Modi's Dislike For Nehru Cannot Obliterate The Facts

jbgt90

THINK TANK
Ratings
18 206 0
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
133
Country
India
Location
India
#1
https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/modi-n...tition-and-kashmir-1810249?pfrom=home-opinion

"Opinions are free, but facts are sacred." All practitioners of journalism are required to follow this dharma of their profession. But what happens when the Prime Minister of a nation takes liberal liberties with facts? That too in parliament, where speaking truthfully is a constitutional obligation even for ordinary members? One thing happens: the Prime Minister brings disrepute to himself, to the high office he holds, and to the institution of parliament.

Narendra Modi's antipathy for Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru is well known, as is his admiration for Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. But neither antipathy nor admiration for anyone should be based on disrespect for facts.

In what sounded more like a hyper-aggressive election campaign speech than a sober reply to the debate on the motion of thanks to the President on Wednesday, Modi spoke two patent falsehoods. One, he accused the Congress of dividing the nation in 1947. "Even after 70 years, 125 crore Indians are daily facing the consequences of the seeds of poison you sowed then," Modi told the Congress leaders in the Lok Sabha. What was that poison that still endures? Intriguingly, he did not elaborate. Two, once again exaggerating the contribution of the Sangh Parivar's Partition-era icon, he claimed that "all of Kashmir would have been India's, if Patel (instead of Nehru) had been allowed to become India's first Prime Minister".

Those who listened to Modi's speech would have found the reference to partition rather bizarre. The context in which it came was when he was actually blaming the Congress for the hurried and messy manner in which the UPA government divided Andhra Pradesh and carved out a separate Telangana in 2014, just before the general elections. Obviously, he wanted to send a conciliatory signal to Andhra Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu and his party, Telugu Desam, which is threatening to break its alliance with the BJP. Therefore, Modi contrasted the Congress way of establishing Telangana with the "smooth" formation of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand by the NDA-I government a decade earlier. One may or may not agree with Modi on this, but he was well within his rights to make this comparison.

However, what was weird was the PM's absolutely uncalled for reference to the division of India in the same breath as he was talking about the division of four Indian states. The latter is a mere reorganisation of states, which brooks no comparison whatsoever with the tragic partition of India in 1947 and the birth of two independent nations. But such is Modi's visceral hatred for the Congress that falsifying the context and the content comes naturally to him.


Was the Congress solely responsible for the blood-soaked division of India? Books on partition can easily fill a large library, and all the authors who are faithful to facts of history tell us that the Congress did not want India to be divided. Even Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the architect of Pakistan, did not want the kind of partition that eventually established India and Pakistan as two separate and sovereign but deeply antagonistic nations. The communal Muslim League's intransigence in demanding a separate Muslim state (its Lahore Resolution of 1940 actually talked of 'Muslim states', with no mention of Pakistan or the two-nation theory) and the British policy of "divide-and-exit" combined to create a situation that forced the Congress to accept the partition plan.

Of course, the Congress, too, cannot disown its share of blame. There were several opportunities during the course of the freedom movement to prevent partition, including opportunities for cooperation and reconciliation between the Congress and the Muslim League, but these were not seized. However, for those in the Sangh Parivar who have made Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru the principal villains of India's partition, two points merit mention here. First, in his classic "India Wins Freedom", Abul Kalam Azad clearly establishes that Patel was the first and the strongest among all the major Congress leaders to support the British plan for India's partition. (Reluctant and sad Mahatma Gandhi was the last.) However, since Azad is not really a Sangh Parivar favourite, Modi may get some education on this from his own ministerial colleague MJ Akbar, who, in his masterly 1988 biography "Nehru - The Making of India" writes: "Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the strong man of India, had accepted the idea of partition even before Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the romantic." (page 406)

Therefore, when Modi holds the Congress guilty of dividing India, and of "sowing the seeds of poison", he should acknowledge that he is also blaming, first and foremost, Patel himself.

