VIEW: Two Nation Theory —Yasser Latif Hamdani
For Jinnah and the Muslim League, the Two Nation Theory was not an ideological position etched in stone. It was the restatement of the arguments needed to ensure national status for Muslims in a multinational independent India
One of our most persistent national myths — put forward by both the state and its detractors — is that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam.
It is said that Pakistan was created with the use of the slogans “Islam in danger” and “Pakistan ka matlab kya, La illaha ilallah”, both slogans which — ironically — were never used by Quaid-e-Azam himself. Indeed Jinnah ruled out “Pakistan ka matlab kiya, La illaha illallah” when he censured a Leaguer at the last session of the All India Muslim League after partition in these words: “Neither I nor the Muslim League Working Committee ever passed a resolution — Pakistan ka matlab kiya — you may have used it to catch a few votes.”
Nevertheless, the fact that Pakistan was created as a result of a group’s nationalism, which was based — in whatever watered down form — on common religious beliefs, has damned Pakistan to a perpetual identity crisis that continues to sap its vitality. That no one on top since September 11, 1948 has been able to talk sense in this country has only aggravated our predicament.
Fundamental to this identity crisis is the national confusion surrounding the Two Nation Theory, which is hailed as the ideological foundation of the state of Pakistan. It is one of the most misunderstood ideas in modern history, both in terms of what it claimed and how it has been applied by various currents in our history.
Both India and Pakistan do not disagree on what they consider the essentials of the theory, but while in India it is a symbol of exclusivism and communalism, in Pakistan it is part of the Islamic ideological narrative. This is the publicist’s view of history, but not necessarily one that is accepted without question by historians. Perhaps the time has come to turn such conventional common (non)sense about the Two Nation Theory on its head.
The Two Nation Theory, as adopted by Jinnah and the Muslim League in 1940, was a mere restatement of the minority problem in national terms and not a clarion call, to use Dr Ayesha Jalal’s vocabulary, for partition. What Jinnah was aiming for was what in recent years has been coined as ‘consociationalism’, a power sharing between disparate ethnic and communal groups in multinational and multiethnic states. Though the term was coined only a decade or so ago, consociationalism as a political system is quite old and is tried and tested in states like The Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada.
When the Quaid-e-Azam articulated the Two Nation Theory, he referred to language, culture, family laws and historical antecedents. He was, as an adroit lawyer, making the case for changing the status of a minority to that of a nation and not for separation of Islam from India as is alleged by his detractors.
The truth is that Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan was not predicated on the partition of India. His idea of Pakistan was a power sharing arrangement between the Muslims and Hindus. His Two Nation Theory did not, at least not until December 1946, suggest that the Hindus and Muslims must be separated. And yet, even in May 1947, Jinnah was pleading against the partition of Punjab and Bengal by arguing that a Punjabi is a Punjabi and a Bengali is a Bengali before he is a Hindu or a Muslim.
Much of this is confirmed by one of the most extraordinary pieces of prescience left behind by H V Hodson, who was the Reforms Commissioner in India in 1941. Hodson wrote in clear terms very soon after the Lahore Resolution that every Muslim Leaguer from Jinnah down to the last one interpreted the Pakistan idea as consistent with the idea of a confederation of India. Hodson believed that “Pakistan” was a “revolt against minority status” and a call for power sharing and not just defining rules of conduct how a majority (in this case Hindu) would govern India. He spoke of an acute realisation that the minority status with all the safeguards could only amount to a “Cinderella with trade union rights and radio in the kitchen but still below the stairs.” Jinnah’s comment was that Hodson had finally understood what the League was after, but that he could not publicly come out with these fundamental truths, as these were likely to be misunderstood at the time.
For Jinnah and the Muslim League, the Two Nation Theory was not an ideological position etched in stone. It was the restatement of the arguments needed to ensure national status for Muslims in a multinational independent India. It was also a vehicle to get parochial elements in Muslim majority provinces into line behind the Muslim League at the All India Centre. At the very least, Jinnah’s Pakistan did not necessarily envisage a partition, secession from or division of United India. This is why he jumped at the opportunity of the Cabinet Mission Plan, which did not even deliver 50 percent of what he had demanded. In the end, however, the idea of power sharing with the League and Muslims was too much for the Indian National Congress to gulp, even if Gandhi and Nehru could have been brought around to the idea. Maulana Azad’s grudging admissions in his book India Wins Freedom seal this argument.
It is important, however, to note that Jinnah’s August 11 speech and all his pronouncements thereafter made it absolutely clear that the Two Nation Theory would have no role to play in the principles of citizenship of the new state. Significantly, after partition, Jinnah went back to using the word ‘community’ for Hindus and Muslims instead of nations.
The concept of citizenship to Jinnah the liberal — a keen student of British history — could not be fettered by issues of identity. He wanted Pakistan to be an impartial inclusive democracy rather than an exclusivist theocracy, which regrettably Pakistan has become increasingly over the last 30 odd years.
Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com
Courtesy Daily Times
Pak Tea House 
Yasser Pai,
I guess we have known each other’s views too long to have a debate now. But just to refresh my memory:
This is why he jumped at the opportunity of the Cabinet Mission Plan, which did not even deliver 50 percent of what he had demanded.
What was his demand?
Which of his demands were not met by CMP and how?
Regards
I meant Jinnah’s stated public demands…. two federations in one confederation …. with parity at the center…
The CMP did not give parity and was not a confederation …. but a three tiered federation.
By parity at the center I guess you mean that Muslims shud have equal no. of seats in the Central Assembly/Parliament as Hindus irrespective of what the population % was. Correct?
Regards
My understanding is slightly different. The demand for parity between two sub-federations not Hindus and Muslims…the application of the federal principle at a confederal level.
Was parity between Hindus and Muslims sought in a direct way ? I don’t think so probably with the exception of Interim government before constitution would come in place.
@YLH
His idea of Pakistan was a power sharing arrangement between the Muslims and Hindus.
I feel, given the spirit of what Jinnah seemed to have striven for, a restraint of brute majority, a fairer statement might be
His idea of Pakistan was a power restricting arrangement between the minorities and Hindus.
The Muslims would have been the first; judging by his remarks to the Tamils, or to the Scheduled Castes, he hoped that other minorities, Tamils, the tribals, the oppressed castes, the hillmen, would follow.
We would have had a very much more peaceful India if that had happened.
Dear Vajra,
I agree with that. Compulsions of practical politics made J-man speak of muslims predominantly after 1940…
What a great thing it would have been for all …had he successfully done what Ambedkar thought J-man alone was suited to do – bring all minorities on one platform.
Would it have worked? Since J-man was aiming at wresting the Punjab …I think it would have been next to impossible.
I am busy right now but 1. Moderators please remove Sadhna Gupta’s comment. 2. He did not turn down the Sikhs at all. He actually gave them a blank cheque but they were misled the Congress into voting for partition of Punjab. Get your facts straight.
Even Ishtiaq Ahmed- the latter day champion of the old Nationalist mythologies on both sides of the border- wrote this in his article yesterday:
“In a meeting in May 1947 sponsored by Lord Mountbatten to help the Muslims and Sikhs reach an agreement on keeping Punjab united, Jinnah offered the Sikhs all the safeguards they wanted if they agreed to support Pakistan.”
wonder whether that included right to seccede
if those safeguards were not to be implemented
and were not effective anymore!
Can you quote something that suggests otherwise?
\”…all the safeguards …\” I presume all the safe guards were offered to the \’new\’ minorities. Its ironic considering what happened to the minorities in Pakistan.
My point is simple, a people\’s democracy need not stick to the path layed by its founder. If you justify change in Pakistan by quoting Jinnah, then there is an equally strong argument from the religious brigade regarding Pakistan\’s identity. If an average Pakistani is ready to look back on religious discrimination, and ensure that Islam gets official state support with utter disrespect to other faiths, then so whats there to do with MAJ\’s vision anyway!. I think its simply too late to brings Jinnahs ideals to mainstream social thinking.
Does not matter what Jinnah promised or what Gandhi promised in 1947 what matters is what was delivered on ground. The Sikh & Hindu population in Pakistan is a testimony to the safeguards that Jinnah promised and Muslim population in India is a testimony to Gandhi Nehru Patel’s legacy people can look up for facts and numbers and draw their own conclusions.
“consociationalism”
Ah! old wine in a new bottle. Wonder how many new words we have to invent to force this bogus theory down our throats. The way this notion is making progress would make us believe in not so distant future that the 2 nation theory was entirely a product of some congress wallah and Jinnah was forced to accept it. One wonders how die hard Pakistani feel that their founder “actually” wanted Pakistan as a last gamble. One has to go by what he said in REALITY rather than figments of imagination about what his inner thoughts were. Most of his speeches post 39 were virulent and driven to alienate whatever goodwill he earned as a Hindu Muslim ambassador. Rafiq Zakariya has testified to the vitriolic communal nature of his speeches. It’s kind of hard to put the genie back in the bottle once you have unleashed it. Bhutto did it too. No one doubts his secular credentials too.
Thanks Goodman.
“Muslim population in India is a testimony to Gandhi Nehru Patel’s legacy people can look up for facts and numbers and draw their own conclusions.”
And add much reviled Maulana Azad along with Gabdhi and Nehru to that list too. Muslims in India are not having the best of times, but I doubt their treatment compares to that of minorities in Pakistan. Jinnah was among a minority in the Muslim League, in fact among both Muslim League and the Congress. He probably didn’t fathom the impact his politics post 40 would have. Great leaders are supposed to know that though.
“In a meeting in May 1947 sponsored by Lord Mountbatten to help the Muslims and Sikhs reach an agreement on keeping Punjab united, Jinnah offered the Sikhs all the safeguards they wanted if they agreed to support Pakistan.”
——-
Yasser, hardliners amongst Sikhs accuse Master Tara Singh to this day, besides other things, of not accepting Jinnah’s above proposal. Notice in my previous statement Tara Singh being moderate. You don’t want to know who are hardliners.:-) But majority of the Sikhs today have understanding that it was nothing but a political rumor mongering in fast changing environment to soften the Sikhs’ stand vis-vis Pakistan. There are narratives about some Sikh leaders meeting Jinnah on the issue but I have never seen any solid evidence of what safeguards sikhs demanded from Jinnah or how did he agree or disagree to them. For curiosity reasons I sometimes wonder what Sikhs could have asked for, and assuming Jinnah agreed to all of it, how it would have turned out now? Do you have any views about it?
Akash:
Actually I am perfectly fine with being a Pakistani whose Pakistan was in most probability a bargaining chip by a minority leader looking to safeguard his community. And dogmatic adulation of Jinnah is combined with the understanding that his idea of Pakistan was less than perfect, and his use of religion while may seem less than ideal in the perfection-enamoured Indian or Pakistani intelligentsia of 2010, was still something that was necessary in the fractured Muslim India of 1940s.
Does that make me less proud of Pakistan because it was a bargaining chip? Absolutely not. Do I derive all my Pakistaniat from Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah? absolutely not. Like all successful nations, Pakistan has to chart a course for itself using the ideals of equal humans, equal treatment of minorities. That Pakistan has moved away from the protection of minorities and equality for all is ironic, as this protection and equality was the very reason behind the birth of Pakistan.
What I do find intriguing that the same humanistic message is found in Jinnah’s speeches. For someone virulently against him due to his communal behaviour, it may be hard to understand. But Jinnah was a leader of Muslims, was pitted against both Congress as well as hard line Muslim left. And he kept invoking Islamic ideals along with democracy and secularism. He was conveying his view of a Muslim democratic republic and he never said that Islamic principles would not influence upon the society laws. But he was unequivocally clear that no theocracy and rule of Sharia/religion would be the future in Pakistan.
What is clear is that his intentions for a liberal democratic Pakistan were gauged most clearly by the religious right who was quick to agitate to Islamize the country. And this is where Jinnah missed the chance. Though his speech on August 11 was unequivocally secular in nature, unfortunately for him an almost bankrupt state that was fighting for its survival in its very initial days, took away most of the attention. He was unable to spell out his vision of secular Pakistan repeatedly in his speeches afterwards, something that proved catastrophic because subsequent leaders kept giving ground to the right in hopes of staying untheocratic ; whether because he was dying of consumption and cancer, or because Pakistan was beset with its very survival, we don’t know. I surely think that I cannot possibly judge him sitting now 63 years later with everything that he was facing then. I think he probably missed the chance then, but I may be wrong now.
His references to Islam and its ideals were necessary, because even today no politician in Pakistan can create a medium by completely ignoring the religious aspect of the Pakistani society. This is not dishonesty as the puritans would like to say.
My respect for Islamic ideals does not mean that I consider religion to be the only overriding force that should govern a society. And 60 years later, if you cherry pick this politician’s speeches where he eulogized the Islamic ideals, you may find some disparate material here and there, but who will be dishonest really; that politician or you?
And I haven’t read Rafiq Zakaria book yet, but this review by Najam Sethi probably means that this spotty and agenda laden analysis can comfortably wait.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?213948
As Mr. Sethi said, 63 years is too short a time for nations to be called successful and failed. That Pakistan has suffered huge setbacks in its history does not mean that it is not viable. And importantly, my idea of a vibrant and strong Pakistan governed by the rule of law and equal Pakistanis is exactly what Jinnah said six decades back. This idea does not work with JI followers who can only cherry pick Jinnah’s selected quotes, but these right wingers fortunately can’t disregard his overwhelming secular message. For this reason alone, Jinnah will remain relevant for Pakistan in the years to come.
Jinnah and his policies are history – he may have been well meaning but what he meant is more of academic value than anything else now.
Whatever his intent, he is credited with the creation of Pakistan which exists today albeit fraying at the edges. Pakistan is, and has been since 1947 a sovereign nation state recognised as one by the UN just as Sweden and Somalia are also accepted as nation states.
It is only Pakistanis who have a problem about what they are and what they should be doing. In Sweden when people have a political disagreement, it is sorted out in the polls. In Somalia disagreements are sorted out with guns. Both methods are valid and well known methods of solving political disputes.
In fact the separateness and uniqueness of Muslims in pre-independence India was often sought to be demonstrated using the Somalia method, because Jinnah and the Muslim league felt that over a hundred million Muslims in India, who had made India their homeland for a millennium were “a minority” and that the Somalia political technique would get them a better deal than the Sweden method.
Well, it did get them Pakistan, which was a great load off the shoulders of Indians, because the Muslims remaining in India do well with the Sweden method, while Pakistanis are now beginning to wonder if the Somalia method is right or wrong. It’s about time isn’t it?
As an aside, Indian policemen, born in the 1970s can be seen carrying old .303 rifles with dates in the 1920s stamped on them. Firearms last that long and longer. They don’t degenerate. How many firearms are on the loose in Pakistan?
@Akash
Look, it really doesn’t work unless you read a bit and see for yourself. This word is not being invented here, or something. It’s been used, seriously, and by political scientists, especially academicians. All Yasser did was to spot that the local situation here seemed tailor-made, according to the definitions and description, for consociotionalism, and used the concept.
Since you obviously WON’T read, since your mind seems to be made up, and you don’t want further evidence to disturb your fixed conclusions, let me do the honours:
Abstract
Annual Review of Political Science
Vol. 3: 509-536 (Volume publication date June 2000)
(doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.509)
CONSOCIATIONAL DEMOCRACY
Rudy B. Andeweg
Department of Political Science,
Leyden University, Leiden, 2300 RB the Netherlands;
e-mail: andeweg@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
▪ Abstract Consociationalist theory served initially as an explanation of political stability in a few deeply divided European democracies. It argued that in these countries, the destabilizing effects of subcultural segmentation are neutralized at the elite level by embracing non-majoritarian mechanisms for conflict resolution.
Note: Emphasis above added: Vajra.
The theory was extended as new consociational democracies were discovered, as the related but broader concept of “consensus democracy” was introduced, and as a normative component was added, recommending consociational engineering as the most promising way to achieve stable democracy in strongly segmented societies. Consociationalism has always been controversial, but rather than one great debate about its validity, there have been many small debates about the countries, the concepts, the causes, and the consequences associated with consociationalism. These debates can become more fruitful if consociational theory is formulated less inductively and at a higher level of abstraction, and if the critics of consociationalism focus more on its principles and less on the operationalizations provided by its most important theorist, Arend Lijphart. The erosion of social cleavages in many consociational democracies raises the question of whether the very logic of consociationalism should lead to a prescription of more adversarial politics in those countries.
