India vehemently ratifies the two nation theory after 8 decades of denial.

[Sugarcane]

@LoveIcon - First and foremost let me assure you that I am a Hindutvavadi/Hindutvadi. And let me add, @Joe Shearer is not one. So if you throw the accusation on him belonging to a particular camp, honestly you are very wrong. I would even go so far as to say that we have had some serious, shall we say ideological debates here as well, which you can find in our archives. Though he hates Hindutva to the core, it does not mean that I would NOT grant him the respect he deserves. I always value his inputs, especially with regards to historical discussions - which I believe is far superior to what both of us combined can offer.

Now coming back to your accusations. It appears you just lost your composure and cool. Rarely have I seen you flare up so dramatically and rapidly to a fiery tempo. In any case it revolves around two points - both of which are in the past and hence easy to point out.

I haven't accused him for Hindutva nor i am angry. He is one of few respected Indian posters on PDF. I was just teasing him and pointing out that he just jumped in and pulled trigger like ordinary Indian poster here. The camp i meant was group of Indian poster who call each other to derail threads not Hindutva.

i. The Muslim League's formation was legitimate by the laws of the land. And indeed Muslims wishing to have a party of their own is also justifiable. It's just that a substantial number of people wished to chalk a path separate to the one drawn by the general Indian public (which included Muslims) should give one food for thought. Indeed the initial ML was entirely an elitist pro British group, an attribute they continued to have till the early 40s.

Muslims were lagging behind and was in worst economic conditions and they did what they thought fit to get relief. Same thing Hindus also did when they supported British to over through Muslim rulers and establish British rule. They even supported British even against non-Muslim ruler of Punjab. So, I don't see any point.

ii. My point regarding communal parties(in a negative sense) was of those before the establishment of the ML. It seemed as if the creation of the ML was expedient after the gaining of strength of a Hindu chauvinist political party. However, history is testament to the fact that such was not the case. All Hindu political parties worth mentioning were established long after the ML was founded. In fact the Hindu parties mushroomed after the disillusionment with Gandhi began, beginning with the Khilafat Movement.

Dear - No political party can garner support unless she convince them that she can fight for their rights. Support for ML started increasing rapidly in 1940s and by that time attitude of congress towards was quite visible. But still it was not force until Unionist Party joined ML and it was 1946s election when first time ML won significant seats.

And the Akhand Bharat Morcha? Seriously? Heard it for the first time. And you seriously want to compare that with the All India Muslim League?

How about Shiv Sena? But anyway my point was that having political party to represent Muslims and naming it Muslim didn't meant that they were looking for dividing India - but it was indication that main stream party was ignoring them and focusing on majority.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I haven't accused him for Hindutva nor i am angry. He is one of few respected Indian posters on PDF. I was just teasing him and pointing out that he just jumped in and pulled trigger like ordinary Indian poster here. The camp i meant was group of Indian poster who call each other to derail threads not Hindutva.


Muslims were lagging behind and was in worst economic conditions and they did what they thought fit to get relief. Same thing Hindus also did when they supported British to over through Muslim rulers and establish British rule. They even supported British even against non-Muslim ruler of Punjab. So, I don't see any point.



Dear - No political party can garner support unless she convince them that she can fight for their rights. Support for ML started increasing rapidly in 1940s and by that time attitude of congress towards was quite visible. But still it was not force until Unionist Party joined ML and it was 1946s election when first time ML won significant seats.


How about Shiv Sena? But anyway my point was that having political party to represent Muslims and naming it Muslim didn't meant that they were looking for dividing India - but it was indication that main stream party was ignoring them and focusing on majority.

1. No problemo sire.

2. A Muslim party is fine. There is no reason to justify it either. Only that the onus of communalizing politics can't be blamed on Hindu chauvinists. But then whatever happened, happened for good - I guess As for some Hindus and all Sikhs supporting the British in the 1857 - there is enough reason for that, which I am sure you are aware of

3. True.

4. Shiv Sena was created much later. There are more aggressive parties today. But the Muslim League showed the way. Not that I blame them though. It was but natural, albeit unfortunate.

