Pak Tea House » History, India, Pakistan, Partition » Maulana Azad's interview given to Shorish Kashmiri
Maulana Azad's interview given to Shorish Kashmiri
I was intrigued by this interview of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad given to the famous journalist Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946. This interesting document has been discovered and translated by a former Indian minister Arif Mohammad Khan. Covert Magazine and newageIslam website have recently published it. The contents of this interview are difficult to agreed with. Azad is speaking from a nationalist angle, anti-Pakistan movement platform.
However, the narrative has some interesting observations and predictions for Pakistan that cannot be rubbished simply because Azad was a Congressite. This interview was conducted over a period of two weeks (parallel to the proceedings of the Cabinet Mission) and has not been documented in any book except that of Kashmiri’s book on Abul Kalam Azad, which has been out of print for decades. Its discovery is a welcome step towards better historiography on both sides of the border.
Q: The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any possibility of reconciliation. Don’t you think that in this situation the birth of Pakistan has become inevitable?
A: If Pakistan were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem, then I would have extended my support to it. A section of Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding NWFP, Sind, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and half of Bengal on the other, they think they will get the rest of India — a huge country that would be free from any claims of communal nature. If we use the Muslim League terminology, this new India will be a Hindu state both practically and temperamentally. This will not happen as a result of any conscious decision, but will be a logical consequence of its social realities. How can you expect a society that consists 90% of Hindus, who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric times, to grow differently? The factors that laid the foundation of Islam in Indian society and created a powerful following have become victim of the politics of partition. The communal hatred it has generated has completely extinguished all possibilities of spreading and preaching Islam. This communal politics has hurt the religion beyond measure. Muslims have turned away from the Quran. If they had taken their lessons from the Quran and the life of the Holy Prophet and had not forged communal politics in the name of religion then Islam’s growth would not have halted. By the time of the decline of the Mughal rule, the Muslims in India were a little over 22.5 million, that is about 65% of the present numbers. Since then the numbers kept increasing. If the Muslim politicians had not used the offensive language that embittered communal relations, and the other section acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen the Hindu-Muslim breach, the number of Muslims in India would have grown higher. The political disputes we created in the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not what it is — a value system meant for the transformation of human soul. Under British influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message and divided themselves into many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power. Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values. The hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow their own whims and desires. In fact now they easily submit to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics not the religion of the Quran. Pakistan is a political standpoint. Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? How shall we explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim lands including India? Do they realise that if Islam had approved this principle then it would not have permitted its followers to go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors of the supporters of Pakistan would not have had even entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis of religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda, but it finds no sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a devout Muslim? Spreading the light of Islam or dividing territories along religious lines to pursue political ambitions? The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslims in any manner. How Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind of leadership it gets. The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India. This is a surmise and God alone knows what is in the womb of future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema, the religion will lose its sheen in Pakistan.
Q: But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [M.A. Jinnah].
A: Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember no Ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt, but those who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also Ulema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?
Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality? After all, “Islam” is being used to pursue and protect the unity of the community.
A: You are using the name of Islam for a cause that is not right by Islamic standards. Muslim history bears testimony to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought between Imam Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy Prophet] Qurans were displayed on lances. Was that right? In Karbala the family members of the Holy Prophet were martyred by those Muslims who claimed companionship of the Prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was a Muslim general and he subjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was that right? No sacred words can justify or sanctify a false motive.
If Pakistan was right for Muslims then I would have supported it. But I see clearly the dangers inherent in the demand. I do not expect people to follow me, but it is not possible for me to go against the call of my conscience. People generally submit either to coercion or to the lessons of their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against Pakistan unless they experience it. Today they can call white black, but they will not give up Pakistan. The only way it can be stopped now is either for the government not to concede it or for Mr Jinnah himself — if he agrees to some new proposal.
Now as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the working committee, the division of India appears to be certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of partition will not affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally haunted by them. The partition will be based on the religion of the population and not based on any natural barrier like mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult to say how durable it would be.
We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this situation it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a barrier between the two countries. It will not be possible for Pakistan to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will not be possible for the Hindus to stay especially in West Pakistan. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This will have its repercussions in India and the Indian Muslims will have three options before them:
1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many Muslims can find shelter there?
2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.
3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.
The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim League will leave for Pakistan. The wealthy Muslims will take over the industry and business and monopolise the economy of Pakistan. But more than 30 million Muslims will be left behind in India. What promise Pakistan holds for them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan will be still more dangerous for them. Pakistan itself will be afflicted by many serious problems. The greatest danger will come from international powers who will seek to control the new country, and with the passage of time this control will become tight. India will have no problem with this outside interference as it will sense danger and hostility from Pakistan.
The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II, Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr H.S. Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fast unto death at Rajkot. Subhas Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests.
The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has never created durable political unity anywhere in the world. The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common religion, a common civilisation and culture and speak a common language. In fact they acknowledge even territorial unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their systems of government are different and they are often engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility. On the other hand, the language, customs and way of life of East Pakistan are totally different from West Pakistan. The moment the creative warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions will emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers and consequently both wings will separate. After the separation of East Pakistan, whenever it happens, West Pakistan will become the battleground of regional contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national identities of Punjab, Sind, Frontier and Balochistan will open the doors for outside interference. It will not be long before the international powers use the diverse elements of Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we lost.
The real issue is economic development and progress, it certainly is not religion. Muslim business leaders have doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They are so used to official patronage and favours that they fear new freedom and liberty. They advocate the two-nation theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state where they have the monopoly to control the economy without any competition from competent rivals. It will be interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception alive.
I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:
1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.
2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.
3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.
4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.
5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.
6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.
7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.
8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.
In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.
Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their community identity intact and how they can inculcate the attributes of the citizens of a Muslim state.
A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor slanted questions can make the answers deficient. It amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by community identity? If this community identity has remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come under threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be equal participants? What attributes of the Muslim state you wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom of faith and worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their religious freedom? If the British, who as a world power could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion? These questions have been raised by those, who, under the influence of western culture, have renounced their own heritage and are now raising dust through political gimmickry.
Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you think the Muslim kings were serving the cause of Islam? They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not Islamic preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to Sufis, and many of these divines were treated by the kings very cruelly. Most of the kings created a large band of Ulema who were an obstacle in the path of the propagation of Islamic ethos and values. Islam, in its pristine form, had a tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts and minds of a large number of people living in and around Hejaz. But the Islam that came to India was different, the carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing. Still, the imprint of the Muslim period is writ large on the culture, music, art, architecture and languages of India. What do the cultural centres of India, like Delhi and Lucknow, represent? The underlying Muslim spirit is all too obvious.
If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they will be reduced to slavery in free India then I can only pray for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted with life he can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid and lacks courage, then it is not possible to help him become brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become cowards. They have no fear of God, instead they fear men. This explains why they are so obsessed with threats to their existence — a figment of their imagination.
After British takeover, the government committed all possible excesses against the Muslims. But Muslims did not cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that was more than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and values have their own charm. Then India has large Muslim neighbours on three sides. Why on earth the majority in this country will be interested to wipe out the Muslims? How will it promote their self interests? Is it so easy to finish 90 million people? In fact, Muslim culture has such attraction that I shall not be surprised if it comes to have the largest following in free India.