I think we can all agree on one thing I.E M.A. Jinnah should be considred a true son of India . He sacrificed much and did huge favour to India though unknowingly. Its too bad that partition did not achieve its logical conclusion. Pakistan must open its border for any Indian Muslim who wishes to migrate to this Darul Islam. Indian Muslims have the right to share and enjoy all the previlages provided by Pakistan which was made in their name .
Shiv,
“As an aside, Indian policemen, born in the 1970s can be seen carrying old .303 rifles with dates in the 1920s stamped on them.”
I am not sure if that is something to be proud of.
Kalket,
i guess India should also open its doors to muslims in Pakistan who don’t seem to be as enamored of Dar-ul-Islam as you are.
AZW,
Well written post. I shall expand on your theme in a separate post.
@Akash
1. I think Shiv was trying to say that weapons last a long time, and can kill humans during that entire long life, and if we see Indian cops carrying around rifles older than themselves, how much scarier it is to contemplate Pakistan with arms which have begun flooding the market only a few years, a couple of decades ago. I say this to try and clarify, not that I necessarily agree with him.
2. About Kaalket – if you got the original sarcasm and your response was dead-pan literal in order to ‘take the mickey’, then this isn’t necessary. But you did get the sarcasm? Jinnah was good because thanks to him, we got rid of a lot of Muslims; we should pay homage to him by keeping the borders open and letting out more Muslims who want to get out; it is Dar-ul-Islam that they are getting out to, and they will want to go there.
A really horrible man and a really horrible post. He doesn’t know a thing about his subject, and just wants to vent his bigoted spleen.
Looking forward to your response to AZW’s post, which I wholly agree was really well-written.
Quaid was the biggest visionary this region has ever produced; he knew the nature of our people that’s why he wanted this country to be a democracy not a theocracy.
Vajra said
Shiv was trying to say that weapons last a long time, and can kill humans during that entire long life, and if we see Indian cops carrying around rifles older than themselves, how much scarier it is to contemplate Pakistan with arms which have begun flooding the market only a few years, a couple of decades ago.
That is correct.
.303s are deadly enough in the sense that one bullet can go through 5 men if you line them up (or hit them while kneeling in rows in a mosque) But Pakistan is awash with AK 47s that can fire off 30 rounds in 3 seconds. How’s that for some Qadianis and other assorted kafirs?
I believe that not much attention is being paid to this fact. Not that it matters. if you start thinking about what to do with several million small arms on the loose in your country and a population that can get guns more easily than education, jobs, or a square meal, one will probably feel like giving up and going back to not paying attention to the fact, hoping it will go away.
Ultimately, if by chance someone in Pakistan is actually unhappy or dissatisfied, and if he happens to think of his automatic rifle as a solution what is anyone going to do about him? I mean Hollywood teaches me that he needs to be overpowered and disarmed. And what if there is more than one unhappy Pakistani with a gun? Anyone recall how easily 10 men were overpowered and disarmed in Mumbai, November 2008? Or how easily they were disarmed in Lahore May 28 2010?
Unchecked possession of illegal automatic weapons is one more of Pakistan’s long list of currently insurmountable problems. This problem is possibly off topic on this thread, but could belong in any number of other posts on this board.
Jinnah made the following blunders in 1948 (whatever great, clever, fantastic, magnificent and rightful things he may have done earlier).
1) He had a major health breakdown in 1948 (I think in May ’48). Death stared him in face. He knew it. There he did the blunder of sticking to the post of Governor General. This ate up his valuable time in doing a laborer job. Thus he wasted his moral authority and stature on lowly tasks.
2) Instead he should have immediately appointed a successor (preferrably a hindu) and TRAINED him to take over.
3) Jinnah should have concentrated on writing (dictating) a book and a will and TRAINING all those who were to take over positions of responsibility.
4) He should have forced the writing of a constitution or at least its first draft.
5) He should have openly and in writing admitted that Pakistan had blundered gravely by introducing violence in the Kashmir dispute/conflict (on the 20th. of Oct. 1947, through the invasion of the Kingdom of Kashmir by pashtun tribals backed by pak army, against the wishes of the then british C-in-C of the pak army).
6) He should have abrogated all his promises made to the mullahs and the islamic backwards. This would have required a lot of courage and admission of his own past limitations, constraints and opportunisms.
7) He should have published names of those whom he considered dangerous to a secular progressive development in Pakistan (his “lieutnant” Liaqat Ali Khan would have been top in this list).
The title “qaid-e-azam” should not be made cheap. In today’s Pakistan it has become a cheap title (like “Field Marshal” Ayub Khan).
We are forced to judge Jinnah by these blunders of his during the last four months of his life.
Skyview,
1. Jinnah as a strong GG is an excessively stupid myth. Post Jan he was entirely irrelevant.
2. Khawaja Nazimuddin was the best successor in my opinion.
4. The constitution Jinnah prepared is in the classified national archives. I have two very authentic sources that confirm this.
6. Is a question of what promises. Jinnah did not introduce a state religion and did not allow a single resolution in the PCA which committed Pakistan to Islam.
7. Liaqat Ali Khan was a secular man but a weak leader. He thought objectives resolution would satisfy all. He had the courage to stand up and say a non muslim could be the head of state of Pakistan.
8. Quaid e Azam is not a cheap title in Pakistan. No one else has it. Many have tried “Quaid” title but Quaid e Azam is one.
As for judging Jinnah…he continues to inspire people like AZW and Usman Sadozai… To me that makes him a hero.
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
to ylh
1. if Jinnah was not a strong GG – all the more reason for him to have taken a different route to tell pakistanis what he wants to be done. As non GG he would have commanded more moral authority
2. he should have appointed a hindu successor – that would have made it clear what he wants for the future. appointing merely a song-writer for the pak anthem was (apparently) not enough.
3. a constitution is a big thing anyway – but a short but cogent legal will would have been very effective
But we (of today) are all “wiser” when it is too late.
@ AZW–Brilliantly said—in respect of your post to Akash. Well done.
@YLH–great article of course and I agree with your view that Khwaja Nazimuddin would have made the best successor. And—I am absolutely intrigued that there is a draft Constitution prepared by Jinnah in the national archives—how can we get to it??? Do your sources say when it will be declassified?
@Shiv
Somewhere else, I read a very melancholy post by someone who grew up in Pakistan in the 50s and 60s. He speaks with some disbelief and bewilderment about the extent of arms and use of arms, and mentions that the fights that he witnessed or had heard of in his youth were confined to lathis, and, in some very rare cases, to knives.
A sad comment, and a disheartening thought.
@ yasserlatifhamdani (June 10, 2010 at 9:22 pm)
“…..The constitution Jinnah prepared is in the classified national archives. I have two very authentic sources that confirm this…..”
That draft needs to be declassified immediately.
Any Muslim who wants to leave Pakistan and move to India is most welcome a long as he/she leave the Pakistaniat on the West side of Wagha.
I was not asking IM to move there, Jinnah took with him all those who were not fit to live in Indian society. The question is of Pakistani claim on present land justified by Islam based 2 Nation theory and denying the Pakistani Islamic dream to Indian Muslims .
i wish Pakistan or atleast provinces east of Indus return to the Indian Union …
but the more pertinent lesson from the Pakistan experiment is what wud happen if Palestine were to become independent. An Islamic state with identity crises and which forever wants to go one up on Israel cannot be a good outcome.
@ vajra
Somewhere else, I read a very melancholy post by someone who grew up in Pakistan in the 50s and 60s. He speaks with some disbelief and bewilderment about the extent of arms and use of arms, and mentions that the fights that he witnessed or had heard of in his youth were confined to lathis, and, in some very rare cases, to knives.
A sad comment, and a disheartening thought.
The thoughts I have in response to this are not necessarily going to be liked but I will try and put them into words. Currently my thoughts have not gelled well enough but I will try.
Every human can have more than one identity. A person may want to say he is Ahmedi, Muslim and Pakistani. I have on the net who says “I am Indian first and a military man next”. I may be “Indian” and “Hindu”. Maybe one day I will howl about mistreatment of Hindus, but the next day I am rooting for India. Indian Americans can be found to be scathing about India one minute and the next minute they will be loving being Indian.
I have pointed out time and again that Pakistanis have tied themselves up in knots about whether they are Muslims first or Pakistanis first.
But there is another influential category of Pakistani who has the identities “Muslim, Pakistani and fauji”. The Pakistan army has a special identity of its own because they believe that the are the true protectors of Pakistan and Islam. As long as the enemy is (or was) India, the three identities Pakistani, Muslim and Fauji stood well with each other. And again, for the Pakistani army, as long as the enemy was India it mattered little whether a person was merely Muslim or Muslim and Pakistan. Or even whether he was Muslim first or Pakistan first. Whichever way it was, the man was an ally against India. Allowing him to bear arms was not a problem. It is right to arm an ally.
With Zia’s commitment to the war against the Soviets nothing changed. It mattered little whether someone was Pakistani first or Muslim first. The enemy were still kafirs and US aid was the way in which Allah favored the faithful, (or alternatively it was justifable aid to an ally.) So the arming of Pakistanis in the name of jihad against kafirs was accepted as a natural and positive development. Those arms would be put to good sue and it would matter little whether victory belonged to Muslims or to Pakistan. Both were the same.
But once it became difficult to fight external foes, the non state groups have retained their arms. And now the Pakistan first or Islam first identity conflict is rearing up. No Pakistani government has ever had the need to impose a separate Pakistani identity over and above an Islamic identity. Under the circumstances if the Islamic identity is allowed to rule, that identity makes awkward demands like whether a person is Sunni, Deobandi or Wahhabi, or Shia or Ahmedi.
Desperate attempts are made to cook up a “Pakistani” identity after spending decades defining Pakistani as “not Indian”. And these are not my words – they come from Mani Shankar Aiyer, a former attache in Pakistan and currently ruling party member who considers himself a friend of Pakistan.
When you ask a Pakistani army man his identity, I am sure that he knows that he is a Muslim and an army man. He is sure to know that he is “Pakistani” as well. Now how do you get this army man to fight militant groups in Waziristan? All are Muslim. Many are Pakistanis. To motivate him to fight the story that the militants of Waziristan ae supported by India and Israel have to be cooked up. How far this story will carry remains to be seen. The Pakistani army is reluctant to fight the Lashkar e Toiba, which in turn has echoed the Pakistan government’s foreign policy line. But what of Sipah e Saheba and Tehrik e Taliban, Pakistan? Or the Haqqani network? These were all allies of the Pakistani army. They were good Muslims fighting jihad against kafirs.
Pakistan is full of people who have been hedging their bets about who they are and what they need to do as long as they could hide behind the excuse that they were doing it for Islam. India was too stupid and naive, but the US has shown an astute awareness of how a bunch of ideologically fired up people can be “used” and they have used Pakistan. The wealthy of Pakistan have been showered with easy access to the US and easy disbursements of US dollars. The army was given arms to fight againt India, and the poorer Pakistanis were given jihad agaisnt kafirs.
And Pakistanis have spent decades thumbing their noses at India’s backwardness while development of Pakistan in terms of healthcare, infrastructure and education have been relegated so far behind that it is difficult to catch up now.
Pakistan is in deep doodoo. Oh of course every man and his uncle,including me can make prescriptions for Pakistan. But Pakistan now has to follow diferent sets of prescriptions from influential groups.
On one side is the US, which pays well but may go away
On another side the loyal Islamists like the LeT who cannot be touched, but can bring more misery on Pakistan by their actions
On the third side are groups like the TTP and the Punjabi Taliban who are either opposing the army itself or imposing their own agenda.
Once again Pakistan is hedging its bets. And none of these groups is going anywhere.
How would Pakistan hve developed if Jinnah had admitted that Pakistan introduced violence into the Kashmir conflict/dispute?
Or appointed a hindu to succeed him as the Governor General of Pakistan?
Or written a will that told the pakistanis to bring back the hindus etc. who left the Pakistan area?
These major errors can no more be corrected? But they must be corrceted if Pakistan is to progress.
Pakistan today consists of 20% religious fascists and 80% duckers. How can such a nation make good progress?
Pakistan and Jinnah can be called successful only after hindus start migrating back to the Pakistan area, where they (their ancestors) lived since before islam came to this region.
@ skyview
Pakistan today consists of 20% religious fascists and 80% duckers. How can such a nation make good progress?
Imagine if India suddenly disappeared and Pakistan found Indian ocean to the East.
1)What would become of the Pakistan army?
2)What would become of he Pakistan army budget?
3)What would happen to the Lashkar e Toiba?
4)What would happen to Pakistan’s need to have control over an Afghan government?
Would the Pakistan army rapidly wind down its strength down to 200,000 men? Would the LeT disband all its “charity” collection centers?
The mere presence of India occupies a huge proportion of the raison d’etre of the Pakistan army. The army would be rudderless without India.
The Pakistan army (officer cadre) are very wealthy. On average the Pakistan army officer has more wealth and more perks than a similar officer in most armies of the world. A Hindu who lives his life well may achieve permanent release from cycles of birth and rebirth, but if he must be reborn perhaps the best rebirth he can have is as a Pakistani army officer. The size and luxury of Pakistan army officers private homes, and their quality of life are beyond the wildest dreams of most people in India (and Pakistan for that matter) save the wealthiest. No sane human being would want to give up such a life.
It is because of India that the Pakistan army controls the foreign policy and economy of Pakistan. It is because of India that the Pakistan army can grab a huge proportion of resources from the Pakistan budget.
The best thing for Pakistan would be for India to sink into a huge hole in the Indian ocean. But not for the Pakistani army. Luckily for them that will not happen.
So what can India do? India can threaten Pakistan. An Indian threat is “just what the doctor ordered” for the Pakistan army. The threat justifies the Pakistan army’s power and influence.
What if India does not threaten Pakistan? This is a bigger threat to the Pakistan army. An India that is not a threat can remove the wealth and perks of the Pakistn army much more effectively and permanently than wars in which the army helped split Pakistan, or wars in which the army claimed at least initially, it did not fight at all (1999).
A non threatening India is a huge danger to the Pakistani army, even if it is no danger to Pakistan. A non threatening India will have to be shown as a threat to the Pakistani people, or else the army’s reason for existence will come under threat.
Luckily for Pakistan, most Pakistanis believe India is a big threat. How is India a threat if India does not attack? The best threat that India offers is that it is “Hindu”. Kafirs are a danger to Pakistan. Hindus killing Muslims left right and center in India, raping Muslim women, ripping live fetuses from pregnant Muslim women’s bellies. All these are neccessary. Muslims are not allowed azan in India. They are being tortured, murdered, oppressed. Every myth helps the Pakistan army to justify its bloated budget and charmed existence.
And how can the Hindu be a threat if Pakistan is not Muslim? So Islam too is a pawn in the game that helps the Pakistan army to retain its power.
I may be wrong in my assessment, but in Pakistan you can rail against Allah and get away with it. But you mess with the army and you are history.
I realise that the Pakistani army is a greatly respected institution for Pakistanis. It used to be respected by Indians too – back in the 60s. But the Pakistan army is part and parcel of the Pakistan mess. India must be the enemy, and Islam must be protected for the Pakistan army to retain its pre-eminent position in Pakistan.
If. Just if. If the Pakistan army can be made to understand that Pakistanis need to get a better deal and that India need not be a threat, then Pakistan has some hope.
AKG is Sadna Gupta. Moderators please note and remove.
ylh,
why do you want to remove sadhna gupta? her comments are not that bad. They could be hardly termed as even disrespectful.
Akash,
Did I ask your opinion? Speak when spoken to.
@Shiv [June 11, 2010 at 9:35 am]
But that’s precisely why the discussion on TNT, isn’t it? Or are we missing the point entirely? Let me remind you briefly (please note that the Army is a separate matter, and if you wish, we can discuss it, but not in this note – let us confuse one matter at a time):
1. The TNT was argued persuasively enough to convince the majority – by the 40s, a significant majority of Indian Muslims – that they had only a dismal existence ahead as a minority in a Hindu majority independent India.
2. You don’t have to believe that to be true, as far as the future at that point of time is concerned. Neither do I, nor anyone else. But that was believed by millions to be true, and that’s what matters.
a. Considering what might have happened is futile today. That would be fanciful alternative universe speculation. Neither I nor you nor anyone else reading this, nor those zillions not reading this can know what would have happened if India had stayed together, and it is an utterly irrelevant speculation today. It would be grounds for people to argue against spending several person-years of time discussing historical documents and events of no present consequence.
b. You don’t even have to believe that the TNT was sufficiently developed to be applicable; I don’t, because I believe it failed to recognise that each of us has a complex identity, of which one identifier is religion, but which also at the minimum contains ethnic origin and language.
