India's Confused Nationalism

[Chronos]

@Oscar

Doling out positive ratings are we

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hey!

@Oscar

Doling out positive ratings are we

Go get your own. Scat!

 

[Skull and Bones]

Hence my catchphrase, 'Nationalism doesn't work on empty stomach.'

 

[scorpionx]

Don't you think agreeing to the concession which Muslim League was asking for would have sent wrong messages and would have paved the way for the rise of Right wingers. Although partition needed more time and planning to be executed.

Without understanding the Congressi psychology here,just doubting the legitimacy of Jinnah's demand of 1/3rd representation of Muslims is a grossly incorrect approach to analyse the entire issue.We can look into the intricacies of Congress and Muslim League's internal politics to understand the contemporary perplexities of things and the consequent confusion it led to.
Why Mr.Jinnah had to come up with a demand of 1/3rd representation of Muslims when from the data available it is quite evident that Muslims, according to their percentage share in the whole population has a much fair representation in legislative assemblies? And why this demand which seemed utterly insane to some Congressi "Secularists" when Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Motilal Nehru became exalted by this offer?
Just like National Congress, there were two factions working within ML.One the Jinnah faction, which was absolutely pro-Congressi progressive group and the other was an orthodox,pro-British Punjabi dominated faction led by Sir Fazli Hussain and Sir Muhammad Shafi. Jinnah was gradually being sidelined since he came up with his Lucknow pact in 1915 which his other compadres took as a complete betrayal to the Muslims. Jinnah had to come up with something impressive which could have saved his career,hence the Delhi Muslim proposal came out.
But wait. What was Congress doing these days. To counter ML, they were patronizing regressive Muslim outfits like Majlis E Ahrar, Jamiat Ulema E Hind who although supported the cause of an United India but were completely against any modernist approach and against any kind of reforms within Islamic Society. Remember, brainchild of these scums today see Ahamdis as non Muslims and declare terrorists like Hakimullah Mehsud as martyr!!! So, Jinnah was absolutely right with his proposal, infact what he was doing would ultimately would have given more time for partition to happen. And Today,India sees thousand times more dirtier politics my friend. Just questioning Jinnah's morality is just abusing our own conscience only.

 

[Chronos]

Without understanding the Congressi psychology here,just doubting the legitimacy of Jinnah's demand of 1/3rd representation of Muslims is a grossly incorrect approach to analyse the entire issue.We can look into the intricacies of Congress and Muslim League's internal politics to understand the contemporary perplexities of things and the consequent confusion it led to.
Why Mr.Jinnah had to come up with a demand of 1/3rd representation of Muslims when from the data available it is quite evident that Muslims, according to their percentage share in the whole population has a much fair representation in legislative assemblies? And why this demand which seemed utterly insane to some Congressi "Secularists" when Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Motilal Nehru became exalted by this offer?
Just like National Congress, there were two factions working within ML.One the Jinnah faction, which was absolutely pro-Congressi progressive group and the other was an orthodox,pro-British Punjabi dominated faction led by Sir Fazli Hussain and Sir Muhammad Shafi. Jinnah was gradually being sidelined since he came up with his Lucknow pact in 1915 which his other compadres took as a complete betrayal to the Muslims. Jinnah had to come up with something impressive which could have saved his career,hence the Delhi Muslim proposal came out.
But wait. What was Congress doing these days. To counter ML, they were patronizing regressive Muslim outfits like Majlis E Ahrar, Jamiat Ulema E Hind who although supported the cause of an United India but were completely against any modernist approach and against any kind of reforms within Islamic Society. Remember, brainchild of these scums today see Ahamdis as non Muslims and declare terrorists like Hakimullah Mehsud as martyr!!! So, Jinnah was absolutely right with his proposal, infact what he was doing would ultimately would have given more time for partition to happen. And Today,India sees thousand times more dirtier politics my friend. Just questioning Jinnah's morality is just abusing our own conscience only.

Praising Jinnah?

You Pro-Muslim, Pro-Pakistani scum

 

[Joe Shearer]

Praising Jinnah?

