Congressi Propaganda: Hindu Majority provinces and Muslim Majority provinces can't live together

[Dushmann]

Self delete

 

[Indischer]

Chaudhry Rehmat Ali was a bit of a nut, if you will. Very few people heeded his plans and visions. He was not that important. Quaid-e-Azam M. A. Jinnah had no time for him. In fact there was mutual disdain between them.

The word Pakistan, I have learned, was popularized by the Hindu press of Lahore. It caught on for whatever reason. So Ch. Rehmat Ali gets to be the originator of the name, Pakistan. But that is where his legacy starts and stops. I wonder if anybody could have seen sense in his pseudo-fascist ideas?

Let me re-iterate, among Muslim leaders Pakistan was not a certainty until very late.

Any references for that would be helpful?

Lala lajpat Rai was also active with the Arya Samaj, a Hindu reformist movement. His views were increasingly pro-Hindu(though not anti-Muslim by any sense) but he died in 1928 and the Indian Congress never advocated his views either.

V.D.Savarkar, on the other hand, was the real deal. He used to describe himself as a Hindu Atheist and yet the guy who coined the word Hindutva, stressed that it was not the same as Hinduism, and advocated the concept of Akhand Bharat. By stressing that the Hindus were one Nation in his essay Hindutva:Who is a Hindu in 1923, he implied that Muslims could not be part of the Hindu nation. So I'd consider him to be the earliest proponent of the Two-Nation theory.

It's another matter altogether that the INC never took his views seriously either. Thus, we see that although there were many on either side who advocated partition, it could not have materialzed until advocated by M.A.Jinnah & the Muslim League.

 

[FaujHistorian]

wasn't Choudhry Rahmat Ali's Pakistan declaration in 1933 a sign that many Muslims too saw partition in favorable light?

Ch Rehmat was peddling his theories during the "Round Table Conferences" hosted in London by the British gov.

Every Muslim leader of some weight was against Ch. Rehmat Ali. What you hear about Ch. Rehmat Ali now is the 3rd grade school sarkari history.

BTW do you know why Brits called those meetings "Round Table"?

One has to read King Arthur's military history to understand that.

.. So, the one who made those statements in 1924 was Lala Lajpat Rai? Classic!

Lala Lajpat Rai controlled all the money flow from Punjabi Donors for congress of INdia. Punjab being the richest provinces, provided huge amount of donation from all the big businesses houses mostly owned by Hindus. (Punjabi Muslims dominated landed aristocracy).

Congress went in the direction where its donors wanted it to. This is true from the early days of Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak and the Textile mill owners who donated money back then.

No specific statement. It was just a guess.

Not to make you feel bad (I respect your posts)

most of the INdian and Pakistani posters use "guess" to talk about the other party.

As always that guess is wrong.




peace

 

[Indischer]

Not to make you feel bad (I respect your posts)

most of the INdian and Pakistani posters use "guess" to talk about the other party.

As always that guess is wrong.




peace

Well, if you read his essay on Hindutva, you'll know why I hazarded that guess. It was written in 1923, an year earlier to Lala's article.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Well, if you read his essay on Hindutva, you'll know why I hazarded that guess. It was written in 1923, an year earlier to Lala's article.

Which article? Did he propose partitioning of India like Lajpat Rai did in 1922?

 

[Indischer]

Ch Rehmat was peddling his theories during the "Round Table Conferences" hosted in London by the British gov.

Every Muslim leader of some weight was against Ch. Rehmat Ali. What you hear about Ch. Rehmat Ali now is the 3rd grade school sarkari history.

BTW do you know why Brits called those meetings "Round Table"?

One has to read King Arthur's military history to understand that.

I gave this analogy to stress that Lala Lajpat Rai's opinion too was not a popular one within the Congress. Safe to say that the majority of Indian leaders at that time were more concerned with how to oust the British than think about partition.

the Round Table implies that there is no leader/head/heirarchy amongst the subjects seated on the Table. Might also mean the discussions went round and round without reaching any conclusion

Which article? Did he propose partitioning of India like Lajpat Rai did in 1922?

No. He wrote an essay titled Hindutva:Who is a Hindu? in 1923. Although he never advocated partition and explicitly opposed it later on, he nevertheless suggested that Hindus are one Nation, implying Hindus and Muslims would find it difficult to coexist. he also questioned the loyalty of Muslims towards India. So, in a way, he was the first expounder of the Two-Nation theory.

 

[FaujHistorian]

..... in 1923. Although he never advocated partition and explicitly opposed it later on, he nevertheless suggested that Hindus are one Nation, implying Hindus and Muslims would find it difficult to coexist.

he [Rehmat Ali] also questioned the loyalty of Muslims towards India. So, in a way, he was the first expounder of the Two-Nation theory.

Ironic that your post has the same style in 2013 as did the Hindu intellectuals and writers in 1940s and Jinnah was forced to say in his presidential address to the All India Muslim League annual session at Delhi on 24 April 1943.


"I think you will bear me out that when we passed the Lahore resolution we had not used the word ‘Pakistan’. Who gave us this word'? (Cries of “Hindus”) Let me tell you it is their fault. They started damning this resolution on the ground that it was Pakistan. They are really ignorant of the Muslim movement. They fathered this word upon us."

 

[Indischer]

Ironic that your post has the same style in 2013 as did the Hindu intellectuals and writers in 1940s and Jinnah was forced to say in his presidential address to the All India Muslim League annual session at Delhi on 24 April 1943.