That doesn’t matter, either; at that point of time, it held the high ground, the tactical advantage in political terms.
2 (cont.) All we have to do at this point is to acknowledge that we handled the nationalities question clumsily in the last years of the independence movement. Who did what and why has been the subject of every discussion on that topic in these columns for sufficient length for me to say the blog equivalent of RTFM. To parody the French leftists as they exist in British humour, ‘Aux la archives!’
The bottom line: Muslims as a minority were sufficiently agitated to believe that they needed protection and that they needed it beyond seat reservations, which had so signally failed in practical effect. Which is why the extreme position in public followed by a decidedly more compromising attitude in private: the public demand was a strident call for independence, the private matter on the table was a proposal for confederation.
The bottom line: they were not alone in feeling weak and vulnerable. The others – a list and detailed justification is possible, I have just finished doing similarly elsewhere, chapter and verse, include the ‘book’ on the Tamil question, is ready for your perusal. But this was not a uniquely Muslims_of_India fear.
3. Now let us come forward. The protection of their cultural status was obtained not by the separation of the UP and Bombay areas which largely drove the TNT, the areas occupied by the Muslim minorities as minorities, but by the separation of the Muslim majority areas which never were as committed to the TNT as the others. The Punjab came on board only when they realised that the Muslim League bandwagon was unstoppable; when they came on board, they brought with them the seeds of future infection. The Sind was undecided, the NWFP frankly hostile, the Baluch under the iron heel of their Sardars and unable to voice their opinions freely.
4. The result was to have been that the north-west homeland, and the eastern homeland would have served to stabilise the central homeland, and offer the minority Muslims there an opportunity to vote with their feet whenever they wanted to exercise it, if majoritarian domination became excessive.
The homelands themselves were to have been Muslim majority but in all other respects what Jinnah had worked for during the better part of his political life, a polity that he thought was a foregone conclusion, a polity that he compromised only in tactically-necessary speeches to gather the flock together and wean them away from the fundamentalists towards his own likes among the salariat.
Try to understand this: his superhuman objective, one that nobody thought was feasible, was to wrest the homelands from both the British, who would agree to anything including gifting Mars to Gandhi if it got them out of India, and the Congress, which would agree to nothing even if Mars was gifted to Nehru. Beyond this objective, he clearly looked upon the situation to be in precisely the same terms as the rest of the Congress leadership, of which he was an integral part, and the putative leader until Gandhi came on the scene and subverted the whole organisation from within (cf. the Friends of India incident). Why should he have suddenly turned the beliefs and practices of a lifetime on their head and turned fanatic monk? On the face of it, the Islamist claim to his legacy is ridiculous; it was the salariat who had his mandate.
5. The homelands let him down badly.
a. The ‘salariat’ lost their nerve in the face of a determined attack from the Islamists, who had re-grouped, emigrated to the Pakistan that they had lately termed Paleedistan, and brazenly claimed that the man they called Kaffir-e-Azam was in reality one of their brethren, on detached duty with their permission and full consent.
b. Regarding the Islamists, the children of Maulana Maududi. There has seldom been a more cynical turn-around in political history, which is replete with cynical turn-arounds.
c. The homelands were vulnerable to the machinations of the landed gentry, whom the Pakistanis and Indians alike call ‘feudals’, who lost no time in coming to a comfortable three-way arrangement between the ‘salariat’, the military and themselves. Unlike India, fortuitously strengthened by a multiple-headed leadership, no land reforms worth the name took place in Pakistan. The inequity in land distribution remains to this day, as far as I know.
6. Now I want you to go back and revisit your argument in your last post. Neither that nor its predecessor is worthless; on the contrary, there is a lot of honesty in them. The pity is that you have chosen the language of the Roman Catholic last rites in which to couch your arguments. Not persuasive, if persuasive is what you wanted to be. On the other hand, if you think that you are addressing a sensitised audience, and if you feel that this minority can influence the situation on the ground in a direction favourable to peace, a peace that you must devoutly wish for since it will permanently cripple the run-amok Pakistan Army, you should be on their side.
Perhaps you are; perhaps this language, these shock-jock tactics are to awaken your audience and bring them out first to clobber you, and while they stand around the bleeding, twitching remains, perhaps to discuss your ideas and even start thinking about them. If so, clever enough, but time to cut to the chase.
In recent posts, you have been prescribing, shyly and in a retiring manner, but you have been prescribing corrective measures. Nothing wrong in that, but why not take a look at what Pakistanis themselves have to say and to think about things? You mentioned two twin-threats that work in tandem; the Islamists to keep a fear of India always alive in the minds of ordinary people, the Army to take advantage of that, feed and foster the Islamists and fend off the consequences of a democratic Armageddon that they fear, both of them, more than anything else.
If you have really been reading recent posts, you will find that one of these two has been identified, and poster after poster has either called for outright rejection of religion in public affairs, or for a proper understanding of religion and the state’s complete absence of a role in religious practice, and for the outright rejection of religion in public affairs. Don’t let’s talk hypothetical; take Tilsim and Bin Ismail and follow their thoughts.
For the Army and its role, can we similarly leave it to them to sort out? Anything we say, right, wrong or plain zany, looks like a poisoned apple to people who have only seen us as a baneful presence on the horizon, waiting relentlessly for another opportunity to repeat a 71 and break the country into further bits.
Historically speaking, many of them see us as original sin, as those who blatantly used force and broke our covenants, absorbing Junagadh and Hyderabad, and sitting on Kashmir. What happened in these cases is irrelevant; what remains is a miasma of suspicion and fear.
Do you expect anybody to trust us and do you expect that your words won’t be filtered, even by the most liberal and democratic Pakistanis?
The following noble words uttered by Jinnah require no paraphrasing. Neither is the message enshrined in these words ambiguous, nor am I presenting them before lay readers. The words are lucid and our participants perceptive. The following quotes, in my opinion, best describe the basis and true nature of the much debated “Two Nation Theory”:
1: “.….in the name of Humanity, I care more for them (the Untouchables) than for Mussalmans…..” (Jinnah, Speaking about the Shudras or Untouchables, during his address at the All India Muslim League session at Delhi, 1934)
2: “.….Religion should NOT be allowed to come into Politics….Religion is merely a matter between man and God…..”. (Jinnah, Address to the Central Legislative Assembly, 7 February 1935)
3: “.….I am NOT fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan…..” (Jinnah, Press Conference, 14 November 1946)
4: “…..The two states (Pakistan and India) will be FRIENDS and will go to each other’s rescue in case of danger and will be able to say ‘hands off’ to other nations. We shall then have a Munroe Doctrine more solid than in America…..” (Jinnah, November 1946)
@Skyview
I disagree, but would that make a difference to you?
Secondly, where did you get this information about Zulfikar Ali calling himself a Hindu? In Pune?
Thirdly, I believe that Pakistan was disastrously wrong in its intervention in Kashmir. If restricted to that, there would have been no question in the minds of the world today. What prompted Mountbatten to link Hari Singh’s accession to a plebiscite? And what moment of insanity overtook Nehru, that he agreed to this? Once this was done, what was our moral salience in Kashmir?
Fourthly, either we were right in Kashmir, or we were right in Hyderabad. We can’t claim we were right in two opposing cases. As it happens, I believe – and this is personal – that we were right in Hyderabad and wrong in Kashmir. That does mean that I advocate surrendering the Vale, Ladakh or Jammu or any permutation; it means that in my judgement, there was justification for Hyderabad, none for Kashmir.
Fifthly, the terms in the treaty abrogating the British Crown’s suzerainty were unambiguous: India or Pakistan, the chief chooses. There was no question of territorial contiguity. It was not for anyone other than the suzerain power to lay down terms to formerly independent princes. It is completely against all international law. It was not open then, it is not open now for any country, not India alone, but any country, including the United States, particularly the United States, to violate international law, or to think up doctrine that violates this law.
I think rather than Pakistani or any other national history-writing-teaching, we should each individually read up on history and international law and figure out what is right and what is wrong, not what is convenient and what is awkward. There is a difference.
My apologies: please interpolated the words in bold face.
That does notmean that I advocate surrendering the Vale, Ladakh or Jammu or any permutation; it means that in my judgement, there was justification for Hyderabad, none for Kashmir.At that time.
@skyview
June 12, 2010 at 5:21 pm
About ZAB calling himself a hindu in Pune – that I read in some pakistani newspaper, a hand-down info from someone who studied in Pune at that time and knew ZAB.
From what you have narrated, I would not question your personal probity, but I would question your discernment in picking such thoroughly unsuitable sources of historical fact or of evidence. A story from a Pakistani newspaper – whose name you cannot recollect – from somebody in Pune, whose name you do not remember, about ZAB, whom he ‘knew’; do you expect the story to be considered authentic? Seriously?
You write: “Fourthly, either we were right in Kashmir, or we were right in Hyderabad. We can’t claim we were right in two opposing cases. As it happens, I believe – and this is personal – that we were right in Hyderabad and wrong in Kashmir.”
The two events are one year apart. In tensor analysis you canot subtract (or even compare) a vector at location (which can be time or space or space-time etc.) x(one) from vector at another location x(two) and get a tensor as answer. That is the difference between a simple derivative (which is not a tensor) and a co-variant derivative (which is a tensor). So you can’t compare Kashmir with Hyderabad without taking into consideration the shift of space-time location. In Kashmir of Oct. 1947 India got an early and convincing proof that Pakistan (even under Jinnah) was going to be an aggressive, militarist, roguish and land-greedy neighbour who has the humiliation of the hindus (and hindu India) as one major goal and raison de etre. So in the Hyderbad case the justification had been provided by the “nobilities” in Pakistan through their behaviour in and vis-a-vis Kashmir. If India had invaded Hyderbad before Kashmir was invaded by Pakistan – then your argument has validity. But history is not on your side here. This also cancels your idea of complaining about the ambiguities of what british left behind (blaming the british is a hobby to some). After Oct 1947 (i.e. after Pakistan took the intiative to militarily invade Kashmir) these ambiguities had no effect. It was clear that Pakistan was not going to respect any hindu ruler’s will. So India was no more bound to do so.
It appears to me that you have the cases back to front. In fact, if we had agreed that Kashmir was fair conduct on India’s part and Hyderabad was unfair, what you state holds water: India started acting with probity, was disillusioned and abandoned probity for realpolitik.
But unfortunately, in the cases we are considering, it is the other way around. In Kashmir, we acted against the wishes of the population and in tune with the wishes of the ruler. I would define this as sophistry and legalism. To use this as an excuse to do the right thing seems a little contrary, don’t you agree? I commit a fault, and based on that experience, I do the right thing a year later. How can I say that my opponent was responsible, unless I imply that he was responsible for setting me on the right path? If you will pardon me for being facetious, your vectors left me tensor but none the wisor.
You write: “And what moment of insanity overtook Nehru, that he agreed to this? Once this was done, what was our moral salience in Kashmir?”
Nehru wanted to be an expemplary in international politics (typical of a Gandhi-ka-chela!) and thought that the idea of going to UNO would be a good precedent and thus raise the stature of UNO and show to all and sundry a new path about how to solve international conflicts. It was the year 1948 – India was young, UNO was young, everyone thought mankind has learnt a crucial lesson through the second world war and was ready for a non-cynical, non-imperialist and non-greedy approach to politics. Here again the late M K Gandhi’s spirit may have given an impetus to Nehru. May be the agnostic Nehru thought that the dead Gandhi’s saintly spirit is in god’s loving embrace and bossom and god will eagerly listen to what Gandhi has planned (or dreamt) for mankind.
May be you are right when you term it insanity. But you would not use such a harsh word on Jinnah – would you? – certainly not in this blog wherein you belong to the pantheon!
I note the small concession. Thank you. As for using the term insane for Jinnah, the occasion hasn’t yet arisen, honestly speaking. Unwise and indiscreet, not perceptive, excessively dissembling – all these come to mind when considering the ambiguous words he used when seeking to placate the Mullahcracy and keep his flock together. His ambiguities have led to great controversy, and many of us deplore these weaknesses. But nothing he did so far, except his fairy-tale romance with a much younger woman perhaps, deserves the term insanity. Certainly in his professional life, he did nothing which deserved that.
India’s moral salience is thus derived from the fact that India’s PM Nehru had the humanist outlook of taking a problem to the UNO. That the UNO resolutions could not be implemented – that is a long involuted story wherein Pakistan again is the larger and the more roguish-insidious guilt-carrier.
I rather suspect that you already know that this is fiddle-de-dee; an elaborately contrived defence based on rickety grounds. If he had kept his mouth shut, we would have had a water-tight case for Kashmir, and not had to trade tit for tat in the form of Pakistani intransigence; we would have been able to show that as it was, instead of feeling embarrassed about our own lapses. As it happens, his darkest moments were before independence; in spite of the two thundering mistakes that his foreign policy was responsible for, it is undeniable that overall, modern India was largely shaped by Nehru’s tolerant, secular vision. Damn that crazy, quixotic moment!
I dont understand , why not just accept the reality i.e 2 nation theory. The contrast between Indian nation and Pakistan people is so obviously clear to the whole civilized world . Pakistani society rest on Islamic pillars and we should just wish them good luck on their current course of bringing glory to Islam worldwide and make Pakistan a new Medina ,centre of Pakistaniat wisdom to be disepensed universally without descrimination . M.A Jinnha’sHeraclean efforts paid off handsomely as the new founder of new Medinat.
@skyview
Interesting observations. I will try to respond within today.
@Kaalket
But what gave you the impression that people didn’t accept the TNT? It’s just that some of us think that it was incompletely articulated, and that minority has to be defined in a richer, more well-rounded and realistic way. Also, some others think that this does not conflict with multi-nation countries such as Canada, or Russia, for that matter, or China, if one cares to look at that country carefully. If the minority feeling can be addressed, and the needs of the minority met, there is no particular difficulty in accommodating them in the same political space.
On the other hand, it is perhaps still not clear to you that the TNT was a political concept, and that its use by Jinnah was intended for very specific objectives.
You seem to imply that accepting the thinking behind the TNT automatically means dividing up nations. Not necessarily. But unfortunately, if you want to know about that, you will have to read the archives of this blog. That might well give you a headache.
Better you don’t read the archives. Avoid the headache.
PTH its been a while since I commented. two points :
1. why is that posts on the subjects, which really matters for ordinary pakistanis, economy and social reformation, never draw any debte, or bharti commentators and prescriptions….
Big brother why are you silent ….. ?
Its only the identity issues as if we have any ‘ identity issue’ …
and after reading the following as posted above, Bhartis have no moral ground to lecture us about raison d’etre for Pak army , etc etc etc…
wah g wah… i rest my case … hehehe
” Fourthly, either we were right in Kashmir, or we were right in Hyderabad. We can’t claim we were right in two opposing cases. ……. we were right in Hyderabad and wrong in Kashmir. That does mean that I advocate surrendering the Vale, Ladakh or Jammu or any permutation; ……..
that in my judgement, there was justification for Hyderabad, none for Kashmir ”
PTH its been a while since I commented. two points :
1. why is that posts on the subjects, which really matters for ordinary pakistanis, economy and social reformation, never draw any debte, or bharti commentators and prescriptions….
Big brother why are you silent ….. ?
Its only the identity issues as if we have any ‘ identity issue’ …
and after reading the following as posted above, Bhartis have no moral ground to lecture us about raison d’etre for Pak army , etc etc etc…
wah g wah… i rest my case … hehehe
” Fourthly, either we were right in Kashmir, or we were right in Hyderabad. We can’t claim we were right in two opposing cases. ……. we were right in Hyderabad and wrong in Kashmir. That does mean that I advocate surrendering the Vale, Ladakh or Jammu or any permutation; ……..
that in my judgement, there was justification for Hyderabad, none for Kashmir ”
Oh well, we missed you so much. How lovely of you to grace us again with your presence.
And before you take off the Bharti-centric eye glasses, read the full discussion that is playing out between the two “Bhartis” and from where they are coming from.
You may want to take a moment to ponder why Vajra is pointing out to a rabid Indian nationalist how the policies of India themselves have contributed to the Indo-Pakistan mess that is in making for the past 60 years.