The second point is even more serious. Modi leads a party that is a member of the Sangh Parivar, which swears by Hindutva, Hindu Rashtra and Akhand Bharat. Was this ideology also not responsible for partition? On this, we should listen to Dr Rammanohar Lohia, whom Modi has described as one of the "three greatest Indians" who shaped Indian political thought in the 20th century, Gandhi and Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya being the other two. Lohia, a strong critic of Akhand Bharat and Hindu Rashtra, writes in his book "Guilty Men of India's Partition": "The opposition of fanatical Hinduism to partition did not and could not make any sense, for one of the forces that partitioned the country was precisely this Hindu fanaticism. It was like the murderer recoiling from his crime, after it had been done. Let there be no doubt about it. Those who have shouted loudest about Akhand Bharat, the present Jana Sangh and its predecessors of the curiously un-Hindu spirit of Hinduism, have helped Britain and the Muslim League partition the country. They did nothing whatsoever to bring the Muslim close to the Hindu within a single nation. They did almost everything to estrange them from each other. Such estrangement is the root cause of partition. To espouse the philosophy of estrangement and, at the same time, the concept of Akhand Bharat is an act of grievous self-deception, only if we assume that those who do so are honest men."

Let's now see how facts are stacked up on Modi's claim about Patel and Kashmir. Patel undoubtedly played a stellar role in the integration of over 560 princely states into the Indian Union after India won freedom. Nehru himself has praised him as the "builder and consolidator of New India". However, three princely states - Hyderabad, Junagadh and Jammu & Kashmir - remained major sources of contention between India and Pakistan. Patel's steely resolve ensured the merger of Junagadh (through plebiscite) and Hyderabad (through police action) with India. Kashmir, however, continues to bleed both India and Pakistan - morally, financially and in terms of tens of thousands of lives - with no solution in sight.

All available facts of history disprove Modi's claim that Patel could have secured a lasting and fully satisfactory solution to the Kashmir problem in 1947-48 itself. Indeed, far from wanting to get all of Kashmir for India, Patel was, initially, prepared to give away all of Kashmir to Pakistan. To know how, it is useful to listen to the unanimous voices of multiple historians. Rajmohan Gandhi in his biography "Patel: A Life", tells us that Patel was thinking of making an ideal bargain: if Jinnah let India have Junagadh and Hyderabad, Patel would not object to Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. He cites a speech by Patel at Bahauddin College in Junagadh, following the latter's merger with India, in which he said: "We would agree to Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad." (pages 407-8, 438)

Patel's other authoritative biographer Balraj Krishna writes in his book "Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel" - "But for Nehru, he could settle the Kashmir issue in no time by arranging that the Kashmir Valley go to Pakistan and East Pakistan to India. Both countries would benefit from such an arrangement." Why did he want such an arrangement? Citing a conversation on this matter between Dr Rajendra Prasad and Jayaprakash Narayan, he writes: "(According to the Sardar), when we had given away Punjab, Sind and NWFP, of what value could the small valley of Kashmir have for us?" (pages 163-4)

Let us turn to a third biographer, Dr Dinkar Joshi, a renowned Gujarati historian who is well known to Modi. On page 220 of his book "Sardar: The Sovereign Saint", Dr Joshi writes: "Sardar knew the reasons behind Maharaja Hari Singh's indecisiveness - the geographical and demographic conditions of Kashmir (it being a Muslim-majority state neighbouring West Pakistan). If Hari Singh decided to join Pakistan, Sardar had planned his own strategies - he would ask for Jammu and Ladakh for India and hand over Kashmir Valley to Pakistan."

This is corroborated by another acclaimed book "The Shadow of the Great Game - The Untold History of India's Partition" by Narendra Singh Sarila. The author writes (pages 343-4) that Mountbatten, the last viceroy, "told me many years later" - "I explained to HH (Hari Singh) that his choice was between acceding to India or Pakistan and made it clear that I had assurances from the Indian leaders that if he acceded to Pakistan, they would not take it amiss."

Who had given those assurances? Sarila writes: "According to VP Menon (an important civil servant, and Patel's right-hand man who played a critical role during India's partition and the integration of princely states) 'These assurances had been given by Sardar Patel, the Home Minister, himself.'"

The authenticity of this has been has been certified by none other than HV Seshadri, a former Number 2 in the RSS leadership hierarchy. In his book "The Tragic Story of Partition", Seshadri, quoting Menon, states that Patel had no objection to Kashmir going to Pakistan. (page 215)

If all this does not convince Modi and his followers, they would do well to turn to pages 186-7 of "The Biography of Bharat Kesri Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee - With Modern Implications" by SC Das. Founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Mookerjee is, after all, a BJP icon. Das tells us that Patel was keen on giving Kashmir Valley to Pakistan in exchange for East Pakistan. More significantly, he writes: "There was consensus between Dr Mookerjee and India's Iron Man Sardar Patel on this grave issue."

Why did India's Loh Purush favour Kashmir's accession to Pakistan? Most historians attribute it to Patel's pragmatism. Unlike Nehru, he was not emotionally attached to Kashmir. He probably thought that a Muslim-majority state bordering Pakistan could become a source of trouble for India. At the same time, historians also record that after Pakistan tried to forcibly seize Jammu & Kashmir by sending armed invaders, Patel became an indefatigable crusader against Pakistan.

As is well known, India's first war with Pakistan in 1947-48 ended in a stalemate, a UN-enforced ceasefire, and effective partition of J&K. It was a war in which Britain connived with Pakistan's adventure in Kashmir. In this, the erstwhile colonial masters were helped by a fact we would find hard to believe today - even after India and Pakistan had become independent, their opposing armies were still led by British nationals! The moot question here is: Did Patel take a stand that the Indian army must continue the fight until all of J&K came under Indian control?

Let us put the question in another way. "Most Indian political parties, BJP being the most vociferous among them, assert that Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir is an atoot ang(inseparable part) of Bharat. This is as much an agony as it is an assertion, since no party and no leader can present a credible strategy to get PoK back. Did Patel have one? Again, the answer would disappoint Modi and his supporters.

On this, we should listen to the views of two eminent and erudite Indian ambassadors. In his 2002 book "War and Diplomacy in Kashmir: 1947-48", Chandrashekhar Dasgupta tells us (pages 79-80) that - (a) "Sardar Patel at one stage declared that he would reject any proposal concerning a plebiscite in Kashmir unless Pakistan accepted the principle of plebiscite in Hyderabad also." In other words, Patel was not in principle opposed to a plebiscite in Kashmir. (b) At one stage, Patel offered a complete withdrawal (of Indian troops) from the Poonch area (to facilitate the holding of a plebiscite). In other words, Patel was ready to halt the Indian army's operations mid-way through the war in favour of a diplomatic-democratic solution.

All of us know no such solution emerged. But very few know that Patel, the realist, did not press for a military solution. Dasgupta's narration on this is supported by TCS Raghavan, who retired as India's ambassador in Islamabad in 2015. In his widely praised recent book "The People Next Door - The Curious History of India's Relations with Pakistan", Raghavan writes (page 9): "By the end of 1948, the war had run its course. While the tribal levies and the Pakistan military personnel were evicted from many areas in Poonch, Ladakh and Kargil, a narrow stretch bordering Pakistan and including Muzaffarabad and Mirpur and in the large area of Gilgit and Skardu further to the north remained in Pakistani control. Evicting Pakistan forces from these would require a larger offensive, a move which Prime Minister Nehru and his government, including Deputy Prime Minister Vallabhbhai Patel, had little enthusiasm for."

These, in essence, are the irrefutable facts about Patel, partition and Kashmir.

But why should we bother to educate the Prime Minister on all this? Because this is not a mere academic debate on some events that took place long ago, and on personalities who are long gone. This debate is about the grave and current problem of Kashmir, which is daily crying out for a fair and lasting solution. The LoC is on fire. Soldiers and civilians are dying on both sides, in terrorist as well as state violence. Kashmir has been subjected to unspeakable indignity and inhumanity. The Modi Government's confused approach, be it internally in J&K or externally with Pakistan, is proving to be fruitless.

Therefore, if both India and Pakistan have anything to learn from Patel, it is the virtue of pragmatism, the readiness to be flexible and the willingness to compromise in the interest of a permanent solution to the Kashmir issue. Here was a leader willing to hand over the whole of Kashmir to Pakistan, if it meant future peace between the two neighbours.

How anachronistic and thoroughly impractical then is the boastfulness of today's 'patriots' who say, "Kashmir ki ek inch zameen nahin denge" (We'll not give them an inch of our land in Kashmir). They should heed the cautionary words of their own idol. Patel, as quoted in RSS leader Seshadri's book (page 226), warns: "It will be a folly to ignore realities; facts take their revenge if they are not faced squarely and well."
(The writer was an aide to India's former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.)
 
OP
OP
jbgt90

jbgt90

THINK TANK
Ratings
18 206 0
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
133
Country
India
Location
India
#2
Modi's Speech On Congress Had Shades Of Vajpayee's Brilliance

https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/modis-...jpayees-brilliance-1810535?pfrom=home-opinion
Humorous repartee has been as normal in both Houses of parliament as heated debates, interventions, accusations and interruptions. The best part of the humour is that it happens extempore, and at times comes from unexpected quarters. One such incident happened last week (on the 7th) when, amidst interruptions, Prime Minister Narendra Modi 'pleaded' with the Chairman of Rajya Sabha to spare Renuka Chowdhury for her loud and embarrassing laughter.

"Humour in parliament makes an interesting subject of study. In a parliamentary democracy based on party system, parliament often functions under great stress and strain and the atmosphere in the House for part of the day remains surcharged. But even in the midst of confrontation, one comes across instances of wit, wisdom and amusing remarks. Most of these are made in lighter vein and serve as oasis, as it were, in the dry desert of verbal duels. None of these exchanges are pre-rehearsed or pre-meditated and that is precisely why they are so good. They are the products of lively and vivacious minds reacting instantly to a particular situation; words often uttered by persons who could normally claim no particular ability to be witty. Cutting across the party lines or political differences these crisp observations often serve the purpose of lightening the atmosphere in the House which otherwise could be serious and tension-ridden. Without these, the debate and proceedings of the House would be sterile indeed," writes Sudarshan Aggarwal, former Secretary General RS in the preface to a book on wit and humour in the Upper House.

1518436448132.png

During a discussion on delayed Air India flights in the late 70s, Smt. Yashoda Reddy was interrupted by Shri. Bhupesh Gupta who said, "It is better to be delayed than be dead," The Deputy Chairman (DB Thengdi) told Bhupesh Gupta that he should not interrupt ladies. Sympathising with Gupta, Yashoda Reddy remarked, "Unfortunately for Mr. Gupta, he has no ladies to interrupt him in his house. So he seeks to interrupt on the floor of the House." This remark of Smt. Reddy led to this further interesting exchange in the House:

Shri. MP Bhargava: It is his abnormal behaviour.


Smt. Yashoda Reddy: He is quite normal, except on occasions. I have seen Mr. Gupta for 13 years and it is a good period to judge a person.

Shri. Bhupesh Gupta: The only thing I would ask the lady is, can experienced men only interrupt? She says that I have no ladies at home.

Smt. Yashoda Reddy: My comment came because somebody said: 'Do not interrupt ladies. I said, 'Give him this much of leniency as he has no ladies in his house.' I meant nothing more.

After all these exchanges, the Rajya Sabha functioned normally and no social media exchanges happened. No one accused veteran Communist leader Bhupesh Gupta of being a misogynist.
In fact, in another exchange of words in the early 90s, involving none other than Renuka Chowdhury, one member used the word "chandika".

Shri AG Kulkarni: Sir, I only request through you that a friend and a fair lady Renuka in mythology is a very sober lady. She is not a Chandika (ferocious Goddess). She should be sober.

The vice-chairman (Jagesh Desai): She is sober. Sit down please.

Renuka Chowdhury (in Hindi): Aap ke liye toh mein kuch bhi karoongi, mein fida hoon (I will do anything for you ...I am all for you). The word "fida" (Urdu) is commonly used in the Telangana and Hyderabad area to signify "being impressed" by something or someone. In fact, no one called for an apology from AG Kulkarni (Congress) for a 'sexist' comment.
1518436500804.png

Some MPs like Chitta Basu, Bhupesh Gupta, Atal Behari Vajpayee and Saroj Khaparde have been at the receiving end for their single status.

Even Prime Ministers were not spared when it came to making comments about their appearance, all in a lighter vein of course. During a supplementary question on the activities of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ever jovial and good-humoured Piloo Mody, addressing the Home Minister, said, "Do not look towards the Prime Minister. She may be more attractive. Look towards me." Prime Minister Indira Gandhi smiled and quickly retorted that Piloo Mody had no difficulty in attracting attention here or anywhere else.

The Congress party's consternation about the Prime Minister's speech last week is understandable. An orator par excellence, Narendra Modi brought back memories of Atal Behari Vajpayee in parliament. He touched upon issues that will make the Congress look small in the eyes of the people. The fact that the Congress has claimed credit for everything in the country from democracy to Independence and monetised this claim to its fullest advantage needs no proof. Modi's reference to ancient republics of the Buddhist era is part of India's democratic institution building history.

If the Congress wants to appropriate all credits or democracy, it stands condemned also for the atrocities committed during the dreaded Emergency. The fact that Article 356 was used unabashedly used, or rather misused, by the Congress to dismiss non-Congress governments not once but almost 90 times is all part of parliamentary history.

Modi's reference to the role of the Congress in Partition has stung that party badly, but the truth, according to many historians, is that the Congress leaders have themselves accepted that Partition was avoidable but some leaders had no vigour to engage in another prolonged fight for freedom. Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Patel had vowed to resist Partition. (Vivisect me before vivisecting India, Mahatma Gandhi had said). The history of Partition will continue to throw up many surprises and the Congress cannot escape blame for the sins of commission and omission of their leaders' role during that period.

By mentioning Partition and the saga of the unification of states by Sardar Patel, with special reference to the messing up in Jammu and Kashmir by Pandit Nehru, Modi has brought these issues into public domain. A healthy debate on these issues will strengthen democracy and may throw up solutions that the political class has been incapable of finding till now. This is akin to the BJP's idea of a nationwide debate on Article 370 and triple talaq.

In the bargain, if the shenanigans of vote bank politics played by the Congress are exposed, the party must accept them. In a way, that may pave the way for the cleansing of the party and facilitate the Congress to begin afresh with a clean slate.

(The author is a commentator on economic, political and strategic issues.)
 
OP
OP
jbgt90

jbgt90

THINK TANK
Ratings
18 206 0
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
133
Country
India
Location
India
#3
Now with both sides presented one can judge who is tall on rhetoric and claims but low on facts , while the other speaks of history.
Ironically Both are from the BJP :)
 
OP
OP
jbgt90

jbgt90

THINK TANK
Ratings
18 206 0
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
133
Country
India
Location
India
#4

Joe Shearer

THINK TANK: ANALYST
Ratings
52 717 0
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
444
Country
India
Location
India
#6
I have always told you that you are a lazy lay-about and need to get the lead out of your butt and participate. This was a wonderful piece; let me guess - is it Inky?
 
OP
OP
jbgt90

jbgt90

THINK TANK
Ratings
18 206 0
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
133
Country
India
Location
India
#8
There were several things that he said about the Congress, in their favour, and against the Muslim League, that I happen to think were wrong.
Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject sir.
 

I.R.A

THINK TANK: ANALYST
Ratings
61 583 0
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
455
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
#10
One, he accused the Congress of dividing the nation in 1947.

I have lately read Pakistani articles mentioning that Jinnah didn't want the division at all but he was forced into being a separatist.

Why I have this feeling that Pakistani liberals and Modi & Co are on the same side .... and Pakistani conservatives and Indian liberals seem to be opposing both?
 

