before he was thrown out of the party has not only eulogized Jinnah , but also blamed Nehru and Patel for the partition in his book, “ Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence”.

The Sheikh had rejected at point blank Jinnah’s two-nation theory. With ashes in his mouth, Jaswant Singh has said that partition was largely due to Nehru and Patel. The latter is responsible for unifying India. Jaswant Singh should have resigned from the party or sought permission before writing this controversial book.

Jinnah was the harbinger of two-nation theory, which led to painful partition. Can we expect a Communist to praise RSS? Or a radical Islamist to write a book in praise of L K Advani? Jaswant Singh knew how Advani had suffered because of his similar assessment about Jinnah. Though an able politician and a writer, he stirred up a hornets’ nest in the BJP camp and put it on fire. This is an open revolt, which could not be overlooked.

Sheikh Abdullah was diametrically opposed to Jinnah’s ideology. He did not want to join a country like Pakistan, based on religion. He did not want anything to do with Pakistan because of Jinnah’s ‘un-Islamic’ attitude towards the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

When Jinnah visited Srinagar in 1944 for asking people to join Pakistan, a National Conference leader Ali Mohammad Tariq had asked him whether the future of Kashmir would be decided by the people of the state. Jinnah’s reply surprised all. “Let the people go to hell.” The absurd remark hurt the Kashmiris. Massive anti-Jinnah demonstrations were held in Baramulla. An annoyed Jinnah sent a telegram to Maharaja Hari Singh, asking him to “crush Abdullah’s goondaism”.

Jinnah wanted Kashmiris to rally behind then Muslim Conference, led by Moulvi Yousuf Shah, uncle of assassinated Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq. The Muslim Conference was aligned to Jinnah’s Muslim League. But it had little following. The Sheikh was a popular leader. He had spurned Jinnah’s hand to join Pakistan. Jinnah thought Kashmiri Muslims were ‘inextricably’ linked with Pakistan. He would often say “Kashmir was a blank cheque lying in Pakistan’s pocket and she could cash it whenever she liked.” But it did not happen. The people have opted for India, rejecting Jinnah’s ideology. Jaswant Singh should take note of it.

Irked by the Sheikh’s attitude, Jinnah on October 22, 1947 orchestrated tribal invasion of Kashmir. Nearly 5000 tribals were sent to Kashmir in 200 buses under the command of Pakistan army. They resorted to mass rape, loot, murder, and plundered Baramulla town. The victims were mostly Muslims whom Jinnah wanted to liberate. Are these the traits of a secular person?

At an earlier stage of his life, Jinnah was a nationalist to the core and a strong protagonist of Hindu-Muslim unity. But his ideology was never constant.

Now the BJP is on the boil. Thanks to Jaswant Singh and his opportunistic politics. Advani has almost become speechless. The party has got embroiled in deep crisis. One fails to understand why Jinnah has become the epitome of mankind for Jaswant Singh. Where was his ideology for 30 years?

RSS Chief Mohan Rao Bhagwat has said that Jinnah was neither a secular person nor did he support the ideals of secularism. He was the first person to lead an agitation for creating a separate nation—Pakistan—for he considered Hindus separate from the Muslims.

Jinnah was once asked why he hated the Hindus. His stark reply was “How could he, having sprung from the same stock. But how would one like to live in his elder brother’s house on mere sufferance” One can judge him by these outbursts.

The ghost of Jinnah has been haunting India, particularly the BJP, since June 2005, when Advani visited Pakistan and hailed Jinnah as a ‘secular’ leader. Advani’s assertions raised a lot of controversy as if Jinnah was the be all and end all for him. There are several hundred leaders of eminence in India but they have no attraction for leaders like Jaswant Singh, who held Patel responsible for partition, which was inevitable. It was the last resort. Jaswant Singh has denigrated Patel

While Advani hailed Jinnah as a secular, Jaswant Singh has regretted that he was ‘demonized’ by India. It is a pity. Jinnah has rightly been portrayed as a ‘wicked’ person because he allowed himself to be brainwashed by the British. He was responsible for creating anarchy and subsequent mass exodus of ten million refugees from India to Pakistan and vice versa. Jinnah had been insulting Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Patel for their nationalistic outlook.

After 30 years of association with the BJP, Jaswant Singh argues that BJP’s association with the RSS is ‘unhealthy’. He should have known it long ago. This is in contrast to what Arun Shourie has said. He wanted the RSS to ‘takeover’ the BJP. After all, BJP’s mentor is RSS.

In his last phase of life, Jinnah became a stooge of the British and he endeavoured to keep the Muslims away from the national mainstream. Patel’s task of integrating 600 princely states in a record time on the eve of the partition was no mean achievement. Nehru and Patel had insisted on a centralized system of governance, but Jinnah was eager for a ‘loose federation’ of states. Had Jinnah’s suggestion been accepted, India would have been again enslaved. Every state in a federal set up could demand independence.

Ironically, the suggestion for a ‘loose federation’ was put forth by India’s last Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. Obviously, it was the game plan of the British to rule by proxy. Jinnah was brainwashed in London. When he failed in his mission, he ultimately demanded Pakistan, which was further divided in 1971 war.

When an interim government was formed in 1946-47, it is said Jinnah used to quarrel with Congress leaders on flimsy issues, almost every day. According to historians, Partition was accepted by Nehru and Patel to ‘eliminate’ Jinnah’s ‘nuisance value’. Nehru has been quoted as saying “By cutting the head, we shall get rid of the headache”. Jinnah turned villain because of the machinations of the British, when D-Day was approaching.
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3894
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Kakkaji »

Kanchan Gupta's take in his weekly column in dailypioneer.com. Posting in full:

Qatil-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah
Jaswant Singh regrets that Jinnah died too soon ‘to re-examine what he had done … but he too had begun to recognise the enormity of this partition ….’ But this by no means detracts from the fact that Jinnah, who died 13 months after ensconcing himself as the Governor-General of Pakistan, sowed the seeds of his country’s break-up, writes Kanchan Gupta

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, we are told, cried in public only thrice in his life. The first occasion was at the grave of his wife, Ruttie, the day she died. The next time he was spotted weeping was on the train from Calcutta after Congress refused to countenance the Muslim League’s objections to Motilal Nehru’s 1928 report (known as the ‘Nehru Report’) proposing dominion status for India with a Constitution that provided for a unitary system of governance and equal rights for all citizens. The last time Jinnah was seen shedding tears, or so his friends recall in their memoirs, was during a visit to a Hindu refugee camp in Karachi in January 1948. Moved by the plight of the refugees, he is believed to have hoarsely whispered, “They used to call me Quaid-e-Azam; now they call me Qatil-e-Azam.”

It is possible that Jinnah, who is not known to have ever smiled, grieved over Ruttie’s grave. It is also believable that he wept bitter tears of rage after being given the short shrift by the Congress over the Nehru Report (he was to later come up with what is known as ‘Jinnah’s 14 Points’ which, under the guise of proposing that the “future Constitution should be federal with residuary powers vested in the provinces,” demanded that “in the Central Legislative Assembly, Muslim representation shall not be less than one-third”). But it’s rather hard to believe that the man who was unmoved by the blood-letting that followed his call for ‘Direct Action’ in August 1946 and continued till he had attained his “moth-eaten Pakistan” a year later would be moved by the sight of wailing women and orphaned children at a Hindu refugee camp in January 1948. If at all Jinnah was distressed it was because his vanity had been hurt — the ‘Quaid’ was being spat upon as a ‘Qatil’.

Like Jaswant Singh, I am neither a scholar nor a historian. But unlike him, I am the child of parents who suffered the horrors of Partition; my father arrived in India from East Pakistan with his widowed mother and four younger siblings, penniless and virtually with nothing more than the clothes on his back. He didn’t have the privilege of growing up in princely Jodhpur, nor did life afford him the luxury of pondering over the minutiae of the politics of Partition in the amiable surroundings of Nehru Memorial Library. Yet, I do not recall him ever expressing either rancour or regret. Even if he wanted to, my mother wouldn’t have let him. The struggle for survival rode rough-shod over any emotional struggle that might have peeked hesitantly in their minds.

And unlike Jaswant Singh, as well as many others who believe that Partition was a blunder, that India would have been one large happy family had the Radcliffe line not been drawn, that the Congress should not have persisted with its idea of India as one nation with a unitary system in which power would be concentrated at the Centre, that the Muslim League had a case when it argued for proportionate representation if not more for Muslims to compensate them for the loss of the power they wielded before the British took charge of India’s affairs, I belong to the minority which believes that Partition was the second best thing to have happened to us. The first was the failure of the ghazis to prop up a dissolute badshah in 1857. In his literally weighty tome Jinnah: India - Partition - Independence, Jaswant Singh obviously disagrees with this contention: “It was here in the middle of the 19th century that the symbol of our sovereignty was finally seized and trampled underfoot by British India.” Not everybody mourned that event, just as Hindus in Bengal were not terribly upset when Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah was given the boot in 1757.

But that defeat of presumed Muslim supremacy in 1857 was not without significance. Rudely stripped of their status as a minuscule minority ruling over India’s vast majority, Muslims discovered salvation in separatism in the subsequent decades — first in terms of faith and culture, and later with the formation of the Muslim League in 1906, in Muslim identity politics. Jinnah did not gravitate towards the League then, but it was his natural home and he couldn’t possibly stay away for long. The “ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity” thought he could bargain for a slice of power through exclusivist constitutionalist politics, which he thought was his forte, but when Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi steered the Congress to mass politics, Jinnah, clad in Savile Row suits, scoffing whisky and munching on ham sandwiches, couldn’t quite see himself mingling with the unwashed masses.

Ironically, this is the man, who had little knowledge of Islam and even lesser respect for its core beliefs, who would emerge as the ‘sole spokesman’ of undivided India’s Muslims, or so he would insist on being known as; that was a platform he found convenient so as not to get pushed out from national politics by the Congress and its stalwarts, namely Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Yet, for all his rancid denunciation of Hindu majoritarianism, of Congress’s emphasis on centralisation of power, of everything that together shaped India and the Indian identity, he could never command cross-country Muslim support. Or else the Muslim League would not have to look for proportionate representation.

Much of Jaswant Singh’s book covers territory that has long been charted by scholars and historians, although its documentation is truly rich: Potted history is useful for non-historians and as a ready-reckoner for dates and events. Nor is there anything startlingly new about Jaswant Singh’s thesis spun around the idea of Jinnah as the ‘sole spokesman’ of India’s Muslims. Ayesha Jalal expounded this theory many years ago in her book, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan which, in a sense, provides the most comprehensive explanation for Jinnah’s politics. True, Ayesha Jalal’s is a Pakistani’s perspective; but is Jaswant Singh’s the Indian perspective? If yes, then which India is he speaking for? That which revels in lighting candles at Wagah border even as more lives are laid to waste to satiate the lust ignited by Jinnah’s rhetoric that became the recurrent theme of Muslim League politics after the Lahore Resolution of 1940? Would Jinnah have ever recanted had Nehru toed the line of least resistance? Jaswant Singh writes about the Cabinet Mission Plan, of the divergence in the responses of the Congress and the Muslim League, but that alone cannot be evidence of ‘majoritarian’ perfidy.

Nehru talked of conditional participation in the Constituent Assembly, of reserving the right to modify the Cabinet Mission Plan. Jinnah spoke a sharply different and sinister language: He recalled the Lahore Resolution and reiterated the demand for Pakistan; he threatened “direct action”. Thus was conceived, in the dark labyrinths of his mind, and given shape to in consultation with his Faustian colleagues, ‘Direct Action Day’ to be observed on August 16, 1946. “We shall have India divided or we shall have India destroyed,” Jinnah thundered. Did the Quaid-e-Azam feel any sense of remorse when he saw vultures feasting on the dead after the Great Calcutta Killing? He didn’t. That is the Jinnah which Jinnah: India - Partition - Independence white-washes and presents as a man who was deeply wronged by Nehru and Patel.

Jaswant Singh’s book revolves around the contention that if only Nehru had been farsighted, had he and Patel not colluded to pass the March 8, 1947 Congress resolution asking for the partition of Punjab (and keeping the option of partitioning Bengal open), had they been more accommodative towards Jinnah, there would have been no Pakistan, no Bangladesh today, but a “magnificent edifice of a united India”. Jinnah’s opposition, Jaswant Singh argues, “was not against the Hindus or Hinduism, it was the Congress that he considered as the true political rival of the Muslim League, and the League he considered as being just an extension of himself”. Jaswant Singh oversimplifies the case for the Quaid-e-Azam when he says, “The Muslim community for Jinnah became an electoral body; his call for a Muslim nation his political platform; the battles he fought were entirely political — between the Muslim League and the Congress; Pakistan was his political demand over which he and the Muslim League could rule.” The recrimination is equally sweeping: Nehru was “one of the principal architects, in reality the draftsman of India’s partition” who “began questioning himself, his actions, his thoughts soon enough”. Does Jaswant Singh really believe that had the Congress accepted Jinnah’s conditions and created within an undivided India six separate ‘Pakistans’ — what the Muslim League called the “six Muslim provinces” (the Punjab, the NWFP, Sindh, Balochistan, Bengal and Assam) with near-total autonomy — there would have been a “magnificent edifice of a united India” today?

Jaswant Singh regrets that Jinnah died too soon “to re-examine what he had done… but he too had begun to recognise the enormity of this partition… His pre-1947 statements and the often quoted 11 August 1947 speech are in reality but indicators of his thoughts, not any definition”. This by no means detracts from the fact that Jinnah, who died 13 months after ensconcing himself as the Governor-General of Pakistan, sowed the seeds of his country’s break-up before he discovered that even ‘sole spokesmen’ are but mere mortals. On his first and only visit to Dhaka, he pompously declared that Urdu would be the state language; the Bengalis could either like it or lump it.

Bangladesh chose to lump it. So much for Jinnah’s ‘Muslims first’ identity politics.
I don't know how many other forumites do, but I wholeheartedly support the sentiments expressed by KG in the bolded parts above.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by brihaspati »

I think there are a few like me on the forum, who have always tried to point out that the British really had to fught and take power from non-Muslims and not the Muslims, including 1857. Here, I, like many others differ from JS-type position. Where I differ from the Congress position is not in its demand for a strong centre and unitary system (it has not a pure unitary system now- for it treats faith based communities differently) but I differ in the Congress's not forcing the recalcitrants by whatever means necessary to be extended to all over the subcontinent - and having done their bit in contributing to the raising of the status of the "Islamist" as a separate identity not having roots in Bharat.
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3894
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Kakkaji »

brihaspatiji:

The 'recalcitrants' would never have submitted to the democratic ethos. The very thought of having Pakistan and Bangladesh, with 300 million Jihadis, as parts of today's Republic of India gives me the shivers. The Republic would not have survived for long.

I always say good riddance to the Pakis and Bangladeshis.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

Brishapatiji, While we are on the Brits and thier role we should also note the US role in the Partition that doesnt get much of a viewing. Can you help develop a comprehensive picture?

One thing that triggered in my mind after looking at the vast number of books in Google on Indic studies in US after the Civil War of 1865, my simple mind wonders why they are studying India so much? What were there palns for post British intergennum? And why so many missions from US competed so hard after the British kind of gave up after 1857? Did they take over the evangelising mission from the British?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by brihaspati »

I think they had a far more sophisticated line on this - as manifested in Thoreau. One of the key features I think in the Abrahamic - is their singular fear that their own flock might get won over and "contaminated" in contact with the "Hindu". Thoreau increased the fear. Is there a subconscious struggle which increases as the Germanic moves farther away from his atavistic centre - which is fascinated on the one hand by the Indic, (as it increases from Nordic to Anglo to Americano), and finds roots in the culture left behind in the uhrheimat when their grand migrations started in Holocene from northern and greater India? On the other hand there is the pullback of tribal pride manifested in race and hiding behind Christianity? Is the EJ itself a kind of pre-emptive stike to prevent "Hinduization"? And was this complexity a factor in the way the Anglo-American love hate relationship developed and had reflection on the course of the anti-British movement? (Gandhiji is most openly supported by elements of the American media).

I will try to make review.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Prem »

JS, the intellectual ,is oblivious to Kanchan Gupta's ,simple truthful observation . Nehru's egoistic mistake turned out to be blessing in disguise . I believe, Indic Indians do not regret Partition but the loss of land to Mlecchas with home to many holy places dear to Indians.
The flame of recovering the land should not be allowed to be extinguished by PSs and Pinkoes shenanigans. At best,all of Pukes deserve 2 yards beneath the surface and we should gladly acquiesce to this necessary evil.
The major question expected to be asked by person like JS ought to be how to kick start and give momentum to the consolidation process started by Marathas and Sikhs etc with unparallled struggle and sacrfices. Partition is past ,let it not spoil our future with the patronage of similar medieval forces.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Prem »

Beside Thoreau, Walt Whitman was also influenced by Indic thoughts . I think His Leaves of Grass came out around same time and just have scared the Puritans or EJs. He was heavy on "I"
"I": Walt Whitman,
Indic , the son .
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:One of the key features I think in the Abrahamic - is their singular fear that their own flock might get won over and "contaminated" in contact with the "Hindu". Thoreau increased the fear. Is there a subconscious struggle which increases as the Germanic moves farther away from his atavistic centre - which is fascinated on the one hand by the Indic, (as it increases from Nordic to Anglo to Americano),
With respect brihaspati you use complex word constructs when simpler ones will suffice.

In simple terms India represents the biggest (and last) refuge of paganism - which was the original societal construct before organized religion. Both Christianity and Islam were designed as "anti-pagan" oligarchic power centers that reduced the scope for the peoples of a society to believe and do what they chose.

A strict upbringing under the rules of Christian morality or Islamic morality automatically demands a fear of paganism and fear of the punishment that jealous gods impose on unbelievers.

A lot of what people describe here as "Indic" (and Hindu, for that matter) can easily be translated as "pagan" (unchristian/unislamic). Having said that "Indic" goes beyond paganism - but any fear of the Indic that exist among non Indic is fear of paganism.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by svinayak »

shiv wrote:
In simple terms India represents the biggest (and last) refuge of paganism - which was the original societal construct before organized religion. Both Christianity and Islam were designed as "anti-pagan" oligarchic power centers that reduced the scope for the peoples of a society to believe and do what they chose.
A lot of what people describe here as "Indic" (and Hindu, for that matter) can easily be translated as "pagan" (unchristian/unislamic). Having said that "Indic" goes beyond paganism - but any fear of the Indic that exist among non Indic is fear of paganism.
Pagan is a western term and a abahamic word and derogatory. Better to avoid it
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Pranav »

ramana wrote:Brishapatiji, While we are on the Brits and thier role we should also note the US role in the Partition that doesnt get much of a viewing. Can you help develop a comprehensive picture?

One thing that triggered in my mind after looking at the vast number of books in Google on Indic studies in US after the Civil War of 1865, my simple mind wonders why they are studying India so much? What were there palns for post British intergennum? And why so many missions from US competed so hard after the British kind of gave up after 1857? Did they take over the evangelising mission from the British?
I think folks like Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman and even Mark Twain had a very genuine philosophical interest. That was around the time Swami Vivekananda was making waves in the US.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by svinayak »

Pranav wrote:

I think folks like Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman and even Mark Twain had a very genuine philosophical interest. That was around the time Swami Vivekananda was making waves in the US.
We need to find out what they were reading(Indic text) before Vivekananda came.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by shiv »

Acharya wrote: Pagan is a western term and a abahamic word and derogatory. Better to avoid it
Disagree. Unless you understand the term you cannot understand the attitude. Avoiding it is darkness. Agnana in my view. Understand how you are seen through the eyes of another. Your own language does not even have words for that attitude.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by brihaspati »

shivji,
I wanted to explore the possibility that the religious and allied rashtryia leaders of the Anglo Saxon have always been worried about the attraction of the "Hindu" for their own flock. The roots of modern Christianity lie in imperialism. But what has to be understood is that an immense amount of propaganda is needed to demonize the "Hindu" so that fear and hatred is maintained within the common Christian against the "Hindu". "pagan" is of course the attitude from their side. But whether we use it or not is perhaps a matter more related to politics.

There are "pagans" from within the Christian who now openly declare themselves to be so. They are constricted in their available options to rebel against the Abrahamic. They can use the term. When we have a much more nuanced and complex category - why restrict ourselves to their terminology?

They use the term loosely, without understanding what it means. It has only very recently really been applied in the derogatory and blanket sense of demonized "non-Christians" or "non-Abrahamic". Ask them to really define it - and then it is defined most commonly as a negation of what they understand as Christianity etc. Since this understanding itself is confused and widely divergent even within the Christians, negation of that is also confused and widely divergent. As it is used, the term does not carry any specific and concrete meanings or characterizations. So no need to share in their confusion.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by svinayak »

brihaspati wrote:
They use the term loosely, without understanding what it means. It has only very recently really been applied in the derogatory and blanket sense of demonized "non-Christians" or "non-Abrahamic". Ask them to really define it - and then it is defined most commonly as a negation of what they understand as Christianity etc. Since this understanding itself is confused and widely divergent even within the Christians, negation of that is also confused and widely divergent. As it is used, the term does not carry any specific and concrete meanings or characterizations. So no need to share in their confusion.
I agree. Knowing about the term is one thing but to propagate it by using it in our language is another thing.
Last edited by svinayak on 08 Sep 2009 20:56, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote: why restrict ourselves to their terminology?.
I used Pagan alone when I should have said pagan/kafir

Brihaspati - Hinduism represents the very paganism/kufr that the religions sought to replace with their imperialist order. I use the term with deliberation based on my interactions with a wide variety of Indian and non Indians.

The subtle alliance of the British with Muslim league has its roots in the common acceptance of Hindus being the unbelievers - represented by pagan/kafir.

If you talk to an "aware" Hindu you will find that Islam has been open and blatant about who is a kafir and who is not, so the Hindu will know that he is called a kafir, and Muslims know that Hindus are kafir by definition. (I am not saying they automatically hate each other - it is sometimes used in a jocular fashion in which a Hindu calls his Muslim friend mullah or jihadi and the Muslim says kafir.)

But because of enforced secularism in the West, and a general increase in Western tolerance for non Christian, non white, discrimination against the pagan cannot be open and has to be on par with subtle discrimination such as might occurs against blacks. So westerners often don't even realise why Hindu iconography is scary and alien. A case in point is the movie Indiana Jones and the temple of Doom where Hindu iconography represents violent and scary. Similarly the "aware, educated" Hindu often tries to explain his "relligion" in terms of Christian equivalence and fails to realise that his "religion" makes him technically "pagan" and therefore wrong. This silly beating about the bush needs to be avoided for better clarity and understanding.

So it is important to get the meanings clear. Nobody will admit bias against Hinduism. But Hindus recognise a bias. That is because the root cause of the bias - "Hindu=pagan" is ignored and the term is avoided. "I respect all religions, but my religion tells me that pagans are bad"

Avoiding the truth only obfuscates.

A word about the derogatory word pagan. It is derogatory only because Christianity makes it derogatory. I am a pagan and I feel no shame in calling myself one. I feel no embarrassment in using that definition on myself or fellow Hindus and don't see why Hindus should try and avoid the word that is used to describe them when the intent is to reveal what has been true for centuries.

Sorry - mostly OT
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

Interesting twist on the braid this page.

In the end there is nothing, for everything and its opposite needs to be present to have it, but over any useful ength of time that adds to nothing.

One may argue that looking at the world "through our own frame of reference" is useful because it gives us identity. At the same time, it can make us into assh*les, stuck in our own muck. So then you might say being flexible is the answer, thoda thoda khao, thoda thoda pheko bahut mazaaa ata hai (from "albert pinto ko gussa kyun ata hai"). But you gotta be rigid sometimes too, or you get walked over. Then you think that may be you need to be able to think about the context to decide to be flexible or not or what ever and you realize that sometimes you can't think, you just do. Then you wonder what kind of preparedness you might need to be able to decide to think or not and you realize, going this way, we have a bottomless recursion. And, all of the past, present and future is necessary to know to make an optimal (meta)^n decision that optimally decides the (meta)^{n-1} decision, all for the {meta}^0 decision of this moment. Then the headache starts all over again next moment, say to figure out which seat to sit on the bus.

Gods can do that, what? "All past present future" kind of thing in zero time. But yet, it is not (s)he who disturbs anything. It is us because we literally know not what we do.

So, lage raho munna bhai is all that can be said, I think.

Meaning, "follow your nature" -- it accumulates all the wisdom you need.

We have to start with what we have (and we end with what we have too). Our dhimmi, macaulay upbringing has given us a vocabulary. Like when people realized that normal physics cannot explain new phenomena and new vocabulary was needed, we need not use any other word until we understand that a new one is needed. Till that coalescing happens, what one may say is pagan may mean something entirely different to another...but at some point, whilst following our nature only, we will all develop a common substrate upon which to talk and that is what happens here on BRF. That substrate will be (meta)^2 optimal, meaning no thinking needs to be done to use words like GUBO, TSPA, IIRC, WKK (we have a thread for these words, IIRC), which is the optimal choice for short, concise, paragraphs, which in turn is optimal to get others to read what you write.

May be we can do our best to communicate the truth as we know it and interpret it as such, and can we say no OT by end of this page?

S
Last edited by samuel on 08 Sep 2009 20:21, edited 1 time in total.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by RayC »

The word ‘Pagan’ comes from the Latin word ‘paganus’ meaning ‘rustic’. It was used as a term of ridicule for the rural people who had not converted to Christianity and continued to follow the old religion.

There is also an interpretation that it was to differentiate ‘non soldiers’ from the ‘soldiers’. The Christians called themselves as ‘miles Christi’ (soldiers of Christ) and thus military like, while the others who were non Christians were taken to be ‘non soldiers’.

Some believe that ‘pagan’ was to differentiate between the Christians and the ‘outsiders’ almost like the meaning of the word ‘kaffir’.

The term "Pagan" is sometimes used to refer to ancient polytheistic religions. The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines "pagan" as: "belonging to a religion which worships many gods, especially one which existed before the main world religions."

This definition is rather vague, because it does not describe how a "main religion of the world" is defined.

Actually, who cares?

Non whites are called 'coloured'. Indeed, that may be right. But don't the whites look as ''ghosts" and anaemic?

One has to go by the definition as per the language that one is using.

What is Mlechha, nere or Hapsi in English? It means nothing! Yet, it means something! The choice is yours!

Let us move on!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

So the word pagan is a Latin word and it was used in European context. How does that apply to Sanathan Dharmics? How is a word created to describe a specfic context used in another context even when the underlaying situation is different?

Modernists have word for this: Fractal Recursivity.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by svinayak »

ramana wrote:So the word pagan is a Latin word and it was used in European context. How does that apply to Sanathan Dharmics? How is a word created to describe a specfic context used in another context even when the underlaying situation is different?

Modernists have word for this: Fractal Recursivity.
Indic should not use the terms of the west to describe themselves or any others.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by shiv »

RayC wrote:The word ‘Pagan’ comes from the Latin word ‘paganus’ meaning ‘rustic’. It was used as a term of ridicule for the rural people who had not converted to Christianity and continued to follow the old religion.
RayC you need to look at what Pagan means in the bible

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000924.htm
Pagans are generally defined as those who worship false gods. During Bible History pagans were viewed with utter contempt, not because of who they were (since anyone who truly repented and turned to and obeyed God was accepted), but because of what they did: "living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry" (1 Peter 4:3 NIV).

Pagan god Idolatry
"Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols." (1 Corinthians 12:1-2 NIV)
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/pagan.htm
In simplest terms Paganism is a religion of place, or a native religion, for example the Native American's religion is Pagan, Hinduism is a form of Paganism. All Pagan religions are characterised by a connection and reverence for nature, and are usually polytheistic i.e. have many Gods and/or Goddesses.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism.htm
Third meaning: Pagans are ancient polytheists:
The term "Pagan" is sometimes used to refer to ancient polytheistic religions. The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines "pagan" as: "belonging to a religion which worships many gods, especially one which existed before the main world religions." 18
Fourth meaning: Pagans follow Aboriginal religions:
Paganism is occasionally used to refer to animistic, spirits-and-essences filled belief systems. These are based upon direct perception of the forces of nature and usually involves the use of idols, talismans and taboos in order to convey respect for these forces and beings. Many native, aboriginal religions fit this definition.
Fifth meaning: Pagans are followers of non-Abrahamic religions:
bullet A rare use of "Pagan" is to describe a person who does not follow an main Abrahamic religion. That is, their faith does not recognize Abraham as a patriarch. The individual is neither Christian, Muslim, Baha'i nor Jew. This includes Agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Humanists, Taoists, etc. About 45% of the people of the world are Pagans, by this definition.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by shiv »

Acharya wrote: Indic should not use the terms of the west to describe themselves or any others.
Sorry. Such hard and fast rules are the hallmark of Abrahamic intolerance. And try and get "Hindus" to stop using that word or its utterly meaningless extension "Hindutva"

And I guess Vivekananda must have been wrong according to this prescription. :rotfl:
sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by sanjaychoudhry »

I am a pagan and I feel no shame in calling myself one.
Better to call ourselves as "universalists" which is the true character of Hinduism. Why accept a label that is nothing but a contemptuous alien word tied to the geography of ancient Rome? Our religion is universalism -- acceptance and respect for all things, including nature.

The benefit of this is that nature is considered as sacred and hence mindless exploitation of natural resources is anathema to a Hindu. This is also the major difference between Semitic faiths and ancient universsalist faiths of Africans, Red Indians and us Dharmics. Since nature is considered sacred, it cannot be the property of anyone. This is the reason why ancient Hindus, Red Indians and African tribes, all held land as the common asset of a village. This aspect has to be highlighted in our every discussion on Hinduism.
Last edited by sanjaychoudhry on 08 Sep 2009 21:24, edited 1 time in total.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by brihaspati »

99% of professed Christians do not have any Latin or history at the depth we are discussing here. So we have to be careful in dubbing oursleves by what they categorize us as, in current, everyday usage. They are not clear about their own faith - so any category based on negation of that cloudy "category" is risky. In fact, the Latin "paganus" was not widely used in the derogatory sense - as far as even Christian literature tends to show. The derogation is of much recent origins, probably even as late as the 17th century. It is most difficult to get the derogatory sense even in the canonical literature, or even in "vulgar" Latin.

If we stick to original linguistic meaning - do we accept, we are all "rustics", non-urban onlee and nothing more? (or the even older Greek roots - meaning simply "rock/stone in the ground")? If we go by the current confused definition - anything that is non-Abrahamic - do we actually have no difference with the Wiccans, white witches, German neo-paganism, druidism, yadda yadda?

Problem is not just the term being used by other, but what they mean by it. If we say we are pagans, these highly confused minds of the majority of Christians will have only a vague image that depends on their particular pastor and his/her Sunday sermons. Shivji, I understand what you are saying - but the political point at which a derogatory attribution can be adopted as reverse sign of defiance needs more concrete persecution based on that category - like that of the "Hindu" by the Islamic, or "Negro/Black" by white racists.

From the Partition point of view, as a historical category, the 19th century German Romanticism, and neo-classical reconstruction of "paganism" has had its impact on American thinking (a lot of German emigres to the US at the time carried forward the ideas - there is a tacit hint in "Little Women"). It is important to explore, as ramanaji has indicated, the role of these ideas in the more sophisticated political approach used by the US compared to UK, towards India. I simply put up the possible linkages from the anti-imperial/anti-urban/anti-Roman German resistance finding roots in forest-based/pre-Christian concepts as an issue of comeptition and struggle between opposing camps within the diasporic German - the Anglo-Saxon world.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

But sanjay, why not just call ourselves sanatana dharmi and leave it at that?
There is a universalist unitarian church, many people may misunderstand you.
sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by sanjaychoudhry »

But sanjay, why not just call ourselves sanatana dharmi and leave it at that? There is a universalist unitarian church, many people may misunderstand you. But sanjay, why not just call ourselves sanatana dharmi and leave it at that?There is a universalist unitarian church, many people may misunderstand you.
Universalist Unitarian church is nothing but a Western version of Hinduism. These dudes don't call themselves Christians. Sanatan Dharma is again tied to Indian history and geography. The idea is to use a word that rings a bell in other cultures too.
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16271
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SwamyG »

sanskrit gurus: What would a person who follows Purusartha be called?
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by surinder »

And this discussion is relevant because ... ?
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16271
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SwamyG »

surinder wrote:And this discussion is relevant because ... ?
When we were in school we used to talk about politics, cricket and what not. Ultimately all conversations finally landed on the subject of girls. Similarly unless a discussion is about numbers, graphs, missiles, ships, space crafts, air crafts, submarines, guns, ammunition.... it is almost certain that we land up on trying to define India, its aims/objectives/vision ithyadi; and while doing so we tend to touch Indic terms (and Hinduism).
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

samuel wrote: So then you might say being flexible is the answer, thoda thoda khao, thoda thoda pheko bahut mazaaa ata hai (from "albert pinto ko gussa kyun ata hai"). But you gotta be rigid sometimes too, or you get walked over. Then you think that may be you need to be able to think
Nyet nyet, Jaane bhi do yaaron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaane_Bhi_Do_Yaaro
Post Reply