And that stereotyping all Bhartis as rabid and blind Pakistani haters is effectively dismantled by this debate between these two Indian gentlemen.
And you may want to take another moment to realize that this dicussion actually poses a simple argument: that a healthy, less paranoid, more critical introspection will probably serve to reduce the fissures, not increase them. That calling each others Bhartis and Pakis in a less than respectful way is going to serve nothing to address old wounds.
Second, PTH does publish articles on economy and social conditions. No need to single out Bhartis for not commenting frequently on Pakistani social conditions specific blogs, when Pakistanis themselves are not frequently commenting on those. We may not like it but economy and social reforms unfortunately are not the hotly debated topics across the globe anywhere.
@Skyview [June 13, 2010 at 3:40 pm]
I agreed with your first two points, in very broad general terms. However, it was not clear what you were driving at in your third paragraph.
Why should Indians be repentant or embarrassed or reluctant to work for the uplife of the Indian Muslim? Because the Pakistani Muslim throws his weight about in Pakistan? What a crazy argument! So if we start behaving like that, do we improve our position? the position of Pakistani Hindus? the position of Indian Muslims? or wonder of wonders, the Pakistani Muslim?
Sometimes the things you write are so breathtakingly stupid that – well, they take my breath away.
But life brings new wonders around every corner. I then, very stupidly, scrolled down and read your name again. Now – wait for this! – instead of screaming for my long-dead Mother and run shrieking from the room, I read your post.
I was going to say, in print, that I thought you were the stupidest man alive. I am sorry, I was wrong. I apologise to you, to other readers, to the moderators, to D_a_n, to my music teacher in Class IV – no, that’s from my Oscar acceptance speech – to my race the Bengalis, to my caste, the Vaidya, to my gotra, Kashyap, to Ma Kali, to Tutankhamen, because I can spell his name, and so on (to cover anyone I might have missed, including a miserable, moral wreck who hasn’t invited me to Cocco’s at his cost).
I am the stupidest man alive, to actually read you. Very close behind me is Adnann, because he doesn’t fire both barrels of a shotgun into you, and then club the twitching remains with the butt, before jumping on the remains with hob-nailed boots (yes, yes, I know I am plagiarising), but I am way out in front.
I bow to the ground before your superior intellect.
@Azhar Aslam
Why don’t you marry this – whatever. It will be a made-for-each-other situation.
Skyview:
“Nehru wrote “Discovery of India” (a book with a vision in it), Gandhi wrote “The story of my experiments with truth” (also a very moving story). Jinnah was a blank, a zero, in this regard. There was no vision in him. He was a lawyer who could win a case – and nothing more.”
Is that the theory- Have Vision write book, no book no vision?
Gandhi as a wannabe latter day saint had visions erupting from every fibre of his dhoti. He drummed them in so relentlessly, that a generations born long after his death feel compelled to cry out-‘Enough, no more!’ Some of his visions were nightmares, not to be recommended to mere acolytes.
Nehru’s fluffy Discovery of India is less puffed than the discovery of Pakistan by Aitzaz Ahsan and his Indus Saga, but just as much the idle dreams of a man with time on his hands.
If Gandhi and Nehru had been true visionaries they would have seen that there was a Muslim political sentiment that needed attention. They both ignored and sidelined a genuine modern secular Muslim politician like Jinnah, driving him in frustration onto the disastrous course that led to partition. India was larger than their vision, Nehru’s particularly but they never knew it. All Gandhi’s visions were of his own beatification.
On Kashmir and Hyderabad there is a lengthy interchange on PTH between Majumdar and YLH some year or more ago. It was inconclusive. Perhaps some kind moderator will post a link for later entrants to PTH.
Kashmir was not a mistake by India. It was a mistake by Pakistan. Between the Nizam and the Maharaja Hari Singh India had the advantage. Not only was the public of Hyderabad pro India, Kashmiri Muslims under Sheikh Abdullah were too; Alistair Lamb notwithstanding.
India’s mistakes in J&K began later and continue till today.
Patel offered Pakistan an exchange of Hyderabad over Kashmir. Pakistan would have done well to accept it.
The TNT is, I think, quite exploded by now. Whatever the problems of the Muslims of India in 1946, TNT hasn’t solved them. Pakistan today is closer to Iqbal’s vision-the one he had in 1930, of the final destiny of the Muslims of Northwest India.
Had Nehru and Gandhi been prescient they would have taken Jinnah to their bosoms in 1930; though his views had been ignored by the Motilal Nehru report it was still possible to salvage a relationship with him and thence with Muslims.
I ofcourse don’t accept the view on Kashmir. I think Alastair Lamb is very judiciously written his book “Incomplete Partition”.
But that discussion is for another board.
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
Erratum “has”
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
The TNT is state of mind , the mind of Pakistaniat opposite to anything Indian. In India it is rejected on daily basis where people essentially interact with each others without being bothered by extraneous factors while in Pakistani state of mind not such pace or factor cant or dont exist . 2 diferent people, culture,society existing on different level. MA Jinnha was aware of this and articulated it well when he said india wil be hard to govern if people with Pakistani mentality remain within India. Jinnah’s prophetic words are coming true now and this is why i said he was great Son of India as he did great favor to the land of his birth though unknowingly. The true measure of his service to india will be assesed in very near future. Indians are just beginning to appreciate this TNT as well its founder and its impact on india’s future trajectory in takings Her rightful civilizatioanl place in the world.
To me Alistair Lamb seemed as partisan as it is possible to get. He was completely off the mark about Sheikh Abdullah and the support he had vis a vis the Muslim Conference, but it is of course a subject for another thread.
Hayyer,
Have you read “The Discovery of India” ? There are a few more topics I would write about, but I guess I should start with this simple question.
I read it when I was in college.
Akash:
Please remember I referred to the Discovery of India in the context of Nehru’s ‘vision’
for India as mentioned by Skyview not Nehru’s recapitulation of the intellectual achievements of ancient Indians.
Hayyer,
If there is one weak aspect of that book, it is the ‘recapitulation’ of events that you talked about; it’s rather hazy in some parts. It’s the overall picture and the grand narrative that is forms the fulcrum of that book. I don’t want to sound patronizing like a lot of ‘experts’ here do, but I suggest you revisit the book. I had quite a dim view about Nehru’s intellectual capacity till I read this book; I thought he was just a pampered brat, like a lot of Jinnah’s enthusiasts here believe. Not that he needs my stamp of approval, but I actually liked him after I finished the book.
Would you also explain what was particularly galling about his vision?
I am not going to go over Gandhi in this post, but I shall touch that aspect too, as well as Jinnah. There seems to be two parallel narratives about Jinnah. I want to make sure I am on the same page.
Akash:
I read the book a long time ago. My recollection apart from the history, is the aspirational Nehru. He had been gone some years by then and was under an eclipse because of the China war. I shall have to reread the book to point out sections where Nehru is blowing bubbles.
When Nehru wrote the book he was nearly firmly established as PM in waiting. I recall thinking when I read the book that some of his foreign policy disasters could have been foretold from the book.
A G Noorani in one of his essays quotes extensively to show that Nehru wasn’t deluded about China, but you would not get that impression from the Discovery of India.
I shall certainly re-read the book. My difficulty with the Discovery of India is not The Wonder that was India or even the Idea of India. John Keay has shown us very effectively that this idea, including Nehru’s is a colonial phenomenon. India was, after all a lost concept, if it ever existed, till the west brought it to us.
It is better that you outline the grand narrative. Your memory of what he said is bound to be more accurate than mine. We could discuss it then with permission from the moderators as Nehru’s vision is not outside the scope of this thread. I shall try to get my hands on a copy of the book soonest.
Jinnah did not need vision or provide one for Pakistan. Pakistan was made in the name of islam and all the vision it required was perfected in 6th Century Arabia. Its a simple open and shut case concerning the the issue of vision for nation . I think Pakistan has deviated from the path of pure Islamic teachings and they are looking for answers everywhere except in Holy Quran and Sunna and This is why there are few noices about TNT ‘s in identity crisis. TNT theory calls for removal of secular institutions and failure to do so is causing confusuion. Sooner of latter they will figure it out and hopefuly find the answer and Peace without the daily contradictions at home and abroad.
Pakistan was as much made in the name of Islam as India was made in the name of Hinduism. On the 14th of August 1947, a country comprising of the Muslim-majority states of British India, emerged on the world’s map as Pakistan. On the 15th of August 1947, another country comprising of the Hindu-majority states of British India, emerged on the world’s map as India. Thus two nations were born – Pakistan and India.
Any latter deviations from the original secular paths envisioned by the respective founders of these two nations, cannot be ascribed to the genesis of either of the two nations.
to bin ismail
India was made in the name of hinduism?
You are taking over the sunni fascist narrative.
Pakistan was certainly made BY SOME in the name of islam and these have survived Jinnah by 60-plus years and produced too many indoctrinated death-yearning babies also. (Jinnah’s own daughter preferred never to be a pakistani or even allow herself to be called one).
My question was : Did Jinnah use or was he used by islam and islamic sentiments? Very often someone who claims to lord over history is just a pawn.
Is islam an anti-imperialist ideology or itself an imperialist ideology? When ylh writes about communists thinking that Muslim League was an anti-imperialist force (and hence making election campaign for ML in Panjab in 1946) how sadly mistaken these fools were. Can a muslim be an anti-imperialist? – islam itself is an expansionist-imperialist-centralist ideology since the 7. century.
Typically stupid and ignorant comment. Communist Party of India was a secular non-communal variety.
The “marxists” who supported Khomeni were “Islamist Marxists” of Shariati variety. It was a synthesis and nothing else…not even Marxism.
Surprisingly Pakistani could not even live by TNT ,the very ideological base of their existence by denying the benefits of its blessings to their very own Islamic bretherens in India. Why has Pakistan shut down its doors for IM to migrate there and enjoy their fair portion of Islamic dream , freedom from associating with Kuffar in India . To my simple mind , either the TNT is wrong and a failure or Pakistan is not Islamic enough. In both cases , M. A. Jinnah gained nothing in his struggle and got hundreds of thousand killed in vain. Pakistan must reject its founder and his dual personality to come out of schizophrania and be at peace with themselves or like Jinnha’s, the dream of Pakistani Islamiat, New Medinat and regaining of Mogul Glory remain distant, stillborn. Pakistan is the test of TNT i.e Islam itself .
@ skyview (June 14, 2010 at 9:51 pm)
1. “…..India was made in the name of hinduism?…..”
You may like to read with greater care, words other than your own, before you hastily respond to them.What I had said was:
“Pakistan was as much made in the name of Islam as India was made in the name of Hinduism.”
2. “…..Jinnah’s own daughter preferred never to be a pakistani or even allow herself to be called one…..”
One is not obliged to necessarily share and follow the political thinking of one’s parents. Anyway, it would have been expected of Dina Wadia to adopt the same domicile as her husband. Do you find that too intricate to comprehend?
3. “…..Did Jinnah use or was he used by islam and islamic sentiments?…..”
Neither.
4. “….. islam itself is an expansionist-imperialist-centralist ideology since the 7. century…..”
Your fatwas, laden with hyphenated adjectives are truly unique in many respects.
@skyview
The trouble of people of limited intelligence is that they have to be addressed in the most painfully simple terms.
What poor Bin Ismail was trying to say was exactly the opposite. Please try and read again:
Pakistan was as much made in the name of Islam as India was made in the name of Hinduism.
He says with humorous exaggeration that Pakistan being in the name of Islam is as likely as India being in the name of Hinduism.
And you had to take this simple sentence and mess it up.
It is amazing that you choose to discuss topics that you don’t understand in a language that you don’t understand.
ylh,
communists in Kerala have been bed fellows of the Jamaat and ML for quite sometime. Ditto for Bengal as well. They wholeheartedly support Iran presumably on the theory that an enemy of my enemy is a friend. Of course, now in Kerala when the congress had made a pre-poll alliance with the Jamaat, the communists have suddenly woken up to the communal leanings of the Jamaat and are crying foul.
Mian, hammam mein sab nange hai. Politics make strange bedfellows.
A few personal remarks are in order.
(1) Don’t get irritated so quickly. I know defending someone is a thankless job, but I urge you to persevere. You are doing all right.
(2) I think you may want to put up a better photo accompanying your columns. The previous one made you look bored and rather sullen. No doubt, inventing theories has taken its toll. The present one, however, though intended to make you look thoughtful, makes you look rather effete.
🙂
Don’t be clever by half Akash… I have followed Kerala politics for a while. The Kerala politics was historically divided between Communists and Congress wallahs …with Muslim League holding the balance as a third force…by making coalitions with either one.
Jamaat – if at all – is a competitior of the League for Muslim vote in Kerala.
So?
And, if you know all that, then you should also know that under the “secular” communist dispensation, a garden variety of bearded yahoos have been allowed to proliferate, one of them named, (don’t laugh) PDF.
Do expostulate on this aspect too and also why we shouldn’t blame Gandhi for this mess.
hayyer,
I will come back to your questions. A core issue that Nehru focused in his book was the concept of India. Now, if we have doubts about the existence of that concept as such, we might have to start at a different point.
It is not about blaming…it is about the political use of Islam in the subcontinent and where it started. That is all.
To bin ismail and vajra
He wrote: “Pakistan was as much made in the name of Islam as India was made in the name of Hinduism.”
I very well understood what bin ismail was trying to figure-speech. Not the one and not the other.
But such a formulation is problematic and should not be used. Because the sunni fascists who own and rule over Pakistan too will say the same sentence, may be with a different tonality. Their argument is: India is a hindu fascist nation where muslims were and are being persecuted to death and destruction. So we in Pakistan are, we must be, a muslim (sunni) fascist nation.
Apart from that, the comparison is also thoroughly wrong because India absolutely was not conceived as a hindu nation whereas Pakistan was indeed conceived by many in the Muslim League (and Jinnah knew it too) as an islamic nation. Why otherwise did Jinnah have to say again and again that Pakistan will not be a theocracy. No one in India had to keep saying (in those early days) that India will not be a hindu nation. This differentiation is crucial and hence bin ismails attempt at figure-speeching was on a weak ground.
to akash
Communists in India have always hated hindus and hindu religions more than islam. Their atheism is somewhat partial. Even after the communist party was persecuted severely and banned in islamic Pakistan they maintained this idiotic partiality.
BTW: Many concluded that Nehru (born kashmiri brahmin) was a crypto-buddhist after reading his book “Discovery of India”.
@Skyview
Your logic continues to baffle me. So if I am found to be saying repeatedly, I do not shit bricks, it is a sure sign that I shit bricks.
@skyview
Why otherwise did Jinnah have to say again and again that Pakistan will not be a theocracy. No one in India had to keep saying (in those early days) that India will not be a hindu nation.
there was the small entity called the congress press. the hindu right was accommodated within the congress party the way the islamist right was not within the muslim league. the islamist right was allied with the congress instead, and was used to attack the league.
muslim league had issues not with congress’ secularism but with its idea of democracy.
to vajra
my logic you understand very well. but since you cannot refute me hence you bring up bricks (depends on your position whether it is up or down). I know how people react when they cannot refute someone but do not wish to admit it.
to bciv
I am not a congress fan and hence your criticism of congress I need not answer. Jinnah had to repeatedly answer back those who wished to islamize Pakistan and were waiting for his death to happen soon.
Several crucial questions about Jinnah remain unanswered. E.g. how could a secularist come to think that in islam and muslim-majority areas secularism, democracy and minority-protection have a better chance (than in hindu-majority areas)? What was wrong in congress’s concept of secular democracy in which there were to be no religion-based reservations? What is worth being preserved in the muslim culture and identity in the 20th and 21st century? Such crucial questions unanswered (even unasked) are now a pain in the neck of Pakistan, and hence also of India.
Gandhi lied in glorifying islam (openly) and Jinnah lied in denigrating hinduism (be it clandestinely). Both lied in order to become like saint (for the whole world) and prophet (for his community). And both failed.
@skyview
To be accurate, when confronted by an anti-saint like you, the opposite of a pain-in-the-a**e, the bricks go up. Everything reverses direction or reverses polarity in your presence.
I note that you select what you need answer and what you need not answer. A question to which readers of this blog are certain to need an answer is: what are you doing here?
to vajra
Answering every question that is asked will lead to an exponential growth in the length of posts. Hence not only I but everyone in the blog answers only a part. I too had complained that only part of my questions are taken notice of. That is normal.
