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

[Indischer]

You know there is a problem with that argument. It is theoretically sound, but as long as faith is an important part of people's lives, 'welfare' will include some sort of accomodation on that front. If people are not willing to live in the purely rationalistic structure you want to give them, favors of some sort will have to be given.

Agreed. But I believe that welfare ought to be provided on economic indicators, and afflictions like poverty, malnutrition and illiteracy are not specific to certain castes/religions.

 

[FaujHistorian]

....
Technically the british did have a policy of making govt jobs more easily available for the kind of education Hindus were taking up. There was an extensive suspicion of the same among the muslim community. Sir Syed Ahmed was among the first to start changing it.

FYI dear.

There was only one kind of education being offered in public schools.

And most of the Muslim families switched over to these schools long before 1857.

This was a trait pretty common among all Hindustanis. They dumped Persian official language and with few years adopted English as official language.

Even goras were astonished to see this sudden switch that was unseen in other areas under British East India Company (BEIC) control such as China, Malaya, Africa and Middle EAst.



The problem Sir Syed fought against was the Mullahs and Khilafites who wanted Muslim youth to quit going into english medium or mainstream schools.

No the goras looked at all of us brown people who are eager to work with Biritish.

Heck even Gandhi Ji became honorary Luftain in British army.


Please try to go beyond the grade school government history books.


Thank you

ok savarkar asked for tnt.. but so many others were against it/ why do muslims obey RSS? are muslims and RS same in thought?

Muslims never obeyed RSS,

It was Congressi Hindus who finally got colored in safron and started proposing the idea of

---- Kicking out Muslim Majority Provinces (MMPs) and chopping them off from Hindu Majority Provinces (HMPs).

Hope you understand.

Muslims were minority, and they could have gone hoarse crying about TNT for 100 years and still won't get anywhere unless HMPs were chopped off from MMPs.

Got it?

 

[funtoosh]

FYI dear.

There was only one kind of education being offered in public schools.

And most of the Muslim families switched over to these schools long before 1857.

This was a trait pretty common among all Hindustanis. They dumped Persian official language and with few years adopted English as official language.

Even goras were astonished to see this sudden switch that was unseen in other areas under British East India Company (BEIC) control such as China, Malaya, Africa and Middle EAst.



The problem Sir Syed fought against was the Mullahs and Khilafites who wanted Muslim youth to quit going into english medium or mainstream schools.

No the goras looked at all of us brown people who are eager to work with Biritish.

Heck even Gandhi Ji became honorary Luftain in British army.


Please try to go beyond the grade school government history books.


Thank you

when muslims ruled hindus learnt Urdu, when british ruled hindus learnt English. today the whole world is learning English.. these things don't say anything. language is only a business / administrative tool.

 

[KRAIT]

Theory can be coined by anyone, one who wants to get it implemented is what matters.

Personally I feel, whatever happened, it happened for good.

 

[funtoosh]

FYI dear.

There was only one kind of education being offered in public schools.

And most of the Muslim families switched over to these schools long before 1857.

This was a trait pretty common among all Hindustanis. They dumped Persian official language and with few years adopted English as official language.

Even goras were astonished to see this sudden switch that was unseen in other areas under British East India Company (BEIC) control such as China, Malaya, Africa and Middle EAst.



The problem Sir Syed fought against was the Mullahs and Khilafites who wanted Muslim youth to quit going into english medium or mainstream schools.

No the goras looked at all of us brown people who are eager to work with Biritish.

Heck even Gandhi Ji became honorary Luftain in British army.


Please try to go beyond the grade school government history books.


Thank you



Muslims never obeyed RSS,

It was Congressi Hindus who finally got colored in safron and started proposing the idea of

---- Kicking out Muslim Majority Provinces (MMPs) and chopping them off from Hindu Majority Provinces (HMPs).

Hope you understand.

Muslims were minority, and they could have gone hoarse crying about TNT for 100 years and still won't get anywhere unless HMPs were chopped off from MMPs.

Got it?

I disagree to that. As you rightly pointed out Savarkar propagated TNT, I respect him a true nationalist although don't agree entirely with him. However the congress were not very keen on having lose federation and separate electorate.

