Pak Tea House » History, Jinnah » Hamid Mir, Nasim Yousaf and distorting the image of the founding father
Hamid Mir, Nasim Yousaf and distorting the image of the founding father
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Pakistanis like to claim a lot of nonsense about Jinnah. Most recently Hamid Mir of Geo has claimed that Jinnah had willed that Shabbir Ahmed Usmani would lead his funeral prayers. What can one say to such patent nonsense? I suppose Jinnah told his butler, “I have decided that Usmani old boy would lead my funeral prayers” while holding a cigar in one hand, a class of single malt in the other and his pet dog resting in his lap. Ludicrous. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind – primary or otherwise- that seconds such a ridiculous claim. As a counter-question, one may also ask why then a separate Shia funeral was held at the Governor General’s residence? Was that also willed?
It goes without saying that Hamid Mir is in a long line of people who have taken liberties with facts of Jinnah’s life. For example I received another email from Waseem Altaf, who had earlier fallaciously argued that Jinnah had converted to Shiism in 1921 from Ismaili faith to “further his political career” only to be proved wrong when I showed that in fact Jinnah had converted to Shiism in 1901 long before he was in politics and that converting to Shiism as a matter of fact would not have helped Jinnah’s career either in the League or the Congress. It turns out that Altaf Hussain of MQM has recently shown that in fact the conversion was in 1898. The ignorant arguments of Waseem Altaf – amongst the new illiterate lot who want to criticize Jinnah to prove themselves enlightened except they don’t know enough to criticize him for right reasons- were exploded in my post here.
So coming back to the email, Waseem Altaf mian put in subject “this further reveals Jinnah’s character”. Apparently Waseem Altaf has it on the good authority of “the great historian and scholar” Nasim Yousuf that Jinnah received Rs. 600,000 to make Pakistan. This coming from a person who not long claimed- on this website- that the Australian scholar Ian Bryant Wells’ book “Jinnah, Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity” published by a reputed Indian publisher was secretly financed by deep state in Pakistan (if only the Deep State adhered to the secularist ideals that the book states to be Jinnah’s politics). Talk about wild fantasy. Anyway I had read the article by Mr. Yousuf and found it so patently ridiculous that I did not feel the need to respond to it. However if you do not nip a lie in the bud it comes to accepted as the truth, especially with someone like Jinnah who is already widely misunderstood and whose nuanced political efforts are not always easy to explain to a simple mind. For one thing, there is absolutely no evidence – primary or secondary- to substantiate this utter and total lie nor has Nasim Yousaf provided any substantiation of his claim. A single line is produced and claimed to be from Modern Review’s editorial from December 1946 which is “…Jinnah is receiving 6 lakhs annually from the government of India…” There are several issues with this.
1. Why does Nasim Yousaf not produce hard copy evidence which is verifiable for this claim? Should be easy enough? After all he claims to have seen it. Why not produce it?
2. Why is the said “excerpt” truncated as if lifted from mid sentence? Surely the words preceding these 9 words and following them are equally important?
3. Why – if this was such a huge revelation – was it not carried by Hindustan Times, Civil and Military Gazette, the Hindu etc which were considered traditional Congress press?
Let us assume- for the argument- that this line actually occurs in the said journal on the said date, is it automatically assumed that this was some sort of illegal gratification? For example Jinnah’s Lahore house was requisitioned by the British Army in 1941 for the purposes of the world war. Similarly Jinnah was eligible for fuel and other parliamentary allowances as a member of the central legislative assembly which he was continuously from 1910 to 1946. So it could be anything (which is why Mr. Nasim Yousaf has omitted the words immediately before and after the said line and the truth of it can only be ascertained if Mr. Yousaf produces the actual primary source in some scanned form or produces the entire context).
In any event Jinnah was held universally by his opponents and admirers alike to be a man of absolute integrity, honesty and incorruptibility. Dr. Ambedkar, the great untouchable leader, considered Jinnah the one politician to whom term “incorruptible” could be most fittingly applied and who had “never been a soldier of fortune”. Gandhi, Jinnah’s principal rival, considered Jinnah’s greatest strength his incorruptibility. Nehru, who bitterly criticizes Jinnah, wrote in his book “Discovery of India” that Jinnah was without the lure of public office or personal gain. H V Hodson described Jinnah as a completely scrupulous man who was beyond question by even his worst opponents. The list goes on. One may disagree with Jinnah’s positions in the closing decade of the raj, but one can never claim that he was receiving subsidies from the British.
Allama Mashriqi – who or what was he?
However the same could not be said of Nasim Yousaf’s grandfather, Allama Mashriqi who was widely alleged to have been financed by Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists. Mashriqi had by his own admission met Mr. Hitler in 1926 and had automatically taken a liking to the Nazi leader. His son confirms that in 1934, the fuhrer had sent a special emissary to Mashriqi to help bolster Mashriqi’s efforts to organize the Khaksar Tehreek. UP Legislature spent an entire day’s proceedings discussing Mashriqi’s connections to Nazis during the second world war. Allama Mashriqi was a thoroughly unbalanced and eccentric character though a gifted mathematician and an alright educator. Other than that he was akin to what we call “chun chun da muraba” in Punjabi. Mashriqi was everything and nothing. His Khaksar Tehreek was a curious mixture of Hitler Youth and a militant interpretation of Islamic prayer. Mashriqi’s vision for India was under absolute Muslim rule of one Muslim dictator called the Amir, who would be a cross between Nietzche’s Superman and Iqbal’s Mard-e-Momin and who would be General Muhammad Bin Qasim and Mahmud Ghaznavi reborn. Allama believed in Islamic Puritanism and Social Darwinism, and sought to combine the two with the local version of fascism. Despite this he claimed the Khaksar Movement was non-communal. Later Mashriqi claimed in his book “Aksariat ya Khoon” (Majority or Blood) that Muslims deserved to inherit India because “on average 125 Muslims have died for every Hindu in battle for India since the inception for colonial rule”. He criticized the Mullahs from the angle of a popular Islamist lower middle class urbanite. Allama also criticized Averroes and Avicenna for having made pure Islam impure by bringing in Greek philosophy. Allama attacked Gandhi for his non-violence which he thought was not manly enough and sent Rafiq Sabir to assassinate Jinnah (ironically for not coming to terms with Gandhi in 1944). In many ways Allama and his Khaksars were the subcontinent’s Kharjites. Mashriqi attacked the Muslim League for not coming to an arrangement with the Congress but in NWFP he bitterly attacked Khan Sahib and Red Shirts for being too soft on Congress and for being in league with the Hindus. After partition he was one of the foremost advocates of absolute Islamisation of Pakistan. Other than that he was – Sir Sikandar Hayat put it- a coward (which he proved when he failed to come to Lahore in early 1940 to carry out the 313 agitation against the Unionist party which he had called and which resulted in the unfortunate deaths of 50 Khaksar youths). Those interested in reading an unvarnished account of Allama Mashriqi and his movement should refer to Ian Talbot’s brilliant “Region and Partition”, which includes a detailed paper on Mashriqi by Iftikhar H Malik, however I will sum it up in one line – Mashriqi was the “Sir” Allama Zaid Hamid of his time – crazy, eccentric and a chun chun ka muraba.