To your post I have to repeat: “I know how people react when they cannot refute someone but do not wish to admit it.”
I am undoing what you are doing. That is real good service.
how could a secularist come to think that in islam and muslim-majority areas secularism, democracy and minority-protection have a better chance (than in hindu-majority areas)?
had that been the case, the league would have asked all muslims in ‘danger’ of becoming such a minority to emigrate elsewhere. instead, jinnah told them (his voters) to serve india as loyal citizens.
What was wrong in congress’s concept of secular democracy in which there were to be no religion-based reservations?
for a start, that it failed to convince 80 or 90million of the electorate belonging to a particular, single identity group. even worse, it refused to acknowledge that it had failed.
What is worth being preserved in the muslim culture and identity in the 20th and 21st century?
muslim culture and identity, of course. what else? so how do you propose ‘unpreserving’ it in a secular democratic manner? or do you suggest doing it without stooping so low as to bother with inane formalities like building consensus, or acknowledging one?
@Skyview
Have no illusions – every one of your posts is capable of full and definitive answer. Unfortunately, given the sheer vulgarity and coarseness of the thinking that is on display, it is a nasty and unpleasant task. As others have taken it on themselves to do this, I am sitting watching this sordid development from a reasonable distance. You are aware, of course, that we are afflicted by trolls like you periodically and that we suffer a lot from their gross behaviour before they are taken down. It is not a new process, but it is neither pleasant to watch nor pleasant to eradicate.
Both Bin Ismail and bciv have been answering you, apart from interventions by others. I have done such things in the past, and consider I have won a well-earned rest.
For your most immediate responses, you have only to slide your hate-dulled vision down by one mail.
How is it that you still have not understood that you are not welcome, under any of your avatars?
to bciv
“instead, jinnah told them to serve india as loyal citizens.”
As he himself planned to jump off leaving them behind to the mercy of the “evil hindus”. My question was: why he changed sides. The Jinnah-adorers give reasons that do not convince the open-minded. They practise idol-worship. The concept of “loyalty” is also very problematic. A “good” muslim can say: “I unflichingly believe islam is the final perfect and only salvation for all and I am being loyal to India by trying to bring all indians under the rule, doctrines and dictates of islam (shariah) and expunge all other beliefs as done by the prophet of islam, the supreme exemplary, in Makkah.”
Muslim understanding of words like loyalty brotherhood, martyrdom, truth, justice, non-violence, honesty etc. is different from the hindu understanding.
You are right: The congress failed. But did the other side have a better plan? Furthermore this religion (and especially some of its powerful sects) has (have) demagogy ingrained in it (them). It is difficult to debate with them. As soon as they start losing a debate they shut their ears or scream charges of blasphemy or become violent. How human beings can be manipulated and imprisoned-till-death in an ideology – that is well illustrated in this religion.
A culture and identity that needs a falsified narrative of history (and even pre-history) and self-glorification (and even superiority-complex) is not worth being preserved in the 21st century.
Consensus can be built with someone willing to listen. A muslim believes he knows the final truth and message and warning and hence must not listen to a hindu kafir. So what consensus are you talking about?
Akash:
“A core issue that Nehru focused in his book was the concept of India. Now, if we have doubts about the existence of that concept as such, we might have to start at a different point.”
I was not in this instance referring to the concept of India as such though one could talk about that as well.
I mentioned John Keay. His ‘India Discovered’ is a useful read, and for some even an antidote to the Discovery of India.
@skyview
one can only conclude that you do not know the meaning of the phrase “had that been the case” – the opening words of my last post.
the rest of your post explains, in your own words better than anyone else’s, why you are so severely and pathetically handicapped.
Has the minority lived upto the expectation that
it had from the majority, when it became majority?
Did anybody even expect that would happen and
on what basis, just utopian ideals with no history
of such behaviour?
Was it only take but not give?
You are right: The congress failed. But did the other side have a better plan?
the other side had the mandate that congress did not. no plan could be evolved without acknowledging this fact.
Was it only take but not give?
election results are a fact. give and take can only begin to take place after this fact has been acknowledged.
A single election result mandate is not a
permanent mandate.
@swapna
you are right. it is not. it is the legitimate democratic mandate only till the next election.
did you wish to just inform us of this obvious fact or do you plan to develop some sort of relevant argument out of it?
to bciv
You ignored a lot of what I wrote. The very concept of loyalty is confusing. The question remains: why did Jinnah change sides? All attempts to justifyingly explain this smack of worship of Jinnah. “If he did it then it must have been right and his reason(s) too must have been right” – this is adoration and not explanation.
In case of many leaders megalomania explains much more than rationality. A nation founded by a megalomaniac becomes a source of more megalomaniacs with even more absurd ideas and prophethood fixations.
what won the election (issues on which it was fought and won, what was promised to whom,
who was the audience and target etc.) is what
matters is what I am saying.
@swapna
and that is good reason to deny the election results legitimacy? democracy is about building consensus around the pov you wish to win the mandate for. the democratic and decent thing to do is to acknowledge when you have failed to win that mandate. accept defeat and try again next time, not try and illegitimately and arrogantly claim a mandate where you have none.
….. ‘the election result is what matters is what i am saying.’
@skyview
why did Jinnah change sides?
when did jinnah change sides?
to bciv
First Jinnah left congress and then politics and went to London. He then came back re-poled and re-politiczed and took over Muslim League (as the top boss without ever having been a long-term grass-root member). So you can fill in the dates. But the date (exact or approximate or as a time period) does not help you escape the issue and the question(s). So why try such cheap escapes?
You are clueless Skyview. Before Jinnah reorganized the League there was no grass roots membership. It was an annual gathering of notables and intelligentsia.
I love it how people like you come up with one inane inaccurate lie after another.
@skyview
jinnah became irrelevant within congress, as congress went through various stages of change. but when did he formally leave congress? he had been a part of the muslim league since 1913. he left indian politics because he had failed to build a significant consensus around his pov. he returned when the political scene showed some signs of change.
what do you mean by changing ‘sides’?
He doesn’t have a clue. He doesn’t even know that Jinnah re-organized the League twice … Both in Congress’ aid …that in 1937 elections, Hindu industrialists and contributors of Congress even funded the League because it was in alliance with the Congress.
The facts are very different from the distortions taught to people like skyview.
@YLH
@bciv
He’s just another moron with a set of prejudices who wants someone to listen to his earnest, plodding lectures about the bad, bad, Arabs from (wait for it) Arabia, and how they’ve corrupted the good Indic stock of the Indus Valley. And how if all the Muslims get into a shiny UFO and warp away to another galaxy, laughter and pleasantness would break out all around.
And why did the league break off from the congress? Because congress was not ready for giving religion-based representation to an elite representing an alien ideology/religion from the west (that is arab lands)? Why did Gandhi do the folly of aiming his Quit India movement only against the british (western) imperialists?
How often trust has been misused in history? Is there place for trust and honesty in politics anywhere anymore? And those who misused someone else’s trust or naivete and snatched what they wanted were crowned heroes in the new nations that they founded for a new ruling class with its own historical falsehoods.
The details of history fade away in front of the end results.
Many who thought of themselves as the movers of history were just pawns.
No you fool. Congress was more than ready to deal with the “arab ideology” so long as its adherent bent over.
The people it had a problem with were the westernized and liberal minded folk of Jinnah’s ilk and from Aligarh …because they asked for their share in power and resources.
Asking for share in power and resources? After having had more than their share over 1200 years? Was Nehru less westernized and liberal-minded than these power-askers (or seekers)?
A secular democracy does not assign power and resources as per affiliation to a religious ideology. One cannot be a muslim and indian (secular indian) simultaneously. One can’t have loyalty to India and Makkah simultaneously. In fact the example of Pakistan shows that one cannot have loyalty even to Pakistan and Makkah simultaneously.
The year 2010 has shown up problems which they had no idea about in 1940 or even 1950 or 1970.
Why worship these old politicians? They have left behind heaps of intellectual and political garbage.
Gandhi did the mistake of bringing religion into politics and Jinnah amplified it. And 60-70-80 years later we are still stuck in this quick-sand. A muslim-majority land exterminates the hindus whose ancestors lived there since long before islam came to this region. That is the basic sin. So long Pakistan does not acknowledge this sin it will devolve and degenerate.
@skyview
Was Nehru less westernized and liberal-minded than these power-askers (or seekers)?
hence the word used was “share”.
disagreement is no crime. but making false claims and denying facts are less forgiveable.
there is nothing too surprising about the results of disagreement. but lying makes things unnecessarily messy.
you of course can see into the hearts of your fellow citizens like few indians can and tell how loyal they are. your kind are gods, not human, to have such supernatural powers.
you’ll probably put these powers to better use on an indian forum, warning your fellow citizens about the suspect loyalties of some indians.
Umm… i do think it’s wrong to “exterminate” hindus or anybody, but i think the sentence “hindus whose ancestors lived there since long before islam came to this region” isn’t very rational, because most of the muslims in the indian subcontinent are originally from hindu families who converted to islam, no? therefore the muslims’s ancestors were in the indian subcontinent as long as the hindus’ ancestors. otherwise, are you saying that those hindus who converted to islam, they lost their ancestral rights because they accepted a religion which was newer than hinduism?
@Moosa
Yes, they became sub-human and went around at night clicking their mandibles, looking for prey. Preferably for Muslims, but Ahmedis in a pinch!
More nonsense …the issue is not whether Nehru was secular or liberal or not but why if Pandit Nehru would have been a Muslim he would have never gotten the chance he did.
@AG3L
you raise a valid, relevant point, but many would not agree with your conclusion.
such a poll, asking the direct question, might have received a similar answer in 1926, 46, 56 or later. yet there is no apostasy law in pakistan. however, in 2006, there was just such a bill introduced in parliament, though it never went past a first reading. no surprise that it was introduced by the MMA.
you cannot expect secularism to come from the masses in a poor, largely illiterate country (78% sounds about right). while education is a worthy and vital cause in its own right, it is not going to happen overnight. till then, maintaining separation of state and mosque is the educated elite’s job.
TWO NATION THEORY:
The much-propagated and publicized present day version of the Two Nation Theory has as much to do with reality as the myth that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam. Let’s recapitulate the Two Nation Theory.
1: Originally, the Two Nation Theory germinated as a defensive, rather preservative political measure to secure the “political and social”- not religious – identity of the somewhat “politically insecure” Muslim community of undivided India.
2: From this germination-point, the theory evolved into an equation that could be termed a “Muslim-majority states & Hindu-majority states” equation.
3: From this equation, this theory further evolved into the concept of three sub-federations within an undivided India, as proposed in the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946.
4: From the concept of the “3 sub-federations”, it took the final shape of the two nations of “Pakistan and India” – with the Muslim-majority states of India, clumping together “politically” to form Pakistan.
Throughout the various phases of this metamorphosis, never was the Two Nation Theory perceived and promoted by its proponents as an “Islam vs Sanatan Dharm” theory. Post-independence, rather “post-Jinnah” to be precise, there was an impressively massive influx of rightists into the Muslim League – who till then had been conscientiously kept at bay by Jinnah – and the party-thinking changed tracks. Facts were systematically replaced with myths, to the convenience of many, at every possible level of information-dissipation. An “ideology” called “nazaria-e Pakistan” unknown to Bani-e Pakistan, suddenly cropped up from nowhere. Secret back-doors for any possible latter advent of the clergy, were flung open and assuredly kept open.
What we have now, is a brand new version of the Two Nation Theory.
Bin Ismail,
Thanks for putting it in such clear terms. i think I have a better understanding of TNT now.
PS: Do the other learned posters agree with Bin Ismail’s summary of TNT above?
@Androidguy
It is, but cut to the bone. Have you actually read ‘One Myth, Many Pakistans’? If you read this after reading that (substitute either for this, the other for that, you’ll be fine), you’ll be looking at the minimalist structure and fleshing it out in your mind’s eye with the maximalist description.
@bciv,
“till then, maintaining separation of state and mosque is the educated elite’s job.”
Hasn’t the elite always been in power in Pakistan? And, what is the percentage of this mythical liberal elite? I heard that some, hold your breath, 100 people gathered at a candlelight vigil in the wake of Ahmediya massacre? 100?
ylh,
“why if Pandit Nehru would have been a Muslim he would have never gotten the chance he did.”
You may want to expunge this self-serving nonsense. You may have a visceral hatred for the Mullah brigade but in lapping such absurd theories you are not very far behind them.
If being Hindu was Nehru ticket to fame, why did Bose got sidelined? Presumably, he was caught eating beef.
Vajra,
I missed your reference to that big word. But, just one, or was it two? The alacrity with which that word has been bandied about made me think that it was a well established theory.
ylh,
Oh and before I forget, should I conclude that Jinnah got so much airtime because he was a Muslim.
Akash mian, you are an extremely small minded person… who doesn’t even get any of the basic arguments. Bose got sidelined because he didn’t toe Gandhi’s line. Nehru showed some independence but then became bheegi billi. Why didn’t Maulana Azad become the Prime Minister of India… why did he have to be removed from his presidency of the Congress.
If Nehru had been a Muslim… he would have probably turned separatist way before Jinnah did.
Here is Maulana Azad’s view from his book India Wins Freedom:
The first was the case of Mr. Nariman, a Parsee and an acknowledged leader of the local Congress in Bombay, who was generally expected to lead the provincial government. Sardar Patel and his colleagues could not reconcile with such a leadership of non-Hindu Chief Minister where “the majority of members in the Congress Assembly Party were Hindus….Mr. Nariman was naturally upset about the decision. He raised the question before the Congress Working Committee. Jawaharlal was then President and many hoped that in view of his complete freedom from communal bias; he would rectify the injustice to Nariman. Unfortunately this did not happen. … He [Jawaharlal] sought to placate Patel and rejected Nariman’s appeal. … Nariman was surprised at Jawaharlal’s attitude, especially as Jawaharlal treated him harshly and tried to shout him down in the meeting of the Working Committee.
Nariman had lost the case even before the enquiry began. It was finally held that nothing was proven against Sardar Patel. None who knew the inner story was satisfied with this verdict. We all know that truth has been sacrificed in order to satisfy Sardar Patel’s communal demands. Poor Nariman was heart broken and his public life came to an end.
“A similar development took place in Bihar. Dr. Syed Mahmud was the top leader of the province when the elections were held. He was also a General Secretary of the All India Congress Committee and as such he had a position both inside and outside the province. When the Congress secured an absolute majority, it was taken for granted that Dr. Syed Mahmud would be elected the leader and become the first Chief Minister of Bihar under Provincial Autonomy. Instead, Sri Krishna Sinha and Anugraha Narayan Sinha who were members of the Central Assembly, were called back to Bihar and groomed for the Chief Ministership. Dr. Rajendra Prasad played the same role in Bihar as Sardar Patel did in Bombay……*Looking back, I cannot help feeling that the Congress did not live up to its professed ideals.* One has to admit with regret that the nationalism of the Congress had not then reached a stage *where it could ignore communal considerations and select leaders on the basis of merit without regard to majority or minority*.” (Pages 16-18)
Now shut up and get lost.
“Akash mian, you are an extremely small minded person… who doesn’t even get any of the basic arguments. ”
You may be right, but I will ignore such ad hominem arguments. I don’t profess to belong to the “elite” so I have no problem in confessing that I may be all the above epithets you have bestowed on me, and possibly more. Regrettably, you have to deal with small minded idiots like me. Democracy, after all, is our rule.
“Bose got sidelined because he didn’t toe Gandhi’s line. ”
One of the rare points on which I totally agree with you. But what are you implying? That the conflict between congress and the league was merely a classic two man duel between Gandhi and Jinnah. Hmmm..
Maybe, but then you demolish this line of thinking and buttress what I concluded previously by asking the question as to why Azad didn’t become so and so. I don’t know. For that matter, why didn’t Patel become the PM, or Rajendra Prasad, or Bose. Bose, after all, was one of the few who could actually surpass Gandhi in mass following. I doubt if their religious affiliations had to do with it, and if I remember correctly, Jinnah was supported by Gandhi to become the PM of the undivided India.
Gandhi offered Jinnah pmship because Gandhi knew that he would be vetoed by the Congress and Nehru which he was. It was one for the history books to be Mahatma and all that jazz. Jinnah was not interested in PM-ship for himself… which is why he rejected the offer with disdain or perhaps because he knew Gandhi’s real game.
