What's new

Two Nation Theory

Dear Sir,

Your tenacity is admirable, but I regret greatly that the inconvenient facts simply refuse to go away. Wrong of them, extremely inconsiderate, but there you are!

i ll take it as a compliment.

It may help you to reconcile yourself to reading what I've written if I start by agreeing that majority opinion among the Tamils rejected a demand for independent Tamil Nadu.

Absolutely true...No one wanted a independent Tamil Nadu except for some loonies.

Again, I repeat, what is under discussion is not the loyalty of Tamils to India, but the existence of a minority psychology among them, among significant sections.

This is my bone of contention.There was never a minority psychology among the Tamils at any point of time.
I see that u have given the language protests as a sign of minority psychology..but to be true to history it was anything other than that.
We had the language protests because we felt proud of our language which in any case was older than Hindi itself.
It would serve ur purpose to note that the protests were not against learning Hindi rather it was against substituting hindi in Tamil's place.


It is not my case that the Tamil 'nation' was unanimously bent on independence.

It is not my case even that a workable majority of the Tamil 'nation' was supportive of independence.

True.

It is my case that the Tamils formed a 'minority' and that this minority articulated its discomfort and unease, to the extent that there were organised and serious demands for independence.

It would better serve ur point in saying Minority within the minority aspired for a Dravidistan as ur putting forth...not Minority per se.

The tamils as such as a single unit never felt as a minority either etnically ,religiously or linguistically.

Against this, you have suggested that only one individual, Periyar,wanted this. Even allowing for exaggeration, this is inaccurate.

I believe that the excerpts below, taken from my broader response to one of your earlier posts, may help you understand the reality. These are all available in the Wikipedia article on Dravidistan; I have avoided quoting from other available material since that may not be accessible universally.

1. The movement for Dravidistan was at its height from 1940s to 1960s, but failed to find any support outside Tamil Nadu.

References:

• Thapar, Romesh (1978). Change and Conflict in India. Macmillan. p. 75. ISBN 0836402227.
• Rao, C Rajeswara (1973). Defeat Separatist Conspiracy in Andhra. Communist Party of India. p. 28. OCLC 814926.

2. At the 14th Confederation of the Justice Party held in Madras in 1938, rules and regulations, or precursors of a Dravida Nadu were adopted. The objectives were defined as: to attain Purna Swaraj {emphasis added: JS}and complete control for Dravida Nadu in social, economic and industrial, and commercial fields; to liberate Dravida Nadu and Dravidians from exploitation and domination by non-Dravidian foreigners; to acquire for the citizens of Dravida Nadu without discrimination on account of caste and class and inequalities arising there from, in law and society, equal rights and equal opportunities; to remove from the Dravidian people the sense of difference and superstitious beliefs existing in the name of religion, customs, and traditions and unite them as a society of people with a liberal outlook and intellectual development, and to get proportionate representation in all fields till the achievement of these objectives and until the people who have a sense of caste, religious and class differences cooperate with the party in full confidence and goodwill.

References:

• Arooran, K. Nambi (1980). "Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism - The Demand for Dravida Nadu". TamilNation.org.

• Saraswathi. Towards Self-Respect, p. 87.

The significance of this last excerpt is two-fold. Please read this carefully, to avoid tilting at windmills later.

The Justice Party was in power for 13 out of 17 years from 1920 until 1937. It was the main opposition to the Indian National Congress, and was formed on an anti-Brahmin plank. It was elected again and again; it had no lack of popular support. It was not Periyar's party, and he did not join it until 1938. So this demand cannot be dismissed as a one-man show.

On the other hand, it was not until Periyar joined and influenced it significantly that it took up the demand for Dravidian independence.
{emphasis added: JS}

3. In August 1944, Periyar created a new party called Dravidar Kazhagam out of the Justice Party, at the Salem Provincial Conference. The creation of a separate non-Brahmin Dravidian nation was a central aim of the party.

References:

• Dirks, Nicholas B. (2001). Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton University Press. p. 263.

I hope you see the thread between the Dravidistan movement and the later language riots emerging.


4. Annadurai was initially more radical than Periyar in his demand for a separate Dravidistan.

References:

• Jaffrelot, Christophe (2003). India's silent revolution: the rise of the low castes in North Indian politics. Orient Longman. p. 244.

If you read the reference I have suggested, you will find all these in there, along with the supporting authorities. Once I am able to format my reply properly, you will find that these are four out of ten citations reproduced. It would be possible to reproduce several score, but not feasible; I request you to look up the original sources yourself from the references given in that longer note.

Appreciate ur effort in trying to prove a point....but I think my one quote "In a period of free for all,its nothing surprising that anyone can aspire for anything under the holy sun" answers ur questions in a short but a crisp way.

Most certainly I am not! The Muslim demand originated much earlier than the 40s, they rose to a peak around then, and the implications of the TNT took decades to work itself out.

If you had followed my arguments at all, instead of concluding, wrongly as it happens, that they constituted an attack on present-day or even past Tamil loyalty to India, you would find that the TNT has to be understood and recognised in its completeness, with its flaws and its strong points.

It was weak when it was interpreted to mean that religious practice alone constituted an identity differentiator, and other factors could be ignored for ever. It makes sense, either in its original form, or in modified form, when it is recognised that many factors, including religious identity, go into forming an identity.

Dear sir im not here to debate on the pros and the cons of the TNT.
Most certainly it had its ills and i agree with u on the point that religion alone cant be a sufficient differentiator in a land of myriad ethnicities.

Now for your contention that it is illogical to link events which happened 15 years apart.

That understanding is unfortunately incorrect, because the minority feeling that Tamil should not be suppressed, and another language imposed, was part and parcel of the demands of the independence movement for a Dravidistan right from 1938. The demand itself was abandoned in 1956, by most, but not all. Some tall leaders continued to demand this.

In 1962, as you have noted, Annadurai stood up and asked for Tamil independence on the floor of Parliament. Part of this demand for independence was based on a sensitivity regarding Tamil culture and identity which included a demand for the preservation of the Tamil language.

Three years later, the language riots, driven very largely by the DMK party, broke out. The DMK was not then in power; it was a Congress regime in office at the time.

In 1962, the Tamil people rose to the occasion and donated generously to the national cause.

In 1965, they agitated against imposition of Hindi, and this agitation was powered by the DMK, led by Annadurai.

Do you see any contradiction here? I don't.

Even that i have clarified in the post # 235,244.I think u have not read that entirely.But i shall repeat it.

After an exhaustive and divisive debate, Hindi was adopted as the official language of India with English continuing as an associate official language for a period of fifteen years, after which Hindi would become the sole official language. The new Constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Efforts by the Indian Government to make Hindi the sole official language after 1965 were not acceptable to many non-Hindi Indian states, who wanted the continued use of English.

As the day (26 January 1965) of switching over to Hindi as sole official language approached, the anti-Hindi movement gained momentum in Madras State with increased support from college students. On 25 January, a full-scale riot broke out in the southern city of Madurai, sparked off by a minor altercation between agitating students and Congress party members
To calm the situation, Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri gave assurances that English would continue to be used as the official language as long the non-Hindi speaking states wanted. The riots subsided after Shastri's assurance, as did the student agitation.

And yes it was the DMK that was involved in the anti-hindi agitation that quicly de-generated into riots.And mind u the demand of Independence was to be raised if Hindi was forcibly thrust on us...it was not thrust and hence the demand just remained a hypothesis.
Stress is on the word "to be".

Now if u properly understand the above paras...u can see that the the imposition of Hindi was to be done in 1965 and if u understand the undercurrents of Indian politics it u would realise that demand in parliament was rather a psychological threat of secession if Hindi was implemented forcefully thereby forcing the Congress leaders at the centre to backtrack on that ...

If i may put in a more crude yet simple way..."It was a bluff by Anna that was luckily not called by the Congress at the centre." .



The same DMK led by C. N. Annadurai or some other one? The same Annadurai who in 1962 raised the demand for independence in Parliament or some other one? Please look at the records of his speech; did he link it to the imposition of Hindi, if Hindi was forcibly thrust on Tamil Nadu?

When you say the demand remained a hypothesis, what do you mean? Was it made or not made? Three years earlier than the riots to which you have linked it?

Surely this is not the same Karthic Sri who protested that the riots of 65 could not be linked to the Muslim minority rising for a homeland of their own in the 30s and 40s? :-D

Sir ..sadly in ur attempt at sarcasm u have forgot one important thing nor u have fully understand what im trying to tel.
It seems rather than concentrating on formatting u should concentrate on my posts..:lol:

Ok lemme explain with the timeline the bolded part.

