This was published today in the Pioneer. Comments and criticism welcome as always.
True colours of communalism
Sandeep B
While the Muslim League demanded and got a separate country, the Hindu Mahasabha was reprimanded for fighting against this very demand of dividing India
In A Secular Agenda, Mr Arun Shourie captures the essence of Indian secularism in just a line: “Indian secularism consists of branding others communal.” In an India modeled on a secularism that grew in Nehru’s garden, the term ‘communal’ and its variants are designer profanities exercised against anybody remotely espousing genuine Hindu causes.
While this term has been the de rigueur in public discourse over 60 years, it gloriously flourishes in the poll season. Instead of promising the betterment of India, our politicians promise to deliver non-communalism!
A study of this term’s semantic change over time is both revealing and urgent for anybody interested in rescuing the almost rowdy state public discourse in India has descended to.
After briefly investigating its origins in various dictionaries, the term ‘communal’ yields these meanings:
- For or by a group rather than individuals
- Relating to a small administrative district or community
- Of or for the or a community, for the common use
- Participated in, shared, or used in common by members of a group or community
‘Communalism’ yields these meanings:
- Principle of communal organisation of society
- The practice of communal living and common ownership
These definitions are rather straightforward and politically neutral. More significantly, its meaning has remained unaltered over its 200-year old history. Which is why the Western world is unable to comprehend how this innocent term can take on a pejorative connotation. It is near-impossible to find Westerners writing about Indian politics/society that uses this word. Instead, they use more violent substitutes like “fundamentalist,” “militant” and “fascist” to typically describe protests by Hindus. This delightful status quo only suits the secular media, which has abandoned such nuisances as fact-checking and research.
However, there is a special meaning for the term in the Indian context. But this meaning is largely substantive, with its roots in the British colonial policy of giving community-based representation in recruitment and allotment of seats in representative assemblies. Clearly, the term in itself had no deprecatory significance.
Hindu nationalists, however, objected to this policy because it took the religious community, not the nation as the operative unit. But the Lucknow Pact of 1916 saw the Indian National Congress succumb to what came to be labeled as the “communal electorate.” The (misguided) motivation behind this capitulation was the Congress Party’s illusion that this acceptance would convince the Muslim League to join the freedom struggle. Subsequent events demonstrated just the opposite culminating in the creation of Pakistan. But the Lucknow Pact witnessed just the birth pangs of a turgid monster.
The true genesis of communalism lies in an obscure document called the Pirpur Report. This report was published in 1938 and lists Muslim “grievances” as under:
- Being insulted by the singing of the idolatrous anthem Vande Mataram
- Not recognising Urdu as a national link-language
- Mahatma Gandhi’s appeals against cow slaughter
But the most crucial portion of this report concerns how it viewed the Indian National Congress’ concept of nationalism. The report alleged that the Congress Party’s nationalism was based on the establishment of a state “in which other nationalities and communities have only secondary rights. The Muslims think that no tyranny is as great as the tyranny of the majority.”
However, history differs. In its time, the Muslim League was communalism-incarnate, demanding a communal electorate, communal representation, communal job quotas, and finally got a whole new nation. This eerily resembles today’s vote-banks. Additionally, this demand came at a time when the Congress Party pusillanimously conceded every outrageous demand in the hope of drawing the Muslim League into the freedom struggle.
The main opposition to communalism ensued from the Hindu Mahasabha, and not the Congress Party. In several ways, the present-day Hindutva movement is the product of this struggle against communalism. The Hindu Mahasabha’s manifesto was to abolish communalism and make India a democracy without separate electorate or communal quotas. However, the Congress defended its compromise with communalism by assuming symmetry between the Muslim League and the Mahasabha. The irony can’t be harsher: While the Muslim League demanded — and got — separateness, the Hindu Mahasabha was reprimanded for fighting against this very demand for separatism.
Post-independence, Nehru fettered his version of secularism on the separatist reasoning of “tyranny of the majority” and inaugurated the perversion of the term ‘communal’. This reasoning is the true edifice of all secularist discourse. As a result, ‘communal’ today means the exact opposite of what it originally meant.
Tags: Communal, Communalism, Congress Party, Hindu Mahasabha, History, History of Communalism, Indian National Congress, Indian Politics, Muslim League, My Pioneer Op-Ed, Partition, Pioneer, Pseudosecularism, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Secularism, True Colours of Communalism
Actually, the pre independence communalism u have mentioned still exists, as reservation. But in hindsight, do you think it will have made effective governance if we are still an undivided India covering the entire area and populace of the three countries?