 

[FaujHistorian]

when muslims ruled hindus learnt Urdu, when british ruled hindus learnt English. today the whole world is learning English.. these things don't say anything. language is only a business / administrative tool.

Correction.


When Muslims ruled Dilli, everyone including Muslims and Hindus were using Persian as the official language while maintaining their state's language inside their homes.

When British controlled a region, everyone including Muslims and Hindus were using English as the official language while maintaining their state's language inside their homes.

Urdu is a later incarnation of 18th and 19th century thanks to the sepoys in company security force and these sepoys were mostly Punjabis and Pashtuns.

Hindi is even newer 20th century incarnation.

Theory can be coined by anyone, one who wants to get it implemented is what matters.

Personally I feel, whatever happened, it happened for good.

Absolutely.

whatever happened, it happened for good.

the only issue is that grown up should not use childish history to support what happened.


Peace

 

[scorpionx]

I think we are mis-interpreting the entire era. The idea of India- welded into one country from east to west was more thoroughly drilled during the 1920s onwards till 1947 when the Independence Movement brought everyone together. I think Lalaji or even Bal Gangadhar Tilak (whose reviving of the Ganesh Festival in Bomay is actually a right wing nationalist act) we still struggling to define what would come. It was under gandhi that the final principles were agreed upon- 'secularism'- the necessary partiticipation of both Hindus and Muslims- as well as removal of untouchability- participation of large trodden people- was a result of the nature of the movement shifting from elites to a mass based approach..

Mr.Gandhi's idea of secularism was flawed in some way. He splendidly failed to understand the sentiments of Muslim educated class inspired by the life of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. The Muslim upper echelons who were at the forefront of dividing the Subcontinent were very much inclined towards a Pakistan within India.This class abhorred the Muslim reactionaries,the faction which once issued fatwa to kill Sir Syed when he started his quest for a different world for Indian Muslims.

Gandhi along with other leaders like Maulana Azad, Zafar Ali Khan,Saukat Ali etc completely overlooked the absurdity of Khilafat movement (which demands a separate thread for itself).Congressi leadership, overwhelmed by the super flux support in the country disastrously ignored the hidden but swift flow of antagonism of the educated,liberal professional class among the Muslims.Their ignorance about the liberal,democratic and tolerant Islam had grave and monumental consequences which finally led to partition.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Mr.Gandhi's idea of secularism was flawed in some way. He splendidly failed to understand the sentiments of Muslim educated class inspired by the life of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. The Muslim upper echelons who were at the forefront of dividing the Subcontinent were very much inclined towards a Pakistan within India.This class abhorred the Muslim reactionaries,the faction which once issued fatwa to kill Sir Syed when he started his quest for a different world for Indian Muslims.

Gandhi along with other leaders like Maulana Azad, Zafar Ali Khan,Saukat Ali etc completely overlooked the absurdity of Khilafat movement (which demands a separate thread for itself).Congressi leadership, overwhelmed by the super flux support in the country disastrously ignored the hidden but swift flow of antagonism of the educated,liberal professional class among the Muslims.Their ignorance about the liberal,democratic and tolerant Islam had grave and monumental consequences which finally led to partition.

Thank you.

I could not have said it better.


Just to add.


It is really interesting to read Mr. Jinnah's 1948 Interview by New York Times correspondent.

I'll paraphrase here (Pl forgive any omissions)


NYT - So Mr. Jinnah you got your Pakistan
Jinnah - This is not my Pakistan

NYT - What do you mean Sir?
Jinnah - What we wanted was from Congress to give us the same deal that Egyptian Copts got from Saad Zaghlol Pasha.




So my (Fauji's) question to you all is, What the heck Jinnah was talking about in 1948?

Who was Saad Pasha,

And what deal he gave to Copts.



peace

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Theory can be coined by anyone, one who wants to get it implemented is what matters.

Personally I feel, whatever happened, it happened for good.

That's actually how most Indians feel today. I guess I also feel relieved. But in 1950s your priorities would have been more led by 'if there was a chance to avoid the bloodshed of the partition' type thinking.

 

[KRAIT]

That's actually how most Indians feel today. I guess I also feel relieved. But in 1950s your priorities would have been more led by 'if there was a chance to avoid the bloodshed of the partition' type thinking.

