What would have Jinnah thought of Ajmal Kasab and gang, wonders SC

[Contrarian]

I beg to disagree.

The theory was used politically- naturally. One can hardly expect a bare-faced demand for the restoration of the Sultanate or of the Mughal Empire to have succeeded. What else was left? At root, it was not the anxiety of the working class Muslims, but of the professional and salaried classes among them, anxiety regarding the scope for growth embedded in an enormously larger different community, that drove them. They could not, would not accept that they would be a minority. Their remembered past demanded at the least parity, and the demand was packaged in different ways.

This is a very different view. I had never thought about this aspect, that the Muslims demanded a separate land because they were anxious because of them losing the erstwhile dominant position in society!
Baulking because of living under those they once ruled concept seems very plausible

I had taken the discrimination narrative at face value, that maybe Hindus were discriminating against the Muslims in particular.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is a very different view. I had never thought about this aspect, that the Muslims demanded a separate land because they were anxious because of them losing the erstwhile dominant position in society!
Baulking because of living under those they once ruled concept seems very plausible

I had taken the discrimination narrative at face value, that maybe Hindus were discriminating against the Muslims in particular.

No.

In fact, there were active quotas in place, in central services recruitment. Seats were reserved in legislatures. Seats were reserved in educational institutions.

I support those measures, but they had no real impact on Muslim consciousness of victimhood.

 

[KS]

I beg to disagree.

The theory was used politically- naturally. One can hardly expect a bare-faced demand for the restoration of the Sultanate or of the Mughal Empire to have succeeded. What else was left? At root, it was not the anxiety of the working class Muslims, but of the professional and salaried classes among them, anxiety regarding the scope for growth embedded in an enormously larger different community, that drove them. They could not, would not accept that they would be a minority. Their remembered past demanded at the least parity, and the demand was packaged in different ways.

His point was primarily to rebutt that it was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who propounded TNT for the first time when other were all living in absolute harmony (your claim) . According to Bang Galore it was Shah Waliullah who first propounded it and Savarkar merely retorted.

But your point is how the TNT by Jinnah was packaged and marketed.

They could not, would not accept that they would be a minority. Their remembered past demanded at the least parity,

Unreasonable IMO. Why would they NOT accept being a minority when they were exactly that ? This actually goes against the very concept of democracy. This mentality does indeed point to the fact they discrimination or not, the thought of living in a Hindu majority country baulked them.

 

[Contrarian]

No.

In fact, there were active quotas in place, in central services recruitment. Seats were reserved in legislatures. Seats were reserved in educational institutions.

I support those measures, but they had no real impact on Muslim consciousness of victimhood.

Then in anycase, the point seems valid. They did not want to lose the dominating position in Indian society. They wanted the past of muslim rule back?

Can you elaborate more on the reasons for the Muslim consciousness of victimhood?

 

[KS]

Same thought would have gone through Jinnah's mind about Ajmal Kasab and gang wrt the thoughts were going in his mind for direct action day.

Fair point.

Can you elaborate more on the reasons for the Muslim consciousness of victimhood?

Well I can think of one thing possibly.

They thought a repeat of the reconquista would be performed in India, that the Hindus would be as unforgiving as the catholics for the past history and wanted to prevent that by getting a new country.

 

[Bang Galore]

Here's the basic point: India refuses to allow Pakistan to question these individuals first-hand. Put simply, India wants Pakistan to conduct a serious and far-reaching investigation of this kind purely by remote control and through indirect evidence. The case of Jundal fits the pattern: once again, India snatched him away, not allowing Pakistan to question him directly.

Oh, is that why he had a Pakistani passport & the GoP desperately tried claiming him as their citizen this preventing extradition for almost a whole year. That. according to you was only to enable them to question him...Yeah, right!

No matter how much you guys deny it, the pattern is that GoI has deliberately obstructed justice by refusing to cooperate with Pakistan on the matter. GoI is much more interested in grandstanding and political point scoring than in resolving this matter. Now they will hang Kasab, and his testimony will go with him, with only the GoI's word that his testimony was not coerced or doctored.

The only ones denying anything are you chaps. Whether you chaps actually believe your own denials is a moot question & I would be deeply saddened to find out that you believe what you say here.