You Pro-Muslim, Pro-Pakistani scum

LOL!

But @scorpionx is writing some dazzlingly good posts. I am so delighted to read these.

 

[SQ8]

Without understanding the Congressi psychology here,just doubting the legitimacy of Jinnah's demand of 1/3rd representation of Muslims is a grossly incorrect approach to analyse the entire issue.We can look into the intricacies of Congress and Muslim League's internal politics to understand the contemporary perplexities of things and the consequent confusion it led to.
Why Mr.Jinnah had to come up with a demand of 1/3rd representation of Muslims when from the data available it is quite evident that Muslims, according to their percentage share in the whole population has a much fair representation in legislative assemblies? And why this demand which seemed utterly insane to some Congressi "Secularists" when Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Motilal Nehru became exalted by this offer?
Just like National Congress, there were two factions working within ML.One the Jinnah faction, which was absolutely pro-Congressi progressive group and the other was an orthodox,pro-British Punjabi dominated faction led by Sir Fazli Hussain and Sir Muhammad Shafi. Jinnah was gradually being sidelined since he came up with his Lucknow pact in 1915 which his other compadres took as a complete betrayal to the Muslims. Jinnah had to come up with something impressive which could have saved his career,hence the Delhi Muslim proposal came out.
But wait. What was Congress doing these days. To counter ML, they were patronizing regressive Muslim outfits like Majlis E Ahrar, Jamiat Ulema E Hind who although supported the cause of an United India but were completely against any modernist approach and against any kind of reforms within Islamic Society. Remember, brainchild of these scums today see Ahamdis as non Muslims and declare terrorists like Hakimullah Mehsud as martyr!!! So, Jinnah was absolutely right with his proposal, infact what he was doing would ultimately would have given more time for partition to happen. And Today,India sees thousand times more dirtier politics my friend. Just questioning Jinnah's morality is just abusing our own conscience only.

Well written.. Ironically, it was this very Pro-British Punjabi faction that worked to sideline the Jinnah bloc immediately after his death. So much that by the time Iskandar Mirza took power in Pakistan, most of the original Jinnah Bloc in the ML had been made irrelevant to the power plays in the country.

 

[scorpionx]

Thank you @SarthakGanguly for raising so many vital points. I am privileged to post the course of discussion here.

I am also fascinated by Savarkar. Though I ain't an atheist like him.
Hitler will remain an enigma forever.

This is what Ambedkar had to say about Savarkar -
"Mr. Savarkar... insists that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution;.... In the struggle for political power between the two nations the rule of the game which Mr. Savarkar prescribes is to be one man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which a Hindu does not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power in the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture. But the State will not guarantee secured seats in the Legislature or in the Administration and, if such guarantee is insisted upon by the Muslims, such guaranteed quota is not to exceed their proportion to the general population." - Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji (1945). Pakistan or the Partition of India. Mumbai: Thackers.

Nehru hated this man tremendously - in fact only after Nehru's death Shastri started his pension! Nehru also wanted to demolish the Cellular Jail!

@Ravi Nair @scorpionx

Savarkar's design of "Hindustan" was fundamentally weak and looks utterly fragile to its core.For example, he acknowledges that Hindus and Muslims indeed are two nations. This is a debatable statement. Ordinary Muslims in India, by far and large are entirely detached from their Arabic,Persian or any other Middle Eastern counterpart. In fact a South Indian Muslim, in his customs,culture or language was more akin to a South Indian Hindu than to a Muslim living in UP or Bihar. If you notice the Shia custom during Muharram or the rituals followed by upper echelon Muslim nobles when a baby is born, you will see how Muslims for the last thousand years have been imbibed into Hindu culture and essentially Hindu way of performing rituals.By describing entire Muslim community as a distinct separate nation is a flawed concept.Also his idea of a subservient Muslim community living under a powerful Hindu dominance violates every essence of a liberal society;Something definitely conforms with a Ram Rajya after all.
Secondly, according to Savarkar Sanskrit is an essentially "Hindu" language and Hindi should be the Pan Hindu National Language. But how hollow this claim is? Classical Sanskrit is a codified version of Vedic Sanskrit which belong to Indo-European language group. Vedic Sanskrit had direct derivative Prakrita from which Ardha Magadhi and later from which Hindi and Urdu had originated. So, by Savarkar's own argument Urdu becomes an essentially "Hindu" language too!!

