BJP Leader Reassesses Jinnah, Gets the Boot

Posted on by

The prominent BJP leader Jaswant Singh recently published a book on the founding father of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, in which he praised Jinnah, and largely criticized Nehru and the Congress party for causing the Partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. The book, which has not been released outside of India yet, is called Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence (interesting that Singh puts “India” rather than “Pakistan” in the title).

Praising Jinnah is heresy for BJP leaders, so this week, Jaswant Singh, who has been with the party for many years and served in several Cabinet posts under Vajpayee, was formally expelled from the party.

Update: There is a long interview (PDF) with Jaswant Singh and Karan Thapar from CNN-IBN, with a transcript up at The Hindu. I would highly recommended it, if you have the time. (Thanks Al Beruni)

Below are some excerpts from an article in Dawn [with quotes from the CNN-IBN interview] indicating the general outlines of Jaswant Singh’s perspective on Jinnah. Though Congress does come off badly in his account, which seems logical for a BJP leader, Jaswant Singh appears sincere in his desire to correct what he sees as a distortion in the popular perception of Jinnah in India. Surprisingly, he also seemingly bears no animus towards the idea of a two nations theory, or Jinnah’s use of religious loyalty for political ends:

It was historically not tenable to see Mr Jinnah as the villain of 1947, Mr Singh said. ‘It is not borne out of the facts… we need to correct it… Muslims saw that unless they had a voice in their own economic, political and social destiny they will be obliterated.’

Mr Singh said the 1946 election was a good example to show the fear held by Muslims. That year, he said: ‘Jinnah’s Muslim League wins all the Muslim seats and yet they don’t have sufficient numbers to be in office because the Congress Party has, without even a single Muslim, enough to form a government and they are outside of the government.

‘So it was realised that simply contesting elections was not enough… All of this was a search for some kind of autonomy of decision making in their own social and economy destiny.’[…]

‘He single-handedly stood against the might of the Congress Party and against the British who didn’t really like him … Gandhi himself called Jinnah a great Indian. Why don’t we recognise that? Why don’t we see (and try to understand) why he called him that?’

Mr Jinnah was as much a nationalist as any leader in India. ‘He fought the British for an independent India but also fought resolutely and relentlessly for the interest of the Muslims of India … the acme of his nationalistic achievement was the 1916 Lucknow Pact of Hindu-Muslim unity.’

Among the aspects of Mr Jinnah’s personality Mr Singh said he admired his determination and will to rise. ‘He was a self-made man. Mahatma Gandhi was the son of a Diwan. All these (people) — Nehru and others — were born to wealth and position. Jinnah created for himself a position. He carved in Bombay, a metropolitan city, a position for himself. ‘He was so poor he had to walk to work … he told one of his biographers there was always room at the top but there’s no lift. And he never sought a lift.’ (link)

(Again, a longer interview can be found here)

I am at present agnostic on the claims Jaswant Singh is making. I don’t hold any particular animus against Jinnah — and I certainly understand where he was coming from — but I also question many of his (Jinnah’s) choices in the lead-up to Partition. (One bad choice that is often mentioned by critics of Jinnah is Direct Action Day, in 1946, which led to widespread communal rioting.) If people have specific historical accounts of Jinnah they would recommend (with links, if possible), which might either support or contradict Jaswant Singh’s take, it would be helpful to see them. I am also curious to hear from readers how this fits into their understanding of Jaswant Singh: what is he up to? What are the likely implications of this book and the controversy that’s followed it? In short: what is all this about?

A nice read on the controversy generated by Jaswant Singh’s book, with some competing historians’ interpretations of Jinnah’s role in the 1930s and 40s, is Soutik Biswas at the BBC. Biswas does address some of the “what is this all about?” questions.

We also had some discussions of Jinnah in the inaugural post from my short series on Ramachandra Guha’s book, “India After Gandhi.” Guha has a more critical take on Jinnah, though he distributes the blame for Partition amongst the three main players, including the Congress Party, Jinnah and the Muslim League, and the British.

For another take (more sympathetic to Jinnah than Guha), readers might be interested in reading some or all of Ayesh Jalal’s influential first book on Jinnah, “The Sole Spokesman.” The book is online for free at Google Books: here.

261 thoughts on “BJP Leader Reassesses Jinnah, Gets the Boot”

  1. Rahul, that was NOT Jinnah’s vision of the role of Islam in Pakistan, to the extent that one existed, to the best of my knowledge. He, publicly, anyway, stated on some occasions that Muslims were a social and cultural group.

    Wait – I take this back. I think this is part of what you were actually pointing to. Sorry about that!

  3. It is heartening that a man with such a smart, subtle understanding of Muslims in India occupied such a prominent role in the BJP.