1950 26 th Jan - the new constitution stipulating that Hindi will become the sole official language after 15 years comes into effect.
There were immediately an uproar Not only in Tamil Nadu..but almost in all non-Hindi speaking states of which Tamil Nadu was singled out due to the ferocity.

Around 1958 - The issue was largely forgotten an business was going as usual.

1962 - This was the time that DMK wanted to come to power and since 1965 (the year of Hindi imposition) was nearing Anna saw a huge oppurtunity in using this plank and capturing power in Tamil Nadu ..which he did sucessfully later.

It will serve my purpose to highlight that the real motive behind all these hoopla was capturing power and not any genuine concern for anyone.

1965 - Now central govt still dilly dallying on the Language proposal Anna realised that organising protests and stirring up the emotive issue of language will serve his purpose of DMK capturing power and with Lal Bahadur Shastri agreeing on the proposal the English will continue as the official lang Anna obtained two mangoes in one throw - rallying the Tamils under the banner of DMK and hence capturing power in Tamil Nadu.

I hope i have now clarified ur doubt regarding timelines.


ur notion abt how the majority of the Tamils wanted independence

I had this notion? Silly me!

Er, just to be kind to the old, could you remind me where I said this?

As far as I remember, this interesting sub-thread started based on the following:

The Tamils deserve special mention. At one stage, they seemed far more affected by centrifugal forces than any other nation within India. Their strong sense of identity equipped them, above all other Dravidian groups, to seek a greater place under the Sun for themselves.That they have stayed on peacefully is due to the compromise that has evolved, whereby the Dravidian parties rule supreme, only alternating power among themselves. I have no explanation for this alternation; only a Cho can tell us, and Cho has sold out.

Have u heard of a word in English called "inference".??

I hope so..cos this word comes into play here.

When u put forth the feelings that the Tamils felt in the Anti-Hindi riots of 1965 in a post that was concerned with the TNT feelings of 1940's it is bound to raise some heckles and it would have been discretionary on ur part to have taken care of that.

Second objection was for lumpin the Tamils as minority.
Again it would have served ur intended pupose if u had said "A tiny minority among the Tamils" instead of saying Tamil Minority.

Hope u get the difference among the two.

If I have any regrets about this post, it is not recognising that the Nagas were a far greater threat to India during some period. My justification is that Tamil separatist feeling was at its height between 1938 and 1956, whereas the Indian Army was called into what later became Nagaland in 1955, and a general peace kind of settled in around 1975: therefore, two fairly distinct periods.

But ur point is...? Again there was no such thing as separatism in Tamil Nadu.

By saying Tamil Separatism ur doing injustince to both the Tamil Freedom movement and to the word Separatism.

Wat we had in Nagaland is separatism...wat we had in tamil Nadu was a separatist feeling among a tiny minority that had no followers among the common mass.

Dear Mr. Kartic Sri,

If I swear before a notary public that I did not say that a majority of the Tamils wanted independence, will you go away and play with your grenades somewhere else? You can leave the pins behind; I will return them whenever you ask politely.

Thank you.

U better do it my friend because many people here are not of ur intellectual level and hence will pounce upon how Tamils are being suppressed,prepressed by evil India and yes i have seen my fair share of loonies doing so here.

Thanx...




Dear Sir,
Very curious behaviour; why should some foreigner comment on an Indian minority, after all, even in a discussion on minorities, even in a discussion on a country constituted by former members of an Indian minority? No accounting for some people!
Who were these curious Pakistanis, btw?
Sincerely,
'Joe Shearer'

I know this was not directed at me...but as a Tamil i request u not to again use the word minorities for Tamils as a whole.

U can very well use them for indicating the tiny minority that had separatist aspiration at that time...even though the common man did not want it.
 
.
Dear Sir,

At the end of the day, it seems that you prefer your own undefended assertions to documentary evidence. If that is the way you wish to put forward a case or to defend one, that is entirely your business.

Your own attention and the attention of others, particularly those who are interested in the TNT and the way Jinnah used it to achieve autonomy for Indian Muslims, is drawn to the outstanding example you have given, inadvertently, during your laboured answers to the evidence produced. It is pure gold. I will highlight it when it occurs in the discussion.

Finally, I have a formulation for the situation at the very end. If you believe that Tamil honour will be better preserved by using that formulation, let us agree on it and move on.

Now please read on.

Dear Sir,

Your tenacity is admirable, but I regret greatly that the inconvenient facts simply refuse to go away. Wrong of them, extremely inconsiderate, but there you are!

i ll take it as a compliment.

Indeed you may. In fact, years ago, Goldsmith wrote a poem in which there are lines which describe your heroism!

It may help you to reconcile yourself to reading what I've written if I start by agreeing that majority opinion among the Tamils rejected a demand for independent Tamil Nadu.

Absolutely true...No one wanted a independent Tamil Nadu except for some loonies.

The loonies, of course, including the party that had won power in Tamil Nadu consistently during that period.

In 1920, it won the first direct elections in the presidency and formed the government. During 1920-37, it formed four out the five ministries constituted and was in power for thirteen out of the seventeen years.

Interesting. So the Tamils had these loonies governing them repeatedly, in government after government. No doubt wisdom dawned on them in 1938, and we are to ignore everything prior to that, everything inconvenient for your refreshing look at politics.

Again, I repeat, what is under discussion is not the loyalty of Tamils to India, but the existence of a minority psychology among them, among significant sections.

This is my bone of contention.There was never a minority psychology among the Tamils at any point of time.

I see that u have given the language protests as a sign of minority psychology..but to be true to history it was anything other than that.

If I had in fact done so, your criticism would have held water. In fact, my emphasis was on Periyar's and Annadurai's activities; this (language riots) happened at the fag end, after the practical death of separatism in 1956.

We had the language protests because we felt proud of our language which in any case was older than Hindi itself.

It would serve ur purpose to note that the protests were not against learning Hindi rather it was against substituting hindi in Tamil's place.

No, I did not say that the language protests are a sign of minority psychology. I said that the activities of the Justice Party, the Dravida Kazhagam, and then the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam are the symptoms. And I have given copious documentary evidence of that.

Do you have any counterbalancing evidence other than your unsupported assertion?

Having said which, there is a strange situation arising here. I don't know if you have noticed it.

In your anxiety to prove that there was no Tamil separatism before the 65 language riots, you have added more and more evidence, including a planned declaration of independence, of a minority feeling in 65. Suppose, for a moment, I were to be a wily debater, and were engaged in this discussion for the sake of scoring points: would I not shift ground subtly, and say,"All right, I accept that you are right about the older phases, but the language riots were separatist, but for Shastri's statesmanlike intervention."

Would that not have proved my point?

It is my case that the Tamils formed a 'minority' and that this minority articulated its discomfort and unease, to the extent that there were organised and serious demands for independence.

It would better serve ur point in saying Minority within the minority aspired for a Dravidistan as ur putting forth...not Minority per se.

The tamils as such as a single unit never felt as a minority either etnically ,religiously or linguistically.

I see no harm in accepting that formulation, nonsense in itself, if it assuages your feelings.

What is a single unit, for instance? One individual is a single unit; a whole state, today about 65 million people? With four very popular political parties? In your opinion, do all of them think alike?

Again, I fail to see how that affects the situation. At which point did the leadership, say, of the Scheduled Castes amount to more than a minuscule fraction of the whole? Does it mean that the views formulated by this leadership are invalid, because they are ‘a minority within the minority’?

Regarding your views on the Tamils never feeling like a minority, I have introduced contrary documentation; have you, again, anything but your own assertions?

Against this, you have suggested that only one individual, Periyar,wanted this. Even allowing for exaggeration, this is inaccurate.

I believe that the excerpts below, taken from my broader response to one of your earlier posts, may help you understand the reality. These are all available in the Wikipedia article on Dravidistan; I have avoided quoting from other available material since that may not be accessible universally.

1. The movement for Dravidistan was at its height from 1940s to 1960s, but failed to find any support outside Tamil Nadu.

References:

• Thapar, Romesh (1978). Change and Conflict in India. Macmillan. p. 75. ISBN 0836402227.
• Rao, C Rajeswara (1973). Defeat Separatist Conspiracy in Andhra. Communist Party of India. p. 28. OCLC 814926.