Joe Shearer

THINK TANK: ANALYST
Ratings
52 717 0
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
444
Country
India
Location
India
#11
Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject sir.
Was the Congress solely responsible for the blood-soaked division of India? Books on partition can easily fill a large library, and all the authors who are faithful to facts of history tell us that the Congress did not want India to be divided. Even Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the architect of Pakistan, did not want the kind of partition that eventually established India and Pakistan as two separate and sovereign but deeply antagonistic nations. The communal Muslim League's intransigence in demanding a separate Muslim state (its Lahore Resolution of 1940 actually talked of 'Muslim states', with no mention of Pakistan or the two-nation theory) and the British policy of "divide-and-exit" combined to create a situation that forced the Congress to accept the partition plan.

This is self-contradictory.

The so-called intransigence of the Muslim League was both an orchestrated drama - nobody in the League had the authority to suggest anything that went contradictory to the policy of the Life President - and transparent about its less-than-complete advocacy of Pakistan. What else does the formula 'Muslim states' mean? Why would not the demand for Pakistan been made, at that very late stage of the movement, in the middle of the war, while the League was busy persuading the British that they, the League, would, without hesitation support the war effort? If this was not the time, when was it?

Jinnah always allowed the League rank and file to march a few steps ahead of his own objectives, so that he could show his willingness to compromise by stepping back from the extreme position to the carefully-planned pre-defined position.

Of course, the Congress, too, cannot disown its share of blame. There were several opportunities during the course of the freedom movement to prevent partition, including opportunities for cooperation and reconciliation between the Congress and the Muslim League, but these were not seized. However, for those in the Sangh Parivar who have made Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru the principal villains of India's partition, two points merit mention here. First, in his classic "India Wins Freedom", Abul Kalam Azad clearly establishes that Patel was the first and the strongest among all the major Congress leaders to support the British plan for India's partition. (Reluctant and sad Mahatma Gandhi was the last.) However, since Azad is not really a Sangh Parivar favourite, Modi may get some education on this from his own ministerial colleague MJ Akbar, who, in his masterly 1988 biography "Nehru - The Making of India" writes: "Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the strong man of India, had accepted the idea of partition even before Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the romantic." (page 406)

This does not fully narrate the events of the July and August uproar in 1946, during the visit of the Cabinet Mission, the discussions on its plan, and the complete parting of the ways after 10th July. The Cabinet Mission proposed three sub-states, two Muslim and the third a Hindu, all British India provinces within these to remain intact, and a centre with authority over only defence, external affairs and communications. Each of the sub-states was to nominate or elect delegates to a common Constituent Assembly, and a Constitution would be drawn up by that Assembly. Jinnah agreed, and got League approval also. The Congress, too, agreed. Then, on the 10th July, Nehru announced at a Press Conference that the Congress was of the view that delegates to the Constituent Assembly should vote according to their freedom of conscience, not according to the immutable guidelines given to them by their delegating sub-state.

That would have made impossible the careful structuring of the Constitution to keep the social and cultural protection of the minority Muslim community impossible.

It was at that point that Jinnah concluded that Partition, the extreme position intended to drive in the Congress and the British to seek a compromise, the one that was, in fact, announced, was being forced on them. He announced that, after all, Partition was the minimal demand by the League.

This is a far cry from having sat to negotiate with a fixed idea in mind.
 

Joe Shearer

THINK TANK: ANALYST
Ratings
52 717 0
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
444
Country
India
Location
India
#12
I have lately read Pakistani articles mentioning that Jinnah didn't want the division at all but he was forced into being a separatist.

Why I have this feeling that Pakistani liberals and Modi & Co are on the same side .... and Pakistani conservatives and Indian liberals seem to be opposing both?
I thought the liberals on both sides were closely aligned, the conservatives on both sides were similarly in agreement? Read the pages of PDF; the war-seeking militarists are frenzied when it comes to the necessity for Pakistan, and the Islamic nature of Pakistan, not the liberal formulation of a secular state inspired by Islamic principles but not the minutiae of Islamic law as practised, and intended for the safe haven of Muslims in their area, thereby to influence the fate of the very large Muslim population within the Hindu-majority India.

Similarly, Indian liberals acknowledge the existence of Pakistan, they do not deny its existence, nor its raison d'etre, but they emphasise the necessity for secularism on both sides of the border, for the Muslim majority in one part, for the Hindu majority in the other part.

