Yes Sai... you truly nailed the lie on the head with your observation that its this kind of "piped" and fed channels of truth that is the real prostitute. Our history keeps changing with social belief structure and 'politically correct' majority concepts.... this fanaticism is not at all the real Hindu way of life that accepts and encourages fresh new views and ideas... Infact rather than being truly Hindu the RSS and VHP seem to be copying the Muslim fanatics and terrorists that they claim to be against
A rare piece on rediff! This is one of the most sane writing I ve come across Rediff in recent times.Mr. Sai, your piece was a treat to the readers, except for one that I really doubt,viz., Gandhi is being demonised in Pakistan! I presume Nehru would've fit into the bill much better. Still, your article provides an eye-opener to all the Indians, it's high time to come out from the "mental block" for the sake of our future generations!
Mr. Vir Sanghvi in the editorial of the Hindusta Times of this sunday (12/6/05) did mention something similar in the sense that while the whole world venerates Gandhi, and to a lesser extent Nehru, as great statesemen, when it comes to Jinnah, there is an apologetic silence in raising him to the same eminence. This, obvioulsy, raises the hackles of Pakistanis in general.
But I have my doubts whether it is simply the respect to the pantron of gods that will erase the mindset across the two countries. No doubt, Jinnah is not the most huggable figure in recent history, but I find it hard to digest that Indians, per se, paint Jinnah in quintessential black without any shades of gray. I have felt him squarely responsible for the partition, but have reserved my opinion as to whether I hate him for the same.
As far as the RSS' (Parivar's) strong critique goes, it goes without saying that their existence depends upon the furtherance of the anti-minority mindset, which can be called to act upon receptive minds with virulent tendencies to create atmospheres suitable for their 'trishul parades' and mosque bashings.
How we respond to Advani's 'banquet' will reveal where we go in the futu
Frankly I could never accept RSS as an intellectual organisation. It neither knows history nor ever appreciates its niceties.
Indian understanding of Partition story stems from the belief Muslim League divided Bharat/Hindustan that existed for thousands of years. The India we have today was just a generic, geographic term used erroneously by many societies to the whole of South Asia. We have to thank - among others - the Mughals and the British - for the evolution of India that we know of today.
Appreciation of this fact is important to put partition in perspective. The Partition was wrong not because it divided 'an eternally existing India', but it was wrong because some - both in the Muslim League Hindu Mahasabha - believed Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. This belief caused thousands of deaths and displaced millions. This turned out to be an alarmist belief as we know from the Indian experience that Hindus and Muslims can indeed live together.
Of course, a united India (with Pakistan and Bangladesh) would have been a bigger country with nearly 30% Muslim presence. A moot point whether this percentage distribution would have caused its own tensions ala Lebanon.
RE:Bull's Eye
by Robby on Jun 14, 2005 09:16 PM Permalink
Ok Salih, let's not get over-excited here at the latest Indo-Pak bonhomie. India may have been a loose mass of many smaller states for hundreds of years - but the idea of Bharat is as old as Mahabharat. It was known as Aryavart then - and stretched from Kandhar(Gandhar - Shakuni's capital, where Gandhari was from) to Sri Lanka, including Kashmir(many scriptural references here) and Assam (and here too). The Aryavart was that and just that. Not Tibet, not Iran and not Thailand. So even if it was not neatly carved out in a single country, India's claim as a country is much more valid and older than most other countries'. And please, British or Mughals deserve no credit for that. It was just a conquered land for them.
But, really, this is a superlative column. It separates the wheat from the chaff- not just among the columnists but also among the readers. Proves so clearly that the common public is so naive and prone to thinking in black and white. The real issue is lost though. Advani NEVER called Jinnah secular. He only talked about a certain passage from a speech to remind Pak of a lesson their father had tought them and which they have now forgotten. What's so bad about that?
I fully agrre with you. Genuine peace movement cannot ever get through without vigorous turmoil. Mr. Advani should be lauded for initiating such a bold step, if at all we want peace between the two cousine nations.
The author started with a style which made me think that we might have a detailed account of the circumstances within Congress that led Jinnah and many other leaders to chart a different course. Can Rediff present such an article?
~towards greater freedom of truth and escape from idols and perceptions
It is very surprising that not only media and politicians alike often continue to harp on the lines they pickup regardless of the facts as in this case. Read Advani's speech, the text of which has been published wherein he has supported his message for secular polity in India , Pakistan and Bangladesh with quotes from Jinnah's own speech. The message obviously is directed more at our two theocratic nations who have all but forgotten that speech of Jinnah. It is a matter of revisiting modern history of India. Hon'ble Minister for HRD may order a thorough research on the subject of partition and have cbse books rewritten accordingly. But politically that move puts Congress and Pt. Nehru in the dock. If Jinnah was secular in his victory then who had conceded the victory - partition of India to him. He could not get it unless the other two parties namely the British and the Congress would agree to give it to him. British being neutral, it was Congress which should have and had actually agreed to partition so that Nehrus could become PM of India in perpetuity. So why blame only Jinnah.
i agree with you sir. Jinnah took the path because of 2 chief reasons - 1. British were able to create unrest amongst the two communities. 2. Reluctance of Nehru to give up his ambitions of being Independent India's Primeminister. Jinnah was a very learned man, but unfortunately the formation of Pakistan turned him into a villain for all Indians.
Its a great article. It is time to know the reality of all our freedom fighters be it Jinnha, Savarkar, Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose, Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Vallabh bhai Patel, Khan Abdul Gafoor Khan, Mualana Azad and also many whom we dont find in our history books coz they were citizens of Pakistan being effect of partition of India. Yes its impt to accept that our early leaders were & have aptly played a big role in dirty politics be it Jinnha, Nehru or even Mahatma Gandhiji. Since I have taken Gandhiji's name let me elaborate on it. He went on fast unto death to remove Netaji Bose as the chariman of Congress in 1939 (who was elected democraticlly against Gandhiji's candidate). He made Nehru Prime Minister even when Sardar Patel was the choice of majority ..almost unanimous choice of DPCC who voted then i.e out of 20 votes he got 19, still Gandhiji asked him to step down for Nehru. I think that sort of partialism cost India dear. Lets see our history in true light. If we are able to do that then we can expect a lot more tolerance among citizens of this great nation & politicians wont be able to exploit the religion for their ulterior motives. Lets be indians,lets be humans.