    I would say reassuring, not heartening, but it is good that from 1999 to 2004 someone who thoguht these kinds of things was on the inside of that party. But is that enough? Perhaps he is eccentric, like Russ Feingold in the Democratic Party – but he is also someone that remained a member of the BJP from its formation until he was expelled. It is only with the appearance of their decline that he’s no longer a member, and that, not even by his choice. If his sensitivity provides an escape hatch for apologists for the hardline rather than policy changes or influence that benefit Muslims (even by minimising the damage done by the hard right in the BJP), what good can we said it has done? Of course that’s a question – the history of the BJP remains to be written (or read by me anyway)- I’ll wait till then or someone more informed can comment.

  4. To DizzyDesi at #52: thanks! I actually bought the two books “India Wins Freedom” and “Patel — A Life” together. “India Wins Freedom” seemed to be the racier of the two, and I read it first. Unfortunately, right about when I finished it, time began to turn into a commodity in short supply. I confess I haven’t yet been able to get to “Patel — A Life”.

  5. I would say reassuring, not heartening, but it is good that from 1999 to 2004 someone who thoguht these kinds of things was on the inside of that party.

    Applying the Democrat / Republican framework on the Indian political scene does not work. Forget the hindus who can “understand the Muslim viewpoint”, in the BJP, there have always been a few Muslims in the BJP.

    They are not often mentioned in the press, and when they are, they are usually derided as Uncle Toms. If you ignore the press, and look for yourself, though you would find people like Syed Shahnawaz Hussain and Sikader Bakht have often been in top leadership positions, and not mascots.

  6. I wonder if there isn’t something of a class-conscious rift between India’s literati and the BJP’s main base (business classes/middle class Hindus) that motivates the nature of much of the coverage.

  7. YogaFire wrote:

    There are reasons to criticize the BJP’s actions and the methods in this matter, but the Jinnah angle — saying that Jaswant was expelled because of remarks against Jinnah — is just editorializing passing off as reporting

    I don’t think so.

    From the Hindu Mr. Jaitley said in Shimla: “No political party can allow any member, let alone a frontline leader, to write or express views against the core ideology of the party. If any member wants to say something or express his views against the party’s ideology he should stand outside the party” and then have his say. It was not a question of writing “a book” but writing a book that went against the basic beliefs of the party. Mr. Jaitley referred to the … party resolution rejecting the two-nation theory championed by Pakistan’s founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah

    Also

    [Jaswant Singh said] “I don’t know which part of the belief in Patel I have demolished. It was Patel who banned the RSS. What is this core belief about? There are only eight references to Patel in my book.

    It’s a little bit gong show, a little bit clown college.

    (Also, check out the September 1948 obituary of Jinnah in the Hindu)

  8. Applying the Democrat / Republican framework on the Indian political scene does not work. Forget the hindus who can “understand the Muslim viewpoint”, in the BJP, there have always been a few Muslims in the BJP.

    it actually works perfectly in this context, in discussing wishy washy centrism and far right politics among the two major parties in each country. The equivalent would be to say there have always been a few Black people/LGBT people/Latinos in the Republican Party. Anyway, your point actually reinforces how much more relevant the overall thrust of the BJP’s politics (ranging from ‘moderate’ rightwing politics like textbook editing to out and out killings) is than a few individual members here and there, rather than what I had said above – I think Ikram’s point (and my reinforcement of it) was off. There are even Muslim voters that vote BJP, but that doesn’t change that there is a strong presence of Hindutva communal politics in all or almost all their work, though in varying forms and at differing levels.

    Where the comparison between the two countries in this context would fall apart is that politics is far more regional / state / and even district level in India than in the United States for a variety of reasons.

  9. I don’t think so.

    For the unofficial reason, everything is speculation and the DNA article linked provides as good an explanation as any I’ve read.

    There is no interpretation required for the official reason. A clear official statement was provided. It isn’t rocket science.

  10. Wasn’t Vajpayee the first Indian PM to visit Jinnah’s grave? Also, Advani has stated at least a couple of times that Jinnah was secular. So, JS isn’t the first BJP leader to describe Jinnah in not-so-unfavorable terms. Jaswant’s explusion has more to do with the Raje-Rajnath-Advani battle for power than anything else.

  11. The Daily Times, PK:

    Any departure was not to be tolerated, as LK Advani, the parliamentary leader of the BJP, discovered when during his visit to the city of his birth, Karachi, he uttered a few words of tepid praise for the Quaid and then had to offer his resignation to quiet the storm that this had occasioned. Advani of course was forgiven his trespasses after he had offered a half-hearted apology. Earlier, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a former prime minister and an iconic figure in the BJP, suffered, I was told by Indian friends, a considerable loss of political support when as part of the now much praised Yatra to Lahore in 1999, he visited the Minar-e-Pakistan and acknowledged in his remarks in the visitors book that Pakistan was a reality, and with whom India would seek good neighbourly relations. Again while Vajpayee paid a political price, this was seen as no more than a hiccup from which he soon recovered.