 

[Sugarcane]

Only that the onus of communalizing politics can't be blamed on Hindu chauvinists.

You can't isolate their behavior and give them clean chit. If they were fare and just than people wouldn't have believed leadership of Muslim league.

But then whatever happened, happened for good - I guess

Yeah sure - it happened for good.

As for some Hindus and all Sikhs supporting the British in the 1857 - there is enough reason for that, which I am sure you are aware of

So, when Hindus & Sikhs can support British when it suites them than there shouldn't be any blame on Muslims to support British when it suited them.

4. Shiv Sena was created much later. There are more aggressive parties today. But the Muslim League showed the way. Not that I blame them though. It was but natural, albeit unfortunate.

Not exactly - Just because a minority took stand for her rights and wanted her fare share in power, on top of that the minority was Muslim - this was not acceptable for majority. So, instead of listening to demands majority started doubting the loyalties and started defining Indianess.

 

[Chronos]

Now, I haven't read the comments previous to me, neither would I care to, so this is my subjective take on the issue.

I agree with the two nation theory.

There is no way in my mind that an Abrahamic, evangelical faith of Islam, which uses terminology like 'reverting' back to Islam, or unbelievers roasting in hell, can ever be reconciled with a collection of cults and philosophies, Polytheistic, monotheistic, atheistic in nature.

For those Musims who have remained within India, it is upto the state apparatus to guarantee them quality of life, safety and opportunities for advancement.

As for the creation of Pakistan, I am in agreement with the two nation theory. And the partition should have been carried out over the course of few years.

 

[Dash]

View attachment 30866

Today after 8 decades of self inflicted denial the Hindu majority of India have finally ratified the two nation theory for themselves, by themselves on the democratic ballot box without compulsion or coercion. A resounding victory for the Hindu nationalist leader Narendra Modi indeed is a new chapter in South Asian history. For his Hindu nation he represents a strong leader, for Muslims of India he remains the butcher of Gujarat with blood on his hands.

With his fundamental support coming from the right wing Hindu camp of the BJP being sufficient for such a victory, the BJP did not care about the Muslim vote for the first time ever. They were simply sidelined as no effective election campaign was mounted to attract the Muslim vote. This electoral segregation will have a deep imprint and strategic implications on Indian social makeup of the future. Since the Muslim vote is not included, their participation in an overwhelmingly BJP govt will cease to exist.

For Pakistan it marks the end of an ideological battle spanning 8 decades. This is a victory we must celebrate, as our historic pretext has dawned into the day of correctness and approval. Visionaries who coined the two nation theory saw this day coming 8 decades ago. Its because of their genius, connection to our past, hard work and sacrifices that we Pakistanis today see the dawn of a day which proved us 'historically right' from this side of the border. It also therefore proves that the struggle of our ancestors for independence was both historically correct and strategically right, henceforth the long treacherous journey, that has tested the Pakistani time and again, has been worth it.

What tomorrow holds for India's Muslim is unknown, though for us we can finally rest this debate and move on with our nation building, knowing that our struggle had been righteous despite the tact of Gandhi and Nehru in order to convince our forefathers to the contrary. Those who asked us for proofs and ridiculed us, themselves have democratically ratified the robustness and righteousness of our historic narrative.

Let it be a source of humility and confidence for the Pakistani, as those who conspired to mislead our march in the past, today find themselves marching willingly and proudly along a parallel route, the same route our ancestors had created. Today we can safely write this for the historians that the future of sub continent was shaped by none other than our ancestors.

"The truth can only be delayed"

Aeronaut.

Then this puts us to the task to figure out why it didnt happen once in last 8 decades?? I am sure you have done your analysis, if you have then please share that too.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

You can't isolate their behavior and give them clean chit. If they were fare and just than people wouldn't have believed leadership of Muslim league.
Yeah sure - it happened for good.


So, when Hindus & Sikhs can support British when it suites them than there shouldn't be any blame on Muslims to support British when it suited them.



