Two Nation Theory

[Joe Shearer]

If India would have not been partitioned in 1947

1. Its Muslims Population would have been 350 Million by now which means BJP could never come in to power and India would have been the biggest Muslim populated country in the world.

2. India would have been neighbor of Afghanistan and during cold war USSR had access to warm waters through it. US had no friend in the region to fight USSR invasion of Afghanistan.

3. India would have been neighbor of Iran and Israeli bases in it.

You know India will never want so many Muslims in it , so the first point will not be liked by many right wing Indians but the Strategic location of Pakistan is which India needs.

Dear Sir,

True, many right-wing Indians might not like it; by implication, presumably many left-Indians might have liked it. Both are moot, as we are talking about a hypothetical situation. Your guess is as good as anybody else's, but they all remain guesses.

What did your second and third points mean, exactly? I was unable to figure them out.

Your last phrase was intriguing; do you mean Pakistan without the Pakistanis is what India wants? A curious thought. Do you have any information if India is seeking this goal with any degree of seriousness? :-D

Sincerely,

'Joe Shearer'

 

[Jade]

Dear Sir,

I really do not know how many times I have had to explain that what is at issue here is not Tamil minority sentiment being in a majority, but that it existed.

If it had been in a majority, and if that majority had turned violent, even if it had been a significant minority practising violence, Tamil Nadu today would not be in exactly the same position. Either it would be far more independent, or it would be a scorched earth.

What was this paragraph? A pure speculation. What did it display? That plain speculation, pure speculation is utterly useless, and only facts matter.

On the other hand, I appreciate the long-awaited effort at providing substantial evidence. The elections of 1957 were significant, the increased presence of the DMK due to the 62 elections was also significant. I have not read the book cited, but am glad that my example and constant urging have had their impact. Thank you for the citation.

Dear Sir,

The Dravid nadu proponents never limited Dravid nadu to Tamil speaking areas but extended to other states such as Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Karnataka and some even included Orissa and Maharashtra. So, where is this so called Tamil minority sentiments? It seems more of Hindi Vs Anti Hindi sentiments or Dravidians Vs Aryan theory. It is not a pure speculation, but an interpretation. History is all about interpretations. Anyway, I have put forward mine, but did not have your interpretation of why DMK lost in 1957 from your reply.

Indeed history is a complex subject. That is precisely why one must come to discuss it with evidence, evidence that may be compared with other evidence, based on which comparison reasonable people may come to reasonable conclusions.

As you know, only on simple and direct physical observations - it is wet today, there is a truck stationary on the highway ahead - can one rely on reportage. The moment the matter is even moderately complex, eye-witness accounts of any event are a well-known example, well-known in the literature and discussed and analysed threadbare, we need comparative accounts of more than one person. In the case of social or societal events, it becomes a question not of direct observation but of observations which are analysed by acceptable experts in their fields, and which analyses are then compared or cited in arguments about the implications of these events.

You will it is to be hoped understand if you get the implications of this that the opinions of bloggers are of no consequence whatsoever, and that it is evidence, and only evidence that counts. Of course, it is then open to you to dismiss that itself as an opinion, and to reduce the discussion to garbage, by insisting that it is only opinions that matter. It is then and only then that we can take into consideration flat, unsupported opinions such as, "Anyway, the events that took place in the history of India such as formation of Pakistan clearly show that fight for Muslim statehood was in a different plane than that of Tamil Nationalism movement". There it is, bald and without any background or foreground or any kind of reasoning behind it: just a flat statement of personal opinion, to be accepted or rejected, no via media acceptable.

Then the question becomes one merely of whose voice is the more strident. Then there is no point in using computers and networks, one may as well assemble in a well-selected mob, and hurl jeers, abuse, missiles and pieces of mind at each other, finally, all else failing, taking recourse to barnyard methods.

If that is what you want, I wish you well but cannot participate; there is nothing under these circumstances that remains to be said, and there is nothing to be gained by dredging through the same assertions of will again and again.

Sincerely, and best wishes for your future contests of will,

'Joe'

I understand that opinion of a blogger is of no consequence, however, what do you call something evidence? Is historical evidence such as formation of Pakistan, DMK loosing 1957 election, or formation of Bangladesh not evidence? Here, I would certainly beg to differ from you. Please understand this is certainly not a contest of will. I am 27 and as I see from one of your previous posts, I am certainly not as accomplished as you are. However, if I am allowed, I disagree with you on your interpretation of TNT, and what constitute minority sentiments. I hope you would not take it otherwise and perceive that there is enough scope for disagreement in as complex a subject as History.

Regards

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir,

The Dravid nadu proponents never limited Dravid nadu to Tamil speaking areas but extended to other states such as Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Karnataka and some even included Orissa and Maharashtra. So, where is this so called Tamil minority sentiments? It seems more of Hindi Vs Anti Hindi sentiments or Dravidians Vs Aryan theory. It is not a pure speculation, but an interpretation. History is all about interpretations. Anyway, I have put forward mine, but did not have your interpretation of why DMK lost in 1957 from your reply.

Dear Sir,

I am taking the points raised by you in your latest comment in sequential order rather than logical, in the interests of greater readability, but after that, please permit me to make a few general comments. Please read the end of my response for these comments.

Yes, if you have read the citations I provided, the scope of Dravida Nadu or Dravidistan was not restricted to Tamil Nadu (as it subsequently was named; at the time of all this, it was still the Madras Presidency).

So, where is this so called Tamil minority sentiments?


1. I would be delighted to see proof that 90% of the persons making the demand were not Tamilians (there is a single, solitary Nair, but you should not grudge them their role in the Tamilian ranks; after all, they gave the state a Chief Minister!).

It seems more of Hindi Vs Anti Hindi sentiments or Dravidians Vs Aryan theory.

2. It is you who should be telling us what the roots were; we need merely note that such a sentiment existed, that resolutions were passed, that meetings were held, that representations were made to the British, that the Cabinet Mission was met, that other special interest leaders like Jinnah and Ambedkar were met, and that youngsters like the charismatic Annadurai were influenced. Why it happened does not affect the argument, but if you wish to add some explanatory detail to the argument, it would certainly help.

My own 'interpretation' is that it originated in anti-Brahminical feeling, expanded to a general dislike of the Aryan elements in South Indian society, ignoring the fact that the 'Aryan' tag was unscientific and discredited, and crystallised into a fierce resistance to Hindi after the re-organisation of the states in 56 took the backbone out of the movement. On this, your interpretation is as good as mine.

Feeling like a minority is not a disloyal sentiment. It seems sometimes that all the the Tamilians are aggrieved at being described as a minority, almost as if they had been accused of collective bad breath. Why is it considered so offensive?

Anyway, I have put forward mine, but did not have your interpretation of why DMK lost in 1957 from your reply.

3. I regret the omission. On returning to your original remark, you had made the significant remark that with the slogan of Dravida Nadu, the DMK fared badly in the 57 elections. They dropped this slogan, and fared much better in the next, the 62 elections.

There are two responses to your observations, but before making them, I wonder whether you and others realise that in a really well-informed discussion, one tends to see a convergence in views, not necessarily a divergence. In this case, too, I hope you will not be disappointed if there is some convergence.

First, about the 57 elections, have you not noted my repeated comment that the 1956 linguistic state formations knocked out the breath from the Dravida Nadu movement? Once Tamil had its own homeland, not intermingled with parts of Andhra, parts of Kerala and parts of Karnataka, as it was in the Madras Presidency, but all to itself, there was not much point in seeking secession of any kind; most of the issues, except one, had been addressed in one move.

