My dear friend, yes i understand that these are only your views, But writing something against someones religion means calling riots at home. And we cant allow anything blindly on the name of Democracy. Communal harmony is also necessary for the smooth function of democracy, also i don't think our culture says anything like this.
India state bans book on Jinnah
- Thread starter Patriot
- Start date
My dear friend, yes i understand that these are only your views, But writing something against someones religion means calling riots at home. And we cant allow anything blindly on the name of Democracy. Communal harmony is also necessary for the smooth function of democracy, also i don't think our culture says anything like this.
i do believe there is a very very thin line between artistic freedom and defamation of one religion ...but who will bell the cat ...wont it be called moral policing....and what willl be parameter to differentiate between vilification and critical analysis .....
and is banning the correct approach towards this ......
just think of blasphemy law in thy neighboring country ,of how its being misused
if such type of law is implemented in any democratic country just think how easily it can be misused
while writing this article the life great person comes to my mind ::Galileo ,,werent his views in loggerhead with the religion and his books banned and he imprisoned though in later year we came to know how correct he was??
Last edited:
pmukherjee
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,089
- Reaction score
- 0
i do believe there is a very very thin line between artistic freedom and defamation of one religion ...but who will bell the cat ...wont it be called moral policing....and what willl be parameter to differentiate between vilification and critical analysis .....
and is banning the correct approach towards approach this ......
just think of blasphemy law in thy neighboring country ,of how its being misused
if such type of law is implemented in any democratic country just think how easily it can be misused
while writing this article the life great person comes to my mind ::Galileo ,,werent his views in loggerhead with the religion and his books banned and he imprisoned though in later year we came to know how correct he was??
I endorse fully. Thousands of Christians in Europe were executed under 'blasphemy and heresy laws', only because the Church knew every thing and had a hotline with God. One finds it difficult to explain to a child why Joan of Arc is being burnt at the stake on TV.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
For what it's worth, perhaps the thing to take away from the discussion is to avoid traps - history is not and will not ever, be a straight forward exercise, it is laden with ideology - the problem is not that it is laden with ideology, but that so many seem not to realize it and what it may mean.
Any culture or set of cultures with aspirations of being taken seriously cannot avoid coming up with intellectual frameworks in which it examines ideas, without resorting to book baning, death threats, and political censure - imagine, is it but a regression into a tribal past of certainties?
For good or bad, tomorrow, life will still go on as it had been before the controversy, serious students will find much work to do, as will those who are scared of history(ies) - Official Indian will continue to recall only those "facts" that fit it's paint by number scheme of a history it is more comfortable with, official Pakistan will continue to be embarrassed and confused by the fact that M. A. Jinnah, Quaid e Azaam, was entirely persuaded by a secular role for governance and a personal private role for religion in the lives of adherents.
Any culture or set of cultures with aspirations of being taken seriously cannot avoid coming up with intellectual frameworks in which it examines ideas, without resorting to book baning, death threats, and political censure - imagine, is it but a regression into a tribal past of certainties?
For good or bad, tomorrow, life will still go on as it had been before the controversy, serious students will find much work to do, as will those who are scared of history(ies) - Official Indian will continue to recall only those "facts" that fit it's paint by number scheme of a history it is more comfortable with, official Pakistan will continue to be embarrassed and confused by the fact that M. A. Jinnah, Quaid e Azaam, was entirely persuaded by a secular role for governance and a personal private role for religion in the lives of adherents.
DAWN.COM | World | Jaswant Singh?s bombshell
Jaswant Singh was foreign minister in Indias last BJP government that held power for nearly five years until 2004, and was regarded as a stalwart of the party.
He has just published a laudatory biography of Mohammad Ali Jinnah that has created quite a sensation in India and beyond. Over the years, not only Hindu extremists but probably also a cross-section of Indian society have demonised Jinnah in the context of the partition in 1947.
Jinnah has been described as a communal-minded, fanatical and obstinate Muslim leader who had a personal agenda of his own in breaking up India. Moreover, Hindu fundamentalists have always considered the 1,000-year Muslim rule over India as a period of national humiliation. Many continue even now to view Muslims with suspicion.