Kasab's testimony is largely irrelevant. Once sentenced to death, his testimony will always be tinged with suspicion. Questioning a small actor, even if the actual tool will hardly answer the questions that are better put to those who organised it. Conspiracy theories can only get you so far.

 

[Ticker]

It was never a real thing. A Muslim was never discriminated against. Their leadership felt, at a surface level, that there might've; at a deeper level, perhaps, they feared the loss of their dominant position in the sub-continent. What the fan-boys gleefully and wrongly describe as 1000 years of Muslim rule. Setting out with that need to establish ab initio superiority, how could any system have suited the situation?

Indeed a sweeping generalization.

 

[Joe Shearer]

His point was primarily to rebutt that it was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who propounded TNT for the first time when other were all living in absolute harmony (your claim) . According to Bang Galore it was Shah Waliullah who first propounded it and Savarkar merely retorted.

But your point is how the TNT by Jinnah was packaged and marketed.




Unreasonable IMO. Why would they NOT accept being a minority when they were exactly that ? This actually goes against the very concept of democracy. This mentality does indeed point to the fact they discrimination or not, the thought of living in a Hindu majority country baulked them.

As a matter of fact, I avoided answering Bang Galore because it is a complex matter. After reading Ayesha Jalal on the subject, I came away with the clear impression that while Waliullah's role in the growth of fundamentalism in the sub-continent was considerable, his basic stance was on the ecumenical Muslim rejection of political association with non-Muslims. This was a generic rejection, and is akin, according to some commentators, to the exhortations of Hazrat Mohammed not to allow non-Muslims on the Arabian Peninsula.

It was not in that sense specific to India, to the Hindu Muslim interaction.

I continue to hold that the TNT had rather more recent roots than suggested by Bang Galore, and was an invention to justify the demand a separate, protective constitutional arrangement (not, at that time, a demand for partition).

As far as Muslim acceptance of their minority status is concerned, there is a paradox at work here.

As long as a minority does not feel that it will be boxed in in some manner, it does not care. InSwitzerland, the convention is that if two Swiss are in conversation, say, in German, and a French-speaking companion joins them, they all switch to French. Subtle, but telling.

Unfortunately, Muslims apparently felt an undercurrent of triumphalism among their Hindu interlocutors. How much of it was based on reality, on actual incident during interactions, is hard to tell across these decades. Much of it is supposition and conjecture, based on anecdotal evidence; there is no concrete evidence of such exchanges in published academic literature.

If there had been no triumphal expression then (it is certainly present today, six decades later), we might have had a much milder anxiety attack. History tells us that the minority was morbidly fearful of being reduced to, say, Dalit status.

It is difficult to reconstruct mental states from those days. This is at best a hypothesis.

 

[Contrarian]

Well I can think of one thing possibly.

They thought a repeat of the reconquista would be performed in India, that the Hindus would be as unforgiving as the catholics for the past history and wanted to prevent that by getting a new country.

But in modern times, that is impossible..even if the Hindus and Sikhs wanted it. It simply cannot be done. They would have known it, or rather should have known it.

 

[KS]

But in modern times, that is impossible..even if the Hindus and Sikhs wanted it. It simply cannot be done. They would have known it, or rather should have known it.

Well it is just one possible reason according to me. The Muslims had good enough reason to think so, even if it looks impossible.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Fair point.



Well I can think of one thing possibly.

They thought a repeat of the reconquista would be performed in India, that the Hindus would be as unforgiving as the catholics for the past history and wanted to prevent that by getting a new country.

This is all conjecture.

None of this was actually articulated, far less debated. For that, we must hold the collective Indian political leadership, including the Muslim leadership, responsible. Fear fed on fear.

Indeed a sweeping generalization.

Do you have any facts to the contrary?

 

[KS]

As far as Muslim acceptance of their minority status is concerned, there is a paradox at work here.

As long as a minority does not feel that it will be boxed in in some manner, it does not care. InSwitzerland, the convention is that if two Swiss are in conversation, say, in German, and a French-speaking companion joins them, they all switch to French. Subtle, but telling.

I admit they had very good reasons to believe that they will be boxed. They feared a retaliation and they had a historical precedent.

History tells us that the minority was morbidly fearful of being reduced to, say, Dalit status.
.