This is why the DMK did badly in 57; on top of the Tamil appreciation of the state of Madras as the state of Madras, the DMK had never stood for election before, they were just coming out from under the shadow of Periyar and carving out their distinction from the DK, and they had no positive programme, nor a negative programme which mattered a great deal.

In brief, it was the lack of a programme.

I understand that opinion of a blogger is of no consequence, however, what do you call something evidence? Is historical evidence such as formation of Pakistan, DMK loosing 1957 election, or formation of Bangladesh not evidence? Here, I would certainly beg to differ from you. Please understand this is certainly not a contest of will. I am 27 and as I see from one of your previous posts, I am certainly not as accomplished as you are. However, if I am allowed, I disagree with you on your interpretation of TNT, and what constitute minority sentiments. I hope you would not take it otherwise and perceive that there is enough scope for disagreement in as complex a subject as History.

Regards

Is historical evidence such as formation of Pakistan, DMK loosing 1957 election, or formation of Bangladesh not evidence?

4. I am curious to know what gave you that impression. I am also curious to know why you are ignoring the references to the formation of Pakistan and to the formation of Bangladesh that I have made in my own posts. Why are you quoting the formation of Bangladesh against me, for example, when I have already said that this proved that the TNT was insufficient, and that other indices of identity surfaced once the important or the urgent one subsided, or was addressed?

If you wish, i can reproduce that passage again.

But to answer your question, I certainly agree that this is evidence.

With that, may I come to my general comments?

My remark about bloggers' opinions having no consequence was not aimed at you; I fear from the structure of your sentence in your latest comment that such an impression might have come about. Let me emphasise that I include myself and all others, and the point is only this, that a 'mere' opinion is not sufficient. Evidence is needed along with that; your example is one I would recommend to others.

Second, you have mentioned that interpretation has its role and uses. I agree completely, with no reservations. Citing an historical occurrence is sufficient evidence; you mentioned the 1957 elections and juxtaposed the 1962 results, and that was a well-thought out reconstruction, and perfectly legitimate. It so happens that my interpretation differs. I offer that different interpretation for your consideration, not for your confutation; you have already proved that you understand what constitutes evidence and can manage it in building an interpretation. You might also link this to the passage below.

Third, you mentioned that disagreements can happen. They should, in fact. Otherwise, we would have bland kanji, not bisibele baath, or, as you might prefer, bisibele hoolianna. I agree that you have looked at the facts and interpreted them and come to a different conclusion, and that this is perfectly acceptable as a method, whatever my 'interpretation' of the same facts.

Fourth, about being 27 and about being bright and intelligent (not your words; it is my 'interpretation' of the evidence).

I assure you that the first part is a curable condition; you need merely wait. I can say this with great confidence, from my own personal experience. {The smileys below are uniformly ghastly and unsuitable}.

The second, it may be hoped by all who are reading the elegant way in which you have marshalled your arguments, will persist.

For your information, that YLH, Yasser Latif Hamdani, whom Sparklingways praised in somewhat modest terms, is young, and a thoroughly good thing for all of South Asia. He is the best authority on the history of those times in the 30s and 40s, and has an encyclopaedic grasp of events, of writings and of speeches. Yasser is streets ahead of us in his grip on these things; by 'us', I include a group of Indians and Pakistanis engaged in discussing these matters with him and with others on a regular basis on that other forum.

Are you ready for this? Yasser is 30 (dob June 5, 1980).

Youth is hardly a sin, nor a disqualification. It is the soundness of one's views that should elicit respect, as they do in your case, among others. If I have mentioned my own age and the tales of my wanderings, it has been under provocation. Age merely summons courtesy, though that too is an increasingly rarer commodity, it appears, and the summons sounds weaker and weaker as the world makes giant strides of progress.

 

[toxic_pus]

I'll grant you that - were the Taliban to end their campaign of violence, they have every right to advocate in favor of their ideological and political position, as the other Pakistani political groups are doing. In fact I argued this earlier I believe, and I think my original intent in the para you responded to was to connect it to their use of violence, but it ended up becoming a separate point in the formatting.

I will not disagree on that, in principal. My point that Jinnah forcefully imposed his ideology still stands though. It is in his claim to represent all Muslims, without a mandate, and then passing off one’s own pet theory as something endorsed by the entire community, that I find the parallel.

And as for Jinnah's original low support amongst the Muslim electorate, one has to establish a platform, effectively articulate it and campaign for it before one gains the support of the targeted community. Gandhi didn't fall off a tree one fine day and find that 'the peasants of India' were all lined up for miles to support him. Jinnah did campaign and articulate his agenda effectively and the result was overwhelming support from the Muslim electorate in later years, legitimizing his position as a representative and spokesperson for the community.

I sense another shift in goal post here. Whether Jinnah was the true ‘representative and spokesperson’ for the Muslim community is not what I’m debating here. Your claim was that, ‘the decision of compatibility is for the people of a community to make’. This I had contested by making the point that when TNT was being claimed to be true like sun, earth and moon, the Muslim peasantry was very much rallying around Hindu Gandhi, indicating that the feeling of incompatibility was absent among those very Muslims that Jinnah claimed to represent and that this TNT was essentially something conjured up by a handful of people to advance their agenda.

Yes Jinnah became popular (although a case can be made against that also). But was it because the Muslim community had started feeling this incompatibility, as per TNT, or was it because, Jinnah promised them an independent sovereign land of their own. In one of my replies to Joe, I had clarified my position on this.

Also, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the voters in the NWFP referendum chose Pakistan pretty clearly illustrates their support for Pakistan vs India.

Yes that is another story. Not for this thread though.

Actually nothing in your comments above negates my point. What was Jinnah's exact quote to Wyatt? And assuming the above quote to be accurate, it does not show Jinnah advocating for violence or supporting it, it shows that he understood the potential for violence at the hands of bigots, were a particular political course chosen, and given his faith in the validity of that political course, he was willing to accept the potential costs that came with it.

On the other hand, Jinnah knew that his claim was absurd and will inevitably be met with resistance. In spite of the ‘potential for violence’ he was willing to go the whole hog just to satisfy his desire of larger Pakistan. Human lives, for him, were tools for blackmail. This, he has proved many times over.

Why it was absurd, is another story.

I have found that reference of Jinnah not just in Ms Jalal’s book but many other books as well, notably among them was of V.P.Menon’s. I didn’t quote him, because, after all he is an Indian.

The Taliban on the other hand are those 'bigots' who would resort to violence, and have made violence and oppression a hallmark of their campaign - there is no comparison to be made here between Jinnah and the Taliban.

ML goons were those bigots in this case.

It was completely legitimate at the time since Jinnah, the ML and allied parties won the overwhelming support of the Muslim community on the basis of that particular identity marker and agenda. Were it not legitimate at the time then is should have been 'dunked forever in the bay of Bengal', and the Arabian Sea, at that point in history. It was not.

Popularity is not a measure of legitimacy. Hitler’s popularity didn’t legitimize his ideology.

TNT was not thrown into Bay of Bengal at that time, because of the communally charged atmosphere that prevailed then. Once emotions settled down, reality kicked in the nuts and TNT was shown its right place – the dustbin of history. But going by your argument, every theory is legitimate even if it is debunked, if it is not debunked immediately at its inception and a considerable period lapses till it is finally proved wrong.