Not exactly - Just because a minority took stand for her rights and wanted her fare share in power, on top of that the minority was Muslim - this was not acceptable for majority. So, instead of listening to demands majority started doubting the loyalties and started defining Indianess.

Come on sire, there is no one and everyone to blame. Fixing blame is childish. I am not giving anyone a clean chit.

I also fully support the Two Nation Theory. If possible I would request you to read Jaswant Singh's book on him. He was a visionary and India has more reasons to be grateful to Jinnah than to Nehru. Imagine a United India today. Exactly. Imagine a Zarvan and a Manvan, me, Tshering or even Ravi living in one country. It would explode. In no time.

In this regard I am fully in agreement with @Ravi Nair. Our lives are determined by the present real scenario. We don't live in the world of Kabir.

In that case, the Two Nation Theory is true, has been true and will be true for all time. There is absolutely no chance of an absolutist evangelical ideology living together with any other (forget about tolerating Hindu/Sikh/Jain/Atheist and Buddhist faiths) - they just won't mix. Jinnah was smart and utilized it. India should thank him instead of demonizing him all the time.

Of course, a vast majority of Indians, Muslims included don't give two hoots about the TNT - mainly because Pakistan is too foreign to them. But for us, or the Punjabis, or Bengalis etc it makes complete sense. In fact I would go so far as to say that the Partition process should have been kept slow. The entire Indian Army should have been withdrawn from European Occupation duties and used to protect the population transfers. The forceful post independence exodus of Bengali and Sindhi and Punjabi Hindus+Sikhs from the Land of the Pure could easily have been avoided.

I don't blame your state at all. You have chalked out a way for yourself. You have your motives and intentions clear almost right from the beginning. The apparent liberal mindedness of Jinnah to the conservative nature of Zia is not a contradiction - it has all been a part of a process. It happened because the majority of the people of Pakistan, a sovereign country, wanted it to happen. And for that I respect it.

^^Here, by you I mean your State, not you personally. No offence is intended personally.

 

[Chronos]

Come on sire, there is no one and everyone to blame. Fixing blame is childish. I am not giving anyone a clean chit.

I also fully support the Two Nation Theory. If possible I would request you to read Jaswant Singh's book on him. He was a visionary and India has more reasons to be grateful to Jinnah than to Nehru. Imagine a United India today. Exactly. Imagine a Zarvan and a Manvan, me, Tshering or even Ravi living in one country. It would explode. In no time.

In this regard I am fully in agreement with @Ravi Nair. Our lives are determined by the present real scenario. We don't live in the world of Kabir.

In that case, the Two Nation Theory is true, has been true and will be true for all time. There is absolutely no chance of an absolutist evangelical ideology living together with any other (forget about tolerating Hindu/Sikh/Jain/Atheist and Buddhist faiths) - they just won't mix. Jinnah was smart and utilized it. India should thank him instead of demonizing him all the time.

Of course, a vast majority of Indians, Muslims included don't give two hoots about the TNT - mainly because Pakistan is too foreign to them. But for us, or the Punjabis, or Bengalis etc it makes complete sense. In fact I would go so far as to say that the Partition process should have been kept slow. The entire Indian Army should have been withdrawn from European Occupation duties and used to protect the population transfers. The forceful post independence exodus of Bengali and Sindhi and Punjabi Hindus+Sikhs from the Land of the Pure could easily have been avoided.

I don't blame your state at all. You have chalked out a way for yourself. You have your motives and intentions clear almost right from the beginning. The apparent liberal mindedness of Jinnah to the conservative nature of Zia is not a contradiction - it has all been a part of a process. It happened because the majority of the people of Pakistan, a sovereign country, wanted it to happen. And for that I respect it.

^^Here, by you I mean your State, not you personally. No offence is intended personally.

Actually, Jinnah comes out looking better than Gandhi in some aspects.

It was Gandhi, who politicked and supported the Khilafat movement. A Turkish caliphate movement that should have no resonance with Indian Muslims. This eventually led to the debacle of Moplah rebellions.