I really do not know how much Savarkar was hated by Nehru.There were ample evidences against him. Like the testimony Digambar Bagde gave which was quite comprehensive. But some how Savarkar escaped the wrath of Judicial system. I have no idea what saved him,but there is every chance of a powerful lobby within the ruling party was behind his acquittal.

 

[scorpionx]

1. Honestly I know little of the unbiased story about him, so I will take your post as true.

2. Hindus and Muslims can be considered two nations. The two nations need not be mutually exclusive. Indeed, they can be complimentary The crux of the matter is the definition of the terms - Hindus and Muslims.

----i. A 'pure' (for the lack of a better word) Muslim will be totally different from a Hindu or a Sikh/Buddhist.

----ii. As you said, the similarity exists between a Tamil Hindu and and a Tamil Muslim because as you said - Muslims have imbibed Hindu culture.

^^^Now here in comes the logic of the Two Nation Theory(not necessarily of Jinnah's authorship) - the 'fear' of being dominated socially and culturally by non Muslims so much so that the Muslim identity itself is compromised.
As an example - the cultural mixture of the Muslims and Hindus that you have mentioned and I also cherish is itself considered a danger by many Muslims.

----iii. Also to note is the ability of Indian/Hindu culture is unique - assimilation. A Hindu can and does consider even Christ as God (may be not by everyone) - it is not considered blasphemy. Actually the term itself does not exist. On the other hand, though the Hanafi fiqh has been followed in India and therefore we have been spared the worst of excesses, it remains that Islam remains or at least tries to remain - shall we say unadulterated. This Abrahamic insistence on superiority goes above my head It is our good fortune and our Muslims' credit that they have by and large not followed the extremist footsteps. But...

----v. Now the instances of conflicts is rising - not only from historically troubled and repeatedly invaded areas like the North, but also and most stunningly in Kerala. Onam as a festival was and still is celebrated not only by Hindus but also by Christians and others. Now Muslims however are turning away from it - especially in the North. @Manvantaratruti may be able to give you a better idea. The idea of being a better Muslim, unfortunately lies in seclusion - the very opposite to the Dharmic concept of brotherhood, irrespective of allegiance to God.

3. Sanskrit is certainly a very Indian language and by Savarkar's open defintion Hindu too. But I don't think a language can be bound by narrow definitions of Weltangschaung. But then - going by Savarkar's broad definition of the origins of Sanskrit - claiming it to be Hindu(Indic) is not wrong. Please quote a reference for this please, simply because I don't know much about it
Besides Urdu is certainly an Indian language as well. I like Urdu as well Just because Pakistanis speak and write Urdu is not reason enough for me to dismiss it as being non Hindu. It is Hindu - but not solely so. It also belongs to others.

4. According to Savarkar, as far as my limited knowledge goes - never stated that Muslims should remain subservient to Hindus. Please elaborate where and how he meant that - then we can proceed But from Ambedkar's quoted passage it is clear that he was perhaps more secular in approach (even if taken at face value) than all our present leaders today - from across the political spectrum. No special privileges, no special duties - just like any other. The only point of contention - you can say is the primary allegiance. Savarkar wants that to be the 'motherland, the holyland' instead of faith. Pretty close to 'India First' slogan of today. I must say, a commendable idea indeed.
Plus that is a very illiberal definition of 'liberal society'

@scorpionx - Yes please move it there - I will be grateful

1.Whether Abrahamic religion is repelling others and Dharmic religions are assimilating, infact is a matter of debate.Medieval India, in its 700 years rule under variety of Afghan and Turko Mongol rulers was able to keep their religio-social structure intact.The guilt of few tyrannical Muslim Rulers can not be transmitted to the fate of 160 Million Muslims.On the other hand, Modern Sri Lanka being an essentially Buddhist state failed to secure the rights of its ethnic Tamils.Record of Myanmar,another Buddhist state too has not been too prospectous.On the other hand,Turkey or US,being an emblem of modern secular nation state had quite been successful to keep its diverse ethincs united.America in its 1770's constitution was extremely vocal about the protection of rights of its minorities.So, this is in fact not a proved theorem that Faiths other than Dharmic ones have not been able to attract its minorities.