2. At the 14th Confederation of the Justice Party held in Madras in 1938, rules and regulations, or precursors of a Dravida Nadu were adopted. The objectives were defined as: to attain Purna Swaraj {emphasis added: JS}and complete control for Dravida Nadu in social, economic and industrial, and commercial fields; to liberate Dravida Nadu and Dravidians from exploitation and domination by non-Dravidian foreigners; to acquire for the citizens of Dravida Nadu without discrimination on account of caste and class and inequalities arising there from, in law and society, equal rights and equal opportunities; to remove from the Dravidian people the sense of difference and superstitious beliefs existing in the name of religion, customs, and traditions and unite them as a society of people with a liberal outlook and intellectual development, and to get proportionate representation in all fields till the achievement of these objectives and until the people who have a sense of caste, religious and class differences cooperate with the party in full confidence and goodwill.

References:

• Arooran, K. Nambi (1980). "Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism - The Demand for Dravida Nadu". TamilNation.org.

• Saraswathi. Towards Self-Respect, p. 87.

The significance of this last excerpt is two-fold. Please read this carefully, to avoid tilting at windmills later.

The Justice Party was in power for 13 out of 17 years from 1920 until 1937. It was the main opposition to the Indian National Congress, and was formed on an anti-Brahmin plank. It was elected again and again; it had no lack of popular support. It was not Periyar's party, and he did not join it until 1938. So this demand cannot be dismissed as a one-man show.

On the other hand, it was not until Periyar joined and influenced it significantly that it took up the demand for Dravidian independence.{emphasis added: JS}

3. In August 1944, Periyar created a new party called Dravidar Kazhagam out of the Justice Party, at the Salem Provincial Conference. The creation of a separate non-Brahmin Dravidian nation was a central aim of the party.

References:

• Dirks, Nicholas B. (2001). Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton University Press. p. 263.

I hope you see the thread between the Dravidistan movement and the later language riots emerging.

4. Annadurai was initially more radical than Periyar in his demand for a separate Dravidistan.

References:

• Jaffrelot, Christophe (2003). India's silent revolution: the rise of the low castes in North Indian politics. Orient Longman. p. 244.

If you read the reference I have suggested, you will find all these in there, along with the supporting authorities. Once I am able to format my reply properly, you will find that these are four out of ten citations reproduced. It would be possible to reproduce several score, but not feasible; I request you to look up the original sources yourself from the references given in that longer note.

Appreciate ur effort in trying to prove a point....but I think my one quote "In a period of free for all,its nothing surprising that anyone can aspire for anything under the holy sun" answers ur questions in a short but a crisp way.

And I appreciate your hard work in reading it! Now, if you would only take the one short step to finding out the correct facts and documents, and building your arguments on those, rather than on your self-declarations, we would make enormous progress.

Apparently your preferred argument is your own statement, a personal opinion. Short and crisp, but an opinion, not evidence. You called it a quotation, a quote; it is a quotation from yourself. If you were an authority on the subject, I would accept it. Your quote by itself has no weight as evidence, not even as eye-witness evidence.

Please produce the statements of leaders of the Tamils, or produce extracts from their own books or writings, or produce the views of scholars, and you might have credibility.

Most certainly I am not! The Muslim demand originated much earlier than the 40s, they rose to a peak around then, and the implications of the TNT took decades to work itself out.

If you had followed my arguments at all, instead of concluding, wrongly as it happens, that they constituted an attack on present-day or even past Tamil loyalty to India, you would find that the TNT has to be understood and recognised in its completeness, with its flaws and its strong points.

It was weak when it was interpreted to mean that religious practice alone constituted an identity differentiator, and other factors could be ignored for ever. It makes sense, either in its original form, or in modified form, when it is recognised that many factors, including religious identity, go into forming an identity.

Dear sir im not here to debate on the pros and the cons of the TNT.
Most certainly it had its ills and i agree with u on the point that religion alone cant be a sufficient differentiator in a land of myriad ethnicities.

Astonishing. Have you looked at the title of the thread?

Now for your contention that it is illogical to link events which happened 15 years apart.

That understanding is unfortunately incorrect, because the minority feeling that Tamil should not be suppressed, and another language imposed, was part and parcel of the demands of the independence movement for a Dravidistan right from 1938. The demand itself was abandoned in 1956, by most, but not all. Some tall leaders continued to demand this.

In 1962, as you have noted, Annadurai stood up and asked for Tamil independence on the floor of Parliament. Part of this demand for independence was based on a sensitivity regarding Tamil culture and identity which included a demand for the preservation of the Tamil language.

Three years later, the language riots, driven very largely by the DMK party, broke out. The DMK was not then in power; it was a Congress regime in office at the time.

In 1962, the Tamil people rose to the occasion and donated generously to the national cause.

In 1965, they agitated against imposition of Hindi, and this agitation was powered by the DMK, led by Annadurai.

Do you see any contradiction here? I don't.

Even that i have clarified in the post # 235,244.I think u have not read that entirely.But i shall repeat it.

On the contrary, I have; all my posts are read through carefully, both outgoing and incoming.

After an exhaustive and divisive debate, Hindi was adopted as the official language of India with English continuing as an associate official language for a period of fifteen years, after which Hindi would become the sole official language. The new Constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Efforts by the Indian Government to make Hindi the sole official language after 1965 were not acceptable to many non-Hindi Indian states, who wanted the continued use of English.

As the day (26 January 1965) of switching over to Hindi as sole official language approached, the anti-Hindi movement gained momentum in Madras State with increased support from college students. On 25 January, a full-scale riot broke out in the southern city of Madurai, sparked off by a minor altercation between agitating students and Congress party members.

To calm the situation, Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri gave assurances that English would continue to be used as the official language as long the non-Hindi speaking states wanted. The riots subsided after Shastri's assurance, as did the student agitation.

And yes it was the DMK that was involved in the anti-hindi agitation that quicly de-generated into riots.And mind u the demand of Independence was to be raised if Hindi was forcibly thrust on us...it was not thrust and hence the demand just remained a hypothesis.
Stress is on the word "to be".

Now if u properly understand the above paras...u can see that the the imposition of Hindi was to be done in 1965 and if u understand the undercurrents of Indian politics it u would realise that demand in parliament was rather a psychological threat of secession if Hindi was implemented forcefully thereby forcing the Congress leaders at the centre to backtrack on that ...

If i may put in a more crude yet simple way..."It was a bluff by Anna that was luckily not called by the Congress at the centre."

Do you realize what an excellent job you have done? I can forgive you everything else for this and this alone. Now – and I address this to those following the TNT thread, and to those interested in interpreting Jinnah’s actions – this is precisely Ayesha Jalal’s analysis, taken up and expanded with more emotion but less learning by Jaswant Singh. While your example is a lame one, it throws valuable light on the thinking that could well have produced Jinnah’s actions, exactly the way they were.

Secondly, how would you describe the state of affairs when a linguistic minority was willing to declare independence to protect its language? In what way is this different from Bangladesh?

The same DMK led by C. N. Annadurai or some other one? The same Annadurai who in 1962 raised the demand for independence in Parliament or some other one? Please look at the records of his speech; did he link it to the imposition of Hindi, if Hindi was forcibly thrust on Tamil Nadu?

When you say the demand remained a hypothesis, what do you mean? Was it made or not made? Three years earlier than the riots to which you have linked it?

Surely this is not the same Karthic Sri who protested that the riots of 65 could not be linked to the Muslim minority rising for a homeland of their own in the 30s and 40s? :-D

Sir ..sadly in ur attempt at sarcasm u have forgot one important thing nor u have fully understand what im trying to tel.
It seems rather than concentrating on formatting u should concentrate on my posts..

Ok lemme explain with the timeline the bolded part.

1950 26 th Jan - the new constitution stipulating that Hindi will become the sole official language after 15 years comes into effect.
There were immediately an uproar Not only in Tamil Nadu..but almost in all non-Hindi speaking states of which Tamil Nadu was singled out due to the ferocity.

Around 1958 - The issue was largely forgotten an business was going as usual.

1962 - This was the time that DMK wanted to come to power and since 1965 (the year of Hindi imposition) was nearing Anna saw a huge oppurtunity in using this plank and capturing power in Tamil Nadu ..which he did sucessfully later.

It will serve my purpose to highlight that the real motive behind all these hoopla was capturing power and not any genuine concern for anyone.

1965 - Now central govt still dilly dallying on the Language proposal Anna realised that organising protests and stirring up the emotive issue of language will serve his purpose of DMK capturing power and with Lal Bahadur Shastri agreeing on the proposal the English will continue as the official lang Anna obtained two mangoes in one throw - rallying the Tamils under the banner of DMK and hence capturing power in Tamil Nadu.

I hope i have now clarified ur doubt regarding timelines.