Yup. I just learn from history, not dwell on it.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Mr.Gandhi's idea of secularism was flawed in some way. He splendidly failed to understand the sentiments of Muslim educated class inspired by the life of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. The Muslim upper echelons who were at the forefront of dividing the Subcontinent were very much inclined towards a Pakistan within India.This class abhorred the Muslim reactionaries,the faction which once issued fatwa to kill Sir Syed when he started his quest for a different world for Indian Muslims.

Gandhi along with other leaders like Maulana Azad, Zafar Ali Khan,Saukat Ali etc completely overlooked the absurdity of Khilafat movement (which demands a separate thread for itself).Congressi leadership, overwhelmed by the super flux support in the country disastrously ignored the hidden but swift flow of antagonism of the educated,liberal professional class among the Muslims.Their ignorance about the liberal,democratic and tolerant Islam had grave and monumental consequences which finally led to partition.

On the contrary I think the stand they took was right. 1st- recognizing that 'faith' was going to be a part of people's lives in the subcontinent for a long time, they said- unlike France- that 'secularism' means equal respect for all relegions. This means essentially that customs of personal laws is for the communities to decide upon. If people like @Bang Galore for instance believe that we could have taken the stand in 1947 that relegion will not be a part of society at all, that was really not practical.

On the other hand on issues of representation they did not give in to Jinnah and preferred to partition. No matter how much Jinnah and leading educated muslims thought- leading Paksitanis say today- the idea of seperate representation is GENUINELY flawed and creates fundamental irreversable weaknesses and fractures for long long time. The blacks were denied rights of 100s of years- do you see the US reserving representation for them? WHile pakistanis say that 'hypocrisy' of the congress can be seen in the fact that they refused separate representation for muslims- let me remind you that Abmedkar was also of the opinion that untouchables needed separate representation. His demands were also rejected and he understood why, and unlike Jinnah, thought long term constitutional approaches to be the right solution. Sure India still grapples with untouchability, but not like in the 60s. We will continue to proceed in this direction until one day we find complete solutions. Congress' stand on the Hindu-Muslim issue was also the same. If we are a country, we can't reserve representation for anyone. And that yardstick is standard for every country around the world.

 

[adwityagrata]

Care to explain to everyone here how Hindutva is different from the present democratic set-up that we have?

So you mean to say the ideology of Hindu Nationalism has existed since the time the Parsis migrated to India. Lovely, go on.

Hindutva is the way of life for Indian Hindus, not all Indians. To prove their stereotype of Muslims, if Hindutva supporters bring in cases of Muslims killing Buddhists in Afghanistan, it's a valid argument?

So, the fight for Hindutva is inspired by the Constitution of India? LOL. Please present the relevant clauses from our Constitution that have inspired Hindutva.

Do you even know the goals of the Indian Mujahideen?? Yasin Bhatkal is an IM operative. Now go figure.

Who made you this 'fundamental' promise during partition that India is a Hindu Rashtra. Again, anything to back your claims ? I wonder who's making strawman arguments here.

I too agree. Without you rejecting your affinity to Hindutva, I too don't see any end to this argument. I am not in favour of granting favours to minorities, neither am I in favour of harassing them under the name of conforming to Hindu cultural values and ethos.

Present democratic set up does not assign for Uniform Civil code. It has also made permanent a temporary installment of article 370 made specially for a muslim majority state of India. Hindutva seeks uniform justice and rejection of special status and privileges. That is just 2 such e.g. There are more. If you were honest, this would have become self evident. You are willfully ignorant about his as you are willfully ignorant about what Hindutva really entails.

You are again twisting Hindutva defined as a way of life that represents our Hindu culture and civilization and its political protection into Hindu nationalism as narrowly defined again by you and your kind. Again the pathetic attempt at demolishing strawman. The need to protect and encourage our culture and civilization has always existed in India.

I have already given two e.g. from the constitutions that inspired Hindutva i.e. uniform civil code & Art. 370. Your intellectual dishonesty is glaring.

Before the jaipur bombing IM sent email to Indian media tell about "demolish the faiths (all religions apart from Islam) of the infidels of India". That is who they are. Inspired by hate and demonstrating pure evil. Only a islamic terrorist sympathizer would equate something so horrific with Hindu Nationalism.