The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of life. If the Hindus can run after Marx and undertake scholarly studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they do not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from its principles. In fact they are more familiar with Islam and acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a hereditary community or a despotic system of governance. Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of a Messenger who calls to the worship of God and not his own worship. Islam means freedom from all social and economic discriminations and reorganisation of society on three basic principles of God-consciousness, righteous action and knowledge. In fact, it is we Muslims and our extremist behaviour that has created an aversion among non-Muslims for Islam. If we had not allowed our selfish ambitions to soil the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth would have found comfort in the bosom of Islam. Pakistan has nothing to do with Islam; it is a political demand that is projected by Muslim League as the national goal of Indian Muslims. I feel it is not the solution to the problems Muslims are facing. In fact it is bound to create more problems.
The Holy Prophet has said, “God has made the whole earth a mosque for me.” Now do not ask me to support the idea of the partition of a mosque. If the nine-crore Muslims were thinly scattered all over India, and demand was made to reorganise the states in a manner to ensure their majority in one or two regions, that was understandable. Again such a demand would not have been right from an Islamic viewpoint, but justifiable on administrative grounds. But the situation, as it exists, is drastically different. All the border states of India have Muslim majorities sharing borders with Muslim countries. Tell me, who can eliminate these populations? By demanding Pakistan we are turning our eyes away from the history of the last 1,000 years and, if I may use the League terminology, throwing more than 30 million Muslims into the lap of “Hindu Raj”. The Hindu Muslim problem that has created political tension between Congress and League will become a source of dispute between the two states and with the aid of international powers this may erupt into full scale war anytime in future.
The question is often raised that if the idea of Pakistan is so fraught with dangers for the Muslims, why is it being opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the demand is coming from two quarters. One is represented by those who genuinely feel concerned about imperial machinations and strongly believe that a free, united India will be in a better position to defend itself. On the other hand, there is a section who opposes Pakistan with the motive to provoke Muslims to become more determined in their demand and thus get rid of them. Muslims have every right to demand constitutional safeguards, but partition of India cannot promote their interests. The demand is the politically incorrect solution of a communal problem.
In future India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of India.
Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, “I am a nationalist first and a nationalist last” and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims, “not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution in the truest sense of the term”.
In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for Pakistan is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.
Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from their demand for Pakistan. Why have they become so impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?
A: It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, but to suppress one’s conscience is worse than death. Today the Muslims are not walking, they are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow with the tide. When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect, they are surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong. The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical strength but through firm faith and righteous action. British politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state, bemoaning the departure of the British and demanding partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and bodies? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt their borders and any armed conflict will result in much greater loss of lives and possessions.
Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with different and disparate inclinations. How can the unity between the two be achieved?
A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum has been used not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms India is home to many people — the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion.
Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahabi, Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.
But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs.
Q: You closed down your journal Al-Hilal a long time back. Was it due to your disappointment with the Muslims who were wallowing in intellectual desolation, or did you feel like proclaiming azan [call to prayer] in a barren desert?
A: I abandoned Al-Hilal not because I had lost faith in its truth. This journal created great awareness among a large section of Muslims. They renewed their faith in Islam, in human freedom and in consistent pursuit of righteous goals. In fact my own life was greatly enriched by this experience and I felt like those who had the privilege of learning under the companionship of the Messenger of God. My own voice entranced me and under its impact I burnt out like a phoenix. Al-Hilal had served its purpose and a new age was dawning. Based on my experiences, I made a reappraisal of the situation and decided to devote all my time and energy for the attainment of our national freedom. I was firm in my belief that freedom of Asia and Africa largely depends on India’s freedom and Hindu Muslim unity is key to India’s freedom. Even before the First World War, I had realised that India was destined to attain freedom, and no power on earth would be able to deny it. I was also clear in my mind about the role of Muslims. I ardently wished that Muslims would learn to walk together with their countrymen and not give an opportunity to history to say that when Indians were fighting for their independence, Muslims were looking on as spectators. Let nobody say that instead of fighting the waves they were standing on the banks and showing mirth on the drowning of boats carrying the freedom fighters [¼].
Courtesy: Covert Magazine
Filed under: History, India, Pakistan, Partition · Tags: 1947, Abul, Azad, History, India, Indian, Indian Muslim, Jinnah, kalam, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Muslim, Muslims, Partition
232 Responses to "Maulana Azad's interview given to Shorish Kashmiri"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- Jamal
said Lol Quisling, do you know the meaning of the word?... - Jamal said @Sunny
Your answer to 1 strongly implies you belie...
- PMA
said The Tiwanas, like thousands of other ‘soldiers of... - PMA said Part II
Sir Malik Mohammed Umar Hayat Khan Tiwana...
- PMA said This may help.
Sir Malik Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana...
- vhp
said sunny tumne ramdeo kee zhantee dekhi hai.uski zhat... - amjad said NDelhi says:
June 19, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Amjad , i...
- lahori said sunny says:
June 19, 2013 at 10:16 pm
Nawaz Sha...
- guest. said Sunny bhai, why you are always so upset with Musli...
- Jamal said @AHMAD KHAN
Agree, but I think there has been a lo...
@Ganpat Ram
Well, if this is what it takes, this is what it takes. This is the first post on this thread where you haven’t come up with your Hindu India idiocy.
I note that you wisely acknowledge that you can ridicule my arguments, not counter them. Sensible.
Your tenth line of alliterations was in bad taste, by the way.
VAJRA:
You don’t know how to have your own thoughts, do your own thinking. This is betrayed by your pathetic pride in trotting out literary allusions, your inept, clumsy, verbose sentences.
Simplicity is the mark of self-confident people who know what they want to say and are unafraid of being found in error – since simple language reveals error much more easily.
Read Orwell. He explains why simple, clear language is the one to go for.
You mistake windiness for profundity.
@Ganpat Ram
If by thinking one’s own thoughts and doing one’s own thinking, one comes to your state, your comments and your analyses, that is not much of an incentive to change.
Regarding simplicity being the mark of self-confident people, and so on, we have no doubt that you are self-confident, to the extreme point of being self-satisfied. You must understand that this is emphatically not the first time that this forum has encountered specimens such as you. This trait, that you so trustingly trot out as your own unique attribute, is one of the hallmarks of the succession of crashing bores that we have encountered previously. Please read my post of March 12, 2010 at 3:39 am, and particularly the third attribute of this hapless breed. In fact, read the whole post and recognise yourself as others see you, not as you see yourself.
I have read Orwell. I cannot write like Orwell, even if I wished to. I certainly would like to follow his principles. My style is built of what I have read from such masters, interpreted as best as I knew. In some circles, this is known as originality. If you are open to new influences and leave some interval open for new impulses in the midst of the sound of your own voice, you might recognise this. Doubtful, but not impossible.
You mistake painstaking detail, an attempt to cover the entire subject, for windiness. Given the manifest superficiality, the shallow, gimcrack nature of what you inflict on us, this might even be a defence, not an honest mistake.