The identity marker of religion subsumed all else at the time since the dynamics of discourse were those of protecting the rights of a particular community, the Muslims, in a future United Hindu majority nation. Once a 'Muslim nation' was established, the discourse would obviously shift to other issues, since the issue of 'protecting the rights of a Muslim minority' no longer applied. Joe has been over this already very extensively.

I think I pointed out that successive Pakistani leaders chose to perpetuate the idea that religion was the overriding identity marker at a national level, instead of realizing that once Pakistan came into being, the issues that people cared about were at much more local level. I see that as a flawed position taken by the leadership. That said, I don't see anything inherently wrong in Jinnah proposing Urdu as national language for Pakistan, since it was not a language of any of the ethnic groups native to the lands comprising Pakistan.

[…snip…]

I have argued, from the beginning, that religion forms part of the identity matrix of individuals. For some it plays a smaller role in identity than for others (and this is true for Pakistanis and other nationalities today). For the Muslim community at the time of partition, given the discourse over the rights of the minority Muslim community in a Hindu majority India, that particular identity marker, out of the community's complex identity matrix, was the dominant one. That cannot be denied since Jinnah and the ML were able to get the overwhelming support of the community on that basis.

As I said, you refuse to understand, attributing to me imagined positions built upon your own biases and animosity towards the 'other'.

If Muslims constitute a separate ‘nation’, then it logically flows from there, that they have the right to demand a ‘nation state’ separate from the ‘nation state’ of Hindus, not necessarily for ‘protecting the rights of a Muslim minority’ but as a legitimate right for ‘self determination’. However, if one considers that Muslims constitute a ‘community’ who would be in minority in a Hindu majority ‘state’, then it is an acknowledgement of a greater ‘nation’ of which the Muslims merely constitute a part, but in itself is not a ‘nation’. One is perhaps entitled to claim safeguards for such a community under such circumstances. But not a ‘nation state’. So the question is, was TNT at all necessary to demand those safeguards for 'protecting the rights of a Muslim minority’. Or was TNT proposed with an eye on eventually creating a separate ‘nation state’. Jinnah’s political posturing and demands in the name of 'protecting the rights of a Muslim minority’, which if accepted would have resulted in veto of minority over majority, in my mind, only points to the latter.

I have argued previously, that TNT doesn’t choose the identity of religion, over other identities. It simply rejects that anything else can be the basis for identity. It was an out and out exclusivist theory and not and inclusivist theory, as you are trying to make it out to be (and perhaps even Joe is – I have stopped paying attention to his posts). Now what was the successive leadership supposed to do when the great founder himself rejected ‘all else’. Post partition, there was nothing that Jinnah had done to give the impression that he had moved away from this exclusivist theory. For example, Urdu was chosen not because no ethnic group spoke the language, but precisely because Urdu is exclusively associated with Islam in South Asia. Jinnah’s attempt to impose Urdu as an ‘obvious’ choice for ‘official language for a Muslim State’, is nothing short of vetting of his theory even after establishment of Pakistan, the Muslim ‘nation’.

So what to you is a ‘flawed position’ taken by the successive leadership, to me it is in perfect conformity with TNT. Hence my earlier comment to another poster, sectarianism begets sectarianism.

I have said no such thing as 'there is no distinction between Muslims', and I would appreciate it if you not concoct non-existent positions to attribute to me, since this is the second time you have done so after the inaccurate comment about the Baloch you attributed to me.

I don’t think I have attributed anything like that to you. Read that part again. All your arguments are valid as long as Muslims are viewed as minority ‘community’ within a Hindu majority ‘state’. But when you claim that Muslims form a ‘nation’, those very arguments become invalid.

 

[toxic_pus]

The community did not 'wake up one fine day'. As you pointed out, Jinnah and the ML did not have a lot of support for their agenda initially. It was only after effectively campaigning and articulating their position that they were able to gain the support of the community, and the call for independence, as explained quite well by Joe, was primarily a negotiating tactic and a 'last resort'.

No need to get worked up on an obvious hyperbole.

The Baloch nationalists have used similar rhetoric, though they have not been able to find success at the ballot box much, but even as representatives of a small number of Baloch, their rhetoric has had the desired effect, of pushing the discourse over resource distribution, provincial rights and autonomy in the direction they wish.

[…snip…]

Some Baloch indeed have decided that their interests are better served as a smaller independent nation, but since the Baluchistan entered into a 'compact of Statehood' with Pakistan, negotiations between the Baluch and the State, to alleviate Baluch concerns, will take place under that compact, until such time as all stakeholders agree that a unified nation does not serve the interests of all stakeholders best.

You are avoiding the obvious question here. Do Baluchistanis have the right of ‘self determination’ simply and purely on the basis of a feeling of nationhood?

When the basic condition of the compact between kashmiris and India or Pakistan, plebiscite and self-determination, is refused to the Kashmiris, and control imposed through military force, what do you expect?

Yes that’s what I thought. Violence is good if it works in my favour. If not, then it is bad.

Lest this turns into another Kashmir thread, I am not addressing your canards of ‘plebiscite is refused to Kashmiris or ‘control imposed through military force’.

I won't argue over semantics, use 'Statehood' if you wish. A compact of "Statehood' was entered into by the communities that comprise Pakistan (as was the case in India, save for Kashmir). Once that compact is formed, actual negotiations over the concerns of any of the communities within the State should be first and foremost within the context of that compact (regardless of the political rhetoric used by those trying to take a seat at the negotiating table).

That compact of 'Statehood' was never entered into by the communities that formed Pakistan and India. British India was the forced colonization and amalgamation of multiple territories in South Asia by the British. The people and their elected representatives entered into no 'compact of Statehood' in that colony. The negotiations between the INC and the ML were precisely for that purpose as the British were finally ending their occupation of the region.

If the conditions of a ‘state’ exist, ‘statehood’ exists even if there is no recognition of it by its constituents. In a nutshell, and at the risk of over simplification, primary condition to ‘statehood’ is a singular authority which has ‘monopoly to use violence’ to enforce order. Such an authority can be sovereign internally, as is the case with Pakistan or India, or externally, as was the case with British India. As long as there exists an institution that has the sole authority to enforce order within an identified territory, ‘state’ exists. How this ‘state’ comes about, is irrelevant.

You have tried to define a ‘state’ on the basis of its creation, or as I suspect, simply replaced ‘statehood’ for ‘nationhood’. This is not mere ‘semantics’, as the above should give you a hint.

Paying better attention to the language used and forming conclusions based on what was written, rather than your preconceived positions about what I believe, would be a good idea.

Mea Culpa.

PS: This might just be my last response on this topic.

 

[Jade]

@ Joe Shearer

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your kind words

As regarding the movement, why I think the movement was more of Hindi Vs Anti Hindi sentiments than for a separate state is as below

The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas. Even British patronized the movement because they felt threatened by the prospect of the Congress movement and threat to their administration. The movement was confined mostly to intermediate castes. The movement tried to associate peasants, weavers, and local merchants but was unsuccessful. When Congress had dislodged the Justice party in the Madras Presidency in 1937 and its policy of Hindi-first in way influenced much broader segment of Tamilians to join the movement. This promoted even most south Indian politicians to cut across part lines in their opposition to Hindi.