You may read Azad’s excerpt and duel with him.
I am a very busy person and can’t waste my time with someone who is incapable of comprehending arguments in plain English language.
Ah yes! hmm..quite busy, I guess. I will write an excerpt from Azad’s book that the members here have consciously failed to mentioned about the reasons for Patel’s issues with the League.
I have read the above passages, and if I remember correctly, there were two incidents that he mentioned. Two incidents!
“Gandhi offered Jinnah pmship because Gandhi knew that he would be vetoed by the Congress and Nehru which he was. It was one for the history books to be Mahatma and all that jazz.”
Speculation or truth? I guess getting shot can also be included in that category. What could be a better way to hog the limelight than to get shot while supporting Pakistan.
“Now shut up and get lost.”
Tsk. tsk.
Polite mian, polite. It’s a nice quality to have.
You’ve ceased to make all sense.
Azad mian – your biggest trump card and a partisan of Congress- is accusing Congress of not living upto its ideals and putting communal considerations first…
as for speculation… Did Congress accept Gandhi’s little fraudulent scheme?
PS: I am not sure what your jibe at “quite busy” is. However I have lots of work to do … and I can’t afford to waste time with someone like you. So CIAO… keep stewing in your juices.
to moosa
It is the (in)famous body-vs-mind controversy.
Bodily the muslim in the indian subcontinent may have hindu ancestors but mentally he is a flatterer of arab and turk invaders and conquerors. His features may be indian but his mind is devoted to the arab-turk glory.
People in the indian subcontinent need not import alien ideologies from Arabia in order to cut their own noses or to elevate themselves.
Self-respect and being a quisling don’t go hand in hand. Self-respect and a positive (but not uncritical) relationship to one’s own ancestors is necessary for developing a healthy forward-looking identity. Pakistan is de facto a quisling state and nation and hence the identity problem.
to bciv
I am not equating criticism with disloyalty. Hence your post loses its target. Pakistan teaches its children and youth falsified accounts of history – actually so that the elite can rule over the plebeians. And hence hate against hindus and hinduism is part of the curriculum – but that is for the convenience of the elite. That is what I wish to communicate. The common pakistani will be quite angry and go for the throats of the elite when he realizes how he has been misled and misused by the arab religion.
@ skyview (June 16, 2010 at 12:44 pm)
With reference to your words of wisdom:
1. “…..Bodily the muslim in the indian subcontinent may have hindu ancestors but mentally he is a flatterer of arab and turk invaders and conquerors. His features may be indian but his mind is devoted to the arab-turk glory…..”
I suppose it would be okay if the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, were flatterers of the Aryan invaders, who brought with them most of the elements of the doctrine of Hindu religion.
2. “…..People in the indian subcontinent need not import alien ideologies from Arabia in order to cut their own noses or to elevate themselves….”
Would you graciously grant the people of the Indian Subcontinent, permission to import the ancient ideology of the initial Rishis, who were residents of Tibet – an ideology known broadly today as Hinduism?
3. “…..misled and misused by the arab religion….”
Do your subjects, the commoners of India have your leave to be misled and misused by the “indian religion”?
@A3GL
As a practical matter, TNT, Jinnah etc., are not really relevant. IMO, the way forward for Pakistan is to have a series of Parliaments that last out their terms and transfer power to the next Parliament with orderly elections. The civilian governments have to do two things – raise more resources through taxes and plow it into development expenditures; and keep reasonable control on law and order.
I like the thrust of your post. I see a lot of posts on “How Pakistan” and “Why Pakistan”, which is fair enough, but I really see that the way forward is tricky.
Let me be blunt.
I see Pakistan as being controlled in the background by the Army. This may seem alright as long as the army allows democracy to survive. But I believe that the Pakistan army has cooperated too closely with the US over the years to be totally free of US influence.
I do not believe that the US will allow free and fair democracy for the simple reason that I think the first thing that self respecting Pakistanis will do is to rid Pakistan of the US.
As long as the Pakistan army and the US are in cahoots – democracy has little chance in Pakistan. There is a more sinister sideshow being caused by US pressure. I believe (without offering any proof) that the Pakistan army is internally split over the US issue. The army is too disciplined to reveal spats like this, but clearly the army is reluctant to follow US dictates, leading to rebound US pressure.
In fact this might possibly split Pakistan yet again into a “Moderate, real Pakistan” consisting of Punjab, Sindh and parts of other provinces and a “Talibanistan” consisting of North Waziristan, parts of Balochistan and areas across the Durand line. Note that this would solve a lot of US headaches about whom to attack and whom to pay off and whom to play off against the other.
I would like to be told why this is unlikely to become reality over the next few years. given that Pakistan has had little real control over some of those areas, while allowing the US to exert its influence.
to bin ismail
Basically flattery is a vice. The word “arya” means noble. The aryans were/are not an alien race in India. In any case the aryans in India (in as much as they can be traced) have no extra-territorial loyalties. Since the hindus’ religions are not finalized hence the aryan component can no more be isolated. It is a pity you argue at a level taught by the sunni fascist mullahs in Pakistan. Hindu religions are more dravidian than aryan.
Do you take the present-day indo-tibetan border as the measure for your judgement about the happenings of 3000+x years ago? See how careful you have to be and how you slipped down the himalayan slopes due to your carelessness about borders!
We can talk only of indian religions that are still evolving. Finalism is fatal to every spiritual development. In this sense every indian is free to create his own religion as a mixture of ideas and experiences with an open end and no khatma-e-nabuvvat-type fascism. The khatma doctrine is in the arabic non-indian book and attitude and it is causing major problems. The commoners of India are still majority-wise not mental slaves of alien ideologies. With alien I do not mean not so much the origin but the loyalties.
If a quisling is told that he is a quisling then he is naturally angry and tries to avoid the issue or throws up expletives or mullah-like arguments.
shiv writes:
“I see Pakistan as being controlled in the background by the Army.”
But the real controllers behind the army are the sunni fascists. Pak army has always doubledealt the USA.
Ismael
The Indic spiritual traditions are all rooted in the soil and none of them look up to glorify the alien ideology, its founder and power centres. It might be hard for Pakistanis to understand what it means to be the Originator and practioners of spirtual ideas , the realization and eternal freedom of spiritual exploration, actually facing and experiencing the Supreme Truth at individual level. Need no mediator or sycophancy of go-between. Its a simple matter of our hertiage ,religious indpendence and evolution, expansion of one’s own conciousness, the real divine nature, one with Ultimate and no less. The childish play of limiting the Supreme to one’s own shortcomings, imgaination of immature mind enamoured with hell ,heaven etc are irrelevant to us.We grew out of this thousands of years ago and even a child of Indic will tell you that he aint scared of hell and not fooled by heavenly enjoyment.
The idea is that there is no comparison between being just limited to be a follower and not allowed to be grown at the level of being capable of conception and origination , TNT theory is correct in making difference between Indian people and the followers of Pakistaniat.
@skyview (June 16, 2010 at 7:22 pm)
1. “…..The aryans were/are not an alien race in India…..”
Yes, if India includes Europe and Asia. Momentarily overlooking your immaculate knowledge of geography, the point I was trying to put across, which you understandably missed, was that your dislike for “aliens” essentially encompasses Muslims. All other E.Ts are welcome.
2. “…..Do you take the present-day indo-tibetan border as the measure for your judgement…..”
Thankyou. That has been clarified. According to you all Aryan-related territory, including Europe and Asia, together make India. Reminds me of Iqbal’s “sara jahan hamara”.
3. “…..If a quisling is told that he is a quisling then he is naturally angry…..”
I hope, being told that you have a predilection for confusing between a quisling and a patriot, does not make you angry.
to bin ismail
I live in southern India and have a lot of dravidian blood in me – and may be also some aryan, mongol, turkish, jewish etc.
So I have no inclination to see this matter in these terms (as you would like to).
I don’t regard muslims as aliens. I regard their ideology and their religion as alien, especially when they try to “purify” (=arabize, turkize, wahhabize, 7th-centurize) it. (It is the body-vs-mind controversy again)
The name Pakistan = land of the pure – that is where the whole problem begins. No muslim bothered to define “purity” in 1940’s as this word caught their imagination. Even Jinnah did not delve into it. What “purity” was to be achieved through Pakistan?
Read the biography of Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonssøn Quisling, onetime PM of Norway, (google this word and you will find several short biographies, including the in the wikipedia – is it still banned in your land of the pure?). Then you will have full understanding of why I call muslims quislings. A quisling is actually a lamentable figure (pity that Norwegians executed him in 1945 – that was not necessary).
There was and is no aryan territory – it was nazis who took over the word aryan and built it into their racism. Since exact details about the ancient aryans are missing, it is no use throwing that word around. It becomes just a cheap polemic. Old Greek, old Zend (Avesta) and old Sanskrit (vedic) show a remarkable similarity. This led to the postulation of an aryan race and language group in Europe (since some europeans languages too showed this similarity). This theory gives us no further clues about anything.
Jinnah was very reluctant to adopt the name Pakistan. His first reaction was “give the dog a bad name and hang him?”.
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
to ylh
The very name Pakistan (fore)spells the disaster of arrogance and hypocrisy and resulting violence against the “im-pure”. No wonder some misled sikhs copied it and called their paradise-to-be Khalistan (also meaning land of the pure) and promptly became handtools of the hindu-haters-killers in the GHQ in Rawalpindi. That led to 15000 dead in Panjab (India) and later 2000 in Delhi. And the GHQ jubilated whenever a sikh killed a hindu or vice versa – all again in the name of the “land of the pure”.
The wahhabi purity was the next logical step waiting to happen in Pakistan and it has come upon Pakistan with even more irrationality and violence. What you sow that you reap.
Skyview and Kaalket:
It is not just linguistic evidence that historians use. Archaeology with radio dating is a major tool as is numismatics and even DNA testing. All of them show an entry of Aryans into India from the North West about 4000 years ago.
Ever since humans evolved out of Africa they have moved about carrying their languages and religions which change beyond recognition over time. There is nothing eternal whatever about anything. Nationalism is a convenience not a faith.
Ofcourse our genes and languages are all mixed up now; of course you know Hinduism is a mix of the Vedic beliefs and preexisting indigenous cults such as worship of genitalia. Muslims too have become dargah worshipers. If Muslims are prey to Arabian cultural imperialism it is no mortal sin; it is only changing one system for another. In my view both need proving.
This Sangh Parivar nazaria that religion should have local origin confuses me twice over. Is it OK for a faith to have come in to India from beyond the Sindh river 4000 years ago but not 1200 years ago?
Second, by your logic is God, if he exists, bound paper maps that mark out the nation states-He should send an avtar or a prophet to each country separately in accordance with international law? What is the difference between having a state religion as in Pakistan, and a national religion in India that you seem to recommend.
What would God have done with people living in the Kushan empire stretching from UP to Uzbekistan that covered only half of Bharat Ma. What about the poor Nagas now baptized in the holy church. What should God have sent them. Should those beef eating Balinese abandon their Hindu faith, the Japanese wholly revert to Shintoism and the Ahom to animism-Europeans should abandon Christianity and the Americas revert to the faith of the happy hunting grounds. Why do all our assorted gurus always travel to the west to spread the message? 200 nations 200 religions-what an idea!
AG3L is sadna gupta. Please remove without prejudice.
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
Ha, ha.
My dear Yaseer.
Your beloved Jinnah’s Pakistan today is falling apart. I debated with you in chowk but u would not listen. 2 nation theory is dead. It was a bad concept to start with. A nation founded on the negative concept that muslims can’t live with hindus, so they need a seperate nation is never a good concept. Today, Pakistan goes around the world with a begging bowl, starvation stares at the poor masses with rising number of people committing suicide. When i need Paki news, i see only despair and hopelessness.
So, say what is obvious namely 2 nation theory is a bad concept and Pakistan is a rotten egg.
Skyview:
Please read up a bit on the subject.
AG3L:
It is difficult to make out what you want to convey. The movement of the Aryans down from Punjab into the Gangetic belt is pretty well documented, archeologically speaking.
Where did you get the DNA results for Kshatriyas? Does anyone even know who they were. If you think Rajputs were the old kshatriyas you would probably be mistaken.
Linguists have reconstructed a family tree of languages off a proto Indo European trunk with Indo European and Indo-Iranian branches. There is even an Indo Hittite thesis that says the Anatolian branch split off before the Indo Iranian did.
The language of the Indus Valley civilization continues to be a mystery. Integration into the Sangh narrative may take awhile. The dominant thesis continues to be the Kurgan model.
Sure there are place names in Afghanistan that are now found in India like the Haraxvati and the Sarayu. It indicates a foreign origin for the Vedic groups.
@Hayyer
They are talking uneducated Indo-centric rubbish.
One of them, with his tensors and vectors, is probably part of that mass of semi-educated rabble pouring out of these capitation fee bucket shops; their education in the humanities has been through propaganda booklets of the cheaper sort.
The other one is trembling on the verge of introduction of the Indian horse with one extra bone, an equine counterpart of the Piltdown Man, created by a cynical American cashing in on the desperate bid by the rabble to acquire Caucasian cachet for its maunderings.
Why are you even bothering with this @&%>? I have been following your precept, ironically, while you indulge in chucking deranged lunatics under the chin.
Sridhar
Get a life and be off. You were a small-minded fool on chowk and you are a small minded today.
And “debated” me is a rather funny statement. Apni Auqaat say bahir naa ho.
My dear Indian friends likeb Hayyer and Vajra,
Some of you have asked me on occasion about my hostility/aggression towards your compatriots.
I request that you guys read Sridhar’s comment. The crook cleans toilet bowls for a living in the US. He doesn’t even get a decent job in his own country. Yet the scoundrel in the very Oscar Wilde sense is gleefully talking about misery and destruction of Pakistan.
I live in Lahore … I have made a life for myself here and a name too both professionally and more recently as a newspaper columnist. And yet I am told to “admit the obvious” about a place which despite its tremendous faults and flaws has given me everything I wanted. By who? By someone who cleans toilet bowls for a living!
These are the kind of fools and crooks cranks and madmen who create anger and reaction.
These toilet bowl cleaner types and third rate scoundrels like Sadhna Gupta and the like may not admit it … But from this test of fire and blood will emerge a stronger better and more progressive Pakistan. This is what worries them.
History is an interesting subject.
First there was a black African race who spread all over the world. As man moved North, evolution favored a lighter skin. The man moving North also had to contend with a more hostile environment and became more clever than his black cousins who used to get food easily in the tropics.
Later the superior fair skinned man moved south again. One of those migrations was the Aryan invasion of India. natural selection ensures the survival of the fittest. Naturally the fairer man started uling over that darker people of India. The fairer people were the Brahmins and Kshatriyas – natural warriors. The blackies were the lower castes. But over time, lust overcame the superior Aryans and they interbred with the blackies leading to a degradation of their gene pool. The genital worship was combined with dung worship, horse worship and genital worship of the worst kind.
In the meantime, the fair skinned people who had remained in the North continued to evolve into superior beings. A great political system and way of life came into being and a great egalitarian religion arose. The people who had this great system naturally overran the polluted dung and penis worshippers of India. Evolution does favor urvival of teh fittest.
But , meanwhile, the fair skinned people in the north evolved even more and became even more superior. They came and conquered the world and even managed to defeat the civilized races who were benignly ruling over the corrupt penis worshippers. But these new conquerors were not as strong as the true civilised rulers of India. They would have been defeated – so they took the help of the penis worshippers in an act of inexcusable treachery.
Luckily a man called Jinnah saw through this game., He understood how the powerful fair people of the north were collaborating with the penis and dung worshippers and deftly created a country of pure people. The people of this country were not dung and penis worshippers. They were the truly civilised people of the earth.
Ah, history is such a fascinating subject.
@ yasserlatifhamdani
<bThese toilet bowl cleaner types and third rate scoundrels like Sadhna Gupta and the like may not admit it … But from this test of fire and blood will emerge a stronger better and more progressive Pakistan. This is what worries them.
Sir you are a fellow Hindu! Namaste. Bolo Jai Shri Ram ki! Jai Bajrang Bali!
The only people in the world who created a class of people to clean toilets and considered them inferior were Hindus.
Your Freudian slip made my day sir. Thank you. That is Pakistan for you. LOL!!
@Shiv [June 18, 2010 at 8:52 am]
There is nothing to be gained by putting out this completely erroneous version which has no basis whatsoever and is so obviously you trailing your coat. Why you felt it necessary is a mystery. Correcting this nonsensical story is an aggravating waste of time, which could have been spent on other more interesting things.