Hope they are not ruing it now, considering the affirmative action and the advantages the Dalits enjoy today.

This is all conjecture.

None of this was actually articulated, far less debated. For that, we must hold the collective Indian political leadership, including the Muslim leadership, responsible. Fear fed on fear.

That was just my hypothesis.

As the Iberian peninsula was the only other place where a long running Muslim rule was defeated and the previous rulers came to power.

If I were in that place, I would certainly be apprehensive of that.

 

[Developereo]

His point was primarily to rebutt that it was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who propounded TNT for the first time when other were all living in absolute harmony (your claim) . According to Bang Galore it was Shah Waliullah who first propounded it and Savarkar merely retorted.

Is it not the radical Hindu position that Islam is an alien invasion into the subcontinent, thereby making its adherents also aliens? That it is fundamentally incompatible with the native Dharmic faiths? Also, there is the oft-repeated distinction between the 'converts' and the 'strong' natives who resisted conversion.

By that mindset, the TNT has always been a part of radical Hindu thought since the original invasions.

They did not want to lose the dominating position in Indian society. They wanted the past of muslim rule back?

While I don't deny that some Muslim leaders might have pushed that notion, can you seriously believe that any common Muslim, with his feet halfway on the ground, could have seen any realistic way of achieving that and, therefore, subscribing to it?

Oh, is that why he had a Pakistani passport & the GoP desperately tried claiming him as their citizen this preventing extradition for almost a whole year. That. according to you was only to enable them to question him...Yeah, right!

Criminals have ways of getting any passport they want; means nothing.

Tell me how India would react if an Indian passport holder was caught in a foreign country recruiting for terrorism? Would they want him in custody to question him? What if it was possibly a Pakistani national brandishing an Indian passport?

Kasab's testimony is largely irrelevant. Once sentenced to death, his testimony will always be tinged with suspicion. Questioning a small actor, even if the actual tool will hardly answer the questions that are better put to those who organised it.

Kasab is one of the few remaining actors of that day. That makes his testimony extremely valuable. As for those who allegedly 'organised it', that is the whole point of contention and the aim of any investigation.

Conspiracy theories can only get you so far.

When access to evidence is withheld, all kinds of theories will fill the vacuum.

 

[Bang Galore]

Then in anycase, the point seems valid. They did not want to lose the dominating position in Indian society. They wanted the past of muslim rule back?

That was the essential part of their reasoning & of course the theologians kept trying to wipe out alien influences on Islam (read Hindu) & realising that it was almost impossible to do so in the daily lives of Muslims when they were living side by side, eventually proposing that Muslims ought to separate themselves completely from the the Hindus i.e. "a theory of distance" best propounded by Shah Waliullah who suggested that Muslims should live at such distance from Hindus as to not even see the light from a Hindu home. Add that to the fact that Muslim power had been wiped out with the Mughals being humiliated by Nadir Shah, a Shia who was as worse as the other infidels and the rise of Hindus with better education under the British & you begin to understand the growing frustration of the intellectuals, the feudals & the Ulema culminating in the TNT.

Can you elaborate more on the reasons for the Muslim consciousness of victimhood?

There is no easy way of putting it. Essentially their claim of victimisation was based simply on the fact that many on the "Hindu" side were not agreeable to give the Muslims, representation greater than the numbers merited. Disagreement on that score was the essence of their theories of victimisation than any actual case. Add all that I have said above with the fact that some Muslims of the subcontinent could not reconcile to the passage of time & the diminishing of their power & you had a potent mix culminating in support for the TNT.

 

[KS]

Is it not the radical Hindu position that Islam is an alien invasion into the subcontinent, thereby making its adherents also aliens? That it is fundamentally incompatible with the native Dharmic faiths? Also, there is the oft-repeated distinction between the 'converts' and the 'strong' natives who resisted conversion.

By that mindset, the TNT has always been a part of radical Hindu thought since the original invasions..

Yes...but we are not talking about what each one had in his mind and said to his friend over a cup of chai and then forgot about it. We are talking about the first concrete political organization or a theory propounded to the public at large which later gained political contour. The two are distinct.

Anyway I'm out of this partition talk with my oft repeated quote - Partition was good for both the countries and let's move on.