I will not irritate you by explaining which is more interesting, formatting or reading your posts, especially since i punish myself by reading every post.

That would be a reasonable explanation, void of external evidence though it is, but for two awkward facts;

• The Dravidistan demand, and the reasons for Tamil minority feeling, were both based partly on the fear of the suppression of the Tamil language. If this was a feature of the earlier programmes and campaigns, and the demand for Dravidistan was only sought by loonies, how did it become a mass movement? That feeling must have existed within Tamilians to have been exploited by a wily politician!
• Annadurai was, as has been shown repeatedly by the evidence, a more rabid Tamil separatist than Periyar. Was he bluffing from the very beginning?

ur notion abt how the majority of the Tamils wanted independence

I had this notion? Silly me!

Er, just to be kind to the old, could you remind me where I said this?

As far as I remember, this interesting sub-thread started based on the following:

The Tamils deserve special mention. At one stage, they seemed far more affected by centrifugal forces than any other nation within India. Their strong sense of identity equipped them, above all other Dravidian groups, to seek a greater place under the Sun for themselves.That they have stayed on peacefully is due to the compromise that has evolved, whereby the Dravidian parties rule supreme, only alternating power among themselves. I have no explanation for this alternation; only a Cho can tell us, and Cho has sold out.

Have u heard of a word in English called "inference".??

I hope so..cos this word comes into play here.

When u put forth the feelings that the Tamils felt in the Anti-Hindi riots of 1965 in a post that was concerned with the TNT feelings of 1940's it is bound to raise some heckles and it would have been discretionary on ur part to have taken care of that.

Second objection was for lumpin the Tamils as minority.
Again it would have served ur intended pupose if u had said "A tiny minority among the Tamils" instead of saying Tamil Minority.

Hope u get the difference among the two.

Ah, so you take it upon yourself to tell us that the Dravidistan movement of 1938 to 1965 did not involve any feeling of minority suppression, but the language riots of 1965 did.

Did this feeling of minority suppression spring up out of a void? And if it existed during the riots of 65, contrary to my analysis, does that not bear out the minority reference?

As for your casuistry about minority within a minority, that would apply to every single political leadership vis-à-vis their constituency. I have already mentioned the Scheduled Castes; others are obvious candidates.

If I have any regrets about this post, it is not recognising that the Nagas were a far greater threat to India during some period. My justification is that Tamil separatist feeling was at its height between 1938 and 1956, whereas the Indian Army was called into what later became Nagaland in 1955, and a general peace kind of settled in around 1975: therefore, two fairly distinct periods.

But ur point is...? Again there was no such thing as separatism in Tamil Nadu.

By saying Tamil Separatism ur doing injustince to both the Tamil Freedom movement and to the word Separatism.

Wat we had in Nagaland is separatism...wat we had in tamil Nadu was a separatist feeling among a tiny minority that had no followers among the common mass.

A separatist feeling among a tiny minority<>separatism.

How do you describe political movements seeking independence other than separatist? It may be among a minority, but it was among an influential minority which included the heads of government and ministers.

How many people, what percentage of the concerned population does it take for a movement to be defined as separatist?

And how do you gloss over your own statement that the Tamil Dravidian leadership were ready to declare independence if Hindi had indeed become the national language?

However, I agree that the Naga rebellion and the Tamil Dravidistan were significantly different in degree. Having said that, I fail to see how the word ‘minority’ plays a part.

Dear Mr. Kartic Sri,

If I swear before a notary public that I did not say that a majority of the Tamils wanted independence, will you go away and play with your grenades somewhere else? You can leave the pins behind; I will return them whenever you ask politely.

Thank you.

U better do it my friend because many people here are not of ur intellectual level and hence will pounce upon how Tamils are being suppressed,prepressed by evil India and yes i have seen my fair share of loonies doing so here.

Thanx...

Guarding against fanboys attacking Tamils or Indians using this is not good enough reason to hide the truth or to obscure history. That was the mistake made by ‘Shining India’, that is a mistake that I believe India is too strong to need. Please don’t quote that as a reason for fudging history, or suggesting that we deal in propaganda.

Leave that to others.

I know this was not directed at me...but as a Tamil i request u not to again use the word minorities for Tamils as a whole.

U can very well use them for indicating the tiny minority that had separatist aspiration at that time...even though the common man did not want it.

I am not objecting to your holding up a contrary view, but I can’t change the meanings of words just to suit a faction. I am sorry, but you have to defend Tamil loyalty some other way than by defining Tamils as a non-minority; the idea is ridiculous, the grammar as well as the etymology is worse.

This is my formulation: Tamil minority feeling crystallised in the activities of Periyar and his associates. They joined the Justice Party after it had lost power, and used it as a vehicle to agitate for Dravidistan. Subsequently, Periyar and his Dravidian followers left the Justice Party and started the Dravida Kazhagam. He and his followers kept up their agitation but received no mass support. His even more extremist follower, Annadurai, broke away from him and the DK, and formed the DMK. In 1962, he gave a fiery speech in the Indian Parliament, asking for Tamil independence. In 1965, he saw an opportunity in the coming imposition of Hindi, and mobilised the masses against that move. This brought the DMK into the public eye, they defeated the Congress, and dominated Tamil politics in one way or the other thereafter. Separatism died away with that.

Since it is clear that your objective is not comparison of evidence, I do not see any point in continuing. You are afraid that what I say will be misused. Anything that anyone says can be misused; we can neither stop articulating our views, or distorting what we think simply to present a united semantic front. In any case, what are you afraid of: do the opinions of fanboys and lunatics matter?

There are other, better ways of defending India. I personally prefer to try logic and reason.

Thank you very much for an interesting diversion into the semantics of fanboy antics on the net.
 
.
Joe Sahib,

If u hear Pakistani commentators like Zaid Hamid, Hamid Gul etc those typical India baiters ,they sometimes name Tamils as having problems with the Indian state.Even Senior members like "Jana" and few others of this forum adhere to such view too.

They don't know about the ground realties ,they take any sort of grievances of Tamil people , Assamese, Maoists or even Raj Thackeray for matter as secessionist sentiments . Even if they know do ,they talk about it for its propaganda value.To be precise they have strong desire increase to the number people who don't want to part of Hindustan and join the break away from India club created by Pakistan.Let me tell them ,even some Odiya feel Indian state exploiting Odissa's rich mineral resources without contributing enough for its development ,and they would be better off as an Independent nation.Cheers...

And off late i saw a new member named 'Joe Shearer' who reminded, refreshed and enlisted big numbers of religious,ethnic,caste groups including Tamils who have deep insecurities for being a minority(??).They want to break away from India ,but they severely lack in motivation and strong inspiring leadership we saw during creation of Pakistan . I pity them,do u??

Thank you.

Dear Sir,

I was very sorry to read your post. The answer to the Zaid Hamids and the Hamid Guls and the Hamid Mirs has been given by history. It is a great pity that sensible people are apprehensive about their efforts.

You may argue that behind the arguments of these vocal and visible few, there are many more subversive agents beavering away. Do you think that this matter does not exercise the minds of others, that you, and I, and posters on Internet sites alone sit and worry about this? Do you really think that stating a real situation will give the enemy grounds for more mischief?

Let me try to set right some of your apprehensions.

The genesis of Pakistan was in the TNT. If we leave aside the flim-flammery, all it says is that the Muslims were apprehensive of becoming a minority under Hindu domination. They may have been right, they may have been wrong. Their leader, having fought off fundamentalists and clergymen who wanted to lead the Muslim League, offered a compromise to the leaders of the other main party, the INC. The INC in its wisdom rejected the offer, and there was no road left but partition.

At the time of these happenings, there were various other interested parties watching the proceedings. In my response to Bang Galore, I listed some of them. That factor, and the subsequent breakaway of Bangladesh from Pakistan, should clearly prove to those of us who are willing to learn historical lessons from these developments that the TNT was incomplete.

What it did not recognise was that there are other factors than religion that go into identity. As a result, if we look at the results on both sides of the Radcliffe Line, we will see the following:

In Pakistan, the mere fact of religious homogeneity was found to be insufficient. It was not Bangladesh alone that was disaffected; there were other points of pain. But - and this is critical - because the TNT had been the formula which won them independence, nobody could question it, nobody could change it to suit changed circumstances. Now, recently, it has become more and more clear to leading Pakistan intellects that a richer mixture is at work, and this must be understood and managed. The recent development with regard to the provincialisation of Khaibar Pakhtunkhwa is a case in point.