Kindly stop.
It gives me immense pleasure to see Brahmins cleaning toilet bowls in the US…. sadion kay baheeman sitam and all that jazz you know.
No freudian slip. Very deliberate.
@Kaalket (June 17, 2010 at 1:55 am)
“…..We grew out of this thousands of years ago and even a child of Indic will tell you that he aint scared of hell and not fooled by heavenly enjoyment…..”
You grew out. Please also grow up. You may be aware of the fact that the concept of “karma” is very much prevalent in the Hindu religion, as well as the long chain of “janams”. I’m sure even children are aware of this.
@ Hayyer (June 17, 2010 at 9:54 pm)
“….. 200 nations 200 religions – what an idea!…..”
…..and the sects and sub-sects could be at the level of provinces and districts – interesting.
@ sridhar (June 18, 2010 at 2:53 am)
“…..2 nation theory is a bad concept …..”
The 2-nation theory has already materialized. Pakistan and India, the two nations have already come into being and do very much exist. In no sense did the 2-nation theory ever suggest that “never the twain shall meet”.
What does “laanti” mean? I have lived in Delhi for a long time but I never heard it there.
to hayyer
reading on what subject? There are no certain infos available. it is all speculation from front to end. the whole history of the indian subcontinent is one big puzzle locked in an enigma.
The RSS narrative may be false but the muslim narrative, although of a later date, is even more falsified/manipulated (in order to glorify islam, muslims and arabs and denigrate hindus and non-muslims). The whole Jinnah controversy – which will bring nothing positive – is another pathetic case.
Zia ul Haq started off this Pakistan-Studies stuff (or was it earlier still?) and the pakistanis are fully drowned in those islamic propaganda tricks on themselves.
Aryans are not relevant to India anymore. Nor should they made relevant. Muslims (be they in Pakistan or BD or India) are because of their fascism, finalism and disloyalty and holy confusions and death-longings. The muslims’ relevance is not a positive-constructive one but a destructive-primitive one.
We are facing problems of fascism, absolutism, finalism, break down of culture and environment etc. The discussions in this forum are not coming up with any relevant idea to these themes. Islam is proving to be a big obstruction on the path to rational forward-looking solutions.
@ yasserlatifhamdani
It gives me immense pleasure to see Brahmins cleaning toilet bowls in the US…. sadion kay baheeman sitam and all that jazz you know.
Every man has a right to derive pleasure from anything that he particularly enjoys, as long as it is not illegal.
The Brahmins of India held the same position as the “elite” of Pakistan. But that position has gradually been eroded by various policies. Brahmins do clean toilet bowls too, as would anyone else who likes to see his clean toilet bowls. Fortunately for those Brahmins most Indians defecate out in the open – I guess you do know that too.
But I digress – Indian leadership is gradually moving out of “forward caste” hands into the hands of the so called middle and backward castes. And while some Pakistanis still believe that the old order still exists in India, it doesn’t. A new set of people have gained power in India and India’s success if any is hardly a Brahmin and forward caste success. Many Pakistanis seem to have missed this – but it does not matter to India in any way. As long as Pakistanis have their eyes shut to reality it can’t be a bad thing.
In many ways I am happy to see India in this way even though there is some reverse discrimination against Brahmins in some places. The newly empowered Indian is not one who has previously enslaved himself to the most convenient ruler like many Brahmins and Kshatriyas did for their own benefit.
Everyone wants to “win” in the long term, You want Pakistan to win. Fine that is your prerogative. Ultimately who “wins” will be decided by who is more realistic about goals that should be reached for his nation. I am sure we both know what I am talking about. A little rhetorical thumbing of one’s nose on the internet can’t take a country very far.
@ vajra
Correcting this nonsensical story is an aggravating waste of time,
Thanks. From the viewpoint of rhetoric, a story that cannot be corrected is one that is true.
The (his)story has been written deliberately to pose a “Heads I win, tails you lose” dilemma” to anyone who seeks to argue with the story. It is a mix of fiction and innuendo of a type that typifies the writing of Martha Nussbaum and Arundhati Roy who are both better at it than I am. But I’m trying to get there and become as irritating as those two icons.
If the story is accepted as being true as a whole, and is not refuted, that also tells a tale. History can be written any which way you like. If I write history and you argue with it, it gives me the information I need about you. I know exactly what irritates you so that I can construct an even more preposterous tale the next time just for you.
The best way to deal with one version of History is not to argue, but to inundate “intellectual space” with alternate versions. I am merely helping to inundate this discussion with my version of events. People who come later will never know what is right and what is not.
It is always the one who argues who comes second. The person who writes his story has the initiative. I presume you know about my “You farted” analogy? If not I will post it here.
skyview:
“There are no certain infos available. it is all speculation from front to end. the whole history of the indian subcontinent is one big puzzle locked in an enigma.”
Certain infos? It depends on what you mean-I could send you a reading list if you are willing to be guided by facts rather than faith. Our former colonial masters constructed a history for us on which Indian historians did further work. Latterly, there has been a Sanghi school of history which believes that there are no certain infos, and it is a big puzzle locked in an enigma-Convenient too because it can then resort to the mystical speculations at which India excels.
Forget the toilet cleaning story – atleast the guy works to earn a livelihood. What we need is a movement to eliminate propaganda (all kinds – and very easily referred to by kashifat types mossads et al)- that India is a threat to pakistan, that muslims in India are under threat, that muslims in pakistan are under greater threat
And finally, for god sake do something to stop this dangerously ( and seemingly irreversible) percolation of religion into all facets of pakistani society.
To a layman it looks very dangerous. There should be a positive debate to bring the nation back on track. Strong and right pakistan is in Asia’s general interest.
YLH – dont get emotional. please continue your work
And Shiv – You are just brilliant buddy – please continue your response to some really boring (and very intelligent) Indians prowling out here !!!
to hayyer
why do you have to bring in the RSS – neither you nor I work for them.
The point was about what is relevant today. If aryans did something wrong 2000 years ago then that has little bearing on today’s events. Neither Pakistan nor India is suffering because of what aryans did 2000 or 4000 years ago.
What is the cause of backwardness today? Is it vedas, puranas or kuran and hadith? here we expect (hope for) an honest dialogue with muslims but muslims are not capable of an honest dialogue because their religion does not allow any criticism of its own declarations, intentions and methods.
Discussing history makes sense only if we are going to learn from it and not repeat the mistakes. But that is not the case here at all. Everyone wants to only look for justifications for his own ancestors.
YLH:
I have never understood why some Indians come here to jeer at liberal Pakistanis. It requires a particularly vicious pathology to attack a struggling minority.
Fundamentalists of different types get along well together. I know Jamaatis in India who are pretty comfortable with Sanghis and vice versa. What they cannot abide are liberals, of any hue.
to hayyer
Indians have not denigrated any pakistani muslim liberals here. I for one have repeatedly pointed out to the defects and deficiencies in the arabic religion and maintained that unless the liberals stop being timid-opportunistic they will always be the underdogs. Too long have the liberals in Pakistan smiled at the misfortunes of the hindus and India. Liberal muslims are the deep dark water in which the poisonous water-snakes of i-fascism have lived, nourished and multiplied themselves. And the situation continues to be just that even today.
@ Hayyer
“I have never understood why some Indians come here to jeer at liberal Pakistanis. It requires a particularly vicious pathology to attack a struggling minority.”
I was quite despondent this morning when I read comments from Kaalket and Skyview. All following the same line of attack that you refer to. For a while this morning I thought that perhaps Jinnah just gave up his efforts at Hindu-Muslim unity because of folks such as these in his time. If one believes in fostering peaceful co-existence, then these right wing guys in Pakistan and India drain all the energy.
Thank you for your words – it’s good to read voices of sanity and balance from across the divide.
@Shiv
Very well, Shiv, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Correcting this nonsensical story is an aggravating waste of time,
Thanks. From the viewpoint of rhetoric, a story that cannot be corrected is one that is true.
This is your usual style of argument, a small distortion to give yourself a handle.
A correction that is a waste of time is different from a correction that is not possible.
It is unlikely that you don’t know, perhaps it is that you choose to shelter behind these little subterfuges. We are told that the leopard takes refuge in the branches of trees, and merges perfectly with the surroundings, but forgets to tuck its tail up, not being able to see itself. I am afraid this particular trick is your own instance of merging with the surroundings; the tail hanging down is likewise your own instance of the leopard’s mistake.
The (his)story has been written deliberately to pose a “Heads I win, tails you lose” dilemma” to anyone who seeks to argue with the story. It is a mix of fiction and innuendo of a type that typifies the writing of Martha Nussbaum and Arundhati Roy who are both better at it than I am. But I’m trying to get there and become as irritating as those two icons.
Pathetic. Seemingly. You would have us believe that this is your point of view, so that we arrive at a particular place where you wish us to be. Let us first take a look at your apparent position, before examining your real position.
History is not written by one individual – ever. It is not one individual’s opinion – ever. As Popper has pointed out, the nature of enquiry, discovery and proof in a social scientific environment, or in an historican environment, is different from the nature of enquiry, discovery and proof in a natural scientific environment. The biases and prejudices of the observer are far more important, although this has been found to be true in the natural sciences also, and these have to be taken into account explicitly. Historians are aware that the recorders of facts, in writing, typically, are prone to subjective errors; they are equally aware of the fact that their own subjective errors influence the view they take of the facts reported, and that these errors need to be kept in mind.
That apart, there is some tendentious theorising, which confuses the issue, accidentally, or, I suspect, otherwise.
I do not know where you get your view of history as journalism, which you have reported as a mixture of fiction and innuendo. That is a typically woolly approach peculiar to the sub-continent, which led to the situation that of all the peoples in the world, it is only in India that the earliest history even approaching any validity as history is Kalhana.
What you have written, and your citation of Arundhati Roy and Martha Nussbaum – neither being an historian of any imporance – is presumably intended to sucker us into thinking that you are unable to distinguish between journalism and polemic on the one hand and history on the other. Martha Nussbaum is a philosopher; Arundhati Roy is, well, Arundhati Roy, a full-time profession. Neither is an historian; both may irritate you, history may irritate you, but that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they are therefore, as a consequence of this effect on you, historians.
To use your elegant turns of phrase, you may find it difficult to pass a motion; you may find rough toilet paper rough on your delicate skin. But rough toilet paper does not cause constipation.
Such an egregious error of fact makes it difficult to engage even at a simplistic level. But of course, that will turn into a monstrous perversion of being ignored because you cannot be refuted, so we must go through every minute idiotic mention and quote chapter and verse, cross every t and dot every i. So be it.
If the story is accepted as being true as a whole, and is not refuted, that also tells a tale. History can be written any which way you like. If I write history and you argue with it, it gives me the information I need about you. I know exactly what irritates you so that I can construct an even more preposterous tale the next time just for you.
There are several ideas jostling for expression, and the strange thing is that they are contradictory; apparently these contradictions are too minor for you to consider.
No historical account, to date, has been accepted as being true as a whole without questioning. The emphasis is on the questioning. There are numerous instances of the vast bulk of the expert opinion on a subject being on one side, and of one or two publicity-seeking or totally motivated accounts on the other. A classic example is the faux-historienne Sarmila Bose and her account of the Bangladesh massacre. If you study her career, her claims about what really happened, the terms she uses about the
normal reports that most of us are familiar with, and her frequent and unsuccessful encounters with the facts, presented in public, you will find an eery sense of familiarity. She did all this before you, so these tactics are not exactly unfamiliar, I regret to inform you.
Having started with the claim that history is fiction+innuendo, a claim that seems – only seems – to lay bare a lack of knowledge of the historian’s profession and the way in which the historian comes to conclusions, it is inevitable that you should claim that it can be written in any way that the historian likes.
That is because your arguments tend to be a judicious mixture of fiction+innuendo. No examples, no evidence, just an opinion. Now we begin to see the glimmerings of your strategy. But first to the details.
Would you like to cite one single example of an history that is accepted as being true as a whole, and has not been refuted?
First, let us deal with the application of this to the exclamation that your rigmarole elicited from me. You are already aware of the ‘standard’ account of the pre-history of South Asia. Perhaps you are under the impression that the accounts that held true three or four decades ago, even when you debated this very subject on a popular mailing list within the last three or four years, still hold current. Perhaps that is what you hope will emerge – an account of the so-called Aryans that will seem to be immutable and unchanging. I am sorry to disappoint you. History has moved on, though you have not, and there is a wealth of additional information about those events which may surprise you if you were to go into them. I suspect, like last time, you will tend to depend on your finely-honed intellect rather than on evidence and the evaluation of different sources. A pity.
There is always, in a serious history (not one that is a preface to a political manifesto, the only sort you seem to be familiar with) citation, sources, evidence; it is in the footnotes and in the end-notes, not entirely in the body of the text that history is ‘done’. You mistake, perhaps, the ability of some contemporary historians to write well, in a popular and pleasing style, with the integrity of their accounts. Times have moved on; we do not necessarily have to plough through the prose of Ranke; Geoffrey Barraclough is just as good. In both cases, the scholars concerned have gone to original sources, their own and those cited by others, and have carefully weighed these one against the other, until they came to their conclusions.
Your apparent lack of awareness of this process, your lack of knowledge of how much effort goes into a simple monograph, your inability to gauge why an outstanding teacher such as Sushobhan Sircar, Sumit Sircar’s father, never produced a major work in his life, shows very clearly what sort of a flippant, half-baked notion you would have us believe that you have about the subject.
This is all an elaborate sham, of course. We are being led to a conclusion carefully prepared at the outset.
As for your concluding lines, one would laugh if one did not feel like crying. Try to come to a sense of reality. History is written to write an accurate and balanced account of a period that is past. It is not written, except in the feverish delirium of some pretty unusual minds, to ‘irritate’ others or to write a more preposterous tale than you have already written. What does that nonsense mean? that nobody does any historical writing except for the sole purpose of irritating others? or that all historical writing irritates you? or that this particular historical thread, on the Two Nation Theory, irritates you so that you go completely berserk?
The best way to deal with one version of History is not to argue, but to inundate “intellectual space” with alternate versions. I am merely helping to inundate this discussion with my version of events. People who come later will never know what is right and what is not.
That reveals more than one secret. From this very accurate description of any historical debate, it is apparent that you are not wholly unaware of the historians’ profession, it is just that you think that you will gain maximum attention and applause by saying outrageous things. All that preceding stuff about fiction and innuendo was garbage, as neither fiction nor innuendo can be contradicted, not by rational debate and by a comparison of sources and evidence. If you believed that, you would not be stating this. So can we talk without those fancy twists and turns of rhetoric, please?
The one thing wrong with your presentation, and the core of it seemingly, is that you don’t have the knowledge and learning needed to refute an historical case which you have decided to dislike, for whatever reason.
Right, you can’t do it the normal way. Now it all settles down and begins to make sense. The only way that a well-reasoned presentation can be combatted by your own personal prejudice is by first leading evidence to the effect that your way is actually the historical way, and that there is nothing more to it than that. Then it becomes easy. It’s Ayesha Jalal’s fiction against yours, it’s her own prejudice against yours.
Of course you can inundate us with versions. I have no doubt that you will inundate us with versions. All that I am pointing out is that being a quack (in historical terms only), you can only resort to printing out masses of verbiage with no backing, no source, no evidence, only paragraph after paragraph of prejudice. And to prove to yourself and to everybody else that this is meaningful, and that a keen, Pharisaic intellect outweighs all else, you are forced to prepare the ground carefully, with apparently artless explosions of very natural emotion.
Well done, you would have done well with Mr. Goebbels. Or the New China Times might have a position open. Just remember, that with them as with you, people coming after will look for references, for sources, for evidence, find that these are faked or absent, and they will know exactly what to think.
And finally, all knowledge and discovery, surprising though it may seem, does not come down to your story of ‘You farted.’ I am familiar with it, as is everybody else on Silk or on Bharat-Rakshak, and wish I wasn’t. Unfortunately, real life, as I have no doubt you already know, does not allow these cheap victories.
Now, if you want, we can go through each sentence that you wrote in your earlier childish post, and examine the reality and value of each. So do let me know. I had hoped that you would have better sense, and would stay away from a brutal denouement, but since that is not to be, please give the word.