However, was there any mass movement on the scale that happened for separate state? I think not. There were recurrent anti-Hindi agitations in 1948, 1952 and 1965 but none on those scales for a separate state. In his book Essays in the Political Sociology of South India Hardgrave clearly mentioned that “Even in Tamil Nadu, where the anti-Hindi agitations attracted many supporters, there was no serious demand on the part of the common people for a sovereign Dravidian state”. This even promoted Periyar to give up the demand for Dravida Nadu in 1956


First, about the 57 elections, have you not noted my repeated comment that the 1956 linguistic state formations knocked out the breath from the Dravida Nadu movement?



Even, if we assume that the reorganization of the Indian states along linguistic lines through the States Reorganization Act of 1956 weakened the separatist movement, it should not be to such an extent that it could only procure 15 seats. There should be something more to it.

Regards

 

[Joe Shearer]

@ Joe Shearer

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your kind words
As regarding the movement, why I think the movement was more of Hindi Vs Anti Hindi sentiments than for a separate state[1] is as below

The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas[2]. Even British patronized the movement because they felt threatened by the prospect of the Congress movement and threat to their administration[3]. The movement was confined mostly to intermediate castes. The movement tried to associate peasants, weavers, and local merchants but was unsuccessful[4]. When Congress had dislodged the Justice party in the Madras Presidency in 1937 and its policy of Hindi-first[5] in way influenced much broader segment of Tamilians to join the movement. This promoted {prompted? 'JS'} even most south Indian politicians to cut across part lines in their opposition to Hindi.[6]

Some well-reasoned arguments. Let us look at them in detail.

I have taken the liberty of putting numeric references within your text, the easier to identify the passage under discussion.

I understand your logic, but wish you would revert to what you started with, documentary references. However, I shall assume, not having read it since your reference, that much of your material is taken from Hardgrave, which gives it a credibility and a weight above unsupported statements.

On the other hand, if you see the citations in my earlier posts, you will find the wording of the resolutions passed, which clearly include much more than a linguistic sentiment. When they have worded their resolutions so clearly, don't you think it fair that we go by that, rather than interpolating our own 'interpretations' into their 80-year old intentions?

Anti-Brahminical sentiment was also a very important thread - in your interpretation, the most important thread - and we can follow that argument through to see where it leads us.

In following the arguments below, try to hang on to your sense of humour, please

[1] the movement was more of Hindi Vs Anti Hindi sentiments than for a separate state

Sure. So was the TNT, and the Muslim League agreement to the Cabinet Mission Plan of May 16. Look at this paraphrase:

The movement was more of Muslim vs. non-Muslim sentiments than for a separate state. ;-D

What, in your opinion, is the critical difference?

[2] The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas

Er, yes. Let’s test this out.

The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas. Therefore, it may safely be concluded, this was not a minority sentiment.

That didn’t come out too good. Let’s just change the direction a bit.

The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas. Therefore the agitation in Tamil Nadu was more of a Hindi vs. anti-Hindi thing.

Drat! Still messed up. Hmm, let’s try thinking this through.

The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas, therefore they represented a lunatic fringe of the Tamil people who never enjoyed any popular support.

We’ll get back to you once we’ve fixed this pesky line.

[3] Even British patronized the movement because they felt threatened by the prospect of the Congress movement and threat to their administration

No records, but the possibility of Woodgrave hanging over us like a black cloud.

Actually, there are excellent references for this: it would have strengthened this point considerably if those had been cited.

Let us agree, to examine how this takes the discussion. Does it affect the main argument, that there was minority sentiment in a large number of religious, caste and ethnic groups within British India, that the Muslims were one such, and that they happened to be best organised and best led?

[4] The movement was confined mostly to intermediate castes. The movement tried to associate peasants, weavers, and local merchants but was unsuccessful

When you say that the movement (which never happened, there was no Dravidian movement after all) tried to attract peasants, weavers and merchants, what was their objective? To win elections or to create a mass movement? If it was to win elections, it could not have been a very intelligent decision, since there was no universal adult franchise under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms and the 1919 act under which elections were held. So most of these peasants, weavers and merchants never had the vote.

Would you agree, then, that this was organisation for a mass movement?

[5] When Congress had dislodged the Justice party in the Madras Presidency in 1937 and its policy of Hindi-first[5] in way influenced much broader segment of Tamilians to join the movement.

We started with an anti-Brahmin movement. The Congress, led mainly by Brahmins, introduces the teaching of Hindi into class-rooms, and a “much broader segment” took up the “struggle”.

What we see here on paper is the desperate attempt at avoiding any words that indicate that there was

a movement against privileged sections of society (the Brahmins) who enjoyed a disproportionate share of the exercise of power (official appointments within the administration, and elected seats), and against a larger, overbearing number of those enjoying extra advantages because of some characteristic not related to merit (the ability to speak, read and write Hindi)

This is NOT a minority; this movement DOES NOT indicate minority sentiment.

Fair enough. Let us take another example:

a movement against privileged sections of society (<delete>the Brahmins<delete>Hindus) who enjoyed a disproportionate share of the exercise of power (official appointments within the administration, and elected seats), and against a larger, overbearing number of those enjoying extra advantages because of some characteristic not related to merit (the <>ability to speak, read and write Hindi<>religion they followed)

This IS a minority; this movement DOES indicate minority sentiment.

What can I say?

However, was there any mass movement on the scale that happened for separate state? I think not. There were recurrent anti-Hindi agitations in 1948, 1952 and 1965 but none on those scales for a separate state. In his book Essays in the Political Sociology of South India Hardgrave clearly mentioned that “Even in Tamil Nadu, where the anti-Hindi agitations attracted many supporters, there was no serious demand on the part of the common people for a sovereign Dravidian state”. This even promoted Periyar to give up the demand for Dravida Nadu in 1956.

Again, I remind you: this is about minority sentiment, not about separate states. Not all of those listed sought separate states. Please go through the list and see for yourself: a demand for a separate state is not the qualification for a minority sentiment. It was only the emotional reaction by one misguided individual to what I wrote bthat started this whole infructuous sub-thread.

First, about the 57 elections, have you not noted my repeated comment that the 1956 linguistic state formations knocked out the breath from the Dravida Nadu movement?

Even, if we assume that the reorganization of the Indian states along linguistic lines through the States Reorganization Act of 1956 weakened the separatist movement, it should not be to such an extent that it could only procure 15 seats. There should be something more to it.

Regards

Indeed, there should.

A modest suggestion: could you please help us by filling in the following dates, and facts:
1. British notices of imbalance in occupation of administrative positions, as between Brahmins and non-Brahmins;
2. Establishment of Justice Party;
3. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the institution of Dyarchy;
4. First elections under Dyarchy;
5. Periyar joining INC;
6. Periyar joining Justice Party;
7. First elected INC government;
8. Formation of Dravida Kazhagam as a social movement, not a political party;
9. Annadurai statement demanding separation;
10. Independence;
11. First anti-Hindi stir;
12. Formation of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam by Annadurai;
13. Second anti-Hindi stir;
14. First General Elections under new Indian constitution;
15. Tamil Nadu Separation Day;
16. Second General Elections under new Indian constitution;
17. Annadurai speech in Indian parliament on taking oath of office;
18. Sixteenth Amendment to Indian constitution;
19. Amendment of DMK programme to drop separatism;
20. Third anti-Hindi stir.

Please do not be surprised that these follow a particular order.

Once you have satisfied yourself with regard to what happened when, and the dates have been filled in, we can get our heads around what was cause and what was effect. It will be fairly easy at that stage, when we have a common time-table.

Sincerely,

‘Joe’

 

[Jade]

@ Joe Shearer

Dear Sir,

Although we agree on what constitute evidence, we have divergent view on certain definitions, leading to different &#8216;interpretations&#8217;. For example, I define term &#8216;minority&#8217; as a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant vote and are prone to different treatment. In my opinion, Tamilians does not fit this definition and should not be categorize as minorities

An article by Swarna Rajagopalan: The Dravida Nadu experience: security, state-building and secession from a peninsular standpoint, in my opinion, is excellent in explaining why the movement failed. It explains from the perspective of security and concludes that the issues that were raised by the leaders of Dravida Nadu could be applicable to people living in any part of the Country. Hence, the theory of &#8216;minority sentiments&#8217; should fall. I request you to go thought it. The link is below

http://www.swarnar.com/dravnad0304.pdf

[1] the movement was more of Hindi Vs Anti Hindi sentiments than for a separate state

Sure. So was the TNT, and the Muslim League agreement to the Cabinet Mission Plan of May 16. Look at this paraphrase:

The movement was more of Muslim vs. non-Muslim sentiments than for a separate state. ;-D

What, in your opinion, is the critical difference?

There are certain critical differences. The difference can be answered by raising the following questions.

1)Who is Dravidian and who is Aryan? (or Muslim vs. Non Muslim)
2)Do they have different cultures? (or Muslim vs. Non Muslim)
3)Did they ever in the history intermix? (or Muslim vs. Non Muslim)
4)Are Tamil Brahmins Aryans? (or Muslim vs. Non Muslim)
5)Do their security needs differ from the needs of North Indians? (or Muslim vs. Non Muslim)

It comes out clear that these questions can be answered conclusively for Muslim vs. Non Muslim but may not be answer conclusively for Dravidian vs. Aryan

Er, yes. Let&#8217;s test this out.

The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas. Therefore, it may safely be concluded, this was not a minority sentiment.

That didn&#8217;t come out too good. Let&#8217;s just change the direction a bit.

The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas. Therefore the agitation in Tamil Nadu was more of a Hindi vs. anti-Hindi thing.

Drat! Still messed up. Hmm, let&#8217;s try thinking this through.

The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas, therefore they represented a lunatic fringe of the Tamil people who never enjoyed any popular support.

We&#8217;ll get back to you once we&#8217;ve fixed this pesky line.

If you would allow me fix the pesky line,

I would conclude: &#8220;The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas. The movement tried to associate peasants, weavers, and local merchants but was unsuccessful. Hence the movement did not enjoyed the support that&#8217;s required to form a Nation".

[3] Even British patronized the movement because they felt threatened by the prospect of the Congress movement and threat to their administration

No records, but the possibility of Woodgrave hanging over us like a black cloud.

Actually, there are excellent references for this: it would have strengthened this point considerably if those had been cited.

Let us agree, to examine how this takes the discussion. Does it affect the main argument, that there was minority sentiment in a large number of religious, caste and ethnic groups within British India, that the Muslims were one such, and that they happened to be best organised and best led?


[4] The movement was confined mostly to intermediate castes. The movement tried to associate peasants, weavers, and local merchants but was unsuccessful

When you say that the movement (which never happened, there was no Dravidian movement after all) tried to attract peasants, weavers and merchants, what was their objective? To win elections or to create a mass movement? If it was to win elections, it could not have been a very intelligent decision, since there was no universal adult franchise under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms and the 1919 act under which elections were held. So most of these peasants, weavers and merchants never had the vote.

Would you agree, then, that this was organisation for a mass movement?

I know that you would not appreciate me quoting from Hardgrave. So, I have quoted some sentences out of an article published in Hindu Is the Dravidian movement dying? by Subramanian Swamy. which aptly converges with my point of view. I know that some may Subramanian Swamy fickle; however I find him intelligent and logical. I have also given a link of interview of PC Alexander on this issue

&#8220;It was not a grassroots movement from below to articulate the aspirations of the masses. It began with well-to-do British toadies seeking commanding heights of Tamil society. The British imperialists had wanted an instrument to divide and rule in the south, and seized on the fallacious Aryan-Dravidian theory propounded by East India Company-paid historians&#8221;

Is the Dravidian movement dying? Link

Is the Dravidian movement dying?

We need to acquire greater coherence as a nation by PC Alexander. Link

Rediff On The NeT, Freedom: An interview with Maharashtra Governor P C Alexander


Regards

 

[rubyjackass]

@Joe :
OK I dont want to argue word by word but your point is that one can put the Dravidian nationalism and TNT on equal footing. I do not accept any such parallels you want to make.
Look at the following questions:

Were muslims asked to convert to Hindus after 19xx?
Leaders like Anna and Periyar, however racist they proved to be(they had the Aryan-Dravidian theory in their minds as a baggage), started their career by trying to integrate the backward society by organizing non-brahminical marrriages and temple entries. Was there any effort by the so-called depressed champions(after their efforts to stay in India failed apparently) of TNT to try any such reproachment? How exactly did they get disillusioned with the idea of unity? How did they come to the conclusion?
As I mentioned earlier these politicians came first and because of whatever snubs(which have to be taken as personal in the absence of evidence) they got in their politicking, they would deem that as organized effort against Islam. Look at how much time it took for them to gain support. That shows however much people identified themselves differently from the other religion(like we have today in India), it was not like they would not allow the other religion people to stay in their homes. So they did spend the time well by creating fears which no doubt is a perfectly valid and good move to achieve your objectives.

But you cant the TNT give the credit of both being as well thought of(after trying everything else as a last resort thingie) and also as a very obvious fact(then it should be apparent today). For me it stinks of hypocrisy. It was based on an assumption that a society will never treat a group fairly while clearly the founder and the proponent thinks otherwise when the larger society is his, clearly racist.


And with regards to your order of events:

Yeah there is a pattern clearly. You should realize what it is:
Every time Hindi is being pushed, you see an agitation, the worst coming just before jan 26, 1965. Is it very difficult to understand why? Other than that I don't see any pattern. If you can explain, I will respond. Periyar and Anna were misled racists as I said before, caught between Aryan-Dravidian differences and brahmin-lower caste. My appreciation for them crops up from fighting for a fair society not from any other actions.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Re: Two Nation Theory

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your response, which I have just finished reading – with considerable appreciation, I might add. My thoughts on these points are appended below; it seems that the irreconcilable difference now amounts to our different perception of what is a minority. Let us look at it further.

However, I do wish to make the point that this is a sub-set of the whole, and that the interesting aspects are not getting attention because we have found ourselves a wonderful patch of quicksand, and seem intent on burying ourselves alive in that. While what you say, and what Rubyjackass say, are interesting, what Bang Galore has said elsewhere, as well as Toxic Pus’ views (where do you gentlemen get these names, btw?), are what I really wish to address.

If you continue to believe, after what I am about to add, that your views are correct, I encourage you to continue to hold them, irrespective of what others, including I, especially I, might say.

@ Joe Shearer

Dear Sir,

Although we agree on what constitute evidence, we have divergent view on certain definitions, leading to different ‘interpretations’. For example, I define term ‘minority’ as a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant vote and are prone to different treatment. In my opinion, Tamilians does not fit this definition and should not be categorize as minorities.

I note your views, note also that this applies within Tamil Nadu, a state constituted around the linguistic demand that you say, and others with you, was the main plank of their separatist feeling (or, if the phrase is offensive, their exclusivist feeling), and therefore, by definition, as I have explained in seeking to explain what should have stood in place of the naked Two Nation Theory, once their major demand is met, other demands then come to the fore.

An article by Swarna Rajagopalan: The Dravida Nadu experience: security, state-building and secession from a peninsular standpoint, in my opinion, is excellent in explaining why the movement failed. It explains from the perspective of security and concludes that the issues that were raised by the leaders of Dravida Nadu could be applicable to people living in any part of the Country. Hence, the theory of ‘minority sentiments’ should fall. I request you to go thought it. The link is below

http://www.swarnar.com/dravnad0304.pdf

I can only thank you.

First, the paper that you have cited is my strongest evidence so far, putting into one place all the arguments that I have advanced again and again, first against someone else, thereafter, in considering your points. It says everything that I want to say, and says it with academic elegance and authority.

I invite everyone to read it carefully; it puts things as neatly and plainly as I could wish. While this is not the place for a detailed exposition of that paper, it states clearly what the Dravidian movement was originally, it states clearly the feeling of alienation and domination by a majority that states continue to feel today, including, to cite the paper, Maharashtra and Orissa, and it states the case for a careful study of this sentiment still prevalent in India today.

Well done.

If you examine what I have argued, and it is in print and available for inspection in too many places to permit a hasty retrospective and surreptitious amendment, I, too, have said that it is that issues of this sort could be applicable to people living in any part of the country.
I went on to say, however, that issues like that had arisen in other parts of the country.

Do you see now that the exact same reason why I interpreted Tamil exclusivism as a minority sentiment (irrespective of its roots or causes, was why I characterized a number of others as being the same? How could I say that they were minority sentiments, unless I said Tamil exclusivism was a minority sentiment? If you stop looking at the Tamil issue in isolation, and look at the list, you will find that they are all of a kind. Just as Rajagopalan herself says.

[1] the movement was more of Hindi Vs Anti Hindi sentiments than for a separate state

Sure. So was the TNT, and the Muslim League agreement to the Cabinet Mission Plan of May 16. Look at this paraphrase:

The movement was more of Muslim vs. non-Muslim sentiments than for a separate state. ;-D

What, in your opinion, is the critical difference?

There are certain critical differences. The difference can be answered by raising the following questions.

1)Who is Dravidian and who is Aryan? (or Muslim vs. Non Muslim)
2)Do they have different cultures? (or Muslim vs. Non Muslim)
3)Did they ever in the history intermix? (or Muslim vs. Non Muslim)
4)Are Tamil Brahmins Aryans? (or Muslim vs. Non Muslim)
5)Do their security needs differ from the needs of North Indians? (or Muslim vs. Non Muslim)

It comes out clear that these questions can be answered conclusively for Muslim vs. Non Muslim but may not be answer conclusively for Dravidian vs. Aryan.

But according to the paper that you have quoted, these are irrelevant.

According to Rajagopalan, both are comparable, and she compares them:

”The separatist agendas of the Pakistan Movement and the Dravidian Movement evolved more or less simultaneously, in a post-Bengal Partition political climate of mass mobilization around identity issues.

“Separatist agendas of the Pakistan Movement and the Dravidian Movement”
“…political climate of mass mobilization”
“…identity issues”

Wretched woman. She’s been pinching from my writing.

There is more; should I continue?

“This begs the question that we might ask in the case of all these definitions: how are we to assume that there is a consonance of interests, an identity of experiences and consequently, any similarity in the ways that individuals and groups across this large area view any issue—security or otherwise?

“The answer to this is that we cannot assume such a thing. No matter how we demarcate ‘peninsular India,’ we will not have a group of people within that region whose views will be similar, and we are likely to find their interests mutually inimical.

“Why bother then with this exercise? The answer lies in the power equation between the regions that constitute India’s political center and the rest of India, lying on their periphery. First, the weight of history as we recall and narrate it, promotes a collective memory of the Indo-Gangetic plains as historical center-stage. History turns on the sequence of events in this part of the subcontinent and regional histories are relegated to the status of sideshows or responses to the events at the center. “{Emphasis added: ‘JS’}

That explains why minorities. Look at the list; you will find one exception: the Scheduled Castes. Rajagopalan has let me down here. Or has she?

“Secession was a necessity because clearly no progress was possible in a Brahmin-Bania dominated, Congress-led India.”

<Phew> Sticky couple of minutes.

I could go on, but very frankly, in one phrase, this paper is my best ally, better than any I have summoned before. Again, I urge you to read it.

Er, yes. Let’s test this out.

The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas. Therefore, it may safely be concluded, this was not a minority sentiment.

That didn’t come out too good. Let’s just change the direction a bit.

The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas. Therefore the agitation in Tamil Nadu was more of a Hindi vs. anti-Hindi thing.

Drat! Still messed up. Hmm, let’s try thinking this through.

The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas, therefore they represented a lunatic fringe of the Tamil people who never enjoyed any popular support.

We’ll get back to you once we’ve fixed this pesky line.

If you would allow me fix the pesky line,

I would conclude: “The origins of anti Brahmin movement did not originate in the rural Tamil Nadu; most of the leaders were from urban areas. The movement tried to associate peasants, weavers, and local merchants but was unsuccessful. Hence the movement did not enjoyed the support that’s required to form a Nation".

But who is talking about the support that's required to form a nation? We are talking about minority sentiment here, whether or not it has separation as an objective, and whether or not it reaches that separation.

[3] Even British patronized the movement because they felt threatened by the prospect of the Congress movement and threat to their administration

No records, but the possibility of Woodgrave hanging over us like a black cloud.

Actually, there are excellent references for this: it would have strengthened this point considerably if those had been cited.

Let us agree, to examine how this takes the discussion. Does it affect the main argument, that there was minority sentiment in a large number of religious, caste and ethnic groups within British India, that the Muslims were one such, and that they happened to be best organised and best led?


[4] The movement was confined mostly to intermediate castes. The movement tried to associate peasants, weavers, and local merchants but was unsuccessful

When you say that the movement (which never happened, there was no Dravidian movement after all) tried to attract peasants, weavers and merchants, what was their objective? To win elections or to create a mass movement? If it was to win elections, it could not have been a very intelligent decision, since there was no universal adult franchise under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms and the 1919 act under which elections were held. So most of these peasants, weavers and merchants never had the vote.

Would you agree, then, that this was organisation for a mass movement?

I know that you would not appreciate me quoting from Hardgrave. So, I have quoted some sentences out of an article published in Hindu Is the Dravidian movement dying? by Subramanian Swamy. which aptly converges with my point of view. I know that some may Subramanian Swamy fickle; however I find him intelligent and logical. I have also given a link of interview of PC Alexander on this issue

“It was not a grassroots movement from below to articulate the aspirations of the masses. It began with well-to-do British toadies seeking commanding heights of Tamil society. The British imperialists had wanted an instrument to divide and rule in the south, and seized on the fallacious Aryan-Dravidian theory propounded by East India Company-paid historians”

Again, I do not have to look far for an ally. I think a single reading of Rajagopalan will put things in perspective. I am content to go with her, rather than Swamy's snide remarks, which, incidentally, are completely unhistorical. The British had been ruling in the South for years, long before the articulation of the Aryan-Dravidian theory being propounded. There was no question of the British seizing on a theory which emerged long after they seized power, to substantiate their power,

On an entirely different issue, what on Earth gave you the impression that I was antipathetic to Hardgrave? On the contrary, the citation was apt, I was encouraged by it, and I sincerely hope that will continue in your writing.

Is the Dravidian movement dying? Link

Is the Dravidian movement dying?

We need to acquire greater coherence as a nation by PC Alexander. Link

Rediff On The NeT, Freedom: An interview with Maharashtra Governor P C Alexander

Regards

On Dr. Alexander, I have no comment whatsoever.

Sincerely,

'Joe'

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir,

If I may continue to be formal; I don't know you well enough yet to call you Dear Jackass.

@Joe :
OK I dont want to argue word by word but your point is that one can put the Dravidian nationalism and TNT on equal footing. I do not accept any such parallels you want to make.

For starters, this was not my point, and this is not my point.

My point is that the Two Nation Theory dealt with religion as an identifier, in defining identity; that it failed to recognise that other factors also went into defining identity; that those of us who are looking at it in its historical perspective should recognise that after it achieved its apparent objective, of giving the Indian Muslim a homeland, it proved to have its limitations by not recognising the ethnic and linguistic identifiers in Pakistan.

Dravid nationalism and TNT are not on an equal footing, the TNT is seen as a particular case of a general principle.

I hope you see the difference.

Look at the following questions:

Were muslims asked to convert to Hindus after 19xx?

Leaders like Anna and Periyar, however racist they proved to be(they had the Aryan-Dravidian theory in their minds as a baggage), started their career by trying to integrate the backward society by organizing non-brahminical marrriages and temple entries. Was there any effort by the so-called depressed champions(after their efforts to stay in India failed apparently) of TNT to try any such reproachment?

Yes, with respect to Jinnah, and the evidence is thick on the ground.

How exactly did they get disillusioned with the idea of unity? How did they come to the conclusion?

Have you been following the discussions, or do you wish me to rewind to the beginning and start every time from there, every time someone wants to ask the same question that has been asked countless times before?

I will answer these but I have a request:

The next pilgrim to come up and ask the questions you are asking, with the same dewy-eyed enthusiasm, should be answered by you.

As I mentioned earlier these politicians came first and because of whatever snubs(which have to be taken as personal in the absence of evidence) they got in their politicking, they would deem that as organized effort against Islam.

I presume you are referring to Jinnah. There were others, notably Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Sir Mohammad Iqbal. Neither of them qualifies for your description. Jinnah qualifies only on a cynical and sordid reading of his actions.

Look at how much time it took for them to gain support. That shows however much people identified themselves differently from the other religion(like we have today in India), it was not like they would not allow the other religion people to stay in their homes. So they did spend the time well by creating fears which no doubt is a perfectly valid and good move to achieve your objectives.

I am not the advocate for either the AIML or the proponents of the Two Nation Theory, considering that the one was a political party which is long extinct, and with which I would have had nothing in common had we coexisted at the same time, and the other is a theory that I consider only partial and defective in its recognition of what constitutes a minority, and how to deal with it.

Having said that, are you aware of the seditious argument that goes,"When did you stop beating your wife?"

But you cant the TNT give the credit of both being as well thought of(after trying everything else as a last resort thingie) and also as a very obvious fact(then it should be apparent today). For me it stinks of hypocrisy. It was based on an assumption that a society will never treat a group fairly while clearly the founder and the proponent thinks otherwise when the larger society is his, clearly racist.

I am sorry, it is not clear what that means. Could you put it in simpler terms?

And with regards to your order of events:

Yeah there is a pattern clearly. You should realize what it is:
Every time Hindi is being pushed, you see an agitation, the worst coming just before jan 26, 1965. Is it very difficult to understand why? Other than that I don't see any pattern. If you can explain, I will respond. Periyar and Anna were misled racists as I said before, caught between Aryan-Dravidian differences and brahmin-lower caste. My appreciation for them crops up from fighting for a fair society not from any other actions.

You should read the paper cited by Jade1982 before jumping to any conclusions. It is very well-argued, and you might change your mind after reading it.

Sincerely,

'Joe'

 

[Joe Shearer]

@toxic_pus

Do you think I might have a word about the discussions between you and Agnostic Muslim, or is it too late to resurrect your interest in the subject?

 

[toxic_pus]

@toxic_pus

Do you think I might have a word about the discussions between you and Agnostic Muslim, or is it too late to resurrect your interest in the subject?

Go ahead. Nothing is too late.

I am all ears, or eyes.

 

[EjazR]

I just wanted to correct the mis-perception that the TWT was advocated by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan or Allama Iqbal.

As an earlier post mentioned the most prominent advocated were Sarvarkar and Jinnah, and the advocation was more for political rights of their "communities" rather than any religious connotations. The religion was a crutch that amplified their purpose and appeal. Neither Jinnah nor Sarvarkar could be termed religious or devout in any way.
There are many items you can find that will support this viewpoint.
I will just quote a few of his(Sir Syed) speeches from Facts are Sacred which are also historical documents

27 January 1884, at a function held in Gurdaspur:

We [i.e. Hindus and Mohammadans] should try to become one heart and soul, and act in union. In old historical books and traditions you will have read and heard, we see it even now, that all the people inhabiting one country are designated by the term One Nation. The different tribes of Afghanistan are termed One Nation and so the miscellaneous hordes peopling Iran, distinguished by the term Persians, though abounding in variety of thoughts and religions, are still known as members of One Nation.... Remember that the words Hindu and Mohammadan are only means for religious distinction&#8212;otherwise all persons whether Hindus or Mohammadans, even the Christians who reside in the country, are all in this particular respect belonging to one and the same Nation.

Again, at the gathering of the Indian Association of Lahore a few years before his death

I heartily wished to serve my country and my nation faithfully. In the word Nation I include both Hindus and Mohammadans, because that is the only meaning I can attach to it.... These are the different grounds upon which I call both those races which inhabit India by one word, i.e. Hindu, meaning to say that they are the inhabitants of Hindustan.

Note that he refers to both communities as Hindus in the geographical sense. He passed away much before the Muslim League was even formed so how could he have had any influence on the "Pakistan movement" other than the geographical connection that he established a uni at Aligarh baffles me. Particularly knowing these views which were publicly expressed.

The ANP has made this book available free of charge for those who are interested in reading the entire Facts are Sacred
http://www.awaminationalparty.org/books/factsarefacts.pdf


Coming to Iqbal as well, there is a book The Idea of Pakistan and Iqbal: A disclaimer that uses documentary proofs that he was not just neutral on the Pakistan issue of a separate homeland for Muslims but decisively against it. HE was advocating only Muslim majority states(there were only two when he advocated this and that also with very close majorities in Punjab and Bengal) within the Indian union not separatism. This has been acknowledged by his son as well. The 1930 speech at Muslim League is cited but a through read of his speech actually reaffirms that he DID NOT advocate separatism. This letter in 1934 after his speech clarifies what he meant after all. The book publishes many similar letters to others that stresses on this same theme

Dr. Sir Mohd Iqbal, M.A., Ph.D. Barrister-at-Law

Lahore 4 March 1934

My Dear Mr. Thompson,

I have just received your review of my book. It is excellent and I am grateful to you for the very kind things you have said of me. But you have made one mistake which I hasten to point as I consider it rather serious. You call me a protagonist of the scheme called &#8220;Pakistan&#8221;. Now Pakistan is not my scheme. The one that I suggested in my address is the creation of a Muslim Province &#8211; i.e; a province having an overwhelming population of Muslims in the North-West of India. This new province will be, according to my scheme, a part of the proposed Indian Federation. Pakistan scheme proposes a separate federation of Muslim Provinces directly related to England as a separate dominion. This scheme originated in Cambridge. The authors of this scheme believe that we Muslim Round Tablers have sacrificed the Muslim nation on the altar of Hindu or the so called Indian Nationalism.

