INDIC
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 18,512
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Wow you are a genius..
Tell me which part you don't agree with.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow you are a genius..
Tell me which part you don't agree with.
All of it...
Yeah sure.. the almost 2 dozen ordinance factories (not including the hundreds or thousands others) were also built by tatas.
Explain it how.
Can you provide some data about it.
Its all over the intenet.... as for canals.. lmao @ u..
Explain me why you disagree. What was the major exports and main source of foreign exchange for West Pakistan just after independence.
I read an article on economist.com a few months back. From there, I have quoted (after verifying myself) that Muslims are heavily concentrated in poor states of north. As per National Sample Survey Organisation, Muslims’ average per capita spending a day of Rs. 32.66 is a little behind Rs. 37.50 for Hindus both of which are much behind Rs. 51. 43 for Christians and Rs. 55.30 for Sikhs. This is a proxy for income & standard of living. Getting separate data of N & S for different religions will be time consuming and am not really in the mood to do it. You can do it later.Could you please build on this further? Using numbers, percentages and hard data? I am travelling, and operating on a dongle on a laptop perched on a luggage stand, a posture not conducive to numeric research.
I
2. Majority Hindus may not have sought exclusive dominating power in government, and may have given up their option to dominate by choosing a supposedly secular form of government, but the matter is more subtle than that. The fear was then; the object of fear was what is now 'now'. Are those fears borne out? The Sachar Committee report seems to think so; it conjures up a morbidly depressing view of a community which remains backward and listless, apathetic, not sharing in the fruits of growth, sunk in the Slough of Despond. Was that original Muslim fear wrong? It cannot be dismissed out of hand, but needs more careful examination than we have given it, perhaps.
I have a very simple question.
On a thread of Two Nation Theory, if you must poke holes at the supposed plight of Muslims of India, you must equally question the plight of Muslims in Pakistan (or Bangladesh for that matter).
If it is a given (I think both sides agree on this one at least) that those Muslims who made up Pakistan at the time of Partition were the affluent educated lot, leaving the poor uneducated half in India, then using that as a baseline, one should compare how Muslims on both sides have fared.
It may be (as some have suggested here) something endemic to Muslims as a community, this lack of progress. But if one must attribute national skews to this picture, then one must perforce weigh both sides.
Adding to the points already made by @Ajatashatru, the reference to Sachar Committee as a basis for considering whether Muslim fear pre-partition was borne out, is dicey at the very least. The Sachar Committe was tasked with looking at the condition of Muslims and must be seen only in that context without extrapolating it into a different debate.
I have made this point before, partition & its effect on N.Indian Muslims have skewed the picture of the socio-economic condition of the community. When partition took away most of the middle class Muslims of N.India , those remaining constitute an socio-economic class that cannot & should not be directly compared to a Hindu, Christan, Sikh population which wasn't effected in that same manner.
If socio-economic conditions of a similar level of the majority community is considered, we may get a not very dissimilar (not same perhaps, partition did also cripple the Muslim community in India psychologically) reading between the two. A better reading of what might have happened (as close as possible, partition did have an impact everywhere even if only a psychological one) would be to look at how those Muslim communities which were not as torn apart by partition i.e. in S.India have managed. Most have done far better than their N.Indian counterparts on many levels and remain well represented in government jobs etc. A big problem has been the absence of social change, reinforced by a reluctance of the polity to enforce change in the Muslim community unlike what was done with Hindus.
The empowerment of the women in other communities(to whatever level) has created a far more robust improvement in socio-economic conditions. After all, if the women is both empowered & earning, both their immediate socio-economic conditions & the longer term chances for their children are markedly better. Muslim communities did need intervention right at the time of independence itself but the chances of affirmative action then with the reality of partition, was not about to happen. Doing it today is still difficult though many governments are getting around it, even if their intentions & reasoning remain opaque.
It will probably be a failure to respond to this without first addressing that masterful effort by @Oscar, but since that will take a longer time than is available right now, let us make a sally through the portal gate.
It is proven, now, that religion cannot bind into a nation.
1. It was not proved then; what people responding to Iqbal's analysis were doing was to respond to what they saw as contemporary reality, and we, on the other hand, have the frightfully clever trick to play of responding to Iqbal's analysis with the blinding insights of subsequent events.
2. Majority Hindus may not have sought exclusive dominating power in government, and may have given up their option to dominate by choosing a supposedly secular form of government, but the matter is more subtle than that. The fear was then; the object of fear was what is now 'now'. Are those fears borne out? The Sachar Committee report seems to think so; it conjures up a morbidly depressing view of a community which remains backward and listless, apathetic, not sharing in the fruits of growth, sunk in the Slough of Despond. Was that original Muslim fear wrong? It cannot be dismissed out of hand, but needs more careful examination than we have given it, perhaps.
3. As @Oscar has already pointed out, it was the possibility of full development under their own government that was invigorating, not the thorough mess those given the opportunity created on their own.
Let us return to these at a more appropriate time.
Thank you for taking the trouble to prove my point.
TYet there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a larger section of the educated population opted for Pakistan. However, was the lack of that class the only reason for the Muslim in India staying behind?
Although India was established as a secular country, Hindu culture’s dominance was evident with Bhoomi Pooja and Aarti being performed at government functions. Abbu raised an objection to the organizers in his office a few times, only to be questioned about his nationalism.
Muslim faith to Abbu meant being part of the Umma (global Muslim community) irrespective of national boundaries and bowing only to Allah. But Indian nationalism often demanded submission to ‘Mother India’.
He loved the land he was born and chose to live in but his religion was just as important to him. Sadly the country he envisioned in his youth with socialistic ideals of communal harmony, equality and justice for all continued to be an unfulfilled dream.
I had hoped that the "seems" would speak for me.
This is true, but only partially true.
It is not logical to believe that the underclass would always remain an underclass; at the least, they would go up the economic escalator in a way comparable to their equivalent layers in other communities. It is surely not anyone's argument that each community (other than the Parsis, and to a lesser extent, the Sikhs) helps its underclasses; the Hindu disparagement of the poorer Hindu is notorious, and if we are to go by Khalid Anis Ansari's brilliant and biting analysis of the plight of the 'pasmanda' Muslim, and their victimisation by the Ashraf, it is not hugely better among Muslims.
Assuming that communities don't help their own underprivileged, the rise of these underprivileged classes, which some attribute to the reservations policy, must be considered autonomous. If it is an autonomous activity for one community, there have to be cogent reasons for the failure of this activity to be autonomous for another community. There is, in fact, no reason to argue for a failure of this autonomy for the Muslims. The evidence seems to be that there has been visible and tangible results of the urge to raise themselves by their economic bootstraps among the Hindus and Muslims alike.
Therefore, the huge gap created by partition need not have lasted for ever. A postulate that the Muslim middle classes have re-grown themselves, a step ahead of the Muslim poor having re-endowed themselves, is a reasonable postulate.
Perhaps more accurately expressed as the reluctance of the polity to allow progressive reform from within the community, in order to preserve the conservative and traditional power structures with which it had achieved a working understanding.
It is not logical to believe that the underclass would always remain an underclass; at the least, they would go up the economic escalator in a way comparable to their equivalent layers in other communities