@AG3L
If you are saying this sincerely, that the evidence of the Aryans coming from outside India is only linguistic, I have very interesting information for you, information that is relatively recent, has been known widely in the European world only since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and evidence that has grown around the rivetting work of Marija Gimbutas.
If you are scoring points, and showing Hayyer to be a narrowly-read old stick-in-the-mud, don’t let me interfere with your fun. Or with his fun.
@ vajra
you can only resort to printing out masses of verbiage with no backing, no source, no evidence, only paragraph after paragraph of prejudice. And to prove to yourself and to everybody else that this is meaningful, and that a keen, Pharisaic intellect outweighs all else, you are forced to prepare the ground carefully, with apparently artless explosions of very natural emotion.
This of course is the secret of a lot of history that is written. Parochial trash that is made up and embellished with a fine vocabulary for the suckers who read it go rah rah rah and applaud
Here is some more guano of the same genre as the history that I have written. Why does my crap smell worse that someone elses’ crap? Your protestations are purely arbitrary and subjective.
Just like what passes for “History”
For Jinnah and the Muslim League, the Two Nation Theory was not an ideological position etched in stone. It was the restatement of the arguments needed to ensure national status for Muslims in a multinational independent India. It was also a vehicle to get parochial elements in Muslim majority provinces into line behind the Muslim League at the All India Centre. At the very least, Jinnah’s Pakistan did not necessarily envisage a partition, secession from or division of United India. This is why he jumped at the opportunity of the Cabinet Mission Plan, which did not even deliver 50 percent of what he had demanded. In the end, however, the idea of power sharing with the League and Muslims was too much for the Indian National Congress to gulp, even if Gandhi and Nehru could have been brought around to the idea. Maulana Azad’s grudging admissions in his book India Wins Freedom seal this argument.
AG3L:
“And some statements are simply wrong, e.g., Hayyer mentions numismatic evidence”
I meant numismatic evidence as a tool historians use not necessarily for the Aryan invasion. That slipped through because of another line of argument that I wanted to pursue and didn’t. It was an oversight not to remove to remove the numismatic connection to the narrower Aryan argument.
I came upon your reply a bit late on a busy day and shall try and respond later. I am particularly interested in DNA evidence for various reasons.
I am no Sanskritist but for most North Indians the sea is a big mystery and an object of wonder when they see it. The sea is as distant from say Lahore as it is from Kandahar or from Tehran. The word Sindh according to one interpretation means ‘sea’. The tract of land between the river Sindh and the river Jehlum is (used to be) called the Sindh Saagar Doab. Could it not be that Saagar meant just a large body of water. Why could it not mean the Caspian Sea?
@Shiv
Not at all.
I am glad you printed that particular passage. Every single line of that, every single word has been substantiated, not by one individual, by collective examination of the records and the analyses, by collective debate and discussion, a lively discussion, whereby parts were enhanced, parts were discarded, and nothing was accepted at face value. Thereafter, this has been repeated several times, typically when a pilgrim comes by and with incredible effrontery, claims that since he has not been a participant, that entire discussion does not exist, and the matter must be thrashed out anew.
You, unfortunately, regrettably, are today that pilgrim; instead of having the humility to look for what exists, in ample measure, you have the arrogance to name your offering and equate it to a summary of a detailed discussion extending over many days and referenced at every step. And you have the barefaced gall to call the two crap.
The test is simple. To show that you are dishonest and lazy, I have to do nothing more than point readers, and you for that matter, to the archives. All the moderators, YLH, BCiv and AZW, were participants in most of the discussions; YLH and BCiv were participants in all.
If you come to this with some humility, without the brazen objective of staking your positions without any preliminary or groundwork, and claiming that these are sufficient because your intellect is sufficient, you might find information. I cannot comment on whether you will find knowledge. I can comment, however, that you are letting down your own intellectual capacity, and your competence, by taking a short-cut that was never necessary.
@Hayyer
@AG3L
In fact, amusingly, all three points have some value, although Hayyer may not have intended numismatics to have some direct bearing on the ‘Indo-Aryan’ issue.
The DNA point is very valuable indeed, this being the second point I am referring to, but I am sorry that Hayyer and AG3L have not come across the archaeological findings of the Soviets, discussed in the West only recently. If I might be a little mischievous, and skip playfully around without getting straight to the point, the Scythian/Saka are key to the whole thing. 😀
Regarding the linguistics points mentioned by Hayyer, the third point I referred to, in fact, there is the Caspian, and that is not all. Again, a large tract of water, in much later times, the Sindhu/Indus, was the object of wonder; I draw the attention of the participants to the other very large tracts of water, besides the Caspian and the Aral Sea, that a migrating people would have become familiar with on their travels.
The entire narrative, based on Gimbutas and the Soviets, takes us back to 10,000 BCE, first to Asia Minor, thereafter to the area between the Black Sea and the Caspian, and for some, finally, the area between the Caspian and the Aral Sea, and the edges of the Takla Makan; it is obviously difficult to present these facts, this narrative in a blog comment.
The Indo-European commentary has moved on and has acquired archaeological and haematological/genetic accretions since then, some supportive, some dismissive of the original template. It is at an exciting stage of study now, and those who are stuck in the versions that are past are limiting themselves unnecessarily.
tra la la
Hayyer,
The Aryan theory hasn’t been confirmed. Most people agree that there have been migration of “caucasian” people in India over ages but it has been in batches and not in significant numbers to drastically change the cultural underpinnings. The linguistic basis is quite tenuous. Most of the world today speaks English. I don’t need to explain further. I am sure you understand.
Akash mian Shabash. See I am reasonable if you are reasonable.
yaar ylh…hudd! The last three posts on which I spent more than an hour that you deleted, were not unreasonable by any means. That was just not cool. This stuff is part of your work but most of us have to take time off our main vocation to write and exchange ideas. If you read my exchange with Hayyer and AZW, we do a fine job. The trouble is that you take things too personally and get riled up too soon.
And, it’s not fair to only print the zealots’ posts from my country.
Vajra, of course, uses 3 lines to write what could be written in one line.
Tt is not part my work unless you think deleting your posts relevant to Securitization or transactional law. You waste my time by posting garbage. I am actually working on something that someone third rate like you – who writes hour long of garbage – can seldom conceive.
Now no more bakwas. Or I’ll delete your post to hayyer.
I meant debating stuff is part of your work. Pause before shooting off. Anyways, man. good luck.
You got personal. There is no point in calling names. I am sure you are writing some excellent stuff. Keep it up.
@Amank
I believe that the truth lies between what you have just said and the full-blown imagery of the Indian branch of the Indo-Iranians rampaging into India. Nothing else would explain the genetic homogeneity of the sub-continent, or the nature of the spread of ‘Indo-European’ language groups.
It is far more probable that tribes continued to push eastward as they had done for millennia before, and that they got absorbed in the population already living there. The language spread, the people probably remained as ethnically diverse as they are found to be on the steppes.
The link that is needed is between the tumulus building nomads of the steppes and the Painted Grey Ware of the Gangetic Plain, and it doesn’t exist at the moment.
@Akash
Thank you. Anything more?
Vajra,
I am Akash. I had to change names to get my comments through. My main objective was to reply to Hayyer’s inquiries. Chill.
@Amank/Akash/Ajay
Yeah, yeah, I got that. I was thanking you for that unwanted compliment:
Vajra, of course, uses 3 lines to write what could be written in one line.
Tell you what, show me how: take one of my most excessive passages and show me how you would have written it. Without losing the nuances.
Mr. Akash is not a nuanced mind. He is our latter day typical corporate types who write emails “ok thanks” “pl before cob”.
Amank:
“The Aryan theory hasn’t been confirmed. Most people agree that there have been migration of “caucasian” people in India over ages but it has been in batches and not in significant numbers to drastically change the cultural underpinnings. The linguistic basis is quite tenuous. Most of the world today speaks English. I don’t need to explain further. I am sure you understand.”
Aryan nowadays is merely a linguistic term, and pretty robust theories explain the Indo European family and a probable PIE (proto Indo European). It is not at all tenuous. English is the mother tongue of peoples originating in the British Isles. The Indo Iranian languages are the mother languages of the peoples who speak them. Globish is now becoming what Latin and Sanskrit were at one stage. International languages of communication. Even the Brahmins wife probably spoke a prakrit language in the kitchen.
The invaders came over a period of 4,500 years at least starting with the Rig Vedic people. Perhaps even the Dravidians came from outside India. There are theories of that too. Who can say how many came over. Each invading army must have been cohorts of tens of thousands. But consider this. Each of us has 2ⁿ ancestors, n being the number of generations. Just going back 20 generations gives each of us a million ancestors only 500 years ago. Those tens of thousands calculated in reverse have millions of offspring. So we are all mixed up in our genes. But what of it?
As for the cultural underpinnings it is well established that the invading Aryans were of a different culture from that of the Indus valley civilization. It is also a fact that there is an Indian culture today that extends into Pakistan and Bangladesh, but in between the two situations the picture is one of evolution. The invaders were all absorbed into the Brahminical society ,except the Arabs in 712 and the Muslims who followed in various invasions who refused a Brahminical view of the world.
But even the Muslims over time became ‘Indianized’ in various ways. Isn’t that what the TNT is all about? And it hasn’t worked out.
@ Hayyer
“But consider this. Each of us has 2ⁿ ancestors, n being the number of generations. Just going back 20 generations gives each of us a million ancestors only 500 years ago. Those tens of thousands calculated in reverse have millions of offspring. So we are all mixed up in our genes. But what of it?”
That is a great paragraph, my friend. Love it. 🙂
Vajra,
An instance:
“I am glad you printed that particular passage. Every single line of that, every single word has been substantiated, not by one individual, by collective examination of the records and the analyses(typo), by collective debate and discussion, a lively discussion, whereby parts were enhanced, parts were discarded, and nothing was accepted at face value. Thereafter, this has been repeated several times, typically when a pilgrim comes by and with incredible effrontery, claims that since he has not been a participant, that entire discussion does not exist, and the matter must be thrashed out anew.”
== Every line of the passage you have referenced has been debated vigorously ad nauseam at various times by new and old participants. Nothing can be gained by debating it anew.
“incredible effrontery”: sign of affectation. Could have been avoided.
I know you belong to a different generation, probably that of VK Menon, but in my generation, brevity is prized. Above all, it’s bad manners to indulge in long windy passages–the message gets lost. As a means to harangue an army or a crowd, it has its merits, but not so much on an internet forum.
@Amank
A fair rejoinder. Let me see if I can match your exacting literary standards in future! The downside is that you will have to keep counting.
Hayyer,
“Aryan nowadays is merely a linguistic term”
I agree with you. When I meant the Aryan theory, I meant the old staple where people argued that “Aryans” came from near Caspian Sea and colonized India, or wrested it from native Dravidians. Genetically, as you said, there is not a clear differentiation between ethnic groups in India. And, yes, we are only 500 generations away from our hunter gatherer generation; in some cases, like that of the Taliban, that actually might even be closer. I looked up on the Kurgan hypothesis that you have reference, but I have to get a book on that theory before I can argue about it; it doesn’t seem to have been a settled issue.
I am not going to debate TNT. I understand why some people may look up to it as an intellectual landmark, but having spent a lifetime in academia, I find it patently weak. I have seen its embellishment with grandiose words in this forum too, but shorn of all the decorations, there is really not much to it. It seems more a case of self fulfilling prophecy. For example:
“We are different and, therefore, we separated.”
or
“We had differences and we separated and hence, we are different.”
Those are two different things. As an example of how things have changed: my dad’s generation would have found a deep rooted similarity with people who migrated to Pakistan from Bihar. In my travels, I have had opportunity to meet people from Pakistan, some from my native place, now derisively referred to as Mohajirs. Apart from superficial similarities, which are quite numerous, there was not much of a deep connection. I find myself closer to someone from Bangalore or Bombay. That, of course, doesn’t mean that we can’t be close, and I cannot speak for everyone. In the same way, since we talked about the concept of India at one point, I would like to add that though in the pre partition generation, India would have meant something else, but for me and a bulk of us, it just stops at the border of Punjab. The crucial issue is the presence of idea of India in the consciousness at most, if not all, times.
The Nehru post has to wait buddy. I have already wasted an hour on it and it didn’t go across.
Vajra,
“A fair rejoinder. Let me see if I can match your exacting literary standards in future! ”
Thank you. I am humbled. I also would like to thank you for your exacting standards. I try to be careful with my punctuation now. hehe.
🙂
ylh,
“Mr. Akash is not a nuanced mind. He is our latter day typical corporate types who write emails “ok thanks” “pl before cob”.”
Thank you. You confuse nuance with verbiage. Sometimes a lot can be conveyed without saying anything. For example: the above line can be set as an example of your (in)competence as a lawyer. I am so so far from the corporate type that you blithely adorn me with. From my training in academia, I am taught to go to the “meat” of the problem as quickly as possible. The focus is not on “how” things are said but “what” is said. If it ruffles some feathers, so be it. I guess, I shall start my future posts with a preamble of “your honor”, or “O wise one”, etc.
Akash mian… Refer to my earlier threat.
@Amank [June 20, 2010 at 1:14 am][what was any self-respecting guy doing up at 1:14 am anyway]
I am not going to debate TNT. I understand why some people may look up to it as an intellectual landmark, but having spent a lifetime in academia, I find it patently weak. I have seen its embellishment with grandiose words in this forum too, but shorn of all the decorations, there is really not much to it. It seems more a case of self fulfilling prophecy. For example:
“We are different and, therefore, we separated.”
or
“We had differences and we separated and hence, we are different.”
Whether you debate it or not is entirely your wish. In either case, you ought to try and understand it first. Your paraphrases seem to indicate you made up your mind before making an effort to understand it.
@ Amank (June 20, 2010 at 1:14 am)
“…….I am not going to debate TNT…….It seems more a case of self fulfilling prophecy. For example:
“We are different and, therefore, we separated.”
or
“We had differences and we separated and hence, we are different…….”
This is how I would tend to put it:
“We were two conglomerates of states. We failed to form a confederation. Therefore we separated.”
Vajra,
I have read its enunciation in detail as well as Iqbal’s version, which in some parts, is quite silly. But, we can’t fault the poet too much. It draws heavily from the philosophical movements in the West at that time. Iqbal seems to have completely missed the rout of Russian forces by the Japanese before WWI, otherwise he wouldn’t have persisted with the dubious idea of martial races.
It’s really not all that great, though I understand that unlike Math, there may be multiple versions. I guess, I can only fault my own shortcomings.
@Akash [this version]
You will understand what that idiot Amank (if you prefer, that series of idiots, Amank) didn’t, that the TNT can’t be reduced to a couple of phrases.
I tried to do what Bin Ismail did, got almost an identical result (give or take a few paragraphs :-)), and had to refrain from comment as my response didn’t pass the [Amank [June 20, 2010 at 12:43 am]] Test.
Your acknowledgement of Bin Ismail’s response to [Amank [June 20, 2010 at 1:14 am]] doesn’t cut it; his (BI’s, not being British India, but Bin Ismail at this point of the story) formulation doesn’t amount to the second statement of [Amank [June 20, 2010 at 1:14 am]], not to my less-than-subtle and depreciated brain anyway. You will of course veto any serious attempt at discussing it or analysing it by retreating behind a fog of literary criticism, and saying about any refutation – what was it? – Vajra, of course, uses 3 lines to write what could be written in one line.
Yeah, right.
Look what comes out when I write your style:
Whether you debate it or not is entirely your wish. In either case, you ought to try and understand it first. Your paraphrases seem to indicate you made up your mind before making an effort to understand it.
Two things:
1. If you have an open mind, we can talk about it;
2. You have to get rid of your ghosts; do something like other enthu bataanis do, write Prune1, Prune2, Prune3 and so on. We need to know which Prune, or, in this case, Akash we are addressing.
Note: this note passes the [Amank [June 20, 2010 at 12:43 am]] Test, once the bits for the moron, in square brackets, are taken out. This thread itself is delightful once the moron outside the square brackets hisself is taken out. 😛
@skyview
B****r off. For the asterisks, substitute a Balkan ‘nation’ considered by other Europeans to have had curious habits.
Go talk to Akash, Ajay or Amank at 1:14 in the morning; your education will be expanded in interesting ways.
Don’t ask what I mean by education. Don’t go meet them when they’re together or writing to PTH; that might lead to gang-rape.
Kaha thaa insaan bun. Everything was going well.
If I am censored then the whole debate is lost and abuse replaces dialogue.