The BJP is a fundamentalist party and the political face of the Sangh Parivar, a loose collection of parties and organisations in which the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has been a kind of spiritual leader. The Parivar has had a philosophy of glorifying Hinduism and denigrating Muslims.
It is against this background that Jaswant Singhs book has come like a bombshell. He is full of praise for Jinnah and describes him as a fascinating but complex character of great integrity and honesty. Jaswant Singh argues that Jinnah was a secular-minded leader who did his best to promote Hindu-Muslim unity. Though never anti-Hindu, Jinnah sought to protect the rights of Indian Muslims within a united country.
The demand for Pakistan and the partition of India were basically bargaining tactics that Jinnah was willing to abandon, even as late as 1946 when he had persuaded the Muslim League to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan that conceded Muslim rights within a united India. It was Jawaharlal Nehru, the Congress leader, who rejected the plan. In fact, Nehru had all along refused to accept the minimum demands of Muslims for the protection of their political, cultural and economic rights.
Thus, Jaswant Singh argues, the onus for the division of India must be laid mainly on Nehru, though he also puts some blame on Sardar Patel and Mahatma Gandhi. Jaswant Singh is, therefore, critical of the persistent demonisation of Jinnah by many Indians, which he thinks is based on a lack of information and objective analysis.
Jaswant Singhs book has been strongly denounced by the BJP and led to his immediate expulsion from the party. In effect, he has questioned the validity of the long-held beliefs of the party. If Jaswant Singhs thesis is accepted, then it would seem that extremists in the Hindu community have been barking up the wrong tree. They also stand to lose at least some of the ammunition that has long fuelled their anti-Muslim feelings.
But the real question is: why has Jaswant Singh chosen to write this book? He says he was drawn to Jinnahs fascinating personality and found, on research, that Jinnah had been largely misunderstood. This might well be the truth. But then, there are the political realities. Jaswant Singh must have known that telling this kind of truth would be akin to stirring up a hornets nest and could cause him serious harm. Still, he thought it worthwhile to take the risk.
In writing this book, I suspect, he had two motives. Firstly, he wanted to discredit Jawaharlal Nehru whose personality cult remains strong in India and has all along benefited the Congress party, the main rival of the BJP. The love affair of the Indian people with Nehru as yet shows no sign of ending. He is seen not only as the hero of Indian independence but also as a leader who gave the country a solid start.
The Congress has all along cashed in on Nehrus popularity. It has also kept the Nehru dynasty in power: his daughter Indira Gandhi, followed thereafter by Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and the-soon-to-come Rahul Gandhi. If Jaswant Singhs book does damage Nehrus political standing, that would be to the BJPs advantage.
The second motive of Jaswant Singh in writing this book might have been to create an uproar and divisions inside Pakistan. Following his expulsion from the BJP, he did remonstrate, I thought this book would set Pakistan on fire. Jaswant Singh evidently thought that his book would lead to a deep controversy in Pakistan about the rationale for the creation of Pakistan as also about the thinking of its founder, and that such a controversy might shake the very foundations of the country.
The fact of the matter is that many in Pakistan have lost track of the rationale for the creation of Pakistan. There has been a systematic distortion of facts and a rewriting of history with a view to impose religion in matters of the state. The historical record shows that ever since the Muslims started their political struggle in the latter half of the 19th century during the British colonial period, their demand was for the protection of their political, cultural, religious and economic rights in a united India.
However, it is notable that no Muslim leader of note, since the days of Sir Syed, ever demanded either the division of India or the establishment of a Muslim state based on the rule of Sharia. Some people think that in the Allahabad address of 1930, Allama Iqbal had demanded the creation of a Muslim state in the northwest, but Iqbal himself had clarified that Pakistan is not my scheme. The one that I suggested in my address is the creation of a Muslim province i.e. a province having an overwhelming population of Muslims in the northwest of India. This new province will be, according to my scheme, a part of the proposed Indian federation.
The question arises as to why then was the demand for the division of India made by the Muslims in 1940? This happened because all of their efforts for reaching a national consensus failed due to the persistent refusal of the Congress to accept the minimum Muslim demands, notably one-third representation in the central legislature and in jobs.
The final blow was the shocking treatment of Muslims under Congress rule (1937-39). That forced Muslims to demand, in the Lahore Resolution of March 1940, the breakup of India and creation of independent Muslim states in the northwest and eastern zones of India where Muslims were in numerical majority. The truth is that the division of India (and creation of Pakistan) was not the first preference of the Indian Muslims. It was rather the last preferred option.
It is also notable that the Lahore Resolution made no mention of the proposed Muslim states being based on the rule of the Sharia. Jinnah was undoubtedly a secular leader.
Jaswant Singh is right to bring out some of these facts in his book. However, his motives are questionable since he seems to think that an internal debate in Pakistani society on the rationale behind the creation of the country and the secular ideas of Jinnah would set Pakistan on fire and presumably destabilise it.
Jaswant Singh was foreign minister in Indias last BJP government that held power for nearly five years until 2004, and was regarded as a stalwart of the party.
He has just published a laudatory biography of Mohammad Ali Jinnah that has created quite a sensation in India and beyond. Over the years, not only Hindu extremists but probably also a cross-section of Indian society have demonised Jinnah in the context of the partition in 1947.
Jinnah has been described as a communal-minded, fanatical and obstinate Muslim leader who had a personal agenda of his own in breaking up India. Moreover, Hindu fundamentalists have always considered the 1,000-year Muslim rule over India as a period of national humiliation. Many continue even now to view Muslims with suspicion.
The BJP is a fundamentalist party and the political face of the Sangh Parivar, a loose collection of parties and organisations in which the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has been a kind of spiritual leader. The Parivar has had a philosophy of glorifying Hinduism and denigrating Muslims.
It is against this background that Jaswant Singhs book has come like a bombshell. He is full of praise for Jinnah and describes him as a fascinating but complex character of great integrity and honesty. Jaswant Singh argues that Jinnah was a secular-minded leader who did his best to promote Hindu-Muslim unity. Though never anti-Hindu, Jinnah sought to protect the rights of Indian Muslims within a united country.
The demand for Pakistan and the partition of India were basically bargaining tactics that Jinnah was willing to abandon, even as late as 1946 when he had persuaded the Muslim League to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan that conceded Muslim rights within a united India. It was Jawaharlal Nehru, the Congress leader, who rejected the plan. In fact, Nehru had all along refused to accept the minimum demands of Muslims for the protection of their political, cultural and economic rights.
Thus, Jaswant Singh argues, the onus for the division of India must be laid mainly on Nehru, though he also puts some blame on Sardar Patel and Mahatma Gandhi. Jaswant Singh is, therefore, critical of the persistent demonisation of Jinnah by many Indians, which he thinks is based on a lack of information and objective analysis.
Jaswant Singhs book has been strongly denounced by the BJP and led to his immediate expulsion from the party. In effect, he has questioned the validity of the long-held beliefs of the party. If Jaswant Singhs thesis is accepted, then it would seem that extremists in the Hindu community have been barking up the wrong tree. They also stand to lose at least some of the ammunition that has long fuelled their anti-Muslim feelings.
But the real question is: why has Jaswant Singh chosen to write this book? He says he was drawn to Jinnahs fascinating personality and found, on research, that Jinnah had been largely misunderstood. This might well be the truth. But then, there are the political realities. Jaswant Singh must have known that telling this kind of truth would be akin to stirring up a hornets nest and could cause him serious harm. Still, he thought it worthwhile to take the risk.
In writing this book, I suspect, he had two motives. Firstly, he wanted to discredit Jawaharlal Nehru whose personality cult remains strong in India and has all along benefited the Congress party, the main rival of the BJP. The love affair of the Indian people with Nehru as yet shows no sign of ending. He is seen not only as the hero of Indian independence but also as a leader who gave the country a solid start.
The Congress has all along cashed in on Nehrus popularity. It has also kept the Nehru dynasty in power: his daughter Indira Gandhi, followed thereafter by Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and the-soon-to-come Rahul Gandhi. If Jaswant Singhs book does damage Nehrus political standing, that would be to the BJPs advantage.
The second motive of Jaswant Singh in writing this book might have been to create an uproar and divisions inside Pakistan. Following his expulsion from the BJP, he did remonstrate, I thought this book would set Pakistan on fire. Jaswant Singh evidently thought that his book would lead to a deep controversy in Pakistan about the rationale for the creation of Pakistan as also about the thinking of its founder, and that such a controversy might shake the very foundations of the country.
The fact of the matter is that many in Pakistan have lost track of the rationale for the creation of Pakistan. There has been a systematic distortion of facts and a rewriting of history with a view to impose religion in matters of the state. The historical record shows that ever since the Muslims started their political struggle in the latter half of the 19th century during the British colonial period, their demand was for the protection of their political, cultural, religious and economic rights in a united India.
However, it is notable that no Muslim leader of note, since the days of Sir Syed, ever demanded either the division of India or the establishment of a Muslim state based on the rule of Sharia. Some people think that in the Allahabad address of 1930, Allama Iqbal had demanded the creation of a Muslim state in the northwest, but Iqbal himself had clarified that Pakistan is not my scheme. The one that I suggested in my address is the creation of a Muslim province i.e. a province having an overwhelming population of Muslims in the northwest of India. This new province will be, according to my scheme, a part of the proposed Indian federation.
The question arises as to why then was the demand for the division of India made by the Muslims in 1940? This happened because all of their efforts for reaching a national consensus failed due to the persistent refusal of the Congress to accept the minimum Muslim demands, notably one-third representation in the central legislature and in jobs.
The final blow was the shocking treatment of Muslims under Congress rule (1937-39). That forced Muslims to demand, in the Lahore Resolution of March 1940, the breakup of India and creation of independent Muslim states in the northwest and eastern zones of India where Muslims were in numerical majority. The truth is that the division of India (and creation of Pakistan) was not the first preference of the Indian Muslims. It was rather the last preferred option.
It is also notable that the Lahore Resolution made no mention of the proposed Muslim states being based on the rule of the Sharia. Jinnah was undoubtedly a secular leader.
Jaswant Singh is right to bring out some of these facts in his book. However, his motives are questionable since he seems to think that an internal debate in Pakistani society on the rationale behind the creation of the country and the secular ideas of Jinnah would set Pakistan on fire and presumably destabilise it.
EyelessInGaza
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 0
Banning books is dumb, and ultimately self harming. Ban the book and people who haven't heard of it will want to read it. Free publicity.
Gujarat has also banned consumption of liquor; and yet you can drink yourselves silly in every town in that state.
Gujarat has also banned consumption of liquor; and yet you can drink yourselves silly in every town in that state.
garibnawaz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,088
- Reaction score
- 0
I spoke to my relative in Surat. The pirated copy is available on the street.
Even on a Mumbai signal I found a guy selling the pirated copies of the same book at half the price (That too negotiable).
GB
afriend
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,501
- Reaction score
- 0
Hey i studied in a CBSE school, and i never knew much about jinnah , So the notion of jinnah being demonised and feeded to the students wouldnt be a right one, if any one have such notion.
But yes, in india we have lot of information on Jinnah, most of them holding him responsible for partition.
I vouch the position of any deomcractic person, banning this book is wrong, and it has to be strongly contested in the court of law.
Thirdly you have to see only Gujarat GOVERNMENT have banned the book, which infact does not refelect the views of any prograssive indian or majority indians.
And i am sure as a patriotic indian, jaswant singh never would never question the CONCEPT OF INDIA, but may have criticed the people who handled partiion, or the nation, for the way it handeled certain issues. It defnitely doesnt amount to treason.
So i would say, get maximum information you can, never restrict any information. if you do it will only make you bloody primitive.
But yes, in india we have lot of information on Jinnah, most of them holding him responsible for partition.
I vouch the position of any deomcractic person, banning this book is wrong, and it has to be strongly contested in the court of law.
Thirdly you have to see only Gujarat GOVERNMENT have banned the book, which infact does not refelect the views of any prograssive indian or majority indians.
And i am sure as a patriotic indian, jaswant singh never would never question the CONCEPT OF INDIA, but may have criticed the people who handled partiion, or the nation, for the way it handeled certain issues. It defnitely doesnt amount to treason.
So i would say, get maximum information you can, never restrict any information. if you do it will only make you bloody primitive.
sensenreason
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 0
EjazR -"The second motive of Jaswant Singh in writing this book might have been to create an uproar and divisions inside Pakistan"
I totally disagree. Ive heard his interviews and followed the story closely, if he has said that the book will have "Pakistan on fire"..he would have meant that there will be a debate about the role of Jinnah and his ideals...not to destabilise the country.
While I can understand if you are cynical about an Indian politician writing about a Pakistani leader and his motives but everything everyone does cannot be spun as a conspiracy theory to harm Pakistan....Arun Shourie another leader of BJP has also criticised the BJP leadership and is known as being close to Jaswant and this is nothing but a internal BJP power struggle...
Lets be reasonable and sensible.
I totally disagree. Ive heard his interviews and followed the story closely, if he has said that the book will have "Pakistan on fire"..he would have meant that there will be a debate about the role of Jinnah and his ideals...not to destabilise the country.
While I can understand if you are cynical about an Indian politician writing about a Pakistani leader and his motives but everything everyone does cannot be spun as a conspiracy theory to harm Pakistan....Arun Shourie another leader of BJP has also criticised the BJP leadership and is known as being close to Jaswant and this is nothing but a internal BJP power struggle...
Lets be reasonable and sensible.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
May be. At first this thought also crossed my mind but then Jinnah is a reality and Pakistan is a reality too besides there are already different views about Jinnah in Pakistan so i dont think so the division if Jaswant had in mind, would harm Pakistan in anyway.
---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------
Jaswant may visit Pakistan to promote his book
Tuesday, 25 Aug, 2009
Jaswant may visit Pakistan to promote his book
ISLAMABAD: If all goes according to plan, Jaswant Singh is to head to Pakistan later this week to promote his controversial book on Mohammed Ali Jinnah.
The planned visit has not been publicised yet but The Hindu learns that Singh may arrive here on Friday.
The former External Affairs Minister, whose three-decade long membership of the Bharatiya Janata Party ended abruptly last week with the launch of his Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence will sign copies of the book at a leading bookshop and has a speaking engagement before he moves on to Karachi for another promotion gig at the weekend.
The organisers are keeping it all hush-hush for the moment as the programme has not yet been fully finalised. Invitations are being passed to Islamabad's who's who by word of mouth only.
The 600-page tome, the first recent work by an Indian in praise of Pakistan's founder, viewed as all the more significant because its author is a high-profile right-winger, is selling like hot cakes at ‘Mr. Books,’ the only place in Pakistan where it was available until Monday.
The bookshop flew in a couple of hundred copies immediately from India, and despite its high price tag, Rs. 1995 (Indian Rs. 1167 approximately), they are all gone.
The owner was apologetic about the price but said he had incurred heavy costs transporting the books from India to Pakistan via Dubai.
There are only two weekly flights from Delhi to Lahore, and the quickest way to ship in the books was through a third country, he said. Another big bookshop in the capital, Saeed Book Bank, said it was expecting a consignment of 500 copies on Tuesday. -Online
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/...his-book-rs-02
Mig-29
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2009
- Messages
- 547
- Reaction score
- 0
Jaswant Singh’s visit to Pakistan postponed
NEW DELHI: The visit of former Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh to Pakistan has been postponed and he is expected to pay the visit after Ramazan.
According to a private TV channel's report on Wednesday, the visit of former Indian foreign minister, which was due on Friday has been postponed due to security arrangements.