  12. Some levity: Bal Thackeray said yesterday: “If Jinnah was secular, why did LKA move to India in 1947?” Interesting that Thackeray dissed LKA, not JS 🙂

    We Indians have a distaste for grey shade.Every thing has to be black or white.This malaise is not limited to the BJP.It can be seen even strongly in case of Indian marxists (the scum of the earth if you ask me) and Congress (I).

    What boggles me is that without any one realising it, Sardar Patel seems to have become the equivalent of GOD.Any thing you say about Patel which could show that he is a human too, will be termed blasphemous.

    I started reading Jaswant Singh’s book yesterday and I am almost half way through.It is tolerably well-written and JS seems to have gone to great lengths to be balanced.And it is a history that many of us have a stake in.So, that makes it engrossing stuff.Being a center right person, I don’t have many problems putting on a BJP hat.I did that and honestly, could not find anything that contradicts the core tenets of BJP.

    That Jaswant is bemoaning the Parition can actually be seen as his belief in the concept of Akhand Bharat.The RSS would be very happy, if they care to read the book.

    I think the real reason for the BJP sacking JS lies in the uneasy relationship between the coterie in BJP and the RSS new leadership.Coming so close on the heels of Mohan Bhagwat’s public address in Chennai where he said that the RSS would no longer keep quiet on national affairs and would actively seek to influence them, this (the expulsion) is probably LKA’s way of showing that he is no longer dependent on RSS in any way.Power brokers in the BJP are probably having the last laugh now, but I feel the BJP has made a grave mistake in underestimating the reach and commitment of RSS.The RSS can’t disown the BJP but they can still influence the course of events such that a younger generation of leaders will soon take charge.It may take a year or two for this transformation to occur but it will happen.

    I don’t know how many of you are aware of Radha Rajan and Sandhya Jain.Here’s an analysis by Radha Rajan.

  14. I wonder if there isn’t something of a class-conscious rift between India’s literati and the BJP’s main base (business classes/middle class Hindus) that motivates the nature of much of the coverage.

    Yes, you would. anything to avoid examining the actuality.

  15. This is getting funnier and funnier. On Advani lying during the campaign about the trip to Kandahar, J. Singh says

    I didn’t go to Kandahar because there was a good night club there.

    Dizzy wrote:

    clear official statement was provided. It isn’t rocket science

    Yes, but the official statement is silly and un-believable, unless you think the BJP is made up entirely of idiots. But the way things are going..,

    Anyway, Jawed Naqvi, the Dawn’s Delhi correspondent, has a good column on the Singh debacle, as well an intersesting take on Delhi’s Iftar party rituals.

  16. Excellent obituary on Jinnah published in “The Hindu” one of the first English-language newspapers in India, on September 13th, 1948, 2 days after his death here:

    http://bit.ly/4pdWmk

    Few excerpts: “Till barely a twelvemonth ago he was, next to Gandhiji, the most powerful leader in undivided India. And not only among his fellow-Muslims but among members of all communities there was great admiration for his sterling personal qualities even while the goal which he pursued with increasing fanaticism was deplored.”

    “he came to be as nearly a popular idol as it was possible for a man so aristocratic and aloof by temperament to be.”

    “In an age which saw centuries-old empires crumble this Bombay lawyer began late in life to dream of founding a new Empire; in an era of rampant secularism this Muslim, who had never been known to be very austere in his religion, began to dally with the notion that that Empire should be an Islamic State. And the dream became a reality overnight, and perhaps no man was more surprised at his success than Mr. Jinnah himself.“

    “Pakistan began with Iqbal as a poetic fancy. Rahmat Ali and his English allies at Cambridge provided it with ideology and dogma. Britain’s Divide and Rule diplomacy over a period of half a century was driving blindly towards this goal. What Mr. Jinnah did was to build up a political organisation, out of the moribund Muslim League, which gave coherence to the inchoate longings of the mass by yoking it to the realisation of the doctrinaires’ dream. Two world wars within a generation, bringing in their train a vast proliferation of nation-States as well as the decay of established Imperialisms and the rise of the Totalitarian Idea, were as much responsible for the emergence of Pakistan as the aggressive communalism to which Mr. Jinnah gave point and direction.”

    “At the first Round Table Conference he took a lone stand in favour of a unitary Government for India because he felt that Federation in a country made up of such diverse elements would strengthen fissiparous tendencies. It was an irony that such a man should have become the instrument of a policy which, by imposing an unnatural division on a country meant by Nature to be one, has started a fatal course the end of which no man may foresee.”

    “Mr. Jinnah was an astute lawyer. And his success was largely due to the fact that he was quick to seize the tactical implications of any development. His strength lay not in any firm body of general principle, any deeply cogitated philosophy of life, but in throwing all his tremendous powers of tenacity, strategy and dialectical skill into a cause which had been nursed by others and shaped in many of its most important phases by external factors.”

    “The freedom that Pakistan has won, largely as the result of a century of unremitting effort by India’s noblest sons, is yet to be consolidated. It is a task that calls for the highest qualities of statesmanship. Many are the teething troubles of the infant State. Apart from the refugee problem, which is Britain’s parting gift to both parts of distracted India, the Pakistan Government has by its handling of the Kashmir question and its unfortunate attitude towards the Indian Union’s difficulties with Hyderabad, raised in an acute form the future of the relations between Pakistan and India. Mr. Jinnah at his bitterest never forgot that firm friendship between the two States was not only feasible but indispensable if freedom was to be no Dead-Sea apple. It is earnestly to be hoped that the leaders of Pakistan will strive to be true to that ideal.”

    Wow. That was 61 years ago. So many fears have come true!

  17. Mr. Jinnah at his bitterest never forgot that firm friendship between the two States was not only feasible but indispensable if freedom was to be no Dead-Sea apple.

    Heh indeed.

  19. Yoga Fire (#67), what is it that you find so funny about the quoted statement? Just because Partition had become inevitable didn’t mean that there necessarily needed to be enmity between the two new independent states. In fact, when he was leaving Delhi Jinnah even said “I am an Indian and am going to be Governer-General of Pakistan, just as Mountbatten is an Englishman and is going to be Governer-General of India”. It’s a different matter that this statement was later officially edited out.

    Partition was a horrible human tragedy made worse by the fact that the boundries were only officially announced after 15th August– a decision taken by Mountbatten. It could have been handled in a better manner. Anyway, it was not inevitable that Pak-India relations would end up being as messy and tense as they are today.

  20. This Jinnah business is just an excuse. There is an ongoing power grab by Modi. (in the BJP) Jaswant was just a pawn that got sacrificed in a larger game.

  21. I don’t know whether it is BJP or Congress’s take on history or intellectual deconstruction of Jinnah’s role ….Muslims are better off with their freedom in their own homeland of Pakistan and Bangladesh…the rest who want to live in India are welcome to assimilate just as the Hindu/Sikh/Christian/Muslim South Asian-immigrants in Christian USA and Europe….Seriously with so many Hindu temples and cultural symbols destroyed over the course of Mughal rule why should the Muslims be so welcome to dictate the terms just because they fought for India’s independence from the British ?

  22. Arti, I am troubled by the logic of your arguement. You argue that Indian Muslims need to assimilate. This seems to somehow imply that they are not full Indians. Indian Muslims are not immigrants to new societies as desis are to the West for example. India is just as much their homeland as it is anyone elses. Further, India is a secular state not a Hindu one and I believe the motto is “unity in diversity”. What then are you advocating? That India be declared a Hindu Republic just as Pakistan is the Islamic Republic (which I’m also not in favor of by the way)? It’s sentiments like this that made Indian Muslims in 1947 feel they needed their own country. We really don’t need a revival of this rhetoric again.

  24. Indian Muslims are not immigrants to new societies as desis are to the West for example.

    That part is certainly correct. They did not immigrate. They came as conquerors, and stayed as overlords.

  25. Minority rights are not based on “years in”. Indians have been in the US in insignificant numbers since the 1700s as indentured servants and even slaves, but there was no real community as such until the 1960s. Everyone has different ideas of what assimilation is, for me it means having a roughly similar idea of how society should operate (e.g. France’s liberty, equality, fraternity). Everything else is window dressing.

  26. TTCUSM, I’m with you on some of the historical grievances against Mughal rule, but it is probably no more than 5% Indian Muslims that can be considered the descendants of conquerors. “They” are “us”, this is borne out by genetic analysis as well. It was a tactic for social mobility to invent Afghan-Turkic ancestors

  27. After 60 yrs. i feel Sub continent is better off being divided in 3 nations which are culturally different. india would have faced more unsolvable problem had we remained as one Nation with more than 40% minority population. Hope USA with growing Latino(Spanish) population would be spared such conflict in future.

  28. Is the US Latino situation comparable in any way? They are Christian, their kids speak English and serve in the military in large numbers, they don’t march to the orders of the Mexican govt. I see the tension in the US as being based on assimilating people with an agricultural mindset into an economy that no longer has opportunities for the less educated immigrant

  29. Change “mindset” to “background” in comment #78 above, don’t mean to imply that 1st gen Hispanics can only comprehend agriculture. Just think about the difficulty an Indian from the villages has in finding his way in urban India

  30. Hindus have not fully assimilated to the Indian ideal either. Indian traditionalists of all faiths seem to think they have a right to intercede when it comes to “private sin” (e.g. women drinking in Karnataka), village courts that kill couples that marry outside caste or religion etc. These are not exactly corner cases, the police sit on the sidelines because there is often broad support for this behavior in these majority Hindu communities.