If you are going to deny the fundamentals of TNT and subsequent partition, its basic premise and again pretend ignorance then there is nothing more to be said. Your hypocrisy is self evident to everybody. The majority Hindus have not written Hinduism into the constitution because the secular nature of the constitution is what constitutes Hindutva. That is why the National motto says "Satyameva Jayate" from the Mundaka Upanishad. That is why the nation is called "Bharat", that is why the national anthem is in sanskrit (tatsama) and the national song is in sanskrit. That is why the Indian national flower is the Lotus. That is why the Indian national calendar is the Hindu Saka calender. That is why the national animal is Tiger thought to represent Yogi Shiva's people. That is why our national bird is a Peacock associated with Krishna (feather in his headband) and Shiva progeny's God of war, Karthikeya bird as the steed. That is why our national Aquatic Animal is the Ganges River Dolphin symbolizing the purity of the Ganges. That is why our natonal tree is the banyan tree considered holy by the Hindus and has great significance in Hindu scriptures. That is why India is personified as Bharat Mata, a mother goddess.

You have again resorted to stawman argument of harassing minorities under the name of Hindu cultural values. This kind of strawman needs no demolishing by me. Its only continues to reflect your prejudice. You can continue to spin such strawmen and demolish them.

 

[FaujHistorian]

On the contrary I think the stand they took was right. 1st- recognizing that 'faith' was going to be a part of people's lives in the subcontinent for a long time, .

Oh bhai sahib

Try to understand @scorpionx (Scorp, please correct me if I paraphrased it wrong).

All the Mullahs the sole owners of "faith" were in Gandhi's camp.

Congress in its stupidity accepted Mullahtic faith and reject the secular minded Muslims.

See this the problem when we try to fit history into our thinking, instead of fitting our thinking into an honest history.


So many Indian posters set up a Muslim bogey man and then ignoring reality keep on harping on the made up stuff.

Your first sentence is doing the same. Setting up a bogeyman.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Oh bhai sahib

Try to understand @scorpionx (Scorp, please correct me if I paraphrased it wrong).

All the Mullahs the sole owners of "faith" were in Gandhi's camp.

Congress in its stupidity accepted Mullahtic faith and reject the secular minded Muslims.

See this the problem when we try to fit history into our thinking, instead of fitting our thinking into an honest history.


So many Indian posters set up a Muslim bogey man and then ignoring reality keep on harping on the made up stuff.

Your first sentence is doing the same. Setting up a bogeyman.

TO the best of our understanding of history- forget the camps
a) Jinnah was the undisputed leader of Muslim Leage and large sections of muslims
b) his key demand- protected representation of muslims interests-
c) the above was rejected and this led to partition right?

Question - could Congress have taken a different decision? I think not- the consequences of accomodation there would have had long term consequences.

In an aggravated environment muslim was the bogey man- and yes during the second world war there was an extreme hindu right which, taking on Hitler's cue thought they could have 'one India' where the land would be one and muslims be kept at the boot-heels (like how Hitler was keeping his conquered peoeple). BUt congress NEVER subscribed to that idelogoly or the muslim bogeyman. For them the question was what the political formula represented.

 

[FaujHistorian]

TO the best of our understanding of history- forget the camps
a) Jinnah was the undisputed leader of Muslim Leage and large sections of muslims
b) his key demand- protected representation of muslims interests-
c) the above was rejected and this led to partition right?

Question - could Congress have taken a different decision? I think not- the consequences of accomodation there would have had long term consequences.
.

Present democratic set up does not assign for Uniform Civil code. It has also made permanent a temporary installment of article 370 made specially for a muslim majority state of India. Hindutva seeks uniform justice and rejection of special status and privileges. .

I think you are confusing two things.

1. --- Hindutva and Congress behavior specific to 1947 Hindu Majority Provinces (HMPs)

with

2. --- Political stubbornness of Hindutva and Congress brigades specific to 1947 Muslim Majority Provinces (MMPs).


#1 is easy to explain. Obviously you are just keeping large majority happy and small minority pliant and quiet.

#2 is the issue of this thread. When Congress and Hindutva totally and utterly failed to grasp even the basic understanding.


peace