Indian 'conservatives' (conservative is not what they are, but is used not to bring in an element of uncontrolled rhetoric into the discussion) are delighted by partition, agree with Pakistani right-wingers on the religious nature of the division being a precursor to the religious modelling of society and laws within the two separate portions, and therefore insist on Hindu-dominant practice in the Hindu majority India.

I thought the affinities were clear.
 

I.R.A

THINK TANK: ANALYST
Ratings
61 583 0
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
455
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
#13
I thought the liberals on both sides were closely aligned, the conservatives on both sides were similarly in agreement? Read the pages of PDF; the war-seeking militarists are frenzied when it comes to the necessity for Pakistan, and the Islamic nature of Pakistan, not the liberal formulation of a secular state inspired by Islamic principles but not the minutiae of Islamic law as practised, and intended for the safe haven of Muslims in their area, thereby to influence the fate of the very large Muslim population within the Hindu-majority India.

Similarly, Indian liberals acknowledge the existence of Pakistan, they do not deny its existence, nor its raison d'etre, but they emphasise the necessity for secularism on both sides of the border, for the Muslim majority in one part, for the Hindu majority in the other part.

Indian 'conservatives' (conservative is not what they are, but is used not to bring in an element of uncontrolled rhetoric into the discussion) are delighted by partition, agree with Pakistani right-wingers on the religious nature of the division being a precursor to the religious modelling of society and laws within the two separate portions, and therefore insist on Hindu-dominant practice in the Hindu majority India.

I thought the affinities were clear.

I was pointing to one common ground relevant to partition ........ it appears Pakistanis who think Jinnah was secular and no where religion, have this same belief that it was congress responsible for partition (Modi said the same thing).

And Pakistanis who think Jinnah was a Mullah think he achieved it for Muslims and Islam ......... something that Indian liberals find hard to disagree with?
 

Joe Shearer

THINK TANK: ANALYST
Ratings
52 717 0
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
444
Country
India
Location
India
#14
I was pointing to one common ground relevant to partition ........ it appears Pakistanis who think Jinnah was secular and no where religion, have this same belief that it was congress responsible for partition (Modi said the same thing).

And Pakistanis who think Jinnah was a Mullah think he achieved it for Muslims and Islam ......... something that Indian liberals find hard to disagree with?
I agree that the first seems to be correct, but does not take into account the ameliorating circumstances of the hideous experience Congress administrators had gone through, in working with an intransigent set of Muslim League ministers, Liaqat Ali prominent among them.

The second lemma confuses me. I don't know Indian liberals agree that Jinnah achieved it for Muslims and Islam. On the contrary.

If you are correct, it would appear that the consensus is that Congress was responsible for partition, not anyone else; and that the nature of Pakistan planned by Jinnah is in serious dispute.

I don't feel stoutly loyal to the theory of Congress responsibility, as it was far too complex a situation to point to any individual, or even an entire coalition of forces (that being the nature of the Congress at that time), as being responsible for partition.
 

I.R.A

THINK TANK: ANALYST
Ratings
61 583 0
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
455
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
#15
I agree that the first seems to be correct, but does not take into account the ameliorating circumstances of the hideous experience Congress administrators had gone through, in working with an intransigent set of Muslim League ministers, Liaqat Ali prominent among them.

The second lemma confuses me. I don't know Indian liberals agree that Jinnah achieved it for Muslims and Islam. On the contrary.

If you are correct, it would appear that the consensus is that Congress was responsible for partition, not anyone else; and that the nature of Pakistan planned by Jinnah is in serious dispute.

I don't feel stoutly loyal to the theory of Congress responsibility, as it was far too complex a situation to point to any individual, or even an entire coalition of forces (that being the nature of the Congress at that time), as being responsible for partition.

Jinnah had a clear vision and goal in his mind ....... he knew what he was working for.

I don't agree with Secular as well Mullahs ........... both have confused Jinnah like Islam they practice.

His deteriorating health condition and changing attire with changing times and situation .......... all those photographs of him when looked upon in sequence ........ make it clear what he with others wanted in shape of Pakistan.