India had no such starting problem. Having made one Himalayan mistake in 46, the INC leadership fortunately made no others. They delayed, they dallied, they made years out of days, but ultimately, they displayed a better understanding of minority management than might have been feared.

Please bear with me and go back and glance at the list I proposed to Bang Galore. In each and every major case but one, India solved the problem of the minority in question within the Indian constitution. The Tamils, the Mizos and the Nagas were the greatest successes; but we forget that long before that, we had had to face Sikh discomfort, split the Punjab into three, and thereafter, except for Zail Singh's incredible foolishness, had smooth sailing with regard to that minority. Today, with one major exception, there is nothing to fear in that regard.

The one exception is the Maoist insurrection. I am distraught when I think of it, because of my personal and family connections with that problem. It is what it is today because of incredible neglect and shortsightedness. Having said that, from the example of other such movements, we need to allow it between four to ten years for resolution. For proof, please look at any other instance; the maximum duration was 20 years, and the Maoist movement has already gone on for nearly ten.

Do you now understand? India is in a better position than any other Asian country, including one we never discuss, and I shall never discuss in these columns, because of our better management of minority expectations.

I am totally amazed and as strongly deprecatory of the fears mentioned. People who say they hate India do propaganda? So? does that affect the situation on the ground? one little bit? Do you or any other Indian reading that feel disaffected? Or is it your opinion that the spymasters sit and read these columns and decide their strategy? Or are the Maoists deciding whom to attack depending on what they are told here?

Wouldn't you think that this is not serious enough to get so worried about?

Please let us not indulge in these fanciful notions. We have here an opportunity to discover each other's attitudes and beliefs about matters of mutual interest, and we have an opportunity to propagate our points of view, as well as learn other's points of view. That is all. Effective changes may well result from these processes, but they will happen outside the Internet.

My suggestion is that you rest easy and do not take your posts or others' posts or Joe's posts with such seriousness. India has figured out what to do without our help, Pakistan will move forward without our help, and we can concentrate on educating ourselves without fear of affecting reality.

Sincere regards,

'Joe'
 
.
@Joe Shearer

I have enjoyed reading your discussion with Karthic Sri. From the tone of his replies, it's fair to surmise that he seems more than a bit annoyed with you. I must confess that I saw this coming the moment you mentioned Tamils in your list since I have had the occasion of seeing how worked up he gets over this issue.
Therein lies my point on the TNT. One might ask the question "Karthic Sri ko gussa kyon aata hai?"( with due apologies to Saeed Mirza & Naseeruddin Shah). Here is someone whose community you have argued has harboured some separatist tendencies. Without disputing any of your arguments, we are both witnesses to the fact that a mere 60-70 years later, the mere raking of the issue is a cause for much anger. Would you dare suggest to this gentleman that he, because of the community he belongs to, is less of an Indian? Most probably not, I certainly wouldn't. So what value should one put on the effect that psychology plays on people considering themselves minorities? Karthic, as you have seen even refuses to accept this tag(your family has no doubt removed any doubts on that score long ago). Does it not strengthen the argument that given the right conditions & effort, all such movements might end up being ephemeral in nature? You make the same argument.

Please bear with me and go back and glance at the list I proposed to Bang Galore. In each and every major case but one, India solved the problem of the minority in question within the Indian constitution. The Tamils, the Mizos and the Nagas were the greatest successes; but we forget that long before that, we had had to face Sikh discomfort, split the Punjab into three, and thereafter, except for Zail Singh's incredible foolishness, had smooth sailing with regard to that minority. Today, with one major exception, there is nothing to fear in that regard.

So, why would the Muslims who felt the need for partition been any different? I am not arguing that one way or the other because the issues involved were not exactly the same, however in theory at least it should have been amenable to the same type of accommodation that all these disparate communities came to with the Indian government, one that did not change the basic structure of the Indian state.

I have no desire to see history changed nor am i swayed by such archaic notions as Akhand Bharat but I find it difficult to reconcile in my mind, the argument that people of different religions are so incompatible with each other that they cannot live in the same country as equal citizens.

Thank you for your time. It has been an absolute pleasure to be a participant in a discussion alongside a person such as yourself. I look forward to many more such discussions.
 
.
@Joe Shearer

Sir, I enjoyed reading your discussion. However, I beg to differ from you on the definition of the term &#8216;minority&#8217;. I feel, we should not be defining &#8216;minority&#8217; based on simple numbers. A definition based on simple numbers could include groups based on education, language, wealth and even age, which seems not correct. Would not it be better, if we use sociological definition of the term &#8216;minority&#8217;, where 'minority' is defined based on social structures, propensity to face discrimination and denial of rights. Tamilians fit none of the above categories. Karthic seems to make the same point here

Regards
Jade
 
Last edited:
.
India has more than 900 million hindus so it doesnt count. Neither Pakistan or Bangladesh has that many hindus and Bangladesh was thousands of miles away from Pakistan with india (a country of more than 900 million hindus) in between. Bangladesh and Pakistan share no borders.


Pakistan has a population of 170 million (97% Muslims) India has a population of 1.2 billion (80% hindu). You keep your 900 million hindus to yourself, we Pakistanis dont want them and we will never consider ourselves same as the 900 million hindus you have in india.

The Muslims in India do not count? How many absinthe shots are you on today?

I should keep the 900 million Hindus to myself - whoa - you mean I have to continue my leash on them?

Whether you agree to it or like it - fact is 170 million Indian Muslims are a major political force. A 3% swing in an election pretty much sends BJP or Congress into power - and with 15% of the population being Muslim - they do affect the way India is governed or misgoverned. These Muslims of India have enjoyed this right every 5 years unlike the Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh. If they were a combined political force - they would be close to 35-40% of the total population. 5%-15% is a minority - 40% can barely be considered a minority. Anyhow - now where are my reins with which I should keep those 900 million Hindus in check?
 
.
Dear Sir,

I am afraid it will take more to impress me than an individual exercising his vocal chords instead of exercising his intellect.

Fascinating couple of points you've raised. As I see them, you are raising the points:
  1. Is a feeling of minority deprivation permanent, or can it be visualised as going away once certain conditions are met?
  2. Need the Indian Muslims have taken things to the point of partition?

1. I think that it only takes average to moderately high sensitivity on the part of a country's ruling political classes, administration and thinkers to avoid a permanently scarred and hostile minority. I am sure we will, in typically Indian fashion, bumble through with a solution to a problem foreseen as far back as the 40s and 50s, or even further back (depends on whether you've been reading Verrier Elwin or Christoph von Fuehrer Haimendorff). The ingredients are clear, and needs no further discovery. Only political clarity of purpose and will to execute these objects is lacking.

2. I need to correct a misapprehension common to a lot of people. The Muslims did not feel the need for partition. Jinnah came to the table with an extreme programme permitted him by resolution and by election, but with a moderate scheme which hinged on mutual accommodation. He thought he was home and dry when Nehru and the Congress leadership wrecked the whole boat.

Please read this extract about the Cripps Cabinet Mission of 46 (I have added emphasis in italics or in bold-face as appropriate); I would have quoted Ayesha Jalal but my copy is in circulation with friends, so Wikipedia it is:

Joe Shearer said:
"The Mission's purpose was:

1. Hold preparatory discussions with elected representatives of British India and the Indian states in order to secure agreement as to the method of framing the constitution.
2. Set up a constitution body.
3. Set up an Executive Council with the support of the main Indian parties.

The Mission held talks with the representatives of the Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim League, the two largest political parties in the Constituent Assembly of India {This is badly worded; the Constituent Assembly was not in place at this time: JS}. The two parties planned to determine a power-sharing arrangement between Hindus and Muslims to prevent a communal dispute, and to determine whether British India would be better-off unified or divided. The Congress party under Gandhi-Nehru nexus wanted to obtain absolute power for their party, having the discretion to deal with Muslim League and Muslims in general at their discretion after the British departed. The All India Muslim League under Jinnah, wanted to keep India united but with political safeguards provided to Muslims such as 'guarantee' of 'parity' in the legislatures. This stance of the League was backed up by the wide belief of Muslims that the British Raj was simply going to be turned in to a 'Hindu Raj' once the British departed; and since the Muslim League was the sole spokesman party of Indian Muslims, it was incumbent up on it to take the matter up with the Crown. After initial dialogue, the Mission proposed its plan over the composition of the new government on May 16th, 1946:

Plan of May 16

Promulgated on 16 May 1946, the plan to create a united dominion of India as a loose confederation of provinces came to be known by the date of its announcement:

1. A united Dominion of India would be given independence.
2. Muslim-majority provinces would be grouped - Baluchistan, Sind, Punjab and North-West Frontier Province would form one group, and Bengal and Assam would form another.
3. Hindu-majority provinces in central and southern India would form another group.
4. The Central government would be empowered to run foreign affairs, defence and communications, while the rest of powers and responsibility would belong to the provinces, coordinated by groups.