Yours Sincerely,

Mohammed Iqbal

The person who came up with the name of Pakistan was Chadry Rahmat Ali, interestingly he did not stay back in Pakistan and died in UK, London alone. Jinnah until 1940 disregarded his scheme and also in the 1937 elections did not even utter anything to do with separatism. It was only in 1940, once the war had started and an understanding had been developed with the British rule and Jinnah that the Pakistan resolution was passed. And soon after Pakistan was created in 1947, Jinnah put that theory away saying that all religions are equal in the eyes of the state. Its another thing that the subsequent leaders did'nt follow up on this statement.


I might also like to draw attention to an excellent analysis by Ambedkar on is Pakistan necessary even if it is taken to believe that TWT is correct. (I am referring to the chapter Must there be Pakistan
Source
Examples of Canada were French and English live and other countries were given were a nation consisting of several nations exists together. For in reality, India is more of a continent than a single nation. It consists of the Tamils, Punjabi Marathas and Nagas. It even has people who migrated over 1000s of years from outside and include Arab, Turkish, Persian, Mongol British and Portuguese ancestry. He even accepts the presence of a right wing Hindu body politic but questions weather the method of Muslim League is the best way to counter it i.e. by alienating all non-muslims with its rhetoric.

And lastly, you can not see the politics of the 1940s without looking at the great power and super power politics of that time. To ignore the power plays happening in the emerging cold war and its impact on the Indian sub-Continent can result in many erroneous conclusions. Books like Facts are Sacred and Sarila's The Shadow of the Great Game are important in this regard.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your observations.

I just wanted to correct the mis-perception that the TWT was advocated by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan or Allama Iqbal.

As an earlier post mentioned the most prominent advocated were Sarvarkar and Jinnah, and the advocation was more for political rights of their "communities" rather than any religious connotations. The religion was a crutch that amplified their purpose and appeal. Neither Jinnah nor Sarvarkar could be termed religious or devout in any way.

There are many items you can find that will support this viewpoint.
I will just quote a few of his(Sir Syed) speeches from Facts are Sacred which are also historical documents

27 January 1884, at a function held in Gurdaspur:

Again, at the gathering of the Indian Association of Lahore a few years before his death

Note that he refers to both communities as Hindus in the geographical sense. He passed away much before the Muslim League was even formed so how could he have had any influence on the "Pakistan movement" other than the geographical connection that he established a uni at Aligarh baffles me. Particularly knowing these views which were publicly expressed.

The ANP has made this book available free of charge for those who are interested in reading the entire Facts are Sacred
http://www.awaminationalparty.org/books/factsarefacts.pdf

I have nothing on hand about Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's views on the Two Nation Theory, or anything approximating to that, and will revert to you after searching through the archives on PTH, and consulting standard references.

Regarding the ANP, we have been brought up in India to look on Bacha Khan and his son and grandson as exemplary persons and superhuman beings. I was shocked at the completely different views of my Pakistani friends, even the arch-liberals among them.

At this point, let me suggest that we keep in abeyance the whole question of Maulana Azad, Bacha Khan, the Jamaat-i-Islami, Maulana Maudoodi, and the Tablighis. For one thing, it is beyond my own depth, for another, the experts are all Pakistanis and all on PTH. If you wish, at a later date, we can walk through the archives there and the observations there. Be aware that those observations are radically different from what we in India have been used to, even to Bacha Khan, whom I still venerate, in spite of the bad press my Pakistani friends have given him and his family.

Coming to Iqbal as well, there is a book The Idea of Pakistan and Iqbal: A disclaimer that uses documentary proofs that he was not just neutral on the Pakistan issue of a separate homeland for Muslims but decisively against it. HE was advocating only Muslim majority states(there were only two when he advocated this and that also with very close majorities in Punjab and Bengal) within the Indian union not separatism. This has been acknowledged by his son as well. The 1930 speech at Muslim League is cited but a through read of his speech actually reaffirms that he DID NOT advocate separatism. This letter in 1934 after his speech clarifies what he meant after all. The book publishes many similar letters to others that stresses on this same theme.

I am a little surprised at your observation.

The TNT (why do you keep calling it the TWT?) does not ask for Pakistan; that is nowhere in the picture. This theory was originally a defence of the demand for separate electorates.

The demand having failed to impact the state of the Muslims, it dawned on the leadership of the Muslims that something more was needed. This was the confederal idea that the AIML led by Jinnah promoted, NOT AN IDEA OF A SEPARATE STATE.

It is not at all surprising to find Iqbal opposed to a separate homeland.

The person who came up with the name of Pakistan was Chadry Rahmat Ali, interestingly he did not stay back in Pakistan and died in UK, London alone. Jinnah until 1940 disregarded his scheme and also in the 1937 elections did not even utter anything to do with separatism. It was only in 1940, once the war had started and an understanding had been developed with the British rule and Jinnah that the Pakistan resolution was passed. And soon after Pakistan was created in 1947, Jinnah put that theory away saying that all religions are equal in the eyes of the state. Its another thing that the subsequent leaders did'nt follow up on this statement.

Rahmat Ali was a very strange figure on the fringes of all these goings on. His contribution was the name Pakistan given to the idea of a homeland. Pakistan was until a very late date a stalking horse for the aspirations of the Indian Muslim, who wanted a far lesser programme than an independent state.

A cursory examination of the literature will show that Jinnah created an extreme position (the famous '16 annas' demand, intended to create space for the maximum he could get), shouted down hotheads who gloated about having used the slogan,"Pakistan ka matlab kya...", and kept his favourite, the Raja Mahmudabad, at arms' length for his Islamist views.

To Jinnah, this was a negotiation. In a negotiation, as followers of game theory will confirm, everyone wins on assuming that both players are rational; everyone loses if even one is irrational. In this negotiation, one was irrational.

I might also like to draw attention to an excellent analysis by Ambedkar on is Pakistan necessary even if it is taken to believe that TWT is correct. (I am referring to the chapter Must there be Pakistan
Source
Examples of Canada were French and English live and other countries were given were a nation consisting of several nations exists together. For in reality, India is more of a continent than a single nation. It consists of the Tamils, Punjabi Marathas and Nagas. It even has people who migrated over 1000s of years from outside and include Arab, Turkish, Persian, Mongol British and Portuguese ancestry. He even accepts the presence of a right wing Hindu body politic but questions weather the method of Muslim League is the best way to counter it i.e. by alienating all non-muslims with its rhetoric.

This was a typically brilliant Ambedkar analysis. The more I read about him, the more my respect for the man grows. Without wasting time on frothy compliments, I refer the curious reader to the political concept of 'consociationalism'. How apt that Ambedkar should refer to Canada!

I wish you would point some of the firebrands intent on my auto-da-fe in this direction, towards the Ambedkar passage.:-D

And lastly, you can not see the politics of the 1940s without looking at the great power and super power politics of that time. To ignore the power plays happening in the emerging cold war and its impact on the Indian sub-Continent can result in many erroneous conclusions. Books like Facts are Sacred and Sarila's The Shadow of the Great Game are important in this regard.

I don't have much to say on this.

Sincerely,

'Joe S.'