I know this is Panacea for liberals, and they may denounce me as a bigot, but I believe that for a nation to function, it needs to be sure of it's identity. Just as United States, where every Politician has to affirm he is a Christian (you won't get elected otherwise) and a large section of their polity affirms that United States is a Judeo-Christian country. Yet, a large population of America affirms their secularism, and their Judicial system keeps a check on this.

Debate is part of Hinduism. Without it, Adi Shankaracharya and Sree Narayana Guru would not have made an impact. Just because you are a Hindu, does not give you the right to trample on other religions.

Same with Islam. I think the whole partition process should have been handled over the course of a few years and well planned out.

@SarthakGanguly Islam is Islam Sanatana Dharma is Sanatana Dharma Never the twain shall meet.

Mainly because one is a Definitive religion, the other a mishmash of cults, philosophies and sciences.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Actually, Jinnah comes out looking better than Gandhi in some aspects.

It was Gandhi, who politicked and supported the Khilafat movement. A Turkish caliphate movement that should have no resonance with Indian Muslims. This eventually led to the debacle of Moplah rebellions.

I know this is Panacea for liberals, and they may denounce me as a bigot, but I believe that for a nation to function, it needs to be sure of it's identity. Just as United States, where every Politician has to affirm he is a Christian (you won't get elected otherwise) and a large section of their polity affirms that United States is a Judeo-Christian country. Yet, a large population of America affirms their secularism, and their Judicial system keeps a check on this.

Debate is part of Hinduism. Without it, Adi Shankaracharya and Sree Narayana Guru would not have made an impact. Just because you are a Hindu, does not give you the right to trample on other religions.

Same with Islam. I think the whole partition process should have been handled over the course of a few years and well planned out.

@SarthakGanguly Islam is Islam Sanatana Dharma is Sanatana Dharma Never the twain shall meet.

Mainly because one is a Definitive religion, the other a mishmash of cults, philosophies and sciences.

Picking up from here, I think your post was a bit like the curate's egg.

Quite clearly, Gandhi was utterly wrong in supporting the Khilafat movement, and in whitewashing the Moplah Rebellion. It was, ironically, Jinnah who warned him in categorical terms about releasing the communal virus into politics. In many ways, Jinnah comes out far more prescient and realistic than either Gandhi or the frankly immature Nehru. It is quite another matter that his untimely death robbed a fledgling Pakistan of guidance at a vital moment in her history, and that on the other hand, Nehru matured under the countervailing influence of Patel, and gave us a democratic foundation which has lasted. Even though he and the Congress in general perpetuated the nonsensical one-size-fits-all ideology that they started with, even though clearly he and other leaders were influenced by soft Hindutva elements within Indian society who were particularly active in funding the independence movement - effectively the Congress - and in reaping the benefits during the license raj, even though he allowed his Fabian Socialism affectations to guide Indian industrial policy, his contribution to democracy must not be forgotten.

I wholly disagree with your post from the section regarding being sure of a national identity. Perhaps some other time, it might be worth a detailed discussion.

Regarding Hinduism, try thinking about it as three or four separate religions with common affirmation of certain works of scripture, just like the Abrahamic religions are three religions, distinct in themselves, but accepting the Torah as scripture. It might make a remarkable difference to the view, although it will not invalidate your comment about the incompatibility of Abrahamic and so-called Indic religions. I do not agree with this view, but from the point of view of the evidence and the analysis that you have submitted, it remains valid.

@Ravi Nair

I might point out with amusement that the individual strands of Hinduism are precisely definitive religions. It is only our borrowed habit, borrowed, as is much else, from the western world, of looking at them as part of the same that makes us confused about the nature of 'Hindu' religion. It should be Hindu religions, as so-called Indic aficionados would have it; then it makes sense, from the comparative religions point of view.

 

[Chronos]

I might point out with amusement that the individual strands of Hinduism are precisely definitive religions. It is only our borrowed habit, borrowed, as is much else, from the western world, of looking at them as part of the same that makes us confused about the nature of 'Hindu' religion. It should be Hindu religions, as so-called Indic aficionados would have it; then it makes sense, from the comparative religions point of view.

This is more well put. Only Jainism, Buddhism were able to establish itself as seperate religions. Other potential break away branches probably got lost in the shuffle.

Q

I wholly disagree with your post from the section regarding being sure of a national identity. Perhaps some other time, it might be worth a detailed discussion.

Regarding Hinduism, try thinking about it as three or four separate religions with common affirmation of certain works of scripture, just like the Abrahamic religions are three religions, distinct in themselves, but accepting the Torah as scripture. It might make a remarkable difference to the view, although it will not invalidate your comment about the incompatibility of Abrahamic and so-called Indic religions. I do not agree with this view, but from the point of view of the evidence and the analysis that you have submitted, it remains valid.

@Ravi Nair

I might point out with amusement that the individual strands of Hinduism are precisely definitive religions. It is only our borrowed habit, borrowed, as is much else, from the western world, of looking at them as part of the same that makes us confused about the nature of 'Hindu' religion. It should be Hindu religions, as so-called Indic aficionados would have it; then it makes sense, from the comparative religions point of view.

Well I think that god/gods are the supernatural personification of a culture's fears, prejudices, hopes and dreams. They are fiction of course.

 

[Chronos]

@Joe Shearer

I have been planning a thread on the seniors cafe an article about National identity and narratives countries create.

I will tag your name in it. I am weak in terms of knowledge in history. But you are cordially invited

 

[Kloitra]

Nehru matured under the countervailing influence of Patel, and gave us a democratic foundation which has lasted. Even though he and the Congress in general perpetuated the nonsensical one-size-fits-all ideology that they started with, even though clearly he and other leaders were influenced by soft Hindutva elements within Indian society who were particularly active in funding the independence movement - effectively the Congress - and in reaping the benefits during the license raj, even though he allowed his Fabian Socialism affectations to guide Indian industrial policy, his contribution to democracy must not be forgotten.

A question regarding this: how much was Nehru's contribution to democracy? From what I know, Congress as a whole was supportive of democracy. Given the era and the influence of British that India had, it was the only visible option. Most importantly, Gandhi was in favour of republic. What individual contribution did Nehru made towards democracy that differentiates him from rest of the big leaders?

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer

I have been planning a thread on the seniors cafe an article about National identity and narratives countries create.

I will tag your name in it. I am weak in terms of knowledge in history. But you are cordially invited

Thank you. I will hugely appreciate that. I offer this as a preliminary libation.

Lemma 1: That the English were masters of myth, of myth in literature (Beowulf, Alice in Wonderland, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter), in literary, social and socio-psychological analysis and exegesis (Frazer's Golden Bough, Graves' Greek Myths, even, in a twisted kind of way, Graves' revision of Omar Khayyam) and in history (Francis McDonald Cornford most famously, but others as well); and that they created almost the whole of Indian history, from first principles, setting in place a monumental effort where there was a vacuum of sorts (there were Indian works of history - the vacuum was not perfect!).

Lemma 2: That the masses in south Asia needed myths of their own to justify rising against the British, considering that many of the liberal reasons that might have justified the freedom struggle were not acceptable to the conservative sections that formed much of the masses that were mobilised.

Lemma 3: That the masses that formed Pakistan, overwhelmingly, but not exclusively Muslim, found their myth in the Two Nation Theory.

Lemma 4: That the two nation theory had to be discarded in 1971.

Lemma 5: That the Pakistani nation then re-created an origins myth for itself, in the Indus Man myth, first proposed by Aitzaz Ahsan, thereafter disastrously followed by an unruly pack.

Lemma 6: That the Bangladeshi component of the south Asian mass took up the TNT as its myth of origin, but that this lost much of its gloss in 1953.

Lemma 7: That the Bengali language and the singular identity of the Bengali people became the succeeding, "replacement" myth among a section, but not all sections, of the Bangladeshi population.

Lemma 8: That the Bengali language, to be re-possessed and cleansed and purified and with the original, pre-Halhed Persian and other loan words re-installed ceremoniously, is the successor myth to the TNT as far as another section of Bangladeshi society is concerned.