Monsieur Vajra:
Your little footling essay is embarrassingly remniscent of those pitiable, laboured, clumsy imitations of nineteenth century essayists that are oft inflicted on weary literature professors by wet-behind-the-ear first-year students.
It is the dreary task of the professor to gently wean these measly wretches away from their juvenile fascination with aping the stale diction and obsolete thoughts of a long-vanished age and to teach them the use of their own brains, ill-endowed though these be.
I could walk you into the ground in a competition to establish who has the fatuous glory of perpetrating the most slavish pastiche of some long gone-to-dust nineteeth or eighteenth century pompous master of saying next to nothing in a multitude of long, resonant words. But confound it, Sir! – that would be an insufferable waste of my time, though admittedly not of yours which evidently has no better purposes in its sights.
You have evinced the singular effrontery to rebuke me for avoiding the defence and substantiation of my case on this august forum, the Paki Tea Shop.
Cast your eyes, as unseeing as your wits, back over the record of this web page, Sir. You will, once you have made up your paltry imitative “mind” to look, see that I have had but plain propositions, clearly enunciated. I have said that the Partition, so profusely lamented in these pages by so many ill-instructed persons making painful display of their inability to state a case and to defend it ( you above all, Sir) – this Partion, to repeat – was in fact for most of the inhabitants of India, a good eventuality.
It has enabled the Hindus to live their own lives largely free of Muslim pressure; it afforded Muslims the same delicious, ineffable luxury.
I futher pointed out that Pakistan has been on the whole better managed in matters economic than India, that this can be confirmed by the evidence of the naked eye.
Your common or garden Pak is apt to be a strapping, fairly well set up person, of some strength of muscle; while the Hindu eqivalent tends to be a weedy character who seems about to be blown away by every gusting wind. Many a traveller to the Pak land after a visit to fabled Hind have noted this intriguing contrast.
Have you, Sir, any evidence to confute my assertion, that Partition has been on the whole a benefit for the subcontinent, that Pakistan is a more prosperous land than the land of the Hindu?
If so, you have but to speak.
As to India being Hindu – an assertion to which you have taken an immoderate, comical, intemperate, unintelligent exception – that too I explained clearly: it is so, in the sense that Hindus predominate and so do their ideas, in that many-marvelled realm of Hind.
Have you evidence to confute me?
You have decried repeatedly a certain Vishwas, proclaiming him unworthy to grace the celestial precincts of this Paki Tea Shop.
Pricked by curiousity by your illiterate, rancorous rants, I sought to find out for myself what the said Vishwas had stated that was so objectionable.
I discovered him to be a gentleman of perhaps at times excessive proneness to attribute ill things to Islam, but not otherwise of any particularly atrocious culpability. He is well worth calmly refuting, to the extent that he is of mistaken trend; he is most certainly not to be denied access to a site that does some rare credit to the Pak nation by being rather open to opinion.
You, Sir, are an abject flatterer of Paks and Islam, and evince the instinct to silence those who might demur with your contemptible sycophancy.
Sir, you have claimed, with all the cupidity and fatuity which is your distinguishing feature, that you are one of “exquisite politeness”. It is only with a scarcely conquerable revulsion that I remind you that you spoke of offering me savage physical chastisement on this very webpage, should I dare to hold an opinion you did not share.
Should you ever be tempted to put your bibulous threat into practice, you will find me, to your lasting regret, much more than your match, physically, too.
I had meant to close my epistle above thus:
I have the honour to be, Sir
Your Very Obedient Servant
Ganpat Ram
See how easy all these tricks are, Vajra?
Intelligent people have better things to do than imitate.
“Should you ever be tempted to put your bibulous threat into practice, you will find me, to your lasting regret, much more than your match, physically, too.”
Obviously Ganpatji, you are an exception to the “weedy character who seems about to be blown away by every gusting wind”….a rare exception in this “many-marvelled realm of Hind”….
@Ganpat Ram
Ah yes! The 18th century. No doubt along with your other mistakes on points relating to history and to sociology, you perhaps think that this was the century of Orwell. There is no telling. But let me acknowledge a skilful imitation of a bygone age. The mind wanders in the direction of imposing involuntary time travel for pests of a particular kind, but let us stick to the last.
All your posts have talked about good writing – almost all. Strangely, or perhaps indicating that that is an inherent part of the problem, they never refer to good reading.
If you numbered that vice along with your virtue of good writing, you might even have noticed that nobody, nowhere had opposed your statements about the superior physical condition and better state of development of Pakistanis.
Secondly, I do not know where you found laments about Partition. There have been arch-Hindu super-patriots, birds of passage, who have come and up-ended their bilious feelings on us and gone away, thankfully never to be heard from again, but none of us defended it, nor felt the need to. It is an established fact, after all.
You mentioned that partition, or, as you would prefer,this Partion,has been lamented in these pages by some of us. To be precise, your words are that partition is so profusely lamented in these pages by so many ill-instructed persons making painful display of their inability to state a case and to defend it ( you above all, Sir).
Put up or shut up. What have you based your astonishing flight of fancy upon? I have never defended such a stupid proposition, nor have any of the regular contributors.
Up to this point, you would encounter no opposition, as I have stated clearly at the beginning of this exchange. Neither does anybody deny your assertion that the people of Pakistan are well off in certain physical characteristics than the people of India, nor does anybody mourn the event of partition, or wish it undone, except in two contexts: mourning the killing that accompanied it and that led up to it, and expressing a hope for closer economic ties and cooperation in future. The phrase South Asian Community has been used by some of the precocious masters who contribute here.
My only objection, and it was a personal objection, not a collective thought, was to describe India as Hindu. You say that this is justified by the prevalent majority of inhabitants being Hindu, by a careless, throw-away phrase repeated a number of times that Hindus predominate and so do their ideas. Presumably by that you mean political ideas, economic ideas, social ideas, the lot. If so, that precisely is what I object to and would like to examine in detail.
It seems to me that describing India as Hindu is a totally fallacious idea, as fallacious as the proposition that a predominance of people, a brute majority, sets the character and tone of a country.
First, it denies the character and desire to express themselves of a variety of identity groups. These include the subjugated lower castes, the Dravidians, the tribals of central India, the tribals of mountainous north India, including the north-east, and all the members of minor religions, minor in the sense of less in numbers, the Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and Sikhs.
The vision of a Hindu India is limited to the manuvadi upper castes of plains-dwelling Hindus.
It is not shared by the lower castes. If you go through the writings of Ambedkar, unfortunately not very popular because his views are unfortunately not very popular, or the latter-day speeches of Kanshi Ram or Mayawati, you will get a flavour, an extremist flavour in the cases of Kanshi Ram and Mayawati, of what these segments of society aspire to. It is not to be part of Hindu India, it is not to continue to accept the unthinkable oppression that they have suffered over centuries. If you want a fuller list of Dalit writing and thinking on this, ask. I might print it anyway, so that people can read from it know you are speaking a pernicious brand of rubbish.