Savarkar said “One man, one vote” which was found objectionable to India’s “only nationalist Muslim” because then Muslims will be subject to Hindu majoritarianism since according to Nehru’s sophistical logic “Majority communalism cloaks itself in the garb of nationalism while minority communalism can be seen for it”
Bipin Chandra, the Nehru parivaar historian incidentally borrowed this very definition and superimposed Marx’s crude dogma of economic determinism. [See,Communalism in Modern India]
People tend to forget that minority after dividing the country could not expect ANY special rights whatsoever even if they were socio-economically backward which actually is consequent to the social resistance of the unmodifiable retrograde koranic ethics
Nice Post!
Shouldn’t we blame Hindus really for the situation we are in?
Also looks like all these years, we din’t do a good job of marketing our selves. It’s a trade after all!
The ‘harvesting souls’ and the ‘bang-27-virgins-to-go-to-heaven’ folks have certainly beaten us not fairly but certainly squarely…
Sandeep, I’m finding it difficult to find the center of gravity of this article.
You speak of the Muslim League dividing the country and the Hindu Mahasabha fighting for Union and say it was hauled over coals for it. (Reprimanded)
By whom? The Secularists? What else do we expect?
As regards Indian Secularism, how is this different from Secularism(s) elsewhere in the world? What is so specially different about the Indian version?
In the minds of our Secularists, the promise of betterment lies in defeating Majority Hindutva. Their stance is logical. But are Hindu organizations promising the vague “betterment of India” or concrete preservation of the Hindu way of life? I think you know the answer and our error.
Allright. You have proved that Communalism is not a bad word. But I don’t understand why you berate the Muslim League for being Communal? Furthermore, it would have been really foolish if the Muslim League had not demanded Pakistan or Islamic hegemony in United India. Being Islamic and a representative body of the Muslims, they were expected to do their job.
The Congress found itself hamstrung and could never oppose these demands because it was a Liberal body with no particular affiliation with/for Hinduism/Hindus. It wanted to treat all religions as equal and in a non-discriminative manner. This body also kept giving into the most spoilt child.
Now we come to the Hindu Mahasabha opposing Muslim League Communalism. I suppose you want it this way because you have shown how Communalism was made “bad” by the Muslim League.
I say Communalism is simply the same thing. The Muslim League was an effective Communal Muslim party that did it’s thing for Islam and Muslims.
I doubt if the Hindu Mahasabha fought against Communalism. If they really did that then that should explain why they lost out to the Congress in the eyes of the Hindu. But it was Savarkar who recognized that Hindus and Muslims were two Nations. I don’t recall the Hindu Mahasabha admitting Muslim members by rule. Another thing is that it was silly of the Mahasabha to have fought for a United India without a natural program of either expulsion or complete subjugation of Muslims. Their method of politically homogenizing Muslims was a no-brainer and this was very well understood and explained by Ambedkar.
The problem with Hindu organizations is that by and large the fellows want to be seen as Secular while they really and true to profession, must be seen as Communal and seen to be doing their bit for Hindus and Hinduism.
You then speak of Nehru’s Secularism. (What was it?) and his inauguration of the perversion of the term “Communal” when it was already according to you, perverted by the Congress and ML.
This is confusing.
One thing is clear though–India will never achieve any greatness again with its wishy-washy politics of today…time to take the strong stance.
The Hindu right has to market themselves better as someone mentioned earlier in the comments and become more clever…this is politics after all….
@Palahalli: I’m finding it difficult to find the centre of gravity of your comments
There’s a big difference in the way Indians (or Americans) perceive secularism vis-a-vis Europeans, the proponent of this nonsense. The formers loosely mean it as belief in all religions whereas later ones believe it to be without any religion. Of course, in practice its highly perverted – the Brits keep bending over and over in the name of Sharia whereas the French get hyper over expression of religious symbols, etc. Same in India – it’s actually what many today call as “asymmetric secularism” and I call it as sekoolarism which essentially means that only the Hindus are supposed to obey it.
“It (congress) wanted to treat all religions as equal and in a non-discriminative manner” – Very wrong. Congress assumed the Hindus in its pocket given the absence of any formidable challenge from Hindu Mahasabha and our previous 800 yrs history of failing to speak out in one voice. It then became greedy & went on to eat the “Muslim” pie too. Obviously it backfired because of a formidable challenge from Muslim league (prepartition Muslims didn’t give a rat’s ass to the Congress and its sekoolarism).
But, I agree with your comments on Hindu Mahasabha and the eagerness of many to appear sekoolar.
PS – Clarification on Nehruvian sekoolarism – Essentially asymmetric sekoolarism described above. But, its long and twisted, but I agree with Sandeep’s pointer.
Bhavananda – I was reflecting Sandeep’s article and so you could not find the center of gravity in mine
Well, Secularism in the US and India was/is a reflection of what was/is prevalent in Europe to a large extent. That is another reason we are burdened with similar problems.
To be a Secular State simply means (by definition) a separation of the Temporal and the Sacral. In Europe, this did not mean delegitimizing the Church. In the US and India, it did not mean accepting a State Religion. I hope you can perceive the similarity.
In my opinion, Secularism works fine in a politically/Socially homogenous Society that Europe and the US were, at one point in time. Now, the reason why the US and Europe are taking on Indian colors is because they are/or losing/lost their Political/Social Homogeneity like India lost in the early 20th century. India had lost it’s Social homogeneity quite some time back.
Alongside,
Please factor in the onslaught of the Liberal ethic with it’s Complete Equality and Non-Discrimination in a Multi-Cultural Society that the West has largely become, and you have Indias all over the West. Their own version of Ekam Sat.(Yes, I know the meaning is perverted from what it actually means)
Even the French..whome you assume to be overly Secular, have allowed Islam to have it’s sway in their cities and towns.
I don’t see the big difference you speak of.
“It (congress) wanted to treat all religions as equal and in a non-discriminative manner” – Very wrong.
- Sorry but this is a historical fact. Liberal Congress sincerely believed all religions equal and did not wish to discriminate amongst their followers. However, their Liberalism came in the way of being stern with Muslim gangsterism, much like in Britain and France now.
I think you are confusing Congress’ belief with results got.
This coupled with Gandhi’s (He was not a Secularist) overt multi-religious discourse and the Hindu Mahasabha’s failure to connect with Hindus in the language they could/would respond, cost us dear.
I don’t see the need to clothe Nehru in an exotic Secular robe. Nehru would be a hero in today’s Europe and America.
Ps – Please excuse the length of this post.
Media censors Jihadi Violence in Mysore
http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=8505&SKIN=B
The partition in 1947 was exceptionally violent and could have led to civil war. Given the diverse religious and language groups that formed the new India, and Nehru’s ideological inclinations, his support for a secular republic is not surprising.
Viewed in this context, my take is that suppressing majority activism was seen as necessary to prevent a possible civil war.
Unfortunately, such a policy of selective suppression has an early expiration date – perhaps 5 to 10 years from 1947; we are now seeing the effect of 60 years of such a policy. Of course, for too long a time, the impact of Marxism benumbed many Hindus to the truth.
photonman – If Congress had not been Liberal and been more realistic and connected with their surrounding realities better, they would have planned for partition better thereby averting the huge catastrophe or at least not been shocked when the killings started.
It was their unrealistic expectations of tolerance and brotherhood from common folk that made them stumble upon partition the way they did.
I think, “suppressing majority activism” as you put it, is a natural fallout of a Secular regime in a Multi-Cultural Society. Everything must be done to accommodate diversity. The Majority by it’s very existence in that “state”, is hegemonistic and a threat to the diverseness that must be protected because all are equal and must not be and seen to be discriminated against.
In this light, Nehru’s aversion for the Hindu Majority and love for Minority diversity makes sense.
“Viewed in this context, my take is that suppressing majority activism was seen as necessary to prevent a possible civil war.”
Hmm… the threat of “civil war” arose because of the “master-stroke” of Gandhi and Nehru of not allowing transfer of population despite handing over one-third of the country’s territory.
If there was a threat of civil war with Hindus and Muslims living together, then full transfer of population would have been the easiest choice to prevent it. This of course was beyond the comprehension of those two idiots.
You are trying to impose greatness on Nehru who actually was just an imbecile joker. Read Arun Shourie’s latest book on India’s China war to discover more such “master-strokes” from Nehru. You will feel like weeping at how such a rank idiot came to occupy the PM’s chair.
If there was a threat of civil war with Hindus and Muslims living together, then full transfer of population would have been the easiest choice to prevent it. This of course was beyond the comprehension of those two idiots.
You are trying to impose greatness on Nehru who actually was just an imbecile joker.
I would not call people “idiots” and “imbecile”–. Nehru was misguided in his idealism–. He also could not forsee that India’s population would be a problem in the future, and took pride in the fact that there are a lot of people in India.
Moreover, it is not easy to transfer populations so easily, many people were unwilling to leave their homes and left only because they were forced during partition.
It is always easy to know that people should have done in hindsight.
“It is always easy to know that people should have done in hindsight.”