Plan of June 16

The plan of May 16, 1946 had envisaged a united India in line with Congress and Muslim League aspirations. But that was where the consensus between the two parties ended since Congress abhorred the idea of having groupings of Muslim majority provinces and that of Hindu majority provinces with the intention of 'balancing' each other at the Central Legislature. The Muslim League could not accept any changes to this plan since the same 'balance' or 'parity' that Congress was loath to accept formed the basis of Muslim demands of 'political safeguards' built in to post-British Indian laws so as to prevent absolute rule of Hindus over Muslims.

Reaching an impasse, the British proposed a second, alternative plan on June 16, 1946. This plan sought to arrange for India to be divided into Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan, since Congress had vehemently rejected 'parity' at the Centre. A list of princely states of India that would be permitted to accede to either dominion or attain independence was also drawn up.

The Cabinet Mission arrived in India on March 23, 1946 and in Delhi on April 2, 1946. The announcement of the Plan on May 16, 1946 was preceded by the Simla Conference of 1946 in the first week of May.

Reactions and acceptance

The approval of the plans would determine the composition of the new government. The Congress Working Committee had initially approved the plan. However, on 10 July, Jawaharlal Nehru, who later became the first prime minister of India, held a press conference in Bombay declaring that the Congress had agreed only to participate in the Constituent Assembly and "regards itself free to change or modify the Cabinet Mission Plan as it thought best." The Congress ruled out the June 16 plan, seeing it as the division of India into small states. Moreover, the Congress was a Centralist party. Intellectuals like Kanji Dawarkadas criticized the Cabinet Plan. Congress was against decentralization and it had been under pressure from Indian capitalists who wanted a strong Center. The plan's strongest opponent was the principal Indian leader Mohandas Gandhi, due to the reason that the territories had been grouped together on the basis of religion.

The Muslim League gave its approval to the plan. There was an impression that the Congress also had accepted the scheme and the Plan would be the basis of the future constitution of India. Jinnah, in his speech to the League Council, clearly stated that he recommended acceptance only because nothing better could be obtained. However, on declaration from the Congress President that the Congress could change the scheme through its majority in the Constituent Assembly, this meant that the minorities would be placed at the mercy of the majority. The Muslim League Council met at Bombay on 27 July. "Mr. Jinnah in his opening speech reiterated the demand for Pakistan as the only course left open to the Muslim League. After three days' discussion, the Council passed a resolution rejecting the Cabinet Mission Plan. It also decided to resort to direct action for the achievement of Pakistan."

However, the plan had its advocates. Maulana Azad, a nationalist Muslim leader, said that while the groupings were a major concession to the theme of religious separatism, it would also force the League to accept a framework for a united India. While assuring minority rights and participation, an independent India would be free to do away eventually with the groupings arrangement. Gandhi criticized the Maulana's views for ignoring practical considerations and League ambitions.

________________________________________________________

The conclusions are that the AIML was prepared to compromise, the INC was not. The AIML agreed to both plans - the May 16 Plan as well as the June 16 Plan. The Congress disagreed with both plans. What conclusion do we draw?

These were two political parties, one claiming to represent all Indian Muslims, one standing for all Indians, including the Muslims. Obviously, they could not both represent the Muslims exclusively. It was a fight for the vote on one level; it was an existential fight on another level.

Another point that is worth noting is that the groupings of Muslim-majority states as a homeland for Muslims nowhere implied that all Muslims from other parts of the country would come flooding into these. I am tired of having to explain this over and over and over again. The League sought to balance the brute force majority that Hindus enjoyed and might have exercised by putting the voting at a higher level, of three votes, two votes Muslim and one composite; this would prevent legislation against the Muslim interest.

The critical part was to create two voting entities at the superior level, beyond legislatures. This is the safeguard that the AIML sought, not the safeguard of reservations that Ambedkar was willing to settle for, in the case of his own constituency.

You can see for yourself where the force to partition the country came from. Comment is superfluous.

You mentioned in your post a formulation that needs a little elaboration, a little clarification. You mention, "it should have been amenable to the same type of accommodation that all these disparate communities came to with the Indian government, one that did not change the basic structure of the Indian state."

The basic structure of the Indian state, if by that we mean the Indian Constitution of 1950, was not in place at the time of these discussions. If we look back at the objectives of the Cabinet Mission, one of the objectives of the May 16 Plan was to form a Constituent Assembly. One of Nehru's most telling blows was his declaration at his famous press conference (see above) that constituent assembly members elected to that assembly would be free to act as they pleased, and not be bound by the directions of the government of their bloc grouping. This was completely the Congress demand by the back door.

Can people from different religions live together peacefully? Of course; but the majority has to understand what is troubling the minority and make adjustments from time to time. These are not the adjustments that have been made by us in India; such adjustments are nothing but pandering to the sarkari Mullahs. It has nothing to do with the community's desire to educate itself, to work, to progress....

Was partition inevitable? If the Congress had retained its balance, no. Nobody wanted it; the Congress finally left no alternatives.

Let me draw one final lesson.

You think it reasonable that a mere reference to Tamilian separatism should set an inflammable youngster alight. ....a mere 60-70 years later, the mere raking of the issue is a cause for much anger.

Indeed.

What should we expect if we go on like stuck records reminding Pakistani Muslims and Indian Muslims alike that they were separatists (in the teeth of the evidence that they were not)?

_______________________________________________________
@Joe Shearer

I have enjoyed reading your discussion with Karthic Sri. From the tone of his replies, it's fair to surmise that he seems more than a bit annoyed with you. I must confess that I saw this coming the moment you mentioned Tamils in your list since I have had the occasion of seeing how worked up he gets over this issue.
Therein lies my point on the TNT. One might ask the question "Karthic Sri ko gussa kyon aata hai?"( with due apologies to Saeed Mirza & Naseeruddin Shah). Here is someone whose community you have argued has harboured some separatist tendencies. Without disputing any of your arguments, we are both witnesses to the fact that a mere 60-70 years later, the mere raking of the issue is a cause for much anger. Would you dare suggest to this gentleman that he, because of the community he belongs to, is less of an Indian? Most probably not, I certainly wouldn't. So what value should one put on the effect that psychology plays on people considering themselves minorities? Karthic, as you have seen even refuses to accept this tag(your family has no doubt removed any doubts on that score long ago). Does it not strengthen the argument that given the right conditions & effort, all such movements might end up being ephemeral in nature? You make the same argument.



So, why would the Muslims who felt the need for partition been any different? I am not arguing that one way or the other because the issues involved were not exactly the same, however in theory at least it should have been amenable to the same type of accommodation that all these disparate communities came to with the Indian government, one that did not change the basic structure of the Indian state.

I have no desire to see history changed nor am i swayed by such archaic notions as Akhand Bharat but I find it difficult to reconcile in my mind, the argument that people of different religions are so incompatible with each other that they cannot live in the same country as equal citizens.

Thank you for your time. It has been an absolute pleasure to be a participant in a discussion alongside a person such as yourself. I look forward to many more such discussions.
 
Last edited:
.
@Joe Shearer

Sir, I enjoyed reading your discussion. However, I beg to differ from you on the definition of the term ‘minority’. I feel, we should not be defining ‘minority’ based on simple numbers. A definition based on simple numbers could include groups based on education, language, wealth and even age, which seems not correct. Would not it be better, if we use sociological definition of the term ‘minority’, where 'minority' is defined based on social structures, propensity to face discrimination and denial of rights. Tamilians fit none of the above categories. Karthic seems to make the same point here

Regards
Jade

Dear Sir,

As it happens, we are in perfect agreement with regard to your note, except for one single sentence.

I quite agree with you that social structure, propensity to face discrimination and denial of rights constitute the ingredients of minority sentiment. But I would add that these are the ingredients; they are cooked and readied for consumption by perception, the perception of prejudice against them, for any reason.

We come to the pesky sentence.

Tamilians fit none of the above categories.

True. But that is not the point. A significant, influential section of the Tamilians thought that there was prejudice. It was this that fostered separatist sentiment. Language was just one element; please go through the resolutions I have mentioned.

Similarly, Indian Muslims feared discrimination; this perception was strong enough to drive their move for safeguards. And we all know by now what came of that.

Sincere regards.
 