It is not shared by huge sections of the south, even as significant sections of those same parts continue to adhere to it. A closer look at the situation will reveal that the Brahmins, the traders and the land-owners stuck to Hinduism; the others, oppressed at their hands, withdrew as long ago as Ramaswamy Naicker’s movement from the 1930s. Even today, the ideology of the DMK, and to some extent of the AIADMK is founded on this quest for Dravidian identity.
It is not shared by a Gond or a Santhal or a Maria. If you want to learn about this, read Christoph von Fuerer-Haimendorff for starters. Better still, go to Dantewada and preach your doctrine of India as a Hindu India. That entire section, Andhra Pradesh from north and east of Warangal, Chhatisgarh, Maharashtra east of Gadchiroli, Jharkhand, sections of adjacent Bihar, sections of adjacent West Bengal, sections of adjacent Orissa, all are in open revolt against, not India, but the Hindu traders and ‘industrialists’, whose only aim is to open up the lands of these marginalised Indian citizens for exploitation of forest and mineral resources.
It is not shared by the north-eastern tribes, prominently the Nagas and the Mizos, although there are 13 distinct insurrectionary movements from this region, within the general list of 31 proscribed, involving groups and segments that do not come to public attention daily.
Need I add evidence about the psychological distances between the minor religions and their adherents and the right-wing fascists’ concept of ‘Hindu’ India?
If you look at this carefully, the majority of India is no longer Hindu, the prevalent thought and ideology is Hindu only to the extent that it is imposed in some places at some times by force. This imposition of Hindu ideas and tenets by force is what has led to the increasing turbulence in society, a turbulence that will only grow until the underlying reasons are resolved.
This is what I have been trying to point out in every post of substance from the beginning, and this is what you had no time to read.
As for the rest of your rant, you might like to note that the exquisite politeness that I claimed was an attribute of the moderators and the Pakistanis who are regulars, not mine. Finally, I am amazed that you have so much information about my personal habits and my personal life that you can call me bibulous. Perhaps this assumed familiarity is some perverted form of flattery.
SAMEET:
Sir, I am very much the exception in not one, but several, respects, as your ill-advised, ill-instructed, illiterate colleague, Vajra, has discovered to his considerable discomfiture.
Confronted by a pompous prancing popinjay exuding an abjectly imitative effusion of verbal puffery, I find it excessively easy, nay, but child’s play, to device a reply in every wise fitting the biblical injunction: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit”.
VAJRA:
Aha!
You are now comically lapsing from the faux-Macaulay style to adopting the dreary frothy-mouthed drone of the practised Dravida-nadu Hindu-hater.
Well we know the type, asserting with a tedious shrillness that everything Hindu is the monopoly of the upper castes.
It serves little good to debate with this miserably vituperative lot. Here it will suffuce to say that Hinduism has long been outgrowing the Brahmin domination.
I myself am a Keralite of the lower castes. We had our troubles with Brahmins. But that was decades ago. Now in Kerala, it is the lower castes who dominate, politically and increasingly economically.
Times have changed; Hinduism, that religion whose supple flexibility maddens the Vajras, has changed and reformed. That is its trump card against Islam.
Even in the BJP, the upper castes have no assured dominance. When the OBC quota question was debated, Modi (whom I certainly don’t favour) rudely pointed out that the majority of Hindus are OBCS, as he is himself, and would insist on the quotas. That silenced the upper caste element.
Indeed, the rise of Hindutva (with whose methods again I disagree) has in large part been a rebellion of the middle and lower Hindu castes against the Brahmin-Muslim-Dalit combine perfected by Nehru.
Plenty of Dalits now also support Hindutva.
As for the Dravida fanatics, in Kerala they are the stuff of jokes. Keralites despise the Tamil fanaticism propagated by these brutish barbarians, best represented by the unlamented and deservedly dispatched Vellupillai Prabhakharan.
In the Indian Constution, adopted under the guidance of Nehru and Ambedkar, Hinduism is stated to include the Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains.
Missionary fanatics like Vajra may rave, along with Al-Qaeda. Hinduism will roll on.
Bark, O Macaulay mimics !
Vajra:
The history of India since 1947 at least but probably since the Bengal Renaissance is a record of escape from Hinduness. You rightly asked what aspects of India’s social economic and political development is Hindu. Except for the accounting methods of the Marwari and Bania communities I can see very little.
Of course India’s outlook is hugely influenced by the Hindu mentality even today, but fortunately urban India is escaping that too. Hindutva is a dying creed, even thought it is not strictly speaking, representative of the Hindu mentality, only seeking to freeze it in a fascist mould.
The more conditioned regressive modes of Hindu thought do bubble up now and then, as in the sati veneration in Rajasthan or the khap panchayats in Haryana. These are surpressed by acquired western modes of response.
It is a pity that the more philosophical, contemplative and inquiring aspects of Hinduism are less in evidence in modern India.
Ganpat Bhai:
Reading your rapid fire posts and supremely self confident predictions of an awesome and superior intellect, I am getting a dreamy feeling as if I am on bridge of a Spaceship in Star trek that has suddenly been invaded by a Borg who declares rather matter of factly that :
‘Resistance is futile’
If your aim is to impress, I am truly impressed. Reading your posts, I even agree with some of your statements, such as that if the CMP had been accepted by Nehru and Patel it may have led to a vey messy Union of India. There are even others on the PTH who like you, admire MAJ if not as a Bismarck then as a heroic founder of a modern nation in the Indian Subcontinent.
Yet after I am done being impressed with your oratory and with witnessing the electrifying display of spellbinding verbal fireworks; I am left very uneasy with your statements and the apparent callousness, almost contemptuous style with which you chose to insult the people and the principles of the nation you seem to be speaking for. Although these provocative statements were made on several different threads, I will list them all here for ease of discussion:
1. You have implied that somehow the Muslims have regrets about the Partition borne out of an inferiority complex (or words to that effect) and suggest they should in fact rejoice in their good fortune because the partition was good for them. You also suggest that Indians too should not lament the partition since it was good for them too. I find this a disingenuous attempt to box others into a lose-lose position that is not theirs but one you want them to first own up so that you can then demolish it in a flash of inspired brilliance. The way you do this reminds on of a rhetorical question reportedly asked by a crooked family court trial attorney seeking to trap his opponent’s client by asking:
‘When did you last stop beating your wife?
I am carefully calling it disingenuous because if there is one thing that Pakistanis bristle at, it is when some neophyte Indian innocently remarks that the partition was a mistake. Almost to a man, all my Pakistani friends and my opponents have reiterated that they would not ever want to call the wisdom behind the partition into question.
Similarly I don’t know where you get the idea that the Pakistanis have any kind of inferiority or hesitation about asserting there nationhood; (may be you hang out in the wrong crowd of Pakistanis or may be you need to get out more); for I can assure you that the number of Pakistanis who have an inferiority complex of any kind vis-à-vis a Hindu India can fit into my son’s small closet.
Also you seem to go out of the way to be condescending by pointing out their superior physical attributes. Are you kidding; don’t you know they know that?
As a matter of fact I will not be surprised if someone told me that even as we speak a few of them are engaged in solving the complex mathematical formula that will allow them to deduce if one Pakistani youth can take on six Ganpats or nine Ganpats (your claims of being an exceptional fighter notwithstanding).
So my question is this; what is your point? Is it that you have come up with a great answer but whish is an orphan without a question and you desperately want that question asked so your brilliance can be suitably displayed?
2. Then you have implied that India is a Hindu nation. You say that it is obvious because Hindus are in a majority and back it up by such snide remarks as denying it would be like denying India is hot. No one is denying the majority but by using that as an argument, to me, it sounds like someone saying that Obama only ‘a black man’.
You may say that because that is the India you want to see; in which case you have the right to claim what ever you want; yet in the exact words of that same clever Pandit-ji of your, JLN: ‘facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes’. If there was one thing that Nehru spent his life patiently and repeatedly explaining to his countrymen, it was this; a Hindu majority does not mean a Hindu version of a Pakistan.
The Indian republic was founded as a secular home for all, including us minorities and it remains a secular homeland; your wishful refutations of Vajra not with standing.
Again, look at the facts. The BJP that you so proudly tout has been in a continuous electoral retreat after once touching a high watermark in the vicinity of about 35%.
Its current ideologue is now trying to make the appropriate noises about taking the Muslims along precisely because its own electoral arithmetic demonstrates that the fantasy sandcastle of a sustained Hindu political majority is just that; a fantasy. The Indian electorate is far too smart to throw their weight behind a religious identity to the detriment of a national one. Election after election has shown that for the Indian of today, religion is a personal matter; it is the national and regional identities that are playing a role in how we Indians look at ourselves. Vajra tried unsuccessfully to point his out to you, but then again, facts are what?
Just inconvenient facts; who cares? the theory OTOH is immaculate in its conception; look at it , it is a work of art, it must be right, it has to be right!!
Even culturally speaking; the Hindutva devotees wrongly try to sell this line that culturally India is a land of the Hindus, a pure modern version of the ancient Aryavarta that just happens to have some minorities; nothing but another expression of Hindu culture.
I would suggest that some day take a break and go to the Punjabi countryside; then select any spot, anywhere and look around you.
) that its foundation was laid by a Muslim Sufi.
Observe the architecture, the people, their language; their clothing; their social mores, not as an ideologue but as a social scientist would.
You would be surprised with what you find. The word ‘syncretic’ will jump at you over and over again.
For example the Sikh ‘Golden Temple’ is one of the finest examples of this ‘syncretic architecture’. And just so that you don’t think it is by accident, the Sikhs will make it a point to let you know that (multiple times if you tell them you are a tourist) and that the Temple was conceived as such and specifically as opposed to old Hindu traditional buildings, and they will also almost gleefully tell you (Those Hindu turned Sikhs, I am tellin’ ya
While they speak, listen closely to their language, and their religious philosophy. Then do a quick mental experiment; think that if you were to remove all that was ‘alien’ (that is non-Hindutva prescribed), from these people, you will be surprised how little will be left to observe.
Another bit of advice, no matter how highly you rate your own physical prowess in your eyes, when there, don’t try to convince any of them, especially the orthodox Sikhs that they are but ‘another type of Hindus’.
You see these ‘specimens of Hindu India’ may not be of the predicted inferior specifications that you like to believe and consider that if you guess wrong, the results may not be pretty.
These are only some of the things that come to mind off hand about only one small corner of the land of the Aryavarta. Others, who are better informed than I, may give you more pointers about other parts of our republic.
Fortunately most people living in the Republic of India do not agree with you that Nehru and Ambedkar Sahib, among others, wrote a constitution with a ‘Hindu’ nation in mind.
Which brings me to the last, but most important part of my struggle; with your obviously enlightened way of thinking; that Kashmir is nothing but a big piece of cheese in a large mousetrap to trap hapless Pakistanis into a perpetual struggle.
May be because I lack a superior intellect, I happen to see things in a simple Forrest Gump sort of way and rely on simple things I was taught in high school.
One of those things I was painfully made to commit to memory was the words to the preamble of the constitution of India.
I am sure you can repeat it back words in Latin but indulge me a little and let me repeat them here:
‘We the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign socialist democratic secular democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation’
Notice that it does not talk of any dominant group identity, Hindu or otherwise. Notice also that it claims its authority only upon the promise of an equal treatment and dignity for ALL Indians, and by the force of a written contract; a contract between the citizen and the republic. You are free to imagine that all that India owes its minorities is a slightly better treatment than the Hindu minorities are given elsewhere, but that is not what it says here!
It was this piece of paper that made Kashmir and Punjab and Bihar and Assam a part of India; not some imagined belief in a ‘Hindu’ cultural identity. It was this piece of paper that made Sikh soldiers shed their blood when they entered the Golden temple to oust fellow Sikh rebels from it and it is in the defense of this piece of paper for which Muslim officers battle and lay their lives against their coreligionist Jehadist in Kashmir.
As long as the people of India keep their faith in this piece of paper, it does not matter what a Ganpat Rai thinks, Islam is as much a part of India as is any other religion. However, once that piece of paper is denied as a legal document by any elected government of India, then no amount of verbal jugglery or military force can keep the Punjabis, Kashmiris, Tamils, Assamese; together in one nation.
Fortunately going by the recent electoral trends, there is no danger of that happening in the near future.
Regards.
@Ganpat Ram
There was no change in emphasis at all from my first post in response to you till now. Please go back and check. It has always been about the India as a proud Hindu nation you referred to.
Let’s try again, yet again. Perhaps it would help to remind you, for the nth time, what is being objected to.
In this response, I have also incorporated the realisation that, going by the remarks in your last post, you are possibly not a political Hindu supremacist, of the Sangh Parivar sort, but a cultural supremacist.
In your post of March 10, 2010 at 9:41 pm, this is what you stated:
Let us put an end once and for all to the morbid Muslim sense of grievance that they are the losers of Partition and live each in his own way: Pakistan and Bangladesh as proud parts of the Islamic world, India a proud Hindu nation. All of us respecting minorities.
Again, one post later, on March 10, 2010 at 10:09 pm, you added:
India IS a Hindu nation, long since. In all but name. And so much the better for it.
Indian liberalism and freedom are based on the easy-going, undogmatic, all-ideas-considered Hindu view of life. Quite unlike the ferocious dogmatism of some other religions.
Indian Muslims don’t lose out from India’s being Hindu. Quite the contrary: it is because of Hindu liberalism that Muslims are free in most parts of India to denounce Hinduism as much as they please, openly.
Your first point first. First, let us grant that your statement is a pious wish for the future, and that all of us do not as yet respect minorities as we should. I accept that that is an inseparable part of your formula, and also that in 60 years of striving, we have not achieved it, although we have achieved the self-confidence to twit our neighbours on that score.
Leaving that aside, it is not clear at all that India is, or wished to be, or plans to be in future, ‘Hindu India’. That is your individual interpretation, and it puts a gloss and a meaning on India which is objectionable. India is a proud nation, by no means, constitutionally, socially, politically, or by religion, a proud Hindu nation.
I have given you a large number of examples of how India is by no means a Hindu nation, whatever Pakistan and Bangladesh may choose to be as decided by their sovereign people. Our own sovereign people have put in place a Constitution which is secular in character, and this has been upheld and fleshed out by a series of acts of legislation and court judgements which have been constructed over sixty years. There is no room for ambiguity or doubt, except in some examples such as the Shah Bano case and consequent legislation, about the unshaken intention of the people, if representative democracy is to mean anything at all. Even in the exceptional case that has been mentioned, the courts of the land have brought matters back to an even keel and have restored the rights of Muslim women which were damaged by the legislation by their interpretative judgements and implementation of the act in question.
Under this shield, there has been an increasing quest for identity mounted by the minorities that have been mentioned. I had cited the lower castes, the scheduled castes, to be precise, as one of the minorities rising against caste Hindu domination.
I had ended by stating, without ambiguity, that
The vision of a Hindu India is limited to the manuvadi upper castes of plains-dwelling Hindus.
The manuvadi upper castes, mind you, not the Brahmins alone; my intention was to bring into the scope of the charge the Brahmins, the Rajputs and the traders, however they describe themselves, throughout India. This is based on the distribution of social power in North India; the categories would change, other than the Brahmin, elsewhere in India, particularly in Andhra Pradesh, in Karnataka and in Kerala.
Your response was to show that inside Hinduism, and inside the Hindutva brigade, Brahmins had lost their domination; the OBCs were strong, and finally, in Kerala, the “lower castes” had begun to dominate society, the economy and politics.
This shows that Hinduism is flexible, that reforms can take place, without Brahminical intervention, and the reformed religion being far less dependent on Brahmins. But it applies to Hinduism, as an internal adjustment of forces, and not to the revolt against Hindu domination by others.
The fact that in Kerala the lower castes – and let us for the time being accept this categorisation without question, as we have used a category without question – have come to get out from under the Brahmins is the exception that proves the rule; everywhere else, except perhaps West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, they have failed to do so.
As far as every other category pointed to is concerned, the situation remains the same. To those identity groups, India is emphatically NOT a Hindu India. Fortunately, they neither read blogs, nor do they mount vendettas against individual authors, so we can breathe easy.
I would like to answer your point about Indian liberalism and freedom being based on secularism and on democracy in a separate post, as otherwise this reply will become too large for convenient reading or response.
@Ganpat,
India should never be the Hindu version of Pakistan.
I have some opinions that I’d like to bring to your notice. First of all I do not believe in the concept of Religion. Neither did India before the Mughals came. If you look through our ancient Texts you will not notice any word pertaining to Religion,especially the word Hindu. I am not a scholar or have looked into it on the Internet but the word Hindu was probably given to us by the Mughals or the Britishers. I am not sure. But, that word is certainly not given to us by our forefathers.
The reason they didnt is, I think, they didnt believe in the notion of Religion. They believed in Ideas. That is why it is called the Sanatana Dharma.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/feb/06/hinduism-has-long-history-multiple-themes/
But, you can categorize Hindus based on Cultural similarities especially to separate them from Religious ideologies like Islam and Christianity.
Our Ideas and Practices have been distorted by many factors in the past many centuries.
I dont agree that we should call India a Hindu country. Because, I dont believe in Religion. I believe in Ideas. If you call everyone following the Ideas proscribed in our vedas Hindus, then yes, they are Hindus. Since, the values and Ideas mentioned in the Vedas are democratic in nature and respects the difference in Opinions we should not have a problem in Sikhs calling themselves Sikhs or Muslims calling themselves Muslims. If we tell them you are Hindus, then they will definitely fight the Idea. You have to respect ethnicity and Identity. India wont be India if you take away one’s Identity.
One has to look at the Vedas to understand the Ideas of “Hinduism”. Indian version of Islam has been the most moderate in the world due to the Influence of our Ideas and Tolerance. Great Religious/Spiritual Ideas have been borne out of our Culture like Jainism, Buddism,etc..
BJP doesn’t represent India nor does any Party. I think only the Constitution represents the Ideas of the ‘Hindu’. Muslims and Christians might take offence to fact that saying the Constitution represents Hindu Ideas. Hence, even though they are very similar lets us not talk about it and aim at spreading the Ideas enshrined in the Constitution and in effect, our Vedas.
Regarding the Rebellious Tamils, I am from Karnataka and I’ve traveled extensively in Tamil Nadu. I think the Politics of Tamil Nadu is very Unique and I dont think you question the Indianess of Tamils. Chennai Superkings are playing tomorrow with a North Indian as Captain. Lets enjoy the action and stop insulting the Tamils just because of the peculiar king of Politics played out in their state.
Gorki
the question of questioning the wisdom of partition would only arise once you solve the whodunnit. if you have solved it, kindly let us
know.
also, please don’t blame the pakistani majority for what was done without its mandate or in betrayal of it. so, in fact, the root of the problem is lack of democracy, no matter how the symptoms change to the point of confusion when even a simple ailment turns chronic. it also then becomes possible to fit a bigger number of hypotheses on to the ever complex set of symptoms.
i shouldn’t have been butting in. sorry! this was a domestic between you and a compatriot of yours. ghar diya’n dee ladai vichon baarlayaa’n noo ba’ar raen dyo. thanks
BC: I understand your point.
All I was trying to the point out was that there is a huge difference between people debating academic historical facts and those having feelings of regret at the turn of events. The former is a sign of wisdom that comes with a self confidence while the latter seems to signal a longing to reverse history.
I may be terribly wrong, but what I have noticed here at the PTH and at other similar sites is that while the Pakistani narrative about the partition and its causes is very different than what we in India learnt; it in no way signifies any lack of self esteem or despair among the discussants.
Similarly, while I hear a lot of honest introspection going on in Pakistan, especially among the liberal, Western oriented individuals, it comes across to me as motivated by a determined desire to build a better country any strengthen its civil institutions rather than any kind of self pity, which Ganpat Sahib seemed to imply with his partonising comments.
However, you or any other Pakistani gentlemen here are free to correct me if I am wrong in which case I will ask for forgivness from Ganpat Sahib.
Regards.
GORKI:
Reading around the literature on Partition, I certainly sense a Pak feeling that they got the loser’s deal in 1947.
Read Ayesha Jalal, for instance. Her version of events is almost the standard one these days, influential even in India.
She seems for some strange reason convinced that the Muslims were entitled to partition India, but the Hindus and Sikhs were not entitled to partition Punjab and Bengal. So Pakistan lost out in a major way.
Somehow the Hindus helped by the villainous British are supposed to have pulled a fast one on Jinnah, or the latter is said to have “overplayed his hand” by being taken seriously by Nehru and Patel on his endlessly reiterated demand for partition.
Jinnah was just seeking the best deal he could for his Muslims within India, we are told. How unfortunate Nehru called his poker bluff and brought on Partition. Nehru dunnit.
Well, Ayesha, life is not a clever poker game. History professsors may think so in their cool American libraries leading their easy, comfortable, not very useful lives. The real world is different.
Hurried negotiations like this involving the life and death of scores of millions are very serious affairs; you had better mean what you say and say what you mean or you will be taken at your repeated word. Don’t come whining afterward.
Besides, why trust Jinnah’s last-second ambiguous acceptance of Indian unity if he had been yelping for partition for years and years?
Why trust a bluffer?
Is it not comical that Jinnah is so often spoken of as, compared to the crooked oily Hindus, a “straightforward” man?
And Pakistan got a pretty equitable deal in the land share out. They got all the Muslim majority areas with the exception of the small Kashmir Valley. With regard to Kashmir, it should be noted that Pakistan got the big Chittagong Hill Tracts, only three per cent Muslim in population.
I have also pointed out that economically the Paks have been considerably better off than Indians for a long ime.
Yet many of them seem to think Partition somehow made the Hindus big and them small.
I can only conclude they are suffering from a “born to rule” complex, and fail to realise there were three times more Hindus than Muslims in India in 1947. Therefore, on any fair principle, three-quarters of India had to go to the Hindus.
India is much the bigger country and likely to have much the greater destiny.
Accept this, Paks.
Pursue your wonderful Muslim life, live with your Arab and Persian brothers and leave Hindus to their Hindu life.
The alternative is the fatal one you are pursuing now: beating your heads bloody on the Hindu brick wall.
There’s nothing but ruin in that.
“The alternative is the fatal one you are pursuing now: beating your heads bloody on the Hindu brick wall”…
And is it your contention that the “Hindu brick wall” wont shatter from these repeated beatings? If so, why?
VAJRA:
If the vast majority of Indians are not Hindus, this is big news to me and to all the encyclopaedias I have ever seen.
You have evidently made a colossal discovery. Congratulations.
Please do me the favour of simply listing the religions of India in percentages. What religions are those peoples following who are not Hindus as was thought?
I’m just mildly curious.
SAMEET:
Well, who is stopping those clever Muslim heads from shattering the Hindu brick wall?
They can certainly try.
Make my day.
Gorki
i completely agree with both the letter and spirit of your last post. I only had reservations about part of the letter, and not at all the spirit, of your post before that. so, i pointed them out.
i would be more than happy to stand out this battle of yours and cheer for you from without, or jump in and stand next to you, shoulder to shoulder. my objection was only the indirect way in which i, as a pakistani, was dragged into the argument.. which i’d rather be fighting than be made a mere exhibit in against my will and view. so i pointed out where exactly was it that i disagreed.
it was exactly two points only. with the ‘questioning the wisdom of partition’ point you made, my issue was only with your formulation, not the substance of your point. i believe i’ve explained more clearly the reasons for my disagreement with the “a Hindu majority does not mean a Hindu version of a Pakistan” line.
GORKI:
Yasser Hamdani in his PTH piece today on the Islamic revival pus my point about the defining role of Hinduism in India very well. What he says below is entirely applicable to Hinduism:
“…the core values of any civilization are drawn from the dominant religio-cultural system. There are contributory factors from other minority strains but ultimately the way society is organized is around the religio-cultural system the majority of its adherents follow. So for example, the Western civilization- as we know it today- has for evolved out of a Judaeo-Christian cultural norms and as it is secularized, it is enriched by other cultural strains but it remains manifestly a product of Judaeo-Christian evolution. It certainly has strong heritage in Hellenistic past but that itself is expressed through established Christian traditions (for example Christmas which is an adopted Hellenistic holiday), much like Islam adopted a lot of pre-Islamic Arabian heritage as its own.”
As for your fear of a Hindu state in India becoming like the Muslim state in Pakistan, it’s unrealistic: polytheistic Hinduism is an infinitely more tolerant religion than Islam with its fierce Judaic heritage of monotheism. A Hindu state in India will need to tolerate all other religions, just as the Protestant State in the UK does. We forget England is not a secular state.
What matters is tolerance, not whether the state is secular or not.
A Hindu state will assure the Hindus that they like other major religions have a state to look after their interests. This will make Hindus more relaxed and tolerant, not less.
In any case, with the steep rise in Muslim numbers and violence in India, Hindus will certainly become more politically organised and defensive and will move in the direction of a Hindu state.
In the long run this is inevitable. Jihadi violence in India is certain to go up hugely; Hinduism will organise to hit back and defend itself.
Ganpat, I asked a question and you did not answer. Your choice if you don’t want to. I am trying to understand your views, and I needed to know more, so I asked. If you state your views on my query, would help me that much more to understand what exactly you are saying.
SAMEET:
My guess is that Hindus can defend themselves. The Muslims are fewer in number.
Of course, I am assuming the Hindus will organise themselves and become tough.
I think they will.
During the last war in Kargil a US journalist was in a village many thousands of feet high in the mountains. She met some tough military fellows and got chatting with them.
They said they were part of a battalion fighting at 20,000 feet. She expressed amazement. “It’s a piece of cake!” laughed the soldiers.
Indian soldiers are a fine lot of guys, hardened in battles.
They will take care of India.
Another little vignette giving me a feeling of confidence in the Indian Army. A UK journalist called Sean Langhan did TV documentary on Kashmir some years go. He arranged in Srinagar to meet a major jihadi leader in a village. This was in the depths of winter, with everything snowbound.
Langhan got to the village deep in the night. The dogs started barking. He was halted by an Army patrol.
He tried to bluff his way out saying he was lost, etc. The miltary guys grinned. They said: “We were waiting for you, old boy. Come along to meet your friend.”
They took him to where the jihadi was. He had just been shot. The soldiers had a photo taken of the event and politely sent Langhan on his way.
Dear Ganpat Sahib:
Your post to me is rich with ironic subtext but I suspect that underneath the sharp wording it carries in it more than a hint of bitterness at the partition.
While Ayesha Jalal’s writings have certainly rekindled an interest in the events leading to the partition, hers is but one line of reasoning. I have not read Jaswant Singh’s book but I understand that he too seems to agree with it to a considerable extent.
Here on the PTH too we have had several extended (and spirited) debates on this topic; I have a feeling that you know that already.
My personal opinion (I am afraid a minority one) is that Nehru and the INC lost MAJ way back in 1937 and it was already too late in 1946-47.
It is also my own opinion that both MAJ and Nehru were, in many ways, individuals who had very similar political impulses and morals, true nationalists to begin with, but like a real life version of a Greek tragedy they ended up as political adversaries at one of the most important moments in India’s history.
Because of what I believe, I can understand your position even if I don’t agree with it completely (just as some better read people here understand mine).
Now the problem part; again there are several subtexts but there are two major issues I have problems with. I mentioned both in my first post to you but you chose to ignore it. I will only discuss one here today.
You can feud with Vajra all you like about the religious make up of India but surely someone with your intellect (I am not being sarcastic, I mean it) can understand that nationhood is something very different and far bigger than the confessional headcount of its residents. Underneath the Borg like exterior (pardon my using the same metaphor again but it seems too good to let go
) you do seem like a passionate nationalist.
If so, why do you insist on describing a unique civilization that has taken five millennia to evolve and only now, for the first time ever; is made up of citizens who are actually starting to see themselves as Indians first and above all else; as just a ‘Hindu’ nation?