That is why it is a good idea to have leaders who have foresight, such as Sardar Patel, and not try to suppress them in favour of those who only have hindsight. How come Patel was able to see the same things clearly, from transfer of population to China’s invasion of Tibet, while Nehru was blind to the obvious? What is the definition of a leader anyway?
You are not getting the point: those “leaders” are idiots who agee to a formula of land and population transfer, and then only implement one part of the bargain to the detriment of the long-term peace and security of their own people who looked upto them and trusted them to protect their interests.
Leaders who have no foresight and cannot pre-judge the future course of events are not “leaders” at all but pretenders who are sticking around only for power and glamour.
Congress ka Haath, Gaddaron, Huddangion, Choron, Terroriston aur Desh Drohiiyon key Saath.
Chor Ucchaka Chaudahry Sonia Gandhi Pradhan
@Sanjay
At the outset, I hold no brief for Nehru or the Congress. I was only trying explain how the current problem came about. Coming to what you say:
the threat of “civil war” arose because of the “master-stroke” of Gandhi and Nehru of not allowing transfer of population despite handing over one-third of the country’s territory.
Surely you can’t be serious. Not sure you appreciate the political situation and prevailing turmoil in 1940s. Do you have any idea of the numbers involved? So far as I recall, my comment never supports Nehru’s views – much less use the term “masterstroke” to describe his plans
You are trying to impose greatness on Nehru who actually was just an imbecile joker.
Wrong again. Please read my comment. No one denies Nehru’s mistakes. And where did the China war come from? I thought we were discussing “communalism” here
I value informed criticism. As you rightly said, there are plenty of issues where Nehru screwed up, the China war being just one example. But you’d agree that it is also important to understand why this happened.
@Palahalli:
The Majority by it’s very existence in that “state”, is hegemonistic…In this light, Nehru’s aversion for the Hindu Majority and love for Minority diversity makes sense.
True. But as I said, but it can’t be a long term policy, if you want to remain truly secular.
“Surely you can’t be serious. Not sure you appreciate the political situation and prevailing turmoil in 1940s. Do you have any idea of the numbers involved?”
Nehru and Gandhi rejected full population exchange not because they were scared of the numbers involved. Their arguments were different and size of the population was furthest from their minds. I don’t know how you have arrived at this conclusion.
Mountbatten had offered a systematic, area-by-area evacuation of people, organised by the Indian military. It would have taken one year. But Gandhi and Nehru were not interested, though Jinnah kept begging them to agree to full exchange of population. Nehru and Gandhi were on a trip of their own. You have to read about them, their speeches, their letters and their articles to actually discover how stupid, muddle-headed, inconsistent and mentally blind both were.
It is my firm conviction that both were artificially propped up and promoted by the British to serve their own interests and prolong their rule. The British were willing to go to any extent to raise the profile of these two in the eyes of the Indian people. On the other hand, they were brutal beyond belief with the real threats to their rule — Savarkar (jailed for life), Aurobindo Ghosh (exiled), Lala Lajpat Rai (beaten to death), Bhagat Singh (hanged), Subhash Bose (dissappeared for ever)… You have to see the treatment given to Gandhi and Nehru by the British to realise the game.
photonman – “True. But as I said, but it can’t be a long term policy, if you want to remain truly secular.”
- Secularism as practiced, is true. It’s effect is it’s true worth.
It is an important condition of Liberal-Secularism that the National Majority is made impotent. There is simply no getting away from this truth.
Guess who quoted:
1) [Any attempt to reorganise our society on the basis of hatred of the Muslims] “would therefore be to court degeneration and disaster. For that would pollute our minds by constant remembering of their heinous crimes.”
2)“We are not so mean as to say that with a mere change in the method of worship an individual ceases to be a son of the soil. We have no objection to God being called by any name whatever …he can not be a Hindu at all who is intolerant of other faiths.”
3) “I have said that I am proud of our inheritance and our ancestors who gave an intellectual and cultural pre-eminence to India .How do you feel about this past? Do you feel that you are also sharers in it and inheritors of it and, therefore, proud of something that belongs to you as much as to me? Or do you feel alien to it and pass it by without understanding it or feeling that strange thrill which comes from the realisation that we are the trustees and inheritors of this vast treasure…You are Muslims and I am a Hindu …but that does not take away from that cultural inheritance that is yours as well as mine.”
Answers:
1) Golwalkar Guruji [Second sarsanghachalak of RSS]
2) Nehru [at the Aligarh Muslim University]
—–
I think this should seal it [or not?]
—–
@Sandeep
Please dont brand the Muslim League as communal. Comrade Palahalli is so disappointed he has written a rambling comment and defended himself for writing it.
**
That should read:
Answers:
1) and 2) MS Golwalkar
3) Nehru
Mountbatten had offered a systematic, area-by-area evacuation of people, organised by the Indian military. It would have taken one year.
I don’t know your source, but let me for the sake of argument accept what you said. Let’s consider the logistics: Even accepting a conservative population of 200 million by 1947, and about 10% Muslim population, you need about 20 million people evacuated. All this in one year, if you believe Mountbatten. A similar number of Hindus would probably come from the other side. So we’re talking millions possibly tens of millions here. So:
* Where was the money to organize such a massive transfer? Remember UK was bankrupt after WWII. Many of their own citizens lived on rations, btw.
* Even if just 1% of these 40 million lives were lost in transit you end up with 40,000 dead. Not to mention, of course, a *nationwide* law and order problem – and where were the resources to tackle it?
* Even with the money, what motivation do the British have in ensuring that this operation is successful?
That is why I argue that decisions made by Gandhi or Nehru should be analyzed in the context. This is not out of sympathy for their ideology – I’m only being intellectually honest here. As I said, there were many mistakes that they made, but that is not the topic of this discussion.
IMO, their speeches and writings in that period should be understood in this context.
It is my firm conviction that both were artificially propped up and promoted by the British to serve their own interests and prolong their rule.
Perhaps if you could tell us what makes you think so, we can have additional data to base our opinions on
@Pallahalli:
It is an important condition of Liberal-Secularism that the National Majority is made impotent.
Says who? Show me one example – other than India – of a liberal and secular republic where the national majority is made impotent.
“* Where was the money to organize such a massive transfer? Remember UK was bankrupt after WWII. Many of their own citizens lived on rations, btw.
* Even if just 1% of these 40 million lives were lost in transit you end up with 40,000 dead. Not to mention, of course, a *nationwide* law and order problem – and where were the resources to tackle it?
* Even with the money, what motivation do the British have in ensuring that this operation is successful?”
My friend, these arguments should have been given by Nehru and Gandhi to reject the plan of partition of India citing logistical difficulties. But they accepted the plan and then refused to carry through one half of it!!
“We will give our land but not our Muslims!” Really smart leaders, eh? Gandhi and Nehru really did not face any logistical problem in handing over 1/3rd of Indian territory to Jinnah, did they?
All your theories are just after-thoughts.
@Sanjay
But they accepted the plan and then refused to carry through one half of it!!
Which plan? I thought my response was to Mountbatten’s one-year “all-India” evacuation plan you mentioned.
Gandhi and Nehru really did not face any logistical problem in handing over 1/3rd of Indian territory to Jinnah, did they?
Not sure what you mean. I am referring to logistical problems in transferring tens of millions of settled people from the hinterland, drawn from something like 500,000+ villages without unleashing a nationwide civil-war.
All your theories are just after-thoughts.
How? Were any of the facts I mentioned not known to politicians at the time? May I, then, by the same token, call your thoughts as based on hindsight and wishful thinking?
Sanjay said the following about Nehru and Gandhi-
“It is my firm conviction that both were artificially propped up and promoted by the British to serve their own interests and prolong their rule. The British were willing to go to any extent to raise the profile of these two in the eyes of the Indian people. On the other hand, they were brutal beyond belief with the real threats to their rule — Savarkar (jailed for life), Aurobindo Ghosh (exiled), Lala Lajpat Rai (beaten to death), Bhagat Singh (hanged), Subhash Bose (dissappeared for ever)… You have to see the treatment given to Gandhi and Nehru by the British to realise the game.”
I think there is a lot of sense in that argument.
The british came to india with deceit in mind.
Indians failed to understand the extent of that deceit.
The british left india with their deceit intact.
Indians again failed to read that deceit.
The british are even now exercising deceit, and indians are yet not understanding the exetnt of it. Recent eg.- Miliband’s deceit linking terrorism and Kashmir, Boyle’s movie that is an effort in deceit to denigrate india and its culture.
It is necessary for India to learn from history and the present that the western world view is the opposite of Indian world view.
The western world view is divisive, approaching issues with a clear cut concept of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Dividing people on the basis of religious beliefs, linguistics, physical characterstics, and so on.
In their view, body and spirit are different.
And they consider body can be independent of spirit. That is why they believe in secular state, rather they pretend to believe in secular state yet ‘us’ is given preferential treatment to ‘them’.
Indian culture (the original indian culture) by contrast believes in unity of body and spirit. It believes in unity of whole creation. Oneness.
This world view of indians is such a contrast to the western world view that the westerner is never able to comprehend it. And he never will, so long as he holds on to narrow bigoted ideas.
Until you are prepared to leave the ground, you can never soar to the skies.
However, this incomprehensible(to the westerner) yet inexplicably successful indian culture and its driving spiritual philosophy was, is and will always be a cause of insecurity to western world view because it actually is a threat to its very existence.
It was this insecurity that prompted british to do everything in their power to try and destroy this culture and philosophy.
They attemted physical destruction as well as mental and intellectual duplicity to achieve that end for the 300 years that they were here and even after they left. They are continuing their attempt even now.
Due to their strenuous continuous efforts they have succeeded to a vary large extent. But not completely.
The westerner had always tried to impose his world view wherever he went and destroyed indigenous culture and philosophy. He succeeded in most places such as North America, South America, Africa, Australia, Pacific Islands, even the Alaska.
While Evangelical Christianity propagated by Romans was the fountainhead that shaped western world view, Islam and Communism, its offshoots, adopted the same underlying concepts and shaped their philosophy upon it. Nazism and Fascism also were offshoots of the same world view.
Strife is inherent to all of them.
Thus these offshoots of western world view aped its progenitor and destroyed indigenous culture and philosphy wherever they went.
They succeeded in their despicable(despicable in the eyes of an indian, but lofty in the eyes of the westerner) mission in almost all the places in the world.
The one and only place that has withstood their onslaught is the one that gave rise to a diametrically opposite world view which sought unity in all, India.
Yes, the nefarious activities of the vandals have been successful to a large extent. But not completely.
Despite twenty centuries of efforts by the proponents of divisive western world view to destroy indian culture, starting with Alexander and other roman emperors, continuing with islamic marauders, followed by britishers, and now in the form of marxist intellectuals and crooked politicians, Indian spiritual culture is still posing a challenge to the very existence of western world view and all its multiple offshoots on the strength of philosophy and its foundation of truth.
And it will.
As long as there are men who believe that purpose of human life is spiritual.
That material things are only tools to be used to help progress in the path to spiritual enlightenment.
That spirituality cannot be divorced from nation state or from individual.
As long as there are people who understand that a body devoid of spirit or soul is a rotting corpse that soon starts to stink.
That mankind and the society that discards its spiritual side is like the body devoid of soul.
That prakriti and purusha are inextricably linked. So that when man separates himself from nature, both suffers. That a future of mankind seprate from environment is non-existant.
As long as there are men who discerns unity in creation and identifies himself to be that unity.
And as long as there are men who understand that religion is not spirituality. In fact, in many ways what goes by as religion nowadys is exact opposite of spirituality.
As long as men are inspired by the ancient indian philosophy to discern the above things, and live spiritually, the India of the Vedic age will live on, ever unconquered by forces of bigotry and divisiveness and always a threat to the foundations of such narrow world views.
Thank you
Why isn’t anybody concerned about Rahul Gandhi “showing” a fake degree as his “education” credentials and lying to the Election Commission, twice [ in 2004 and 2009]?
http://twitter.com/offstumped/status/1451001069
Can’t we all send emails to the Election Commission?
Oh shit, this blog is completely rabidly right wing! How did I land up here!
yadbhavishya -
“Please dont brand the Muslim League as communal. Comrade Palahalli is so disappointed he has written a rambling comment and defended himself for writing it.”
- I don’t suppose you read my post accurately. I have nothing against branding ML Communal. I just don’t see it as a bad value.
Btw, what was your point in posting those Quotes?
photonman -
“Says who? Show me one example – other than India – of a liberal and secular republic where the national majority is made impotent.”
- The US, the Netherlands, Britain and France quickly coming on board…I have more.
@photonman
If 10 million migrated, what stopped the evacuation of the remaining 10 million. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee had strongly demanded absolute transfer of population in Bengal to save the Hindus in Bangladesh who were suffering prolonged pogroms, but Nehru instead demanded a wall be constructed on the Bangla water to prevent Hindu refugees from crossing over because he was certain the Hindu refugees were exaggerating their maltreatment in East Pakistan. Surely, someone has blood in his hands
Incognito/Sanjay – I think the British simply utilized and encouraged the value add that Gandhi’s inherently self-driven principles gave them. I would not say Gandhi was in the “pay” of the British.
Nehru was not stubborn about his radical (Communistic, Fabian Socialistic…etc etc.) ideas as long as he operated in Gandhi’s shadows. He felt safe. This may be the reason why the British doted on him too.
“I would not say Gandhi was in the “pay” of the British.”
It is not necessary to pay a leader money to raise his profile or use him to achieve one’s strategic objectives.
Do you know who Gandhi was surrounded with at Tolstoy Farm in South Africa and who arranged for his marches and publicity and gave him guidance? They were all White missionaries and church-men. They surrounded him at all times and lived with him.
After 1857, the Brits got a fright and wanted the revolt never to be repeated again. In fact so deep was this fear that Gen. Dyer confessed after Jallianwalah Bagh that he thought there was a conspiracy in Punjab for a 1857 type revolt and he wanted to teach Indians a bloody lesson to nip it in the bud.
The Brits desperately needed a leader of Indians with the central message of pacifism, non-violence against the invaders and the philosophy of “never pick up arms again even if the Brits kill you all.”
Gandhi was aggressively propped up and promoted by missionaries and Genernal Smuts. General Smuts “agreed” to Gandhi’s demands, thus tremendously boosting his name in India. Nobody had heard of Gandhi before. This act of Smuts spread his fame far and wide as a man who can get the British government to bend. It is a different matter that the “bending” was deliberate.
Strategically, to make a show, the British government in South Africa and India sometimes bowed to Gandhi’s wishes to “prove” the effectiveness of his method of non-violence and impress other Indians. It was just a show to promote Gandhi as India’s tallest leader. Notice how when Gandhi arrived in India, how British government kept bowing before him in all his agitations and conceded what he had demanded.
In contrast, the Brits were brutal with nationalist Hindus such as Savarkar and Subhash Bose and simply refused to meet them, while all doors were kept open for Gandhi. Gradually, Indians began to rally behind Gandhi as the “leader who gets the work done.”
Historians should do serious research about this angle of Gandhi as a British creation and prop. Unfortunately, even after 60 years, British intelligence reports and personal files about Gandhi and Nehru are still classified by the British government. Nobody can have access to them.
The Britisher’s propping up of Gandhi had a precedent for the Brits. They knew how the Romans circulated the fable of Jesus Christ among the restive Jews under their occupation and — what a coincidence — Jesus’s message was exactly similar to Gandhi’s with respect to the invaders — “turn the other cheek” and “Give unto Ceasear what belongs to Ceaser.” It is not a coincidence that in the entire Bible, there is not one derogatory reference to the Romans. But the Jews are abused and cursed all through, with calls for thier genocide. By convering jews to christianity, the Romans managed to create an indegenous militia against the Jews. (same thing that the church is now doing in Orissa. It converts tribals and turns them into an armed militia against the Hindus.)
Have you heard of a book called “Ceaser’s Messiah”?
Here it is: http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/main.html
It tells you why and how Romans invented the cult of Jesus and spread it among the Jews. The Jews who converted to Christianity immediately became the biggest defenders of the Roman empire and enemies of Jews who were resisting the Roman rule.
This is because worship of Jesus is nothing but worship of Ceaser by proxy. The Jews became hunted in Christian socieites becasue the blame of “killing Christ” was cleverly laid on their door. For 2000 years, they were forced to live in ghettos on the periphery of Christian societies. I would say the Romans succeeded brilliantly in their plan of screwing the Jews and creating a rival cult to exterminate them. (Why risk roman soliders in killing jews when you can outsource the job to the converted jews.)
The Brits took a leaf from the Roman book and tried to create India’s own Jesus with the same message of “turn the other cheek” and “never pick up arms against the occupation army.”
I can say that Gandhi’s creation and promotion by Brits was the biggest psyops operation of modern times.
See here the video of interview of Joseph Atwill who wrote “Ceaser’s Messiah.” It is an eye-opener.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSIzJWgp4vI
It is not a coincidence that a leader preaching non-violence arose in India within 25 years of the revolt of 1857.
The US, the Netherlands, Britain and France quickly coming on board…I have more.
Really? What’s your definition of ‘impotent’?
@Palahalli
The quotes are very relevant to the topic of Sandeep’s post about how the definition of communalism/secularism has changed.
My thought is, you really need to look into history (not books) and see what happened beyond Karl Marx, Nehru, Tito and Castro. And delving into deliberate post-hijacking terminology discussions like “Liberal-Secularism” is not my game.
photonman – When a Majority is prevented from asserting itself and prevented from taking steps to ensure it’s own survival as a Civilization and that Majority subjects itself to such restrictions, then it has become impotent.
Such is the case in all these countries that I have mentioned.
*******
yadbhavishya – I still don’t see what sense those quotes convey. They are so uncharacteristic of their proponents. Especially in the case of Golwalkar, it shows him as very confused. Wrt Nehru, a fly-by-night operator.