.
2. I need to correct a misapprehension common to a lot of people. The Muslims did not feel the need for partition. Jinnah came to the table with an extreme programme permitted him by resolution and by election, but with a moderate scheme which hinged on mutual accommodation. He thought he was home and dry when Nehru and the Congress leadership wrecked the whole boat.

Please read this extract about the Cripps Cabinet Mission of 46 (I have added emphasis in italics or in bold-face as appropriate); I would have quoted Ayesha Jalal but my copy is in circulation with friends, so Wikipedia it is:



________________________________________________________

The conclusions are that the AIML was prepared to compromise, the INC was not. The AIML agreed to both plans - the May 16 Plan as well as the June 16 Plan. The Congress disagreed with both plans. What conclusion do we draw?

These were two political parties, one claiming to represent all Indian Muslims, one standing for all Indians, including the Muslims. Obviously, they could not both represent the Muslims exclusively. It was a fight for the vote on one level; it was an existential fight on another level.

Another point that is worth noting is that the groupings of Muslim-majority states as a homeland for Muslims nowhere implied that all Muslims from other parts of the country would come flooding into these. I am tired of having to explain this over and over and over again. The League sought to balance the brute force majority that Hindus enjoyed and might have exercised by putting the voting at a higher level, of three votes, two votes Muslim and one composite; this would prevent legislation against the Muslim interest.

The critical part was to create two voting entities at the superior level, beyond legislatures. This is the safeguard that the AIML sought, not the safeguard of reservations that Ambedkar was willing to settle for, in the case of his own constituency.

You can see for yourself where the force to partition the country came from. Comment is superfluous.

You mentioned in your post a formulation that needs a little elaboration, a little clarification. You mention, "it should have been amenable to the same type of accommodation that all these disparate communities came to with the Indian government, one that did not change the basic structure of the Indian state."

The basic structure of the Indian state, if by that we mean the Indian Constitution of 1950, was not in place at the time of these discussions. If we look back at the objectives of the Cabinet Mission, one of the objectives of the May 16 Plan was to form a Constituent Assembly. One of Nehru's most telling blows was his declaration at his famous press conference (see above) that constituent assembly members elected to that assembly would be free to act as they pleased, and not be bound by the directions of the government of their bloc grouping. This was completely the Congress demand by the back door.

Can people from different religions live together peacefully? Of course; but the majority has to understand what is troubling the minority and make adjustments from time to time. These are not the adjustments that have been made by us in India; such adjustments are nothing but pandering to the sarkari Mullahs. It has nothing to do with the community's desire to educate itself, to work, to progress....

Was partition inevitable? If the Congress had retained its balance, no. Nobody wanted it; the Congress finally left no alternatives.

My reference to the Indian state should have been clearer. Since I had anticipated a probable response from you referring to Jinnah's proposal, I made a reference indicating the preference for the structure(democratic,secular) that we eventually created for India.

I beg to disagree with your assessment that the structure proposed by Mr. Jinnah would have been viable as an alternative to what we have today. That plan had within it the right for states to secede from the union after a few years if they so chose. Your own arguments have pointed out that there were centrifugal forces at play in many areas of the subcontinent. A weak centre would , in my opinion, have not held.

I have never made the case that Mr.Jinnah was wrong to fear for his community or that the partition was a great disaster for the people of India(here i include Pakistan, India & Bangladesh) as many others have. I have actually made the argument on other threads that the benefits of partition were far greater than the drawbacks for the people of present day India. Whether it benefited people of Pakistan & Bangladesh who have had to deal with the religious genie without the benefit of constitutional safeguards as is available in India is something that is best left for them to decide. My point and one that I have made repeatedly was over the religious nature of the separation & the moral arguments for the same. You will hopefully understand that my views therefore are inclined towards the INC's rejection of a proposal that would have solidified & constitutionally validated the imparting of a religious hue to the state. It would also then have brought into discussion the rights of other minorities and their quest for political parity. Having already sanctioned such a structure, it would have been churlish not to consider similar requests from other communities for that same parity merely because of their lack of bargaining power owing to limitations of number. In any case, I am of the firm belief that such a structure would have been disastrous for those of us ( I include you) who would rather have religion at the periphery, if at all in the running of a state. Most likely, all that it would have done would have been to delay partition for a few years and probably would have led to a dozen or more states instead of two then and three now.

These are not the adjustments that have been made by us in India; such adjustments are nothing but pandering to the sarkari Mullahs.

Imagine the pandering that would have to be done in a state with the structure as proposed by Mr.Jinnah. we have atleast, to a large extent rid ourselves of pandering to the majority community allowing for whole scale reforms of the outdated Hindu laws, something that may not have been possible with a structure which reinforced religious identities.

Thanks but no thanks.
 
. .
In other words you differentiate between the two on the basis of their methodology to impose, but not on the act of imposing.
More than that - First, the Taliban, if taken as a 'community of extreme conservatives' wish to impose their ideology on all of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and therefore on all 'communities of Pakistan and Afghanistan' - liberal, conservative and moderate.

Second, the Taliban seek to impose their will on all communities through force and violence, and yes, the methodology does count. Advancing their agenda through social and political discourse and democratic government does not mean they are imposing on all communities, rather they are convincing all (or enough) communities to vote for them and buy into their vision.

Your analogy does not fit well at all.
Bangladesh then, Baluchistan now, Sindh sometime in future.
India in 1947 as well - every nation in the world uses one identity marker or the other. Just because you don't like the identity marker selected by those who would campaign for an independent Pakistan does not make it any less legitimate (at the time) than the identity markers selected by the 190+ other nations in the world.

I wouldn’t call it ‘worse’. I would rather call it imperfect. Because race (or rather ethnicity) or language reflects an identity at a more micro level, which religious identity will invariably not be able to represent.
Joe has already gone into great detail on this issue - at the time, in the context of the British Colony of India and independent nationhood bearing down, the broader and prominent identity marker became religion. Religion did not subsume the other aspects of identity by a diverse people in Pakistan (though successive rulers attempted to do just that), it merely put them on the back-burner.
I keep repeating and you keep avoiding the Bengali vis-a-vis Punjabi puzzle. Nevermind.
You keep repeating instead of understanding. Its a point that has been addressed.
 
.
In other words, ‘outsider’s’ opinion matters so long as they are ‘stakeholders’. What it really means is that even ‘(i)f one fears for the rights of a community, and the option for a separate nation state for that community is feasible’, one still can’t ‘use whatever is available to protect those rights’. This ‘right’ that you talked of earlier, is therefore limited by the stakeholders’ perception of infringement of their own rights, of encroachment of their own interest, and of what is right (as in good) or wrong. Nice backtracking there.
Why can't one use 'whatever is available', so long as violence is not resorted to, to advocate and negotiate in favor of the rights of a community? Did I not point out that the Baloch nationalists in Pakistan are doing just that with their threats and demands for independence, and that they have sparked national discourse on the issue and caught the attention of the major political parties?

Secondly, given that there is an existing compact of nationhood between the communities that comprise Pakistan, the 'stakeholders' (the Federal Government) does indeed have greater say. That compact of nationhood did not exist in British India - the political discourse on the issue between the INC and ML was meant to be an attempt to arrive at that compact on nationhood, that would have then given the Indian State more say as a stakeholder, but that never came to pass.
I’ll let your condescendence that Baluchistanis don’t know what is in their ‘best interest’ pass. It is not for me to defend, although, I must say, 1971 reverberated in my ears for a second or two.
And pray tell where I said that the Baluch do not know what is in their best interest?

Please pay closer attention, I said that breaking up into smaller nations may not be in the best interests of the smaller nations - whether it is or is not is only something dialog between the stakeholders will establish, and in the case of Pakistan, it will be, and should be (regardless of whatever politically inflammatory rhetoric the Baloch nationalists use) dialog primarily within the confines of the compact of nationhood already entered into, until such time as both stakeholders agree that compact of nationhood does not serve the interests of either.
 
.
zakir naik is ur regular wahabi mullah albeit clad in suits and speaks in English.The Deobandis have at least issued fatwa against terrorism ,but zakir naik thinks Bin Laden is doing legitimate jihad as long as US is seemed to be acting against Islam.

Rejects two nation thoery:yaa, they wanted the whole of India for the ummat.

He is not exactly wahabi. But he tries to explain everything or tries to give advices on living based on what he believes Islam teaches which makes him stretch arguments and make people think open so and so hadith before doing even simple things. People of that kind are dangerous. Except that he makes simple minded people think Islam and other religions share links. Regardless of the factual nature of this if it leads to people seeing their neighbors as brothers that is fine enough for me.