I can’t make up my mind why you do so; whether it is an expression of your bitterness at having the ‘Akhand Bharat’ divided on the basis of the TNT or if it is an article of faith for you, as a Hindu believer in the TNT. Either way you acknowledge that the Muslims of India are full citizens too with full constitutional rights and protection (in your words are allowed to call Hinduism names if they felt like it). Then don’t you see that by insisting on describing India, (which majority of its people think is a secular democracy); as a ‘Hindu’ nation you are narrowing its appeal? By doing so can’t you see that there is nothing to gain for a democracy minded nationalist, even a religious one, but everything to lose in terms of a national identity?
I am not much of a believer in religion myself but have a great deal of reverence for the Hindu faith and its philosophy; culturally I feel that my Indian identity is in a large part a product of this system of philosophy. Yet large as it is, I am more than just a subset of Hinduism. I can’t banish my non Hindu cultural identity any more than I can deny my Hindu one. And I am not a minority either; I don’t know about you but I believe a majority of Indians are like me, many layers of cultural seasoning making up one unique identity: that of a 21st century Indian.
You yourself seem to applaud the expansive character of Hinduism that allows many different philosophical streams to co exist in its midst. Yet by insisting on labeling India a ‘Hindu’ nation even as there are in its midst hundreds of millions who don’t share the majority faith, aren’t you negating its very spirit that you so admire?
Nehru attributed the same liberal spirit not to any one religion but to the cultural ethos of our great nation that allowed many others to come here as aliens but that eventually absorbed them; each enriching the other. In going through different writings by Nehru I came across the following small passage by him that in my eyes elevated him from the ranks of the merely famous Indians to the ranks of one of the greatest sons of India:
“So far as the two-nation theory is concerned, we have never accepted the fact that Pakistan was a result of the two-nation theory. It may be so in the minds of the people of Pakistan but we did not agree to it even then. Our position has been that we cannot consider a nation and a religious community as the same thing. Nations contain more than one religious community. Even if all the Muslims in India believed in this theory, we would not accept it or even if all the Hindus believed in it.” –JLN; collected Works
Many people, including most of them on the PTH will dispute this. I like to believe that is true. I mention Nehru’s views here, attributing the liberal characteristics of our people to the Indian culture which you attribute to Hinduism, its major faith, to demonstrate that it seems there is only a very small gap between what you seem to imply and that which he (and I) believe.
However the way I like to see it, even if my belief is wrong, if it is shared by everyone of our countrymen, has the potential to let our country rise to its full potential and then beyond it. Unfortunately, the way you seem to see it, even if you are right, has the potential to condemn it into a perpetual schizophrenic state that is forever at war with itself, mired in mediocrity. Those are the choices available to us and our country.
You come across as an exceptionally gifted man. You can decide what you want to believe in.
Regards.
@Ganpat
….but I suspect that underneath the sharp wording it carries…..= but I suspect under the crisp wording it carries….
Ganpat Ram
You quote YLH as follows,
“…the core values of any civilization are drawn from the dominant religio-cultural system. There are contributory factors from other minority strains but ultimately the way society is organized is around the religio-cultural system the majority of its adherents follow. So for example, the Western civilization- as we know it today- has for evolved out of a Judaeo-Christian cultural norms and as it is secularized,…”
Your quote is irrelevant. We are talking at this point, in this thread, about the Indian State not Hindu civilization. Indian civilization if there is such a thing is strongly Hindu influenced, but in its present form it is Muslim influenced too.
But the discussion is about India as a modern political entity. That India is not a Hindu entity. As I said earlier modern India is all about an escape from Hinduism, or more accurately, Brahmanism.
Your views are nothing more than a restatement of the Hindutva principle. You came to this site dressed in the robes of tolerant preacher but revealed your true colours when challenged. According to you the minorities owe their rights not to universal values (even if derived from the west) that form the basis of the modern secular state but from the tolerant Hindu. From your argument it follows that Muslims in India owe nothing to the constitutional guarantees of equality. You can even be said to imply thereby that whereas Pakistan discriminates against its minorities by law Indian minorities could not remain empowered by the law were it not for the tolerant Hindu. That is dangerous doctrine.
Vajra believed you to be a morph of Vishwas. He was right. This site is not about Hindu versus Muslim, which your trend of argumentation is leading us too.
I wont go into your views on Jinnah. He has been discussed at length at PTH, and some sort of consensus has emerged among the regulars here. Your blasts from the past pouring vitriol do not add to our knowledge.
GORKI:
Your letter is well meant, and I have read it carefully. I hardly deserve your compliments.
It’s too easy to ridicule a poor pompous creature like Vajra, and prick his silly word-conceit by demonstrating how effortlessly one can write in the style of Johnson, Burke and Macaulay. I could do half-a-dozen other English styles if it would amuse you: Dickens, Carlyle, Wilde, Shaw, D H Lawrence, T E Lawrence, Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh…..Hemingway is a particular favourite.
But let’s get to serious matters.
Behind all your kind of talk of a supremely inclusive Indic civilization, I sense a huge fear of Muslim violence. Hindus are told to fear being themselves and taking pride in their heritage, lest this provoke Muslims to devastating anger.
Sorry to be a little blunt about this. This is an old, old Hindu syndrome, this fear of Muslims.
You can see it in the writings of Nehru, for instance, excellent and often beautiful though they are. He dismisses the massive destruction of Hindu temples by Muslims by saying that those Muslims were not doing it out of their Islamic zeal, but a mere taste for destruction and loot.
It’s a curious argument, dictated by fear. Islam, it seems, can never do wrong…..It comes oddly from a man who (RIGHTLY) is never afraid to point angrily to the faults of Hinduism, its urgent need to reform.
In any case, this Hindu fear and resort to abnegation so as not to provoke Muslim anger puts India back precisely where it was before Partition. Partition might have ensured an enduring better future for the two communities if Nehru had insisted on a complete exchange of populations, as Ambekar, for instance, advised. But he did not….. A large number of Muslims were left in India, grew faster than Hindus and are again facing the Hindus with the demand to have their way or else……
A tense situation.
Giving them all they ask, pretending Hinduism is not important, won’t solve this problem. It will, in fact, only make the Muslims bolder, more inclined to resort to force.
Hindus should state clearly that Indiua will be tolerant, but particularly after Partition it is their country and the mean to defend it.
This time, unlike in 1947 they have the military in their hands.
This is the future, my friend Gorki. Better get used to it.
I do not see it as “mediocre”. I just see it as living with a large Muslim minority.
Soft soap won’t work.
The choice is not mine. Nehru chose for us in 1947 when he ruled out population exchange.
Gentlemen I have not followed this discussion. My comment is more of an appeal to everyone concerned. This “interview” has too many holes in it… let us not dignify Agha Shorish Kashmiri by giving his lie prominence and continue to popularize this interview.
I have considered closing the comments but I think that would be beneath me. So I am merely requesting that this discussion be moved elsewhere.
Typos are a bigger enemy of mine than Al-Qaeda.
I meant to say above: “Hindus should state clearly that India will be tolerant but particularly after Partition it is their country and they mean to defend it.” I should add: with complete respect for minorities. It is tolerance that counts.
[...] are other prescient observations about Pakistan here (hat tip: Robin [...]