2.This is what Savarkar had to say about national language.

"The Sanskrit shall be our "devabhasha" (Deva Bhasha) our sacred language and the "Sanskrit Nishtha"/Hindi, the Hindi which is derived from Sanskrit and draws its nourishment from the latter, is our "rashtrabhasha" (Rashtra Bhasha).our current national language—-besides being the richest and the most cultured of the ancient languages of the world, to us Hindus the Sanskrit is the holiest tongue of tongues. Our scriptures, history, philosophy and culture have their roots so deeply imbedded in the Sanskrit literature that it forms veritably the brain of our Race. Mother of the majority of our mother tongues, she has suckled the rest of them at her breast. All Hindu languages current today whether derived from Sanskrit or grafted on to it can only grow and flourish on the sap of life they imbibe from Sanskrit. The Sanskrit language therefore must ever be an indispensable constituent of the classical course for Hindu youths.

At one point he emphasizes that Hindi being derived from Sanskrit should be spoken as a common language all over India, at the same time he states that Sanskrit must be indispensable constituent of classical course of Hindu youths to be particular. What would have been his suggestion for a Pashto or Urdu speaking Muslim is an enigma as both of these language are derivative of the same Indo European Language group.

3. Savarkar and his ilk were staunchly against giving any extra reservation to the minorities. Now this is a smart move for two reasons. First, after 1857, it is an wide known fact that Muslims were scantily represented in all Government services. Rejecting any sort of reservation at least for a short period of time was Hindu mahasabha's hard rigidness to give away an inch of land to others. Secondly, In their 14th session in Delhi,September'1932 this very Hindu Mahasabha leaders are demanding better representation for Hindus in Muslim Princely states like Bhawalpur,Bhopal,Rampur and Hyderabad.Two very contradictory demands in a single manifesto!!
And following is the criticism Dr.B R Ambedkar made about Savarkar,

Mr. Savarkar on the other hand insists that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution; that the constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation. In the struggle for political power between, the two nations the rule of the game which Mr. Savarkar prescribes is to be one man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which a Hindu does not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power in the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture. But the State will not guarantee secured seats in the Legislature or in the Administration and, if such guarantee is insisted upon by the Muslims,/16/ such guaranteed quota is not to exceed their proportion to the general population. Thus by confiscating its weightages, Mr. Savarkar would even strip the Muslim nation of all the political privileges it has secured so far.

Sources: Pakistan or the Partition of Hindustan by Dr. B R Ambedkar

 

[SarthakGanguly]

1.Whether Abrahamic religion is repelling others and Dharmic religions are assimilating, infact is a matter of debate.Medieval India, in its 700 years rule under variety of Afghan and Turko Mongol rulers was able to keep their religio-social structure intact.The guilt of few tyrannical Muslim Rulers can not be transmitted to the fate of 160 Million Muslims.On the other hand, Modern Sri Lanka being an essentially Buddhist state failed to secure the rights of its ethnic Tamils.Record of Myanmar,another Buddhist state too has not been too prospectous.On the other hand,Turkey or US,being an emblem of modern secular nation state had quite been successful to keep its diverse ethincs united.America in its 1770's constitution was extremely vocal about the protection of rights of its minorities.So, this is in fact not a proved theorem that Faiths other than Dharmic ones have not been able to attract its minorities.

Good post sire

"700 years rule under variety of Afghan and Turko Mongol rulers was able to keep their religio-social structure intact" - Not really. A very apt example is Kashmir, the abode of Kashmiri Shaivism, has seen the almost total extinction of the native culture. Rajtarangini and Sikander Butshikan's own chronicle is testament to how the change was done. It's not for the faint of heart

"The guilt of few tyrannical Muslim Rulers" - Not really. Muslim rulers are not much different from other rulers. Rulers will be tyrannical, at least some of them. The problems are three -
i. Ghaznavi destroyed Somnath in the name of God! We must remember that temples were not mere places of worship in medieval times.
ii. Some targeted destruction has had huge impact on India's future - like the burning of Nalanda. Now here's the thing - Nalanda was sacked by another non Muslim king as well. But the motive is where it differs. While one sacked a few books and established (or tried to) his writ, Khilji destroyed the entire place and burnt the whole thing down! In the name of God.
iii. The most important part - Say for example - Owaisi. Is he a bigot, dangerous? Sure he is. But he is only a symptom of a greater problem. The masses that support him fully are no less. Young lads in their teens are his hardcore fans and the language they use in social media against their own motherland can put even Zarvan to shame. IMO they are a bigger problem. No tyrant can be a tyrant without support. Just like Hitler alone can not and has not been allowed to have the entire blame for the Holocaust. 'Hitler's Willing Executioners' or the German Aam Aadmi was also held responsible and rightly so.
^ This is the crux - so can the blame of numerous and systematic atrocities on native population be laid on a few military heads or kings? Nope. Not in my opinion.

'not be transmitted to the fate of 160 Million Muslims' - Agreed. Certainly the 'punishment' (in crude terms for the lack of a better word) can not and should not be extrapolated to the present generation of Indian muslims, who have nothing to do with, say demolishing the Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi. But the way we shy from even letting people know about what happened is not beneficial in the long run.
'On the other hand, Modern Sri Lanka being an essentially Buddhist state failed to secure the rights of its ethnic Tamils.Record of Myanmar,another Buddhist state too has not been too prospectous.On the other hand,Turkey or US,being an emblem of modern secular nation state had quite been successful to keep its diverse ethincs united.America in its 1770's constitution was extremely vocal about the protection of rights of its minorities'
True, Sri Lanka etc are not model States - not by a long margin. We too have a long way to go. But that as for America - the declaration was hypocrisy of the first decree. American settlers along with the regime's support went enthusiastically to 'tame the Wild West' and to 'civilize the Natives' (read exterminate or assimilate forcefully the Natives) even while the ink on the declaration had not even dried The Lakota wars and other state sponsored massacres prove that they were not serious about minorities or basically any other ethnic group. Such was the condition that American 'Negroes' were encouraged to settle in Liberia! Hell, it took Martin Luther King to get full rights for a substantial portion of the American population.

'The Sanskrit language therefore must ever be an indispensable constituent of the classical course for Hindu youths'
It is the classical course only. Like when we learn classical dance we don't learn salsa. Also it is a constituent and does not take the whole of the discourse. It is a part. An indispensable part, but still just a part. That too of those Hindu junge ( ) that would show interest in the classical literature.
'Urdu speaking Muslim...' Like I said, it forms the classical course alone. An Urdu speaking Muslim or for that matter an Urdu speaking Hindu or etc can continue to use their own tongues as they wish. But when he/she wishes to read and have a better understanding of say the Rig Veda etc, Sanskrit is preferable. There is no contradiction IMO.

'Rejecting any sort of reservation at least for a short period of time was Hindu mahasabha's hard rigidness to give away an inch of land to others' -

Not a great fan of the Hindu Mahasabha. But many a times I know they did give more than an inch of land away to others. If I am not wrong they were in the Bengal government as well - supporting the Muslim League govt. In any case, that was a 'Hindu' party and it is only natural that it would fight for Hindu rights alone. Like the Muslim League was built solely on the Muslim platform. We should not condemn the Hindu Mahasabha - as it was created solely in response to the growing influence of the Muslim League. I would consider such a response only natural.

'In the struggle for political power between, the two nations the rule of the game which Mr. Savarkar prescribes is to be one man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which a Hindu does not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power in the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture. But the State will not guarantee secured seats in the Legislature or in the Administration and, if such guarantee is insisted upon by the Muslims,/16/ such guaranteed quota is not to exceed their proportion to the general population. Thus by confiscating its weightages, Mr. Savarkar would even strip the Muslim nation of all the political privileges it has secured so far.'

No special privilege and no discrimination - IMO that should be standard of treating any group, be it majority or minority. The last sentence is completely contradicting whatever is quoted by Ambedkar above. In any case, granting special privileges to the Muslims, just because they are a minority is impossible for me to fathom.
'one man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which a Hindu does not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power in the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture.'
- This seems perfect and ideal to me. I completely agree with this line of thinking.

 

[scorpionx]

'one man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which a Hindu does not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power in the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture.'

This has been proved to be a hollow promise in later years to come.When Sangh and their political allies were in power of India, systematic efforts of rewriting Indian History have been made.Historians had to burn their midnight oil to find out newest theories which could support the Hindutvawadi theories(According to Dayananda Saraswati, Aryans originated in the Tibetan Plateau for instance).In the year 2000, the much published book "The Deciphered Indus Script" authored by Natwar Jha and N.S Rajaram claimed that they have deciphered a script in Indus valley which they attributed to mid-forth millennium BCE, to put the history back for another one thousand years.Claims were made that one of the tablet even mentions river Saraswati of Rg Veda. Unholy attempts started sprouting to make Indus Valley Civilization an essentially Sanskritized civilization.So, you can imagine how hollow actually this ideology is when it fails to implement itself when opportunity existed.

Secondly, most of Savarkar's other statements like Hindi was used as a common dialect before advent of Islam surely questions his intellectual merit.So I am against forming my opinion about this man just hinging upon his vague idea of an ideal nation state. India, although tried to follow a mostly secular path while writing its constitution still fails to guarantee the economic prosperity of its minorities and Lower caste Hindus.So, when Savarkar speaks of equal rights almost 90 years from now you can imagine how unpractical it would have been if we did not secure minority rights in our Constitution. This right has been abused with a great degree I agree but when Savarkar was preaching of Austia and Turkey as ideal state, India needed this security most.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

This has been proved to be a hollow promise in later years to come.When Sangh and their political allies were in power of India, systematic efforts of rewriting Indian History have been made.Historians had to burn their midnight oil to find out newest theories which could support the Hindutvawadi theories(According to Dayananda Saraswati, Aryans originated in the Tibetan Plateau for instance).In the year 2000, the much published book "The Deciphered Indus Script" authored by Natwar Jha and N.S Rajaram claimed that they have deciphered a script in Indus valley which they attributed to mid-forth millennium BCE, to put the history back for another one thousand years.Claims were made that one of the tablet even mentions river Saraswati of Rg Veda. Unholy attempts started sprouting to make Indus Valley Civilization an essentially Sanskritized civilization.So, you can imagine how hollow actually this ideology is when it fails to implement itself when opportunity existed.

Secondly, most of Savarkar's other statements like Hindi was used as a common dialect before advent of Islam surely questions his intellectual merit.So I am against forming my opinion about this man just hinging upon his vague idea of an ideal nation state. India, although tried to follow a mostly secular path while writing its constitution still fails to guarantee the economic prosperity of its minorities and Lower caste Hindus.So, when Savarkar speaks of equal rights almost 90 years from now you can imagine how unpractical it would have been if we did not secure minority rights in our Constitution. This right has been abused with a great degree I agree but when Savarkar was preaching of Austia and Turkey as ideal state, India needed this security most.

1. "systematic efforts of rewriting Indian History have been made" - The History that is taught to us is extremely flawed. According to our history books, Bhagat Singh becomes a terrorist, Shivaji etc are misguided heroes and Shah Jahan becomes a loving husband! There should be a serious examination of the history taught to us.

2. ""The Deciphered Indus Script" authored by Natwar Jha and N.S Rajaram claimed that they have deciphered a script in Indus valley which they attributed to mid-forth millennium BCE, to put the history back for another one thousand years.Claims were made that one of the tablet even mentions river Saraswati of Rg Veda." - Claims have been made from almost the very beginning. A claim can be made and then it is discussed. You can't refute a claim that's not made. So, I would welcome any research into it. Certainly if mention of any river is found, I would consider it a welcome sign as well. Just because a particular discovery speaks of a Hindu past does not mean it's not true.

3. "Indus Valley Civilization an essentially Sanskritized civilization" - not at all. Sanskrit was nowhere in the scene, in the form we know it as at least. Not sure if he said that.

4. "you can imagine how hollow actually this ideology" - What is the ideology? I don't see anything wrong with a closer re-examination of Indian history. The discourse has been entirely dominated by Irfan Habib and co. While I admit they portray one picture of the past, it is essential we see the other pictures as well. Western historians have been far more objective in dealing with history in the subcontinent. Especially post independence that is.

5. "Savarkar's other statements like Hindi was used as a common dialect before advent of Islam surely questions his intellectual merit" - Please quote him, not sure if he said that. If he did, he was wrong. He was no prophet. I would consider that his mistake.

6. "constitution still fails to guarantee the economic prosperity of its minorities and Lower caste Hindus" - Ideally the constitution should not have made a difference. This is called reverse discrimination. It's like punishing someone for their ancestor's crimes. By that yardstick one would be correct in arresting the Muslims of Mysore for the forceful subjugation and conversion of Moplahs (among other groups)
Say the reservations for example. - Had there been enough opportunities for all, reservations would have been unnecessary.

7. 'Savarkar was preaching of Austia and Turkey as ideal state' - Austria and Turkey of which time. I was a great admirer of Kemalist Turkey. Now it is history though.

 

[INDIC]

Without understanding the Congressi psychology here,just doubting the legitimacy of Jinnah's demand of 1/3rd representation of Muslims is a grossly incorrect approach to analyse the entire issue.We can look into the intricacies of Congress and Muslim League's internal politics to understand the contemporary perplexities of things and the consequent confusion it led to.
Why Mr.Jinnah had to come up with a demand of 1/3rd representation of Muslims when from the data available it is quite evident that Muslims, according to their percentage share in the whole population has a much fair representation in legislative assemblies? And why this demand which seemed utterly insane to some Congressi "Secularists" when Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Motilal Nehru became exalted by this offer?
Just like National Congress, there were two factions working within ML.One the Jinnah faction, which was absolutely pro-Congressi progressive group and the other was an orthodox,pro-British Punjabi dominated faction led by Sir Fazli Hussain and Sir Muhammad Shafi. Jinnah was gradually being sidelined since he came up with his Lucknow pact in 1915 which his other compadres took as a complete betrayal to the Muslims. Jinnah had to come up with something impressive which could have saved his career,hence the Delhi Muslim proposal came out.
But wait. What was Congress doing these days. To counter ML, they were patronizing regressive Muslim outfits like Majlis E Ahrar, Jamiat Ulema E Hind who although supported the cause of an United India but were completely against any modernist approach and against any kind of reforms within Islamic Society. Remember, brainchild of these scums today see Ahamdis as non Muslims and declare terrorists like Hakimullah Mehsud as martyr!!! So, Jinnah was absolutely right with his proposal, infact what he was doing would ultimately would have given more time for partition to happen. And Today,India sees thousand times more dirtier politics my friend. Just questioning Jinnah's morality is just abusing our own conscience only.

The independence movement was involving lots of politics to get political mileage. But the main players were Congress and League. Mahasabha, communists all were very insignificant and their relevance come only after the independence. As for Congress leaders, they didn't leave Indian people in extreme confusion about the type of state they wanted for India, I do admire them for that. I am sure, had they agreed on jinnah's demand 33% seats, that would have paved the way for Hindu nationalists back in 1947 only.

 

[scorpionx]

"Savarkar's other statements like Hindi was used as a common dialect before advent of Islam surely questions his intellectual merit" - Please quote him, not sure if he said that. If he did, he was wrong. He was no prophet. I would consider that his mistake.

The fact is that long before either the English or even the Moslems stepped in India the Hindi in its general form had already come to occupy the position of a National tongue throughout Hindustan. The Hindu pilgrim, the tradesman, the tourist, the soldier, the Pandit travelled up and down from Bengal to Sind and Kashmere to Rameshwar by making himself understood from locality to locality through Hindi. Just as the Sanskrit was the National Language of the Hindu intellectual world even so Hindi has been for at least a thousand years in the past the National Indian Tongue of the Hindu community....

.

This is what he said about his pan Hindu language. This is among thousand other errors he wanted to make Indians belief. A system which stood upon an apparently secular Ideology in its outer garb but immensely communal in its core.Not only Savarkar,the assumption made by other leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai were extremely ridiculous if we read them today. On the context of Bengal Muslim Pact in 1923, he wrote to C R Das that " I am not afraid of the seven crore Mussalmans,but I think the seven crore in Hindusthan,plus the armed hosts of Afghanistan,Central Asia, Arabia,Mesopotamia and Turkey will be irresistible"

Now see who were these leaders fearing of? This sense of fear influenced Congress's doctrine and slowly and gradually alienated Muslim educated class who were fighting for an Unified India. There is an excellent post made by @Azlan Haider in the thread State of Confusion II and you can see how the Mullahs became puppets in the hands of the British for the Great Game of Central Asia. Our fanatics led by Mr.Savarkar and their ilk just strengthen the hands of those Mullahs and played in the hand of British. And what steel Savarkar was made of can be understood when we read about his apologetic letter to the British for mercy which he wrote from Andaman Jail. My point is their ideologies might seem flawless on paper but on ground these ideals were far from implementations and proved catalysts for the events quite opposite to what these guys proclaimed to be.

 

[INDIC]

1. "systematic efforts of rewriting Indian History have been made" - The History that is taught to us is extremely flawed. According to our history books, Bhagat Singh becomes a terrorist, Shivaji etc are misguided heroes and Shah Jahan becomes a loving husband! There should be a serious examination of the history taught to us.

2. ""The Deciphered Indus Script" authored by Natwar Jha and N.S Rajaram claimed that they have deciphered a script in Indus valley which they attributed to mid-forth millennium BCE, to put the history back for another one thousand years.Claims were made that one of the tablet even mentions river Saraswati of Rg Veda." - Claims have been made from almost the very beginning. A claim can be made and then it is discussed. You can't refute a claim that's not made. So, I would welcome any research into it. Certainly if mention of any river is found, I would consider it a welcome sign as well. Just because a particular discovery speaks of a Hindu past does not mean it's not true.

3. "Indus Valley Civilization an essentially Sanskritized civilization" - not at all. Sanskrit was nowhere in the scene, in the form we know it as at least. Not sure if he said that.

4. "you can imagine how hollow actually this ideology" - What is the ideology? I don't see anything wrong with a closer re-examination of Indian history. The discourse has been entirely dominated by Irfan Habib and co. While I admit they portray one picture of the past, it is essential we see the other pictures as well. Western historians have been far more objective in dealing with history in the subcontinent. Especially post independence that is.

5. "Savarkar's other statements like Hindi was used as a common dialect before advent of Islam surely questions his intellectual merit" - Please quote him, not sure if he said that. If he did, he was wrong. He was no prophet. I would consider that his mistake.

6. "constitution still fails to guarantee the economic prosperity of its minorities and Lower caste Hindus" - Ideally the constitution should not have made a difference. This is called reverse discrimination. It's like punishing someone for their ancestor's crimes. By that yardstick one would be correct in arresting the Muslims of Mysore for the forceful subjugation and conversion of Moplahs (among other groups)
Say the reservations for example. - Had there been enough opportunities for all, reservations would have been unnecessary.

7. 'Savarkar was preaching of Austia and Turkey as ideal state' - Austria and Turkey of which time. I was a great admirer of Kemalist Turkey. Now it is history though.

I am aware of some Hindu centric history and I am no taker of that if not true but an environment had been establishment that if you challenge the established version of Marxist history, you will bran ded as hindu extremists. Remember those history were written during colonial period to allow Europeans to make cultural theft from Hindu scriptures to prove white man's superiority against cultural voidness of ancient North European babaric history and the British imperial interests in India.