Dear Sir,

As it happens, we are in perfect agreement with regard to your note, except for one single sentence.

I quite agree with you that social structure, propensity to face discrimination and denial of rights constitute the ingredients of minority sentiment. But I would add that these are the ingredients; they are cooked and readied for consumption by perception, the perception of prejudice against them, for any reason.

We come to the pesky sentence.

Tamilians fit none of the above categories.

True. But that is not the point. A significant, influential section of the Tamilians thought that there was prejudice. It was this that fostered separatist sentiment. Language was just one element; please go through the resolutions I have mentioned.

Similarly, Indian Muslims feared discrimination; this perception was strong enough to drive their move for safeguards. And we all know by now what came of that.

Sincere regards.

"thought"??!!
The first anti-Hindi agitation was launched in 1937, in opposition to the introduction of compulsory teaching of Hindi in the schools of Madras Presidency by the first Indian National Congress government led by C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji). This move was immediately opposed by E. V. Ramasamy (Periyar) and the opposition Justice Party (later Dravidar Kazhagam).
Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There was direct evidence to the effect dude. If we were going to be forced to study Hindi as our first language what else do you expect? Also please note that there are enough Indian 'nationalists' that times among Tamilians also. Rajaji himself was one.

Also you better read about how Periyar rose to prominence. He was a leader against discrimination by Brahmins. And remember Brahmins have always been a minority. Inspite of all that there is untouchability even now in Tamilnadu. A district collector could not take some BC people into a temple because of the brahmin opposition in that village. A man of his stature was afraid for security, in 2010!!

Yes there was the obvious connection between Brahmins and North Indians as was percieved then, where the Aryan-Dravidian theory had not much opposition. Today we know the theory is disputed. And add to it what happened with our languages. How can anyone expect people to tolerate saying in 15 years you will have to learn Hindi and teach your children and compete with the rest of Indians a large part of whom do not understand Hindi themselves?

This is for all other Indians also on this forum. please understand that language movements came about as there was a time frame set to bring Hindi as the sole official language. What people demanded was the retaining of English as official language. It is a fair compromise as it is as difficult for you as for me. Besides, in hindsight all that India has today in terms of English advantage have been possible only because of language movements.

With respect to seccession prominent leaders were sensible enough to realize that people did not want separation. Whatever people were asking was to stick to 'Unity in Diversity'. There is nothing to be ashamed of for me if some of my people wanted it at that point of time. There is enough evidence of attempts aimed at wiping out local languages. Even the assurance that Nehru gave:
I believe also two things. As I just said, there must be no imposition. Secondly, for an indefinite period - I do not know how long - I should have, I would have English as an associate, additional language which can be used not because of facilities and all that... but because I do not wish the people of Non-Hindi areas to feel that certain doors of advance are closed to them because they are forced to correspond - the Government, I mean - in the Hindi language. They can correspond in English. So I could have it as an alternate language as long as people require it and the decision for that - I would leave not to the Hindi-knowing people, but to the non Hindi-knowing people

only hinted that English could have been removed at least later which is not acceptable. If you want participation in a nation there should be a fair chance. English gave us that. Nobody liked english, if today many urban TN kids cannot speak Tamil its their problem.


All the racism that followed is just reaction by simple minded people who did not understand this. What we have today in TN is a bunch of racist and casteist jobless parties
 
.
My reference to the Indian state should have been clearer. Since I had anticipated a probable response from you referring to Jinnah's proposal, I made a reference indicating the preference for the structure(democratic,secular) that we eventually created for India.

I beg to disagree with your assessment that the structure proposed by Mr. Jinnah would have been viable as an alternative to what we have today. That plan had within it the right for states to secede from the union after a few years if they so chose. Your own arguments have pointed out that there were centrifugal forces at play in many areas of the subcontinent. A weak centre would , in my opinion, have not held.

Dear Sir,

I agree in principle.

Unhappily, there seems to be a tendency to assume that because I am seeking understanding of a position, or of the actions of the great leaders of our times, I somehow endorse them or support them.

This is not the case. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

I believe that with all their insensitivity taken into account, the INC were correct in seeking a strong centre. In saying this, we are all no doubt aware that Pakistan herself gravitated to a strong centre, in various permutations and combinations. This is not the place to narrate Pakistani administrative history after 47, but I hope it is too familiar to need explication.

This leads me to an important point. We sometimes lose track of the general political architecture in these discussions and land up comparing the wrong entities. The centre that you are referring to, that would have been weak, and endowed with only a handful of powers, was not the India that is Bharat of today; it has no corresponding unit today. So to compare it with India today and conclude that the INC was right is misleading. It was the central bloc of Hindu-majority states that is comparable to India today. That bloc would have held, like its counterpart Muslim-majority blocs, the rest of the powers permissible outside the three allowed to the centre which never was. Therefore, the AIML formula would not have meant a diminution of the power that today's India holds, not necessarily, although anything might be imagined in the realm of speculation.

I have never made the case that Mr.Jinnah was wrong to fear for his community or that the partition was a great disaster for the people of India(here i include Pakistan, India & Bangladesh) as many others have. I have actually made the argument on other threads that the benefits of partition were far greater than the drawbacks for the people of present day India. Whether it benefited people of Pakistan & Bangladesh who have had to deal with the religious genie without the benefit of constitutional safeguards as is available in India is something that is best left for them to decide. My point and one that I have made repeatedly was over the religious nature of the separation & the moral arguments for the same. You will hopefully understand that my views therefore are inclined towards the INC's rejection of a proposal that would have solidified & constitutionally validated the imparting of a religious hue to the state. It would also then have brought into discussion the rights of other minorities and their quest for political parity. Having already sanctioned such a structure, it would have been churlish not to consider similar requests from other communities for that same parity merely because of their lack of bargaining power owing to limitations of number. In any case, I am of the firm belief that such a structure would have been disastrous for those of us ( I include you) who would rather have religion at the periphery, if at all in the running of a state. Most likely, all that it would have done would have been to delay partition for a few years and probably would have led to a dozen or more states instead of two then and three now.

Well, yes, indeed, Sir, that might have happened. Please do not get me into speculation which my rather pedestrian, plodding faculties do not deal with as readily as other ethereal minds.

But, simply as a thought: if this trifurcation had happened, would Bangladesh have happened? Exercising as it would have autonomy from the outset. Forget the triumph of Indian arms; forget the surrender ceremony at Dhaka.Think of the huge human suffering that might - might! - have been averted.

Think of a sensitised central bloc responding to the Nagas. Would that bloc's response have been on the lines of the line that was actually taken? Would another huge amount of bloodshed have been averted?

And so on? I don't know, I am not good at speculation.

Imagine the pandering that would have to be done in a state with the structure as proposed by Mr.Jinnah. we have atleast, to a large extent rid ourselves of pandering to the majority community allowing for whole scale reforms of the outdated Hindu laws, something that may not have been possible with a structure which reinforced religious identities.

Thanks but no thanks.

This is a delicate and difficult matter to adjudicate, and frankly beyond my powers. Some of this is speculation; I am not good at that. My muse is Clio, not Cassandra. You may be right, you may be wrong, how should I know? Just a thought: why is dealing with minority expectations such a painful prospect?

What I can deal with is what was done, not what could have been done, what might have happened, what should have happened, and their numerous progeny. You may have noticed that I have always very carefully qualified my descriptions of minority fears by stating that these fears might or might not have come to pass; nobody knows. Nor does anybody know what might have happened if the INC accepted the Cabinet Mission May 16 Plan. What we do know, and all that I am equipped to deal with is concrete reality; and that is that the INC was obdurate, the AIML was exasperated, and they parted.

A concluding remark: I hope it is abundantly clear that I hold that using religion alone as an identifier, as the key to identity, is insufficient, that it is important but not all-important, and certainly not exclusive of other factors, and subsequent history shows us that this is so.

It is so important, and so consistently overlooked, that the study of the TNT, how it was understood and interpreted, and the actions taken on the basis of this theory, and what subsequently transpired and our retrospective evaluation of the TNT are two different subjects. The dismal failure of most discussions on this topic is to conflate the two and make one and the same omelette out of them.

Sincerely,
'Joe'
 
.
And remember Brahmins have always been a minority. Inspite of all that there is untouchability even now in Tamilnadu. A district collector could not take some BC people into a temple because of the brahmin opposition in that village. A man of his stature was afraid for security, in 2010!!

Correction: the opposition to temple entry was from politically powerful OBCs, who have grabbed a big chunk of reservations for themselves.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom