Bharat Rakshak

SwamyG wrote:Gurulog: A question, important in my opinion; does anybody know when JS started writing this book?

RamaY wrote:RayC-ji,

The million $ question you did not answer is why should someone be treated differently in Bharat?

What specialty Indian Muslims, Kashmiris, and NE Indians have that others do not? Why should one “try to understand the culture and history” when it comes to these special cases and why is one so comfortable blaming anything that represents Hindu Majority (I am not talking about me here, I am talking about the people like BT).

You being an ex-servicemen were having issues calling Indian society “Bharatiya Society”. You were quick to jump the gun on BT but were trying to find all the excuses to study and understand JK/NE issues. On one hand we complain that Musharraf was allowed to visit Agra and give speeches to Indian Media and politicians, on the other hand we blame SS/BT for digging the cricket pitch to cancel a Indo-Pak cricket match. That is the intellectual dishonesty and ideological slavery I was referring to

On some other thread, BR Admins were pushing and threatening someone who made generalized statement about Indian Muslims. But the same admins (not individuals) were giving excuses when some RMalohtra(?) made derogatory comments about Hindus. Why this double standard? Why don’t we show such bravado against people like Al-BRaman when they make derogatory comments about BR? Instead we delete all the threads that collected lot of news, thoughts and ideas. Can any admin bring back the discussion we had on Kandhamal issue or Mumbai Terror attacks? Does it mean the Admin/Moderator who created those threads to start with and allowed the discussion to happen for months made a wrong judgment? If Al-BRaman’s observation is correct then why don’t we punish those Admins/Moderators who create threads like “Islam at cross roads” and allow such discussions to happen for months.

Please note that I am not discussing on one BRaman or one RayC here, I am discussing the thought process.

There is no double standard on this forum! I think it is quite fair.

BijuShet wrote:Posted in Full from a TSP newspaper Opinion article by Ahmed Quraishi who works for Geo TV. No Comments.
'Pak-nationalism'

Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ahmed Quraishi

While we should thank India's former foreign minister for his courage in praising Mr Jinnah, we should stop behaving as if we are seeking validation and vindication. Mr Jaswant Singh's book is not a Pakistani victory. It is a sincere attempt by an Indian citizen to probe what is commonly known as partition, which itself is based on the false notion that a sovereign India was wrongly divided. For us in Pakistan, we should realise that our independence – and not "partition" – is steeped in both modern and old histories and requires no explanation.

Pakistani intellectuals continue to be afflicted with low self-esteem that prevents them from fashioning an interpretation of history supportive of the idea of Pakistani nationalism. In this, our intellectuals are far behind the thinkers in Israel, for example, who achieved the impossible by reviving a 2,000-year-old dead language to gel a nation of diverse peoples.

Our politicians and thinkers failed to make something out of Pakistan in the past six decades mainly because of the lack of pride that comes from a sense of being, a sense of destiny, a sense of history. This discussion is important because we have seen brazen attempts during the last two years, especially in the US media, to promote the idea of Pakistan's balkanisation.

Finding a nationalistic motivation, a sort of 'Pak-nationalism' -- is essential.

The first thing Pakistanis need to know is that Pakistan was destined to happen. Mr Jinnah made it happen through his sheer brilliance because he was there. But Pakistan was going to happen anyway, in some shape or form and at an opportune time, because of the force of history. Pakistan was not a historical coincidence that the common historical version suggests and which Mr Singh reinforced. There is no coincidence in the fact that a quarter of a century before Quaid-e-Azam's rise, a poet who wore a Turkish tarboosh (hat) and wrote Persian poetry predicted such a country. Pakistan's rise came exactly 90 years after the formal fall of the Mughal Empire, Pakistan's predecessor, which was the only India the world had known for centuries. Except for that 90-year-long gap, Pakistan had existed in several shapes and forms, and for at least ten centuries.

Our Indian friends have the right to debate the question of India's supposed division. But today's India, born in 1947, was never divided or partitioned. It is a historical fallacy to think that Pakistan was ever part of any united and sovereign Indian state. The only thing that was divided in 1947 was a British colony that, in turn, was based on a defunct Muslim empire. The Indian grievance about the "partition" that is at the core of Indian animosity toward Pakistan is without base.

What is more surprising is how Pakistan's intellectuals were drawn by Mr Singh's book to conclude that Pakistan's founding father was an "Indian nationalist" who did not want Pakistan as a first choice. This is incorrect, because it negates the force of history that favoured Pakistan. Tens of millions of people wanted to be future Pakistani citizens before the country even existed. The leadership of Mr Jinnah was an instrument, not the cause.