Now enter Mr. Nasim Yousaf, the “historian” and “scholar” whose great works range from export-import to Singapore to the issue of how Jinnah was a British agent and Mashriqi was a great colleague of Gandhi (he was not! Mashriqi was as critical of Gandhi as he was of Jinnah) who worked to preserved the unity of India, which is also not true. In fact it is impossible given Mashriqi’s flip flops, threats etc to determine which side of the fence he fell, unlike Maududi, JUH and Ahrar who clearly and consistently supported the Congress. As for Nasim Yousaf, those who wish to take him to be some sort of a scholar should at the very least watch his regal message to the peoples of the subcontinent – delivered through youtube. That should prove that the apple does not fall far from the tree!
Filed under: History, Jinnah · Tags: Allama, British, Jinnah, Mashriqi, Pakistan, Partition, Usmani
1,190 Responses to "Hamid Mir, Nasim Yousaf and distorting the image of the founding father"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- Rex Minor
said Tajender,
Your name is getting very popular. I sho... - tajender
said rex i cannot awnser u last 2 posts are not mine. - LV Outlet Paris Address
said Louis Vuitton Outlet Replica - Do Louis Vuitton Have Outlet Stores said Fake LV Outlet Online
- Maggu
said REXIE, so when are you moving to Afghanistan to be... - Rex Minor said Tajender,
Your two posts have less to do with Isla...
- Does LV Outlet Exist
said are Louis Vuitton Outlets Real - Genuine Louis Vuitton Online Outlet said Louis Vuitton Outlet Real Bags
- atap fiberglass
said I think that is one of the most vital info for me.... - Tajender said KABUL, Afghanistan: An Afghan legislator says cons...
Drone,
” RSS will not afford Indian Muslims, the luxury of TIME and PEACE on the ground. RSS knows that if Indian Muslims gain TIME and PEACE, they will break the circle of forced darkness.. where RSS wants them to permanently dwell in. ”
I whole heartedly agree with you. In Pakistan because of no force from
RSS all Pakistanis are enlightened, have come out of darkness and
are living peacefully with each other.
to drona
Muslims spend a lot of money buidling mosques in which hate, arrogance and anger are the bread-and-butter.
Muslims are committing demographic aggression against hindus in India – so muslims can’t be called innocent. If muslim population component had remained at 6.5% as in 1947 (today it is 18%) there would habe been no trouble and muslims would have lived along normally.
Anywhere you blame RSS or hindus or marwaris you are becoming a liar who will lead muslims to more dishonesty.
Fingolfin,
“The cold rationality of Communism was more appealing then than anything else India had to offer.”
.
Not to disturb your flow, but did the same “cold rationality” appeal to Kerala and the naxalites over large tracts of India?
to BM
Introducing hindu ideas into politics is not the same as introducing islam into politics. Hindu ideas center around fasting, satyagraha, non-violence, honesty, renunciation etc. whereas islam is about establishing muslim/islamic/arabic hegemony and totalitarianism over ALL mankind by ALL means to please the arab-tribal god.
Gandhi was not too wrong – but the poor fool did not bother about this fundamental difference between hinduism and islam.
More islam means more fascism in the name of a vague ambiguous fascistic arab god. Hinduism with its polytheism, caste system, anarchy, absence of history-and-nationalism is by nature an intrinsically non-fascist system.
Hayyer wrote:
September 15, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Just for record, before advent of Zoroastrianism, Iranians were purely Vedic. In fact, the Vedic rituals of Soma and Agni originated with their priests, who were Brghus at that time.
.
The Iranians, even after they turned to Zoroastrianism, have had a strong civilizational basis and strong kingdoms there – Cyrus, Darius, Xerces, etc. and various other dynasties which stood for its civilization. Even after Iran fell to Islam, the Iranians have nurtured a version of Islam, which provided them autonomy from the other Islamic countries, and allowed them to create their own independent systems based on that. There is a strong streak of independence going among the Iranians. Their Islam is to protect that streak. In India, the Indian Muslims do the opposite. They put distance between themselves and the rest of the population, and mostly dissolve their independence from Middle Eastern Islam and look West for leadership.
.
.
Hayyer,
sometimes it makes me wonder if you really think all this through! So here is a primer:
.
1) Outside influence is not the issue!
.
2) It does not matter if one’s civilizational identity comes from outside or whether it is indigenist.
.
3) If it came from outside, then there must have historical processes in place, which localized that outside origin. E.g. Thai, Bali, Cambodian, Arakhan versions of Indian Civilization are markedly their own! It is good that they have their own flavor. Everywhere that Buddhism went, even as far as Japan, China, Korea, Mongolia, etc. everywhere the flavor of Buddhism is completely indigenous, and one would notice from their customs! Even in India, Islam developed to some extent its own individual flavor. So nothing wrong with outside civilizational input, as long as there is a process of localization or indigenization of it, which is to be cherished and encouraged.
.
4) When Civilizational input comes from outside, it is important to develop a local political-religious center for it. This you will see that all Buddhist clergies spread around Asia, were usually independent of the other. Even in Christianity, the Gentiles developed their own political-religious leadership. That is why one sees so many Christian denominations around – Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Egyptian Coptic, Lutheran, etc, and they cherished their doctrinal autonomy. Even Shi’ism in Iran is a manifestation of this trend. The Indians may have their Deoband and Barelvi, but the Indian Muslims are woefully short of any political-religious-doctrinal independence.
.
5) India however has the privilege to be the Home of the Indian Civilization which was completely indigenous and spread out over a large area peacefully. So the first responsibility of India lies to nurturing that civilization. Just because there is influence from outside – Islamic, Christian does not mean that this responsibility should be wavered. There are other nations who are doing their part in nurturing those civilizations. And because the Indian Civilization is so deep in its content – historical, philosophical, scientific and civilizational for Mankind, 95% of the effort should be on its nurturing and care-taking.
.
6) There is no need to deny the influence of other civilizations on Indian Subcontinent and its people, and all those influences which were indigenized and which made a unique contribution to life and culture in India should be highlighted. Those developments are also Indian.
.
7) So there is no reason for anybody to get his chaddi in a twist. Urdu and Persian would remain welcome in India. Urdu is a Indian language. Persian language which is a grand-daughter of Sanskrit, also does not represent anything too foreign.
.
.
Again a lot of confusion in you!
.
1) Every nation receives its identity from its history primarily. So every nation can assert its individual nationhood based on that identity.
.
2) Most nations of the world also ascribe to some civilization, that they embody, from which they derive their worldview, values and cultural influence. They contribute in their own way to preserving the cultural core of that civilization.
.
3) Through the indigenization of the civilizational influence and often by having a local political-religious-doctrinal center, they develop their own flavor of it, and the uniqueness of this flavor also contributes to their assertion of unique nationhood.
.
Try to look it that way, and you will see that there is no conflict between what I am saying and reality!
.
.
Before you go about calling Thais, Chinese or Japanese as traitors, you should first understand the concept of Indic Civilization. Indic Civilization simply transmitted a worldview and cultural influence to the others, which enabled them to be in civilizational harmony with each other and India. Indian Civilization does not work on the same principles as the Ummah, which demands complete submission and obedience to Allah or Mecca. So Bihar would not be demanding any submission or anything of the sort, so where does the question of treason comes in?
.
On the question of Bihar, the name derives from Vihara, a place of learning. That is what Nalanda gave those other civilizations – learning.
.
.
Diversity is welcome in Indian Civilization. Cultural and philosophical diversity does not really in any way threaten either India or the world. It is what was in ancient times. Each had his own ways and own deities. Why should that be threatening? Indian Civilization simply provided all a common philosophical base on which they could develop further their philosophies, and provided them with cultural inputs in various arts and language. Others can develop it further.
.
You see, you seem to be obsessed about religion, whereas I am speaking about something else – I am talking about civilization, which includes a much broader portfolio.
.
Also you, like a true Islamist, think that diversity of religious worldviews and political-religious-doctrinal centers would lead to conflict and wars! Just look around! That is again the homogenism tendency that comes through! It is Islam that has a problem with diversity and not Indian Civilization.
.
.
Savarkar is not Hinduism and Hinduism is not Savarkar. Actually in everything you write, you really seem to betray your lack of knowledge of what Indian Civilization really means!
.
When you speak of monocultural zombies, you should know that Indian Civilization has one of the highest diversity in everything – language, culture, philosophies, jaatis, etc. and nowhere is there any effort at destroying any of that. On the contrary culture should bloom in all possible colors, and that is true, even if one leaves Islam and Christianity out of the picture.
.
Also cross-cultural influences should not mean India should then shelf the Indian Civilization and only work based on the lowest common denominator. It also does not mean that India needs to give just as much space to Islam and its history in Western Asia as to the Indian Civilization which is indigenist and a lot older. There are others who can nurture Islamic civilization in all its “richness”!
.
But nowhere am I suggesting that just because the major emphasis would lie on India’s own history, that we should deny Islamic or Christian influence. But that influence does not make it equal to the Indic influence in India.
RAJTWO vs HAYYER
===================
Hayyer has a nice writing style, but many here disagree with his bludgeoning his ideas through in a gruff way. Rajtoo you have done brilliantly in taking the time out to systematically dismantle most of Hayyer’s gems.
Thank you Raj, for taking the time
I think India has had enough of this nihilistic approach that a minority of older Indians have where to blindly ignore India or Hinduism’s greatness is be fashionable. I am guessing Hayyer is in his 50s and Raj in his 20s. Am I right
says–’Akbar particularly is irrelevant, as is Ashoka. They were great tolerant emperors but no one knew of Ashoka till the British dug him out of the sands of time……………………………
MISHRAJEE…comparing ashok with akbar is wrong.ashok killed his 99 brothers to become ruler,…..
before converting to buhdhdism he slaughtered entire population of kalinga(orissa).
Muslims are committing demographic aggression against hindus
revelant….hindus are only 13%while muslims are 18%.things aRE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Dr. Mishra : I guess you just got out of the Medical School.. so that puts you in the age group 23-25. Your immaturity speaks volumes. Since Hindus are misers (KANJOOS), they come to PTH, for free entertainment. Otherwise the moment you step out of home, you have to spend money.. hence IRrelevant (Ahem/Ahom badnaam) and other Hindus come here for free Chai and Samosa !
Hindus love to feed/live off Muslim(s) in every sense of the word !
Hayyer wrote:
September 15, 2012 at 8:58 pm
.
I can see your confusion and also the effect of the general Western narrative about Hinduism.
.
1) A country having a soul means simply it is much more than a political construct. The word was used to distinguish between your vision of a bunch of people in India looking at India solely as a state, their relationship to the state being dictated simply by the constitutional duties and rights of the citizen.
.
2) Soul is simply a poetic way of saying – a people should acknowledge their country’s long history, and through that learning process bring history to life around them. Each and every part of the country would then speak to you, telling you what had happened where and what did the people of another age think! And when the land speaks to you in that sense, one can say it has a soul! If you don’t understand poetry and symbology, you can try to understand the concepts without it as well.
.
‘Indic’ refers to all those people, who see India as their janambhoomi, karambhoomi and dharambhoomi! This refers to all Subcontinentals who source their ethnic origin from the Subcontinent, who want to work for the betterment of India and who see their worldview as an evolution of the philosophies and cultures which developed in the Subcontinent.
.
In general the term includes Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and animists from the Subcontinent. Perhaps Zoroastrians too, depending how one views the scope!
.
Hindus are all those whose worldview has its historical roots in the Vedas and have thus been sanctioned by the Vedas, and who do not deem it necessary to look for an identity for his worldview outside of that umbrella.
.
As for the origin of the word “Hindu”, Hemachandhra Ray Chaudhri notes in his book “Political History of India from Parikshit to later Guptas” notes that the the land was called Hindukadesha in ~ 58BC inscription. Check page 383.
.
Indic is a newer word, and it denotes what “Hindu” earlier used to denote before Indians started converting to Islam. See definition before.
.
.
This absurd thinking comes from not knowing the abc of Indian Civilization.
.
The primary guna/quality of the Indian Civilization was that it was a knowledge society. Even though the West has tried over the last 200 years to undermine the claims of Indian Civilization to its scientific genius and its centrality in the civilizational evolution of Eurasia, the masks and covers are coming off! Mathematics, Astronomy, Medicine, Metallurgy, Philosophy, Linguistics, Global Commerce are the hallmarks of Ancient India. West Asia was very much aware of this. I can go into details here, but at the moment I am not convinced that buffalos really appreciate flute-music.
.
What you are trying to do is compare Islamic Mullahs with customs of Hindus pertaining to their Ishta-Devtas and fauna, and say it is all religious bunkum and should be left out!
.
Obviously you have to go a long long way in appreciating the richness and centrality of Indian Civilization in the History of Mankind, but considering the pace at which forgotten chapters of our history are being rediscovered, mostly based on old texts, linguistics, archaeology, etc. there is going to be a major rewriting of world history. Perhaps it may enlighten you then. But then ideological fixated people of perhaps your ilk have a habit of pretending to be asleep.
.
.
The word is Sanatan Dharma, should you wish to know! Is there really no end to ignorance!!!
.
But even if it were so, then one could say the Dharmic traditions have no name, and Abrahamic traditions have no philosophy! I would rather live without a name than a philosophy!
.
.
Sigh!
Punjab is a term made up of “Panch” and “Ap” which is sanskrit for five waters! Persian is a Sanskrit-derived language! What is so difficult to understand there?
.
Earlier Punjab used to be known as ‘Sapta-Sindhu’ and Persians used to call it ‘Hapta-Hendu’!
.
Bharata has been defined by even Chanakya as the land between the Himalayas and the ocean and around 8000 miles across. Before it has been defined similarly in various Puranas!
.
Considering the amount of ignorance you yourself display, do you still doubt that there is a strong need for Indians, all Indians, to be better acquainted with the History of Indian Civilization?
.
Again you don’t really seem to be able to leave your religion-no-religion duality! Is it really so difficult thinking beyond it?
.
‘Naastik’ or what you may call atheism, itself is a valid Indic philosophical position, and it is not the position of just saying “Aw there is no God!”. No, it is a school that has produced significant philosophy behind it! So even a Naastik ought to be aware of all the philosophical debate and analysis that preceded this position and the context in which this position evolved, which means even he needs to learn about the History of the Indian Civilization.
.
As far as DMK platform is concerned, it has run out of its relevance which was based on a British agenda to show Aryan-Dravidian dichotomy! Nowhere in Tamil literature before the British arrived, is there a single mention of any tension between the North and the South! Basically it shows again a dire need for Indians to learn the History of Indian Civilization devoid of the engineering aka fraud the Westerners have committed on it. If DMK and others have any disagreements on History, these can be removed through discussions.
.
The Northeasterners have had Hindu pasts, Buddhists pasts, animist pasts, and many today are Christians. They are welcome to remain Christians, but they too should know about their past. Further in Burma there is still substantial level of earlier culture to see!
.
Basically your position is as you keep on repeating again and again, there is no Indian Civilization, which is like saying there is no sun!
Dr Mishra, Yorkshire,
.
thanks for your words of appreciation. I know that Hayyer would not understand what I am trying to explain, but may be others could benefit.
.
Though I must confess it would be nice to be 20 again, I am a bit older!
Hayyer wrote:
Why leave?
.
It is your view that Muslims need to disassociate themselves completely with their pre-Islamic past, in order to remain Muslims!
.
What should the Kashmiris do?
.
They perhaps should all start reading on some mythology we have from the earliest times like on Maharshi Kashyap and his position in the beliefs of their ancestors. They should read up on Kalhana’s Rajatarangini! They should read up on all references to Kashmir that crop up in ancient Indian texts. That would be a good start!
@no-communal
It is strange that you react so violently to a suggestion that the partition of Bengal was in fact a secession of a fragmented West Bengal from the original province.
It has been suggested that mentioning this amounts to an implicit support for a Muslim-dominated undivided Bengal. That is perverse. If correcting an apparent and clearly unfounded mistake has to be seen as an act of political propaganda, then we are in a highly intolerant milieu, where anyone who is not with one is against one. Nothing could be more untrue. Pointing out that caste Hindus could not contemplate life within a Muslim-majority state in no way implies support for such a Muslim-majority state. What you see is what you get – upper caste Hindus wanted to be free to rule their patch of turf entirely their way, based on an artificially created majority of Hindus, largely looking to the three upper castes for direction. What happened after they achieved it was something that they, and the rest of the Congress, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League as well, had never expected. The religious identity which was uppermost in the minds of men was then set aside and class identity was introduced.
The disinclination of the caste Hindus, secure in their leadership of all Hindus, to work under Muslim rule was quite predictable. As late as the agitation against the persecution of Surendranath Bannerjee, Hindus and Muslims were united. However, it was completely different during the agitation for the reversal of the first partition of Bengal. Since the partition had been positioned as a means of opening up both education as well as professional and administrative service opportunities for Muslims. (more )
Bade Miyan:
Yes, Nirad Chaudhuri appeared a buffoon sometimes. And no, my admiration is not full spectrum but this is not occasion to discuss him.
But you might find some solace in the following link. http://gsu.academia.edu/IanAlmond/Papers/1170455/Four_Ways_of_Reading_Nirad_C._Chaudhuri_A_Case_Study_of_A_Postcolonial_Conservative
My reference to saffron robes came from the incongruous image of Muslim leaders in green monks in that quote from Chaudhuri; nothing complicated except to say that saffron robes are equally out of place and irrelevant in secular matters.
“There is also the technical issue of you arguing against yourself. A few posts before, you had argued that how conditions in India were different so we cannot apply standards universally” I don’t recall which post you are referring to and in what context. Please point them out. Nor am I able to understand the references to Bahadur Shah Zaffar and others. Do I consider Zafar a secular character? I think in the circumstances of those times secularism had no meaning. This goes all the way back to whenever. The Indian mutiny started over religious outrage and other simmering grievances Sixty years later much had changed in India. Universities had been set up. Macaulay had taken hold. Hindus and Muslims had come to an understanding in the Lucknow pact. Gandhi’s tenacious quest for Hindu Muslim unity is traced to the Khilafat movement and his non cooperation which he took up independently and had Congress endorse later. He was working on a religious basis towards political goals. I don’t think I have anywhere said that Gandhi was opposed to Hindu Muslim unity, have I? I have criticized for a)introducing religion into politics and b) failing to arrive at an understanding with Jinnah despite the latter trying assiduously for nearly 20 years of Gandhi’s primacy. I have also criticized Gandhi for taking the Khilafat route with the fundamentalist Muslims which led nowhere and sidelined the secular Muslim adjustments suggested by Jinnah.
I don’t mention Tilak because I am still trying to understand him. An intriguing study is by Parimala Rao who says that Tilak was only a fundamental casteist Chitpavan. Another book by Noorani called Jinnah and Tilak Comrades in the Freedom Struggle I have yet to start on.
Ambedkar recommends Gandhi’s civil disobedience as something the ordinary man can understand. Arun Shourie who wrote a book criticizing Ambedkar was on TV last night with Shekhar Gupta criticizing Gandhi’s civil disobedience and satyagrah and praising Ambedkar. He said what many people now feel, that handing over tools like civil disobedience to the illiterate or less educated mass of people has let loose anarchy. Elected leaders in charge of the executive like the communists in West Bengal, Mamta Banerjee and on occasion even the BJP now routinely call for bandhs and shut downs.
RajTOO:
You either have not understood my post or are dissimulating. Stick to the basics. Let us get the basics of nationhood right before going for a long ramble.
Hayyer wrote:
September 16, 2012 at 10:33 am
.
Hayyer,
your understanding is flawed. You do like to treat Hinduism as a religion in the same way that Islam or Christianity or Judaism may be considered. That is why almost all your statements are based on wrong notions. So here is some background.
.
Dharma is purely philosophy. But it is also bound with Hindu cosmology and is said to be sanctioned by the cosmic order – rta! That is because according to Hindus, there is an equivalence in patterns of order between the Cosmos, the Society and the Individual. It is due to this equivalence, that the Hindus posit a Cosmic sanction for Dharma of Society. But Dharma can be professed and proved without the Cosmic sanction as well, because it is based on logic.
.
The nature of the state is based on political philosophy, i.e. social philosophy! That is in fact Social Dharma.
.
Secondly India has had both monarchies as well as republics in the past, and at several levels democracy as well. So there is actually a long history of evolution of political thought in India as well, where the duties of the regime were specifically laid down, regardless of whether it was monarchy or republic. There is also a long history of state organization. Considering the huge empires that have existed in India, one would expect that.
.
Alone for that both Ashoka and Akbar are relevant to India.
.
But Indian Civilization is not static, and is willing to imbibe anything of worth that others have to offer. And the full concept of democracy was indeed a good adoption. Social Dharma is not bound with monarchy. In fact universal suffrage is another thing which found fertile ground in India, in fact earlier than many Western countries. Why? Because it is simply compatible with Dharma! You may have noticed that even the so-called higher-castes did not object to it. Also the abolition of monarchies in India and their privy-purses did not face much of a revolt!
.
Now having given that background about Social or Political Dharma, perhaps you could specify exactly what really bothers you about a political system based on Dharma, i.e. Dharam Rajya, as espoused by some Hindus?
.
I ask this question to find out if there is really anything fundamentally intellectual behind your rhetoric, or is it just your usual blather about religion, blah, blah!
.
.
Okay let’s see which principles as enunciated by the ancient rishis and shastras you have a problem with!
.
Also please enunciate the exact differences between modern state and say a Dharmic Rajya!
.
Also let’s get one thing straight. We allowed the Muslims of India to partition on the base of Islam not getting along with others! That opportunity would not be given again! So all this bullshit about India falling apart is just that!
Hayyer,
the basics of nationhood have been explained by more than sufficiently in the posts above!
.
All you need to do is read!
Hayyerr in your desperation you are now sounding ridiculous. No one in India is even remotely interested in running country on anything said by rishis 2000 years ago. How preposterous, why do you try and see a mirror image of radical Islam in Hinduism?
This is third time I ask Hayer, and aplogise in advance, but yr rigidity and cultural aggression makes me wonder, just curious ARE YOU MUSLIM
BM
.
I sympathize with your pain after you visited the Holocaust Museum. I visited some of those (the ones in LA and Baltimore) a few years ago. Most of those reports came out sometime after WWII. Let me draw your attention to Mubarak Ali’s article in Dawn today. Here’s an excerpt where he quotes from Madhushree Mukherjee’s marvelous book:
.
“As Mukerjee points out there was no difference between Hitler and Churchill on the concept of the white man’s superiority over other races.
.
Churchill’s views showed his contempt for the Indian people, “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. He said they bred like rabbits and he refused any aid for the starving Bengalis, shifting the ships loaded with grain to Greece and Eastern Europe. He expressed his determination to crush the Bengali Babus who created political disturbance and unrest in India. He hated Gandhi and referred to him as the naked fakir and could not bear to see Gandhi negotiate with the viceroy of India. He also disapproved of the political activities of the Congress.
.
Churchill not only rejected all demands to alleviate the suffering of the famine stricken Bengalis but also prohibited published material about the suffering. The results of famine were disastrous and nearly three million Bengalis died which completely fragmented the society but the truth was concealed by the government.
.
Churchill and Hitler were products of the age of social Darwinism which recognised the white man’s supremacy over other inferior nations. Churchill admired Hitler in his early period and published a letter in the London Times appreciating his efforts to transform Germany as highly developed industrial country after the First World War.
.
Mukerjee reconstructed the forgotten history of the famine and Churchill and his war cabinet’s attitude of apathy towards the Indians.”
to balwinder
It is typical of muslims to talk of hindus and hindu religions as if they were some parallel to islam. They try to force the same narrow concepts from west-asiatic monotheism-prophet-revelation-humbug onto hindu religions. Even the word hindu “as a religious name” is their contraption.
No matter how much you explain that to them you have to start all over again. The islamically caused idiocy and narrowness does not leave them even in sleep.
Hindu religions (in plural) are polytheistic, divisive, non-fascistic, non-finalist, mythology-based, karma-based etc. – they can’t be judged by the west-asiatic, narrow-minded, book-person-fascism monotheism.
No muslims can understand that. He is arabized and primtivized into the tribal 7th century Makkah. He does not want to ieave that. Instead he wants others to become narrow-minded primtive like himself.
Hayyer,
perhaps you should also consider one more thing.
.
It could be that you are considering nation and state to be equivalent. This is not so! Even in the Westphalian model, one speaks of nation-state. The word itself says that the state should have a “nation” character, and that that character is something more than just being “state”!
.
It does not suffice to say multi-x, multi-y, multi-z. One should also say what is the underlying glue which keeps it together. I speak of glue not at the “state” level but at the “nation” level.
Hayyerr in your desperation you are now sounding ridiculous. No one in India is even remotely interested in running country on anything said by rishis 2000 years ago. How preposterous, why do you try and see a mirror image of radical Islam in Hinduism,
balwinderjee what are u talking.if i go to hindu house ifeel as iam in jurrasic park.elephant monkey tiger dangerous looking babas everything is there.on the media also babas are givenso much importance.now we pray to have tail and go back to trees.i hope u have not forgotten indira days.
there are millions of of illegal temples.under every bargad tree u will find monkey god.country is mentally going backbarring few .muslim coutries are far ahead.in india muslims are also backward.sikhs are also not fafar behind.in america and canada they are roaming with kirpan hanging on their shoulders.
Balvinder Sandhu UK:
Go ahead and believe me to be a Muslim. Let us argue on that basis; no problem. Just answer the issues I raise and do not fog up the issues.
RajTOO:
You tell us. You are the theoretician here. Tell us about the religious glue. Why hasn’t it worked in Europe or North America?
to syed ali
Not all hindus are backward in their faith.
Hinduism (as a whole) is not a centralized faith with a fascist organization or supevision or dogma.
Reforms are very readily possible in hinduism. So hinduism is changing forward (progressing) whereas islam is fossilized in the 7th century Makkah.
Islam needs lies and violence for its fossilized survival – hindus don’t care about it’s survival since hinduism keeps changing. So muslims are always tensed up whereas hindus are more relaxed.
Also tell us that Christians are not good Indians, but they would make good Englishmen, (though probably Palestinians is a better ascription), just as by your logic Muslims would make good Arabs.
Pakistanis are Middle Easterners who do not speak Arabic.
It is impossible to understand a people in one sentence. But some sentences come closer than others. The above is one such.
Hayyer,
you are skipping all the issues I raised and responded to!
.
Anyway, did I speak about “religious” glue? I spoke about just “glue”. As I said, you live in the religion-no-religion duality!
.
Let’s still consider your question!
1) Who says it hasn’t worked in Europe? They had a lot of religious wars, true, but they reached peace. And now they have peace in Europe and North America!
.
2) Now this may be the appearance, that it has worked out! But let’s ask more specifically why it worked out! It worked out, when Europeans started looking for civilizational glue in common history, in scientific and philosophical achievements, in common market, in a united endeavor! Today Europe has reached an entente and unity based on all that. But the question is: did they suppress their history? No, they didn’t. In fact even the history of all their wars has been very minutely detailed, so that they can make out of their wars, a subject of academic interest and not an issue of chauvinism and victim complexes! In India on the other hand, we have not even started to debate our history, especially the history of Islamic conquests and Islamic rule! Unless that is done in a truthful and honest way, it too would remain an issue of contention. Do you think, the carpets in India are so thick and big they can keep all the dirt that so called secularists have been sweeping under for so long! So there are two lessons here.
a) Be truthful about the history! Discuss it openly!
b) Making all history of interaction within a region a common legacy helps in unifying people!
.
3) Possibly you are however implying that Christianity was not able to stop the wars in Europe! True! But is that what I am asking for? I am asking for? The glue is not religion! The glue is civilization, common origins, history, Indian scientific genius, and philosophy! In the Indic context, you cannot speak of “religion”. Dharma is a very different beast!
Hayyer wrote:
Western Civilization is not based simply on Christianity. Only an idiot would think so! It is based on the combined historical experience of the continent, but as its inspiration it is also based on Greek rationality!
.
As far as Indian Christians are concerned, I am not making any assertion on whether they are good or bad Indians. It is only you who are pulling irrelevant issues into the discussion.
.
It is true that Indian Christians are not Indics as per definition, but did I say, that that needs to be the criterion for being an Indian citizen?`Did I say that if one is not Indic, one is necessary bad or bad for India? I did not!
.
Bad for India are only those who say, that the Indian nation-state should not be allowed to celebrate and study the Indian Civilization and not be allowed to base its structures based on the wisdom gained through our political philosophical process! Everybody is entitled to partake in it. Muslims included!
Hayyer,
I think upon your questioning, I have laid out the new vision of India many many Indics today prefer!
.
It is perhaps your turn to come up with a better vision, if you have something against what I proposed. I have already said, why the current one is insufficient for the Indics!
“I have laid out the new vision of India”.
.
Phew! Finally, we will have our own great leap forward. Sad that we had to wait that long. Btw, when are these honorary revolutionaries returning to their pitrabhumi to start the process. I assume their karmbhoomi is Germany and Britain.
Bade Miyan,
sarcasm apart, in order to do something for India, one does not have to be in India.
.
That is old thinking!
Bade Miyan,
sarcasm apart, one doesn’t have to be in India to work for India.
.
That is old thinking!
Discussions with muslims are marred by the muslims’ necessity and compulsion to avoid any criticism of islam or honest analysis of islam’s real performance. As soon as you aim at this real issue the muslim becomes fidgety. Non-muslims should make it clear to the muslims that the only real issue that needs to be FIRST dealt with is the totalitarianism-fascism inherent in islam. Entering into any other discussion or any other theme so long this primary point of concern is not dealt with will only give the muslim a chance to escape out or to abuse/ridicule you or to try to impress you with his missionary zeal and self-glorifications.
PTH should mean “Protect The Honesty”. We all know that if honesty is allowed in islam and among muslims then islam will collapse.
relevant/ahem is in obvious need of medical help. One should also contact the authorities, his mental faculties are deteriorating. Now that no one is listening to him there is a small chance he is going the psychotic way.