Liberalism and Secularism are hardly “post-hijack” (whatever that may mean) terminology.
Guys check this out, Rajiv Malhotra on India in the clash of civilizations : http://rajiv.malhotra.us/video1.htm
On transfer of population, Ambedkar had written extensively on it and more in 1940 itself.
The problem was that Congress was not prepared to entertain such an idea because it would disprove their fanciful theory that Hindus and Muslims can live in brotherly harmony.
In fact, it would be an admission of the fact that Hindus and Muslims are two Nations with different destinies.
Sanjay – When there can be a plausible explanation, why do you need conspiracy theories?
These will not be believed and credibility will be unnecessarily lost.
It is extraordinary that the British not only foresaw Gandhi’s future potential but also the capitulation or surrender of such Congress greats as existed at the time of his rise. Were they also “bought over” by the British? Or did they fail to address or ignore Gandhi’s supposed connexion with the British Empire?
It is very obvious that an establishment will indulge someone speaking of peace and non-violence and not a person who speaks of violent overthrow.
The media promotes communalism in the name of secularism. They don’t even report important stuff like candidate’s background, especially Rahul Gandhi.
Rahul gandhi’s lie about his degree now on Indian blogosphere- http://youthcurry.blogspot.com/2009/04/rahul-gandhi-and-his-dubious-cambridge.html
@Palahalli:
When a Majority is prevented from asserting itself and prevented from taking steps to ensure it’s own survival as a Civilization and that Majority subjects itself to such restrictions, then it has become impotent.
Not sure how such a restriction on people is consistent with the rights and freedoms guaranteed to them in a liberal state. BTW, even with this definition of ‘impotent’, none of these countries you mentioned have impotent majorities. Megachurches, anyone?
You’re free to hold your own views. But the views you express can’t be called liberal by any means. Adios
Western liberals ensure that nonwesterners are colonized, deculturated, and deracinated, and not able to mount effective challenges to the colonial system. They will shed umpteen tears for a poor converted Mexican, but the independent-minded Hindu will be treated with the disdain of a “liberal” Doniger, Dalrymple, Kipling, Thapar, and Witzel. Liberalism is as much a threat to western society as Protestantism is to Christianity; that is, Liberalism is just a sect within western colonial discourse. All the favored pets of the western liberals like Arundhati, Adiga, and Amartya are inimical to heathen (eg Hindu) interests.
photonman – “Not sure how such a restriction on people is consistent with the rights and freedoms guaranteed to them in a liberal state. BTW, even with this definition of ‘impotent’, none of these countries you mentioned have impotent majorities. Megachurches, anyone?”
- I don’t see how the National Majority’s rights and freedoms can be guaranteed in a Liberal State espousing the Multi-Culturalist creed. It doesn’t make sense.
So what about mega churches? Today the Church is willing to sup with Islam…of what use is its size?
Western Civilization is in dire need of grounding in its own soil. It has no use for evangelism. The Church has lost sight of this National need completely.
Yes, I’m not a Liberal.
*********
Kishkindhaa – I agree. Liberals everywhere are busy-bodies who will not mind their own business. They constantly feel the need to meddle because they are never happy with the way things are.
> the “master-stroke” of Gandhi and Nehru of not allowing
> transfer of population despite handing over one-third
> of the country’s territory.
“not allowing the transfer of population”??
b4 1947, hindus and muslims were spread all over subcontinent. in every small town and villiage. how this transfer is to be fully done, apart from your comment about alowing or not allowing??
Shuvro Aikath – Good question, but that makes partition itself meaningless. Congress should never have agreed to partition when it could not decide on population exchange.
But having agreed to partition; not finding a way to exchange population makes the entire action crass and criminal apart from burdensome for oncoming generations.
It certainly does not absolve Congress and Gandhi of responsibility.
Your thoughts?
Sandeep, I did not know where this fit in…but do write something on the Great Liberal Hope – Barack Hussein Obama. It’s time we talked about him and his..I feel.
Fellow commenters…your thoughts..
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562949505&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Pala,
Looks like he is all noise and no substance to me. He is gandhi/nehru types.
it is sad that arun shourie does not have a proper web presence and blog like u guys do … cant u guys get him to remedy that?
kharaharapriya – Obama is worse.That article is such a sad read.
But with all this, the Left is still not happy. They want more.
[...] the Hindu Mahasabha was reprimanded for fighting against this very demand for separatism.” Sandeep explains the importance of the Lucknow Pact of 1916 and Pirpur Report of [...]