Lemma 9: That the Indian segment of the population went through two processes of its own.

Lemma 10. That the original was the Congress version, of an undifferentiated mass of people living in communal harmony. That this half-witted notion which grossly ignored all sensible facts on the ground was supplanted by a second myth, still in the making.

Lemma 11: That the social revisionists and the historical neo-revisionists have joined hand, or their strands of thought have merged together, and we are informed that culture and civilisation started in India,

• that Indo-Aryan languages started in India and were exported to the west,
• that the Indus Valley Civilisation was based on a kind of proto-Sanskrit,
• that the Indus Valley Civilisation was actually the Saraswati Civilisation,
• that all Indian society is an undifferentiated mass, except for the alien Abrahamic element that has been injected (and logically are liable to be ejected),
• that the sections that are currently in revolt are in revolt because they have not understood the superiority of the Brahminical/Sanskritised way of life, the importance of surrendering their identity to the general Indic identity, and the need to give up their forests, pastures and grasslands to the overwhelming priority of development.

Lemma 12: That therefore all these national myths have to be viewed with caution, with welders' goggles on, and that each must be subjected to minute inspection and to third-party evaluation before being taken seriously.

A question regarding this: how much was Nehru's contribution to democracy? From what I know, Congress as a whole was supportive of democracy. Given the era and the influence of British that India had, it was the only visible option. Most importantly, Gandhi was in favour of republic. What individual contribution did Nehru made towards democracy that differentiates him from rest of the big leaders?

This needs detailed consideration and reply. Bear with me. Perhaps meantime someone else might answer. Let us see.

 

[KingMamba]

Come on sire, there is no one and everyone to blame. Fixing blame is childish. I am not giving anyone a clean chit.

I also fully support the Two Nation Theory. If possible I would request you to read Jaswant Singh's book on him. He was a visionary and India has more reasons to be grateful to Jinnah than to Nehru. Imagine a United India today. Exactly. Imagine a Zarvan and a Manvan, me, Tshering or even Ravi living in one country. It would explode. In no time.

In this regard I am fully in agreement with @Ravi Nair. Our lives are determined by the present real scenario. We don't live in the world of Kabir.

In that case, the Two Nation Theory is true, has been true and will be true for all time. There is absolutely no chance of an absolutist evangelical ideology living together with any other (forget about tolerating Hindu/Sikh/Jain/Atheist and Buddhist faiths) - they just won't mix. Jinnah was smart and utilized it. India should thank him instead of demonizing him all the time.

Of course, a vast majority of Indians, Muslims included don't give two hoots about the TNT - mainly because Pakistan is too foreign to them. But for us, or the Punjabis, or Bengalis etc it makes complete sense. In fact I would go so far as to say that the Partition process should have been kept slow. The entire Indian Army should have been withdrawn from European Occupation duties and used to protect the population transfers. The forceful post independence exodus of Bengali and Sindhi and Punjabi Hindus+Sikhs from the Land of the Pure could easily have been avoided.

I don't blame your state at all. You have chalked out a way for yourself. You have your motives and intentions clear almost right from the beginning. The apparent liberal mindedness of Jinnah to the conservative nature of Zia is not a contradiction - it has all been a part of a process. It happened because the majority of the people of Pakistan, a sovereign country, wanted it to happen. And for that I respect it.

^^Here, by you I mean your State, not you personally. No offence is intended personally.

Typical hindutva scum no mention of the Muslim expulsion from bharat ghatiya which was in equal numbers but twice as many slaughtered.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Typical hindutva scum no mention of the Muslim expulsion from bharat ghatiya which was in equal numbers but twice as many slaughtered.

He actually isn't a typical Hindutva scum. I say this as a lifelong observer of the species.

 

[KingMamba]

He actually isn't a typical Hindutva scum. I say this as a lifelong observer of the species.

That is because most are straight forward with their venom, I actually have more respect for them because they wear their beliefs like a badge of honor.

This guy is quite the sweet talker but I don't buy it, it just annoys me instead.