Bade miyan and rajtwo
========================
bm- there is a wave of optimism in India- Rang de, Anna, Satyamev Jayte, etc – and I think we should not criticise Raj’s passion and dreams for a new India.
A lot better than pointless prolonged discussions on stale subjects like AIML and and partition.
Rajtoo,
You surely are very passionate about India.. Loved reading all your posts on Indic, Indian civilization etc. Worth pondering over whatever you have written.
But Dr Misra ,RajToo is too optimistic and naive to ask a Musalman , Half Muslaman ,,001 % Indian to come up with vision when the chap cant go beyond Muslim,Muhamamd,Allah , Arab etc . Gadri Babbas started from the West Coast of Amerca to fight the Birtish while tehse Cow belt Chawdhries were busy serving the Masters. India is not islamic, Indian interest are not islamic then why would India be accomodative of any thing Islamic. Bringing irrelevant elements of Musalmans, Allah , Muhammad into indian interest equation is not an Indian act but islamic one. Hayyer keep undermining everything Indian by bringing the non issues related to Musilim whose main concerns remain associated with all that is Non Indian.
Not all hindus are backward in their faith.
relevant whenever i pass from lucknow railway station i feed 100-200 rs worh of bread to hungry cows which are roaming on plateform.india is the only country where animals can befound roaming on railway platform and monkeys of stairs.this is indian tolerance towards animal.that is why i love my india.
Mishrajee,
It’s very generous of you to launch homilies from your comfortable pad in England. The vision of India would be best articulated by Indians living in India rather than you and me and some x y z from Germany whose “vision” implicitly declares 30% of the population persona non grata. India didn’t come out of the self imposed inertia by listening to critics like you and me. Let us have the basic decency and respect for the intelligence of a common Indian citizen. He has weathered numerous storms. I am sure he can do well without such nonsensical ideas imposed from outside. The Indian Mussalmaan who goes through the daily grind with other fellow Indian citizens has more claim to the pitrbhoomi or matribhoom or whatever you want to call it, than you and me, who, let’s be honest about it, are essentially carpetbaggers-you more than me. I understand that now that India is doing a little better than before, there is rush of expatriate Indians who have suddenly discovered that they needn’t be shameful of calling themselves as Indians and are floating fantastic ideas about Indic and other such nonsense. I am sure your ideas would be better served for you adopted country. I assume you carry a British passport and Raj, a German one. If not, please accept my heartfelt apologies.
@ Syed (September 16, 2012 at12:27 am)
//…today’s Pakistan is not an Islamic paradise by any standards. Pakistan today is a Mullah-run hell. The Mullahs, as you already know I’m sure, were totally anti-Jinnah and completely pro-Gandhi…//
That was succinctly put. Well said. The Mullah-force in today’s Pakistan, represents the final by-product of the Gandhian political philosophy of bringing the clergy into politics. Jinnah found that it was impossible to go along with this philosophy of Gandhi.
BM,
I’ll take your heart-felt apologies!
Vajra
.
Before moving on, an exhibit: the list of Mayors of Calcutta:
The first Kolkata Municipal Election was held on 16th April, 1924. Since then there were 36 Mayors in all. In the mean time, there were no Corporation Election and hence, no Mayors from 1948 to 1952 and 1972-1985. This is
List of Mayors
Chittaranjan Das (1924-1925)
Jatindra Mohan Sengupta (1925-30)
Bejoy Kumar Basu (1928-29) [Interim Mayor]
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose (1930-1931)
Dr Bidhan Chandra Roy (1931-1933)g
Santosh Kumar Basu (1933-1934)
Nalini Ranjan Sarkar (1934-1935)
Abul Kasem Faziul Haque (1935-1936)
Sanat Kumar Roy Chowdhury (1937-1938)
AKM Zakariah (1938-1939)
Nitish Chandra Sen (1939-1940)
A.R. Siddiqui (1940-1941)
Phanindra Nath Brahmma (1941-1942)
Hem Chandra Naskar (1942-1943)
Syed Badrudduja (1943-1944)
Anandi Lal Poddar (1944-1945)
Debendranath Mukherjee (1945-1946)
Syed Md. Usman (1946-1947)
Sudhir Chandra Ray Chaudhuri (1947-1948)
Nirmal Chandra Chunder (1952-1953)
Naresh Nath Mookherjee (1953-1955)
Satis Chandra Ghosh (1955-1956)
Sir Hari Sanker Paul (1956-1957)
Dr Triguna Sen (1957-1959)
Bejoy Kumar Banerjee (1959-1960)
Keshab Chandra Basu (1960-1961)
Rajendra Nath Majumdar (1961-1963)
Chittaranjan Chatterjee (1963-1965)
PK Roy Chowdhury (1965-1967)
Gobindra Chandra Dey (1967-1969)
Prasanta Sur (1969-1971)
Shyam Sundar Gupta (1971-1972)
Kamal Basu (1985-1990)
Prasanta Chatterjee (1990-2000)
Subrata Mukherjee (2000-2005)
Bikash Bhattacharjee (2005-2010)
.
Vajra
.
In your exhibit A one should only count the Mayors until 1947. I see that there were 17 of them of which 5 were Muslims, more than 30%. Considering that pre-independence Calcutta was a predominantly Hindu city I find that figure to be remarkably high. Such a figure only makes sense if there was parity in education levels, which I am sure there wasn’t.
I presume you know where this is going.
RajTOO:
If you have nothing other than civilizational stuff to offer, and/or irrelevant references to Dharma we can conclude this discussion.
No one stops you from celebrating the achievements of Indian civilization. Indians by a large majority do note vote for parties that want to base the structures of state on “the wisdom gained through our political philosophical process!”. I asked you earlier to tell us something about this ‘political philosophical process’ but you haven’t obliged.
“Everybody is entitled to partake in it. Muslims included!” Yes everyone knows the Hindutva brigade are generous that way. And I am sure that those interested will acquaint themselves with it. Acquaintance with ancient Indian wisdom is optional of course. You can try packaging it at election time and hope that you catch the vote. Then you can impose it; till then all you can do is just offer it. Who is objecting? I see you offering it on PTH all the time without defining what it is. The modern state, and particularly the modern Indian state is a creation however of western philosophical and political processes. And so far as I can the large majority of my countrymen is happy with that, including a very great number who are also well acquainted with Indian philosophical processes.
to dark_knight
The clergy is in muslim politics since the days of Mohammad. Mohammad himself was one. You may chose not to call him a clergy-man. But that was the role played by him – whatever you call it.
Gandhi wanted to awaken masses – including muslims. And the muslim clergyman and feudal was the thekedar of the muslims. No one can reach a muslim except through them – that is even today.
Why blame Gandhi? He thought that muslim clergyman will behave well as human beings. He was disappointed by the agents and quislings of islam. That is not his fault or sin. If you trust someone to be good and wise and he fails to be so then who is to be blamed? Is it a crime to trust someone to be good? Why don’t you see the blame in islam which produces such fascists like the mullahs?
Dark Knight/Syed,
Pakistan today is a Mullah-run hell. The Mullahs, as you already know I’m sure, were totally anti-Jinnah and completely pro-Gandhi
I guess Ms Jalal shud give the Sole Spokesman title to the Gandhoo.
Regards
to heavy_petting and dark-knight
Now that Jinnah, Pakistan and islam have failed (except when it coms to the “successes” of fascism in islam) it is habitual for pakistanis and muslims to blame Gandhi.
Some mullahs of 1937-47 may have opposed Jinnah, the majority of them went over to him due to his islam-oriented islam-glorifying promises and declarations to them. The new breed of mullahs in Pakistan today are a product of those promises and declarations by Jinnah.
—
BTW….
Those who advocate psychiatric treatment to others themselves need it even more. But I don’t think a psychiatrist can help someone who is mentally imprisoned in islamic fascism.
Hayyer,
I can understand your lack of any insights on being able to define Indian nationalism! Lack of nationalism also leads to no desire to understand it either.
.
Hayyer,
I gave two challenges here:
.
1) I offered a model of nationalism: It should be based on our collective history of all the regions in India, going back to the many thousands of years since Indian civilization exists. That means all Indians should in their education be completely immersed in all aspects of Indian Civilization: Sanskrit, political history, history of philosophy, ancient Eurasian trade-links and economy, India’s scientific accomplishments, Indian cultural influence in Eurasia. Indics can symbolically embody that rootedness to land in any way they want – sacredness, Bharat-Mata, etc., whereas non-Indics can either better understand the symbology or can opt out of it!
a) Everybody studies it, and
b) the state has no hesitation in promoting it with full thrust ahead.
c) There is truthfulness and honesty about Islamic rule in India, and its study is taken up as an academic field of study, and does not end up in chauvinism, victim complexes, recriminations, etc. The nation learns how to deal with it and not to muzzle all discussions about it.
d) Today our whole historical edifice is based on lies and lies alone!
e) Non-Indics can also contribute to the comprehensive national narrative, highlighting their own indigenous contributions to the Indian culture.
.
Challenge: You have not been able to say, what is wrong with any of this, nor have you been able to produce a better model for Indian nationalism! Instead you have been going on and on about – Hindutvadi, blah, bloh, Hindu-fundamentalist, blah, bloh!
.
2) Since long people of your ilk have been espousing that Hindutvavadis want to impose some Hindu-based political system on India.
.
Challenge: So in the hypothetical scenario, where that were to be the case, I asked you, what exactly are your concerns about that a Dharam-Rajya which includes democracy and universal suffrage, but is based on the political-philosophical theories developed in the context of the Indian Civilization.
.
Here I again you come with a blank. Something you have been criticizing vigorously, and when one asks you to go into details about issue, you have no answers!
.
So Hayyer, without any good rational answers on these fronts, I would consider your position to be nothing different than that of a Muslim chauvinist or Islamist intent on undermining the Indics, and thus the national cohesion, with no good alternative model for Indian nationalism!
RajTOO:
I am not interested in a Hindutva India-That should be clear by now. As they say in Punjabi’ saari raat ramayan padhi, savere puchya sita kaun si’. I asked you what the ‘Indian political philosophical structure’ could be, and you recommend a college course in Indology.
“I offered a model of nationalism..”. Where is it?
“It should be based on our collective history of all the regions of India of philosophy, going back to the many thousands of years of Indian civilization that exists..”
Yes; so tell us what is it; don’t challenge us to guess. We don’t know.
“a) Everybody studies it, and
b) the state has no hesitation in promoting it with full thrust ahead.
c) There is truthfulness and honesty about Islamic rule in India, and its study is taken up as an academic field of study, and does not end up in chauvinism, victim complexes, recriminations, etc. The nation learns how to deal with it and not to muzzle all discussions about it.
d) Today our whole historical edifice is based on lies and lies alone!
e) Non-Indics can also contribute to the comprehensive national narrative, highlighting their own indigenous contributions to the Indian culture.”
Is that what your model of the Indian state? An enumeration of the elements of a college course?
“Challenge: You have not been able to say, what is wrong with any of this, nor have you been able to produce a better model for Indian nationalism! Instead you have been going on and on about – Hindutvadi, blah, bloh, Hindu-fundamentalist, blah, bloh!
.
2) Since long people of your ilk have been espousing that Hindutvavadis want to impose some Hindu-based political system on India.”
I have no objection to Indians studying Indian history and culture, or engaging in debates about the Muslim impact. That is already happening in academia and elsewhere, especially among Hindutva vadis. Why do you call it a challenge?
.
“Challenge: So in the hypothetical scenario, where that were to be the case, I asked you, what exactly are your concerns about that a Dharam-Rajya which includes democracy and universal suffrage, but is based on the political-philosophical theories developed in the context of the Indian Civilization.”
Again please tell us what are the political-philosophical theories that you want to include in the Indian constitution along with democracy and universal suffrage.
“So Hayyer, without any good rational answers on these fronts, I would consider your position to be nothing different than that of a Muslim chauvinist or Islamist intent on undermining the Indics, and thus the national cohesion, with no good alternative model for Indian nationalism!”
My dear RajTOO, You may, if it pleases you, consider me a Muslim chauvinist or as having an Islamic intent. Why an agnostic should acquire an Islamic hue because he prefers the present Indian political structure to your confused Hindutva, I cannot imagine.
Given a choice bewteen islam and hindutva the latter is better for the indians. Islam will push us back into misogyny, arabic imperialism-racism, political, cultural and juridical fascism, overpopulation, filthiness as is common among non-vegetarians, glorification of violence etc.