  31. Just in case anyone’s curious about data on Mexican immigrants to the United States, here you go. Pew Hispanic Center has other data too which might help provide more detail.

    comments 71 and 74 are blatantly racist and it’s hard to know where to begin in addressing the faulty understanding of history on which its based. please read a respectable and fairly accurate introductory history book on south asia (modern south asia by ayesha jalal and sugata bose comes to mind).

  32. “They” are “us”, this is borne out by genetic analysis as well”

    Louiecypher, I so rarely agree with you on anything, but it’s good to know that you’re not one of those crazies who keep arguing that Indian Muslims are somehow a different race from Hindus, despite all the evidence.

  33. You argue that Indian Muslims need to assimilate. This seems to somehow imply that they are not full Indians.

    I believe assimilation as a word carries negative connotations in this context only because of the haziness surrounding the definition of the Indian cause. As in 1947, the question is whether Indian Muslims can find it possible to work towards the Indian cause. In 1947, Congress (Patel and Nehru) thought that subcontinental Muslims will not find such a basis and thus granted Partition. The question remains whether subcontinental Muslims are being encouraged by powers external to India to adopt such postures.

    For example, Desai in an article today argues that it was Liaquat Ali Khan’s budget that convinced Patel and then Nehru to opt for Partition. What is left unsaid is whether the British government worked through Jinnah to have Liaquat present such a budget.

    Ghosts that haunt India

    Just because Partition had become inevitable didn’t mean that there necessarily needed to be enmity between the two new independent states.

    Again, I am left wondering if this is due to foreign instigation. Pakistani society needed its elites to survive as a viable nation. Without the enmity with India and the resultant closure of options, there would have been little to compel these elites to go to Pakistan and to stay there on a permanent basis.

  34. “I believe assimilation as a word carries negative connotations in this context only because of the haziness surrounding the definition of the Indian cause. As in 1947, the question is whether Indian Muslims can find it possible to work towards the Indian cause”

    Ashish, I don’t see why Indian Muslims won’t work toward the Indian cause. They are citizens of the state and as long as that state guarantees their fundamental rights, then they (like all other people) would focus on making a good life for themselves and their families and contributing to India’s economy. I think the key guarantee is India’s status as a secular state. In 1947, prior to the Indian Constitution being written, there was some fear that Hindu domination would institutionalized in the newly independent country. This didn’t come to pass and it is much to Nehru’s credit that secular principles are well respected in India.

    I don’t like the word “assimilate” because it seems to imply that Indian Muslims need to become “Hindu” in their outward behavior, clothing etc, if they want to live in India. I don’t see why they can’t be proud of and retain their own identities while still being loyal citizens of the state. One can argue that desi immigrants to the West substantially adapt their lifestyles, clothing, etc, but they are voluntarily entering a very different society. Indian Muslims whose families have lived in India for 500 years are not immigrants and shouldn’t be treated as such. They are Indians plain and simple.

  35. As for Nehru’s secularism, I don’t think he or the Constitutional fathers ever intended India to be a pure secular state.Nehru especially wanted discrimination in favor of the minorities (vote bank politics) and he was lettered enough to know that he can’t possibly call India a secular country. His daughter had no such compulsions considering her lack of education and disdain for any pretense of democratic traditions. She wanted to aggressively pursue vote bank politics, and she used the Constitutional amendents to do so. The word ‘secular’ was amended into the Constitution by Mrs.Gandhi in the 1970s.And as every one who has seen India’s constitution in practice knows, India is neither secular nor does it guarantee the property rights of its poorer citizens.

    If only the assorted left-leaning and Hindu-hating leaders, NGOs and academics allow Indian muslims to modernise their faith and take advantage of the many opportunities that a growing India has to offer, I am sure Hindu-Muslim enmity will be a thing of past.But then people have their careers and awards to think of, not to speak of vote banks that allow them to rob the country’s riches much worse than the colonial masters ever did.These leeches will never allow true rapproachment and solutions for age old issues such as Ayodhya, Kasi and Madhura.

    Today, you can’t find fault with a building society not wanting to give a house on rent to a Muslim professional because we have seen that many of them sympathise with LET, Taliban and Al Quaeda, and there have been several cases of young muslim (mostly Mallu) professionals working as foot soldiers in the global jihadi movement using the relative security of their IT jobs.Who has misguided these youth?

    And there is nothing to stop local Congress or Communist leaders from having a portrait of Saddam Hussein or Mullah Omar on election posters, expecting the association to give them chunks of muslim votes.

    The Hindus are so riven by caste differences that it is next to impossible to unify them on religious or nationalistic lines, for the moderate elements to have any chance.The little mobilisation that happens is that of lunatic extreme right wing variety with mostly mercenary type unemployed youth who flit from being VHP goons today to Congress goons tomorrow.

    Most of the young, educated urban Hindus are being taught that India never existed as a nation till the Brits unified them, and that the very idea of a Nation is so 20th century.There is a lack of critical mass of articulate Hindu leaders who can command a following and say the right words.The Hindu right have become so reactive over the years that they abhor any form of intellectual discourse.Quite simply, they lack any relevance in India but they get all the attention from the media, locally and internationally.What a shame ! And the ideological corruption has seeped in so much that even the RSS has given up on making themselves understood properly.

    Most Muslims in India do accept that they were possibly Hindus 300-500 years back.But you are mistaken if you think any of them would protest the rabid sermons made by their Mullahs.It is exceptionally hard to find a single muslim mass leader who doesn’t have criminal cases against him.They insult their political opponents, threaten the citizens and the local police, and still, they are the ones who get MP tickets and MLA tickets.And they expect to be voted to power because they are Muslims.All over urban India, Muslim areas have the worst sanitation and other civic amenities. And yet the same Congress, Muslim League or MIM candidates continue to get Muslim votes. Who can convince Muslims to vote based on their economic interests and not religious affiliation. Who can do the same for Hindus – i.e. vote based on economic interest and not caste affiliation?

    I don’t think there is any hope for India and the sub-continent in this generation.We are cursed by the excessive attention of do-gooders, who hold our education and civic life in their tentacles and are asphyxiating us.And we have millions of unemployed youth, who hate themselves and the monied people so much that any hate project is bound to be a success.

    Sorry for the ramble.This is not just an academic conversation for us resident Indians.We see the reality everyday and lead lives of ‘quiet desperation’ and constantly feel ashamed of our selves.

  36. “Today, you can’t find fault with a building society not wanting to give a house on rent to a Muslim professional because we have seen that many of them sympathise with LET, Taliban and Al Quaeda, and there have been several cases of young muslim (mostly Mallu) professionals working as foot soldiers in the global jihadi movement using the relative security of their IT jobs.Who has misguided these youth?”

    Kumar, I understand where are coming from, and I know it is out of patriotism and love of your country. However, I think that decent people cannot condone this sort of institutionalized discrimination. Just because some Muslims have been linked to LET and Al Queda doesn’t mean all of them support these groups. Most Muslim professionals are just like every one else, working in IT, and trying to support themselves and their families. I don’t see why they should have to suffer because of some extremists. This is like the arguement that African-Americans are disproportionately criminals, and thus white people don’t want to rent out houses to them. Institutionalized discrimination is wrong in any case wherever it occurs.

    “Most of the young, educated urban Hindus are being taught that India never existed as a nation till the Brits unified them, and that the very idea of a Nation is so 20th century”

    I don’t want to get into a whole back and forth about this, but isn’t it objectively true that except for a 500 year period, no one kingdom ruled all (or even most) of what is now India? I don’t think it is inconcievable that the South, for example, couldn’t be one nation-state while the North would be another. This is not to say that I have any problems with modern India’s borders, but they are not divinely ordained or anything.

  37. Kabir,

    I understand where are coming from, and I know it is out of patriotism and love of your country.

    The people refusing to consider Muslim tenants in their societies are not doing it out of patriotism.They are doing it because they don’t want to take chances with their own security, and they don’t want police to be snopping around just in case. I don’t think we can call it institutionalized discrimination. Any way, I agree that its sad that every one gets suspected because of a few misguided people.

    My questions are two fold: 1.Who in India is allowing these youth to be misguided? It cannot be poverty because most of the IT employee turned Jehadi sympathisers (Orkut and MySpace are full of them if you know where to look) are earning decent salaries and have done engineering or similar courses.And surprisingly high number of them are from Kerala, where the average Muslim is richer than his counterparts in rest of India. 2.Why are the ordinary peace loving Muslims across the country not protesting against the hate speeches in their mosques or the teachings in Madarasas.For God’s sake, it is not Pakistan, where the State is allowing Jehadi ideology to be indoctrinated into impressionable minds.

    isn’t it objectively true that except for a 500 year period, no one kingdom ruled all (or even most) of what is now India?

    No, Kabir, you are wrong:)

    I can give you a dozen links with maps to show that how, not just modern India, but current day Pakistan, Afghanistan were also part of Bharat, but then you will have some equally convincing arguments to make.So, lets not get into this loop.

    My point was not ‘only’ about the geographical boundaries of India.It was about the idea of India. Among all the modern nations in the world, only two nations have survived as civilisational entities – Indian and Chinese.In a sense, these two countries are not jut nation states, they are ‘civilisation states’.

    Aside: In vedic rituals, when we begin a pooja, we do what is called ‘sankalpam‘ (the commitment to start, go through and finish the ritual properly).As part of the sankalpam, we typically state the geographical coordinates of the place.We say:Jambo dweepey, bharata varshe, bharata khande, and then go on to describe the closest rivers and temple town. The idea of a continent, and the Indian sub-continent existed before CE when these rituals originated.

    What we see in India today, especially as a fad among the Hindu youth is to denounce ‘nationalism’ as a concept worth any thing of value.The kids prefer the US flag as a fashion accessory, but it takes an effort to make people even stand in respect when the Indian national anthem is played.When you suggest that a young couple should teach their child to speak and write in their mother tongue- the response would be: No, we don’t have such hangups. We are global citizens.We speak in English at home anyway.

    I am not saying the above scenarios are good or bad- these things are relative, I know.But I want to emphasise this detachment among Indian youth (in India), especially the Hindu youth, to what is their own civilisational heritage.They are becoming true global citizens on the one hand, but refuse to leave their caste affiliations on the other hand.The idea of ‘we are all Hindus’ is way down the pecking order for most of them.So, it is rather more difficult to create a value-based Hindu reawakening.It is far easier to create cults of extreme right lunacy.I used to attend the VHP programs as a kid, and it was full of retired profs, judges and scientists.We were made to learn and recite Gita and some one would talk about human values. The VHP was not very popular those days.It became popular when some bigots took control and started using it for political ends.In today’s India, the VHP is no loner a respected entity, and even the good work done by some of the retired profs gets besmirched.Sadly, I don’t see much hope.

    I am trying to articulate what to me is a complex phenomenon.I hope I have made myself understood a bit.

  38. Kabir,

    Visited your blog and read a bit here n there.You have an interesting blog.Will try to read and comment there as well. Thanks.

  39. Relevant discussion stirred up by Jaswant Singh’s book. I also found Narendra Singh Sarila’s book: “The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India’s Partition” (Amazon link: http://bit.ly/dX6b6) to be quite insightful about the events of that time.

  40. Kumar, I agree it’s a really complicated phenomenon. Some thoughts about the issues you have brought up:

    1) I feel that one of the major problems in South Asia is the education system. Even those who are “well educated” in the professions (IT for example) don’t have a lot of social science background, but are mostly technically trained. Thus they fail to understand the complexity of social phenomena, where there is no one right answer as there is in an equation. A social science education makes one aware that different points of view exist that may be equally rational depending on the way you look at things. It also teaches the skills of a respectful academic debate such as the one that you (a center-right person) and I (a center-left person) are having right now. Without this understanding of history, sociology, religion, etc, it’s very easy for youth to get co-opted by dogma, whether it is Hindu, Muslim, Christian, whatever. This is one of the reasons that the South Asian Idea was started– to provide South Asian college students with some ways of thinking about societal issues. (It’s not my blog, btw, but a friend’s)

    2) I agree that giving up your mother tongue and culture in an effort to be a global citizen is misguided. I would never give up Urdu/Hindustani and I would want to teach it to my children. I think one can be a global citizen while at the same time appreciating one’s culture and heritage.

    Regards

  41. The VHP was not very popular those days.It became popular when some bigots took control and started using it for political ends.In today’s India, the VHP is no loner a respected entity, and even the good work done by some of the retired profs gets besmirched.Sadly, I don’t see much hope.

    It’s a common phenomenon throughout the world. For most of the 50s, 60s, and 70s spirituality was considered passe by an increasingly materialistic political and economic elite. Once that mercenary mentality takes hold there ends up being very little spiritual guidance for kids as they grow up.

    Everyone, at some point in their lives, is going to have some sort of existential identity crisis. What helps us resolve those “Who am I? Why am I here? What am I supposed to do?” questions is our sense of having roots. A sense of religious and/or cultural identity is the firm soil that lets those roots take hold. A kid raised without that will go through life on a daily grind without any sense of direction. Since they don’t have any spiritual roots, when they inevitably have some sort of existential crisis they are on their own without much help. They might turn out alright if they come across people who are good influences or some decent mentors or good role models. On the other hand they might end up reading Atlas Shrugged and turn into self-righteous jackasses or, worse yet, listen to some wingnut or cultist and end up hurting themselves and others. This is why the Islamic fundamentalists don’t recruit from religious households so much. They target the engineers and doctors who typically grow up in the kind of middle-class background that prides itself on being “progressive” and “secular.” Ironically religious bigots and ardent “secularists” are in something of an Ouroboros loop. They feed on each other. People see religious bigotry, get turned off or hostile to any presence of religion on public life, and aggressively try to censor and whitewash it out. Then absence of a constructive religious presence in public life guarantees that there will be an ample supply of destructive bigots.

  42. TTCUSM wrote: That part is certainly correct. They did not immigrate. They came as conquerors, and stayed as overlords

    Which gives me the opportunity to quote a favorete sher

    Hazaaron saal ki yeh daastan. Aur unko yaad haiy sirf itna; Kay Alamgir zaalim tha, hindukush tha, sitamgur tha

  43. Thus they fail to understand the complexity of social phenomena, where there is no one right answer as there is in an equation. A social science education makes one aware that different points of view exist that may be equally rational depending on the way you look at things. It also teaches the skills of a respectful academic debate

    Techies work in companies. They have to deal with bosses, with customers who complain, with layoffs. In the old economy companies, they have to deal with unionized labor. Techies learn very quickly that cultivating support is more important than technical skills; that having a good personality gets you the plum projects, not superior technical skill.

    A social science education imparts none of the skills you claim it imparts. The simple fact is that no academic course can help you to confront your own self and your sense of identity. You are a Muslim, and must be aware that many people all over the world dislike Muslims. Tell me which course helped you to deal with that fact.

  44. First of all, you are making an assumption:I may have a muslim name, may be from a muslim family, but you know nothing about my religious beliefs, or lack thereof, so let’s leave that issue aside.

    My social science training helped me to understand the reasons why some people dislike muslims (to go with the example you have brought up). I understand that it is not some conspiracy and the world isn’t out to get Islam. Rather, there are historical, sociological, anthropological and geopolitical factors involved. I understand the political consequences of the US creating the Mujhadeen to defeat the Soviets and then leaving Pakistan to deal with Frankenstein’s monster. The Pakistan Army for it’s own part decided to use these radical fighters to create “strategic depth” in Afghanistan and for covert warfare against India. Then there is the role of the Saudis in exporting Wahabism. Now we are dealing with the consequences of those decisions. Also I am aware enough to understand that there is no one “Islam” or “Hinduism”, rather there are different interpretations of each religion.

    All these analytical skills were developed through social science training. You may feel that social sciences are worthless, but I think you are just kidding yourself. It’s people without a social science base who easily fall prey to jingoistic nationalism and religious dogma.

  45. Hazaaron saal ki yeh daastan. Aur unko yaad haiy sirf itna; Kay Alamgir zaalim tha, hindukush tha, sitamgur tha

    This is a nice sher – whose is this ? Alamgir zaalim to thaa par itna nahi thaa. 🙂

    BTW: My roomie in school was a Pakistani who knew quite a bit of Ghalib’s work, (OTOH we were pretty clueless about Ghalib-level-Urdu) he was always willing to eduMacate us on Ghazals. I remember his explanation of “ek bahamaNn ne kahaa hai ke ye saal achchhaa hai” and his subsequent discomfiture realizing…

    He would often comment on the Indian Serial “Mirza Ghalib” – ” yaaR iN LonGon ne ye kaam aachha kiy kiya hai ” and then realize that he is the only non-Indian in the room. :)….Hope you are well Umair!

    — apologies for going off the tangent – back to regular programming

  46. What helps us resolve those “Who am I? Why am I here? What am I supposed to do?” questions is our sense of having roots. A sense of religious and/or cultural identity is the firm soil that lets those roots take hold.

    Yoga Fire, I can’t say I have been following this post or comments-thread very close, but these above words caught my eyes.

    J. Krishnamoorti took the exact opposite view. In my mind, I can remember the exact passages and words but I am not sure how i will find them online. I’ll try in a bit.

    Of course, the plane of existential inquiry he was concerned with is of a different nature.

  47. I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with Krishnamoorti and quote one of my favorite lines from Tagore: “Liberation from the bondage of the soil is no freedom for the tree.”

    I agree that some rare people will be able to transcend earthly and cultural constructs to find the truth, but people at such high levels of spiritual aptitude are few and far between. For the vast majority of humanity guidance is required.

  48. My point was not ‘only’ about the geographical boundaries of India.It was about the idea of India. Among all the modern nations in the world, only two nations have survived as civilisational entities – Indian and Chinese.In a sense, these two countries are not jut nation states, they are ‘civilisation states’.

    I don’t think this claim will hold up under scrutiny, but I’m interested to hear what the evidence for it is.

  49. The simple fact is that no academic course can help you to confront your own self and your sense of identity.

    Why don’t you try writing a masters thesis or even an essay on a topic that you care about and see whether or not you can do it without confronting your own self and your sense of identity 😉 God knows academics try, but if you spend enough time around an academic or an academic in training or you yourself are one of the above, you find it generally is for naught.

    But to answer your question – a course on Platonic dialogues or a course of diaspora studies, at two opposite ends of 90s chic-ness, would both allow you to confront your own identity. Nothing can FORCE you to learn, and you don’t need to be in a course or to study formally to learn things- but the idea that someone can’t engage with material intellectually and emotionally that is personal to them is ludicrous. What is the point of religion if not that?

  50. How would it not hold up? You could make an argument that Israel, and Egypt might also qualify, but Israel is a reconstructed nation and if you transported a modern Egyptian to Ramses’ court he would be unable to identify himself in there. The religion is different, the languages aren’t even from the same family anymore, and so on.

    Transplant a modern Indian to the court of Chandragupta Maurya, however, and you would recognize it as being from the same cloth. India and China are really the only ones where the cultural and civilizational identity has persisted for as long as it has. Japan, I suppose, could also qualify but I don’t know enough about its history to say for sure.