Sixty-two years later, Pakistanis shouldn't be discussing details. We know there was a Pakistan independence movement. We know it was anchored in history. We know that the fourth and fifth generations of today's Pakistanis are more integrated than ever.

This is the reality of Mr Jinnah's 'Pak-nationalism'. And this is the only thing that matters.

The writer works for Geo TV. Email: [email protected]

hasmukh wrote:1. Why should the NE people and Kashmiris be treated differently?

No, they should not be. Kashmiri Muslims are parasites who live off Indian charity and chant long live Pakistan, They do not want to be treated as Indians , Go and have a good talk with them if ever opportunity arises, whereas they get highest amount of development aid in comparison to other states , at the most liberals among them will tell you that they want nothing to do with India or Pakistan.

ramana wrote: Potshot at Al-BRaman:

BTW its no wonder that India's external agency is called by its acronym for its members are mere collectors and not assessors which requires processing or cooking.

SwamyG wrote:

There is no double standard on this forum! I think it is quite fair.

I perceive the admins go through a lot of trouble to keep this place the place it is now. I imagine it is no easy task. I see enough care is taken to ensure the minorities do not get into takleef. In the attempts to analyse other religions, Hinduism goes through its share of scrutiny too here. Fine and dandy; but I notice that some of your lines are almost hindu-baiting. I would be reading a good post of yours, and suddenly out of the blue you will post a bait. Maybe that is because this forum is filled with Hindus

RamaY wrote:RayC-ji,

The million $ question you did not answer is why should someone be treated differently in Bharat?

What specialty Indian Muslims, Kashmiris, and NE Indians have that others do not? Why should one “try to understand the culture and history” when it comes to these special cases and why is one so comfortable blaming anything that represents Hindu Majority (I am not talking about me here, I am talking about the people like BT).

You being an ex-servicemen were having issues calling Indian society “Bharatiya Society”. You were quick to jump the gun on BT but were trying to find all the excuses to study and understand JK/NE issues. On one hand we complain that Musharraf was allowed to visit Agra and give speeches to Indian Media and politicians, on the other hand we blame SS/BT for digging the cricket pitch to cancel a Indo-Pak cricket match. That is the intellectual dishonesty and ideological slavery I was referring to

On some other thread, BR Admins were pushing and threatening someone who made generalized statement about Indian Muslims. But the same admins (not individuals) were giving excuses when some RMalohtra(?) made derogatory comments about Hindus. Why this double standard? Why don’t we show such bravado against people like Al-BRaman when they make derogatory comments about BR? Instead we delete all the threads that collected lot of news, thoughts and ideas. Can any admin bring back the discussion we had on Kandhamal issue or Mumbai Terror attacks? Does it mean the Admin/Moderator who created those threads to start with and allowed the discussion to happen for months made a wrong judgment? If Al-BRaman’s observation is correct then why don’t we punish those Admins/Moderators who create threads like “Islam at cross roads” and allow such discussions to happen for months.

Please note that I am not discussing on one BRaman or one RayC here, I am discussing the thought process.

Sanku wrote:Guys dont take the thread OT. RayC you are a mod for gods sake, please do help in keeping the discussion on topic.

What does BT has to do about JS book -- please lets not derail every thread with same discussions.

Sanku wrote:Guys dont take the thread OT.
.......... please lets not derail every thread with same discussions.

Ramana: The decision to prune the archives was made to save the storage space. Ample time was given to archive the threads by members.

Samuel: Can I just ask a question about that disk pruning, though? (I'll be happy to move post to appropriate place). There is perfect logic in pruning threads by content. That stands on its own two feet as an argument. Not sure how pruning due to size is motivated, however. Let's assume it takes 200KB/page of raw text or 1MB per 5 pages or 20MB/thread of 100 pages. That would be a 100, 100-page threads for 2GB and 100,000 100-page threads for 2TB. If we assume a RAID system and have 2 x2 i.e. 4TB of disk, that is approx. $400. If on average there is one new thread every day and reach 100 pages, that's 365, 100 page threads per year. So, with 4TB, one can go on for 273 years. May I propose a donation from people so that we can have six 2TB disks in a raid configuration of 6TB and forged about disk problems?

shravan wrote:==========================

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... 45-9-9.pdf
Printed for the War Cabinet. January 1945.

That evening a press report had been received from which it
appeared that Mr. Jinnah declined all responsibility for whatever
talks there might have been between Liaqat Ali Khan and Desai.
Liaqat Ali Khan had also made a speech reiterating the demands
put forward on behalf of the Muslim League by Mr. Jinnah in the
autumn of 194Q.

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... 45-9-9.pdf

==========================

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... -76-14.pdf
Mr. Jinnah's non-co-operation to hold up progress with the forma­
tion of an Interim Government. The telegram had proposed that
the next step should be for the Viceroy to see Mr. Jinnah and
endeavour to persuade him, even now, to allow members of the
Muslim League to enter the proposed Interim Government. The
Secretary of State for India now proposed that a further telegram
(Annex II I to C P . (46) 315) should be sent to the Viceroy I
indicating the policy which he should adopt if Mr. Jinnah was
unwilling to co-operate in the formation of an Interim Government.
The Secretary of State for India reported that since C P . (46)
315 had been circulated a telegram had been received from the
Viceroy to the effect that he was sure it would not be advisable for
him to see Mr. Jinnah immediately. The Viceroy wished to put
on Congress the responsibility for any attempt to satisfy the League.

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... -76-14.pdf

==========================

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... -271-1.pdf
June 27, 1942.
POLIC Y TO BE ADOPTE D TOWARD S MR . GANDHI .

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... -271-1.pdf

==========================

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... 7-50-1.pdf
May 1 9 4 7

While Mr. Jinnah had always claimed that Pakistan would wish to remain within the British Commonwealth, it had been the policy of the Congress Party that India should be a sovereign independent republic and they had seamed a resolution to that effect in the Constituent Assembly.

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... 7-50-1.pdf

==========================

A_Gupta wrote:. . . In Jinnah's unified India (unified on a trial basis only, with the option of creating Pakistan 10 years later) . . .

1. If the idea was rejected, he could alwas turn around and say that everything reasonable has been tried by the Muslim League and the Congress was stubborn leading to Partition (as it finally happened)
2. If the idea was accepted, he would have ensured within a matter of no time that the Muslim-majority areas separated citing various reasons that could be easily invented. In fact, had it been accepted, India would have been Balkanised because, Jinnah was hobnobbing with various Muslim rulers like in Bhopal, Hyderabad, Junagarh etc and was trying with other Hindu princesses to give a corridor connecting these faraway kingdoms to either a seaport or to the Pakistani boundary

kumarn wrote:Insisting that a federal India was the dream of both Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi, former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh has said that the country would have been "a global power" now had it not been "cut up" to form Pakistan.

SSridhar wrote:
One of the reasons behind the argument that it was Nehru & Patel who caused Partition and not Jinnah is this 1946 proposal of a federal setup with a very weak centre. Jinnah, IMHO, knew exactly that it would not be acceptable to the INC. Yet, he favoured such an approach because of exactly two reasons:

1. If the idea was rejected, he could alwas turn around and say that everything reasonable has been tried by the Muslim League and the Congress was stubborn leading to Partition (as it finally happened)
2. If the idea was accepted, he would have ensured within a matter of no time that the Muslim-majority areas separated citing various reasons that could be easily invented. In fact, had it been accepted, India would have been Balkanised because, Jinnah was hobnobbing with various Muslim rulers like in Bhopal, Hyderabad, Junagarh etc and was trying with other Hindu princesses to give a corridor connecting these faraway kingdoms to either a seaport or to the Pakistani boundary

Having worked assiduously since 1906 for unacceptable Muslim representation in governance, disproportionate to their population, and with Jinnah spearheading for separation by disingenuously proffering a variety of invented reasons for such a separation, and cunningly omitting a mention of Pakistan in the Lahore declaration but openly admitting to it in the Press Meet nevertheless later on, we can well imagine what would have happened even if the Cabinet Committee proposal had been accepted in 1946. It is humbug of the very first order to claim that India would have been saved of a Partition because India would have been broken into smithereens very soon had it been accepted.

SSridhar wrote:PS: I also agree with Rajesh that the massacres would have been unimaginable and engulfed the whole country because there was no restraining hand of the British, however feeble it had been before.

surinder wrote:

SSridhar wrote:PS: I also agree with Rajesh that the massacres would have been unimaginable and engulfed the whole country because there was no restraining hand of the British, however feeble it had been before.

That unfortunately is sad summary, it just underscores how deft the British propaganda is: It is an instigator of violence, yet is seen as a restrainer. That is what it projected to the world also. That we would buy this propaganda is a sad reminder.

wig wrote:

kumarn wrote:Insisting that a federal India was the dream of both Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi, former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh has said that the country would have been "a global power" now had it not been "cut up" to form Pakistan.

I am sure that we will be a global power sooner than later with or without Mr, JS