"I think you will bear me out that when we passed the Lahore resolution we had not used the word ‘Pakistan’. Who gave us this word'? (Cries of “Hindus”) Let me tell you it is their fault. They started damning this resolution on the ground that it was Pakistan. They are really ignorant of the Muslim movement. They fathered this word upon us."

Sirji, The 'He' here meant V.D.Savarkar, not Rehmat Ali! Wasn't I referring to his essay in the previous sentence? Why would I skip to Chaudhry Sahib suddenly?

And what style is it that is common between me and Hindu intellectuals and writers from 1940s?

 

[FaujHistorian]

No. He wrote an essay titled Hindutva:Who is a Hindu? in 1923. Although he never advocated partition and explicitly opposed it later on, he nevertheless suggested that Hindus are one Nation, implying Hindus and Muslims would find it difficult to coexist. he also questioned the loyalty of Muslims towards India. So, in a way, he was the first expounder of the Two-Nation theory.

you are talking about Savarkar.

OK your post #41 referenced three people. I get it now.

Please add links and numbers as this happens to be a discussion about history.

Thank you

 

[anjaneyashruti]

No. He wrote an essay titled Hindutva:Who is a Hindu? in 1923. Although he never advocated partition and explicitly opposed it later on, he nevertheless suggested that Hindus are one Nation, implying Hindus and Muslims would find it difficult to coexist. he also questioned the loyalty of Muslims towards India. So, in a way, he was the first expounder of the Two-Nation theory.

No, you have got it wrong. Sarvarkar's idea was muslims are basically Hindus and he wanted to bring muslims back into 'Hindutva', as defined by that atheist. i.e. Hindu culture, a way of life deeply rooted in Indian civilization and to the land of India.

He questioned muslim loyalty in that context, by their support for the Khilafat movement. Which is why he opposed partition too. Because it made that divide permanent.

Too many people talk about Savarkar, without really understanding him.

 

[FaujHistorian]

No, you have got it wrong. Sarvarkar's idea was muslims are basically Hindus and he wanted to bring muslims back into 'Hindutva', as defined by that atheist. i.e. Hindu culture, a way of life deeply rooted in Indian civilization and to the land of India.

He questioned muslim loyalty in that context, by their support for the Khilafat movement. Which is why he opposed partition too. Because it made that divide permanent.

Too many people talk about Savarkar, without really understanding him.

One of the biggest supporter of Khilafat movement was none other than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. While Jinnah opposed Khilafat movement.

peace

 

[anjaneyashruti]

One of the biggest supporter of Khilafat movement was none other than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. While Jinnah opposed Khilafat movement.

peace

Exactly ........ this bullshit 'secularism' and muslim appeasement started with Gandhi.

He was a great man, No one said he was perfect.

 

[Indischer]

No, you have got it wrong. Sarvarkar's idea was muslims are basically Hindus and he wanted to bring muslims back into 'Hindutva', as defined by that atheist. i.e. Hindu culture, a way of life deeply rooted in Indian civilization and to the land of India.

He questioned muslim loyalty in that context, by their support for the Khilafat movement. Which is why he opposed partition too. Because it made that divide permanent.

Too many people talk about Savarkar, without really understanding him.

I know in what context he doubted the loyalty of Muslims. But who is he to demand that Indian Muslims follow the way of life adopted by Indian Hindus? He did not say these are Bharateeya ways of life, but specifically Hindu ways of life.

Many muslims too might have understood it better had he stated he wanted to preserve 'Bharateeyata', but why should any Muslim ever seek acceptance into 'Hindutva'??

you are talking about Savarkar.

OK your post #41 referenced three people. I get it now.

Please add links and numbers as this happens to be a discussion about history.

Thank you

Righto.

this might interest you a bit: http://www.savarkar.org/content/pdfs/en/essentials_of_hindutva.v001.pdf

 

[anjaneyashruti]

I know in what context he doubted the loyalty of Muslims. But who is he to demand that Indian Muslims follow the way of life adopted by Indian Hindus? He did not say these are Bharateeya ways of life, but specifically Hindu ways of life.

Many muslims too might have understood it better had he stated he wanted to preserve 'Bharateeyata', but why should any Muslim ever seek acceptance into 'Hindutva'??

Bharateeya way of life IS Hindutva. There is nothing else but Hindu culture, civilization and traditions that defines India or Bharat. The Bloody name itself is from an Hindu Scripture

It is the Muslim prejudice and hate that prevents them from accepting this reality. Savarkar was fighting against excatly this kind of Prejudice that insisted there is something separate between Bharateeya and Hindutva.

Does that answer your question ?

 

[Indischer]

Bharateeya way of life IS Hindutva. There is nothing else but Hindu culture, civilization and traditions that defines India or Bharat. The Bloody name itself is from an Hindu Scripture

It is the Muslim prejudice and hate that prevents them from accepting this reality. Savarkar was fighting against excatly this kind of Prejudice that insisted there is something separate between Bharateeya and Hindutva.

Does that answer your question ?

Bharateeyata is about recognising and preserving the syncretic indian way of life, not just the Hindu way of life. It's what India was in 1947, a land of 300 million hindus, but also a land of 100 million muslims. Bharateeyata is about giving every man his space in society, while Hindutva is about standardizing our society along Hindu lines alone.
If you have a problem with calling it Bharateeyata, feel free to call it Hindustaniyat. And yeah, I'm not 'secular' either. I just don't believe that for me to practise my beliefs, the guy next to me need not sacrifice his beliefs.