The former external affairs minister, whose three-decade long membership of the Bharatiya Janata Party ended abruptly last week with the launch of his Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence was to sign copies of the book at a leading bookshop in Islamabad and had a speaking engagement before he moves on to Karachi for another promotion gig at the weekend.
It is being said that there could be two reasons of postponement, India had sought a report from the Pakistani high commissioner regarding Jaswant Singh's security arrangements which was not answered, the other is that Jaswant did not apply for a Pakistani visa.
Singh had wanted to come to participate in the inauguration and promotion of his book in which he declared Quaid-e-Azam a greater leader than Gandhi.
DAWN.COM | World | Jaswant Singh?s visit to Pakistan postponed
NEW DELHI: The visit of former Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh to Pakistan has been postponed and he is expected to pay the visit after Ramazan.
According to a private TV channel's report on Wednesday, the visit of former Indian foreign minister, which was due on Friday has been postponed due to security arrangements.
The former external affairs minister, whose three-decade long membership of the Bharatiya Janata Party ended abruptly last week with the launch of his Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence was to sign copies of the book at a leading bookshop in Islamabad and had a speaking engagement before he moves on to Karachi for another promotion gig at the weekend.
It is being said that there could be two reasons of postponement, India had sought a report from the Pakistani high commissioner regarding Jaswant Singh's security arrangements which was not answered, the other is that Jaswant did not apply for a Pakistani visa.
Singh had wanted to come to participate in the inauguration and promotion of his book in which he declared Quaid-e-Azam a greater leader than Gandhi.
DAWN.COM | World | Jaswant Singh?s visit to Pakistan postponed
SummerWine
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 573
- Reaction score
- 0
India's Opposition Struggles With Past and Present - TIME
India's Opposition Struggles With Past and Present
For an ancient civilization with a rich and diverse heritage, India remains uncomfortable with the defining event of its modern political history the cataclysmic Partition of 1947 that left a million people dead in fratricidal massacres and caused the largest-ever cross-migration in human history. Six decades after that bloody split which doomed India to seemingly eternal enmity with its conjoined twin, the state of Pakistan, Partition still defines the contours of Indian politics and some of its biggest challenges, from the festering dispute in Kashmir to Islamist and Hindu right-wing terrorism.
It also has led to conflict within India's political establishment. Last week, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a right-wing Hindu nationalist bloc that leads the opposition in Parliament, expelled Jaswant Singh, a former foreign minister in a BJP government and party stalwart. His crime? To have published a revisionist book on the history of Partition and, in particular, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Muslim Pakistan who Indians of all political stripes have often blamed for the violent sundering of the Subcontinent. Singh's Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence portrays Jinnah as a secularist and a great statesman, an image that would make members of India's ruling, secularist Congress party squirm, as well as Islamists in Pakistan. But Singh's book seemed to pose the greatest threat to the BJP, a party struggling to find its political relevance since its thumping defeat in a national election earlier this year.
(Read "The Fiery Nationalist Who's Roiling Indian Politics.")
Indeed, the spat over Jinnah has highlighted the profound crisis facing India's most prominent opposition party. Its rise less than two decades ago as a dominant force in Indian national politics coincided with the opening up of the country's economy and the emergence of a more confident, muscular middle-class. Its leaders were in power until a little over five years back, when the party lost the elections then by a thin margin. But those days seem long gone. The humbled BJP is now faced with serious questions over its leadership, seen to be out of sync with a fast-changing India as well as unable to control dissent within its ranks. Since the electoral defeat,there has been a string of high-profile resignations and infighting between party members has dominated headlines in recent weeks.
But the problem runs deeper ever since an overwhelming mandate in this year's elections returned the centre-left Congress party to power, the BJP has been caught in ideological drift, unsure of its own identity and role as India grows into a world power. On Monday, BJP stalwart Arun Shourie urged the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the BJP's mother organization and champion of Hindu nationalist orthodoxy, to "take over" the party, implying that the only way the party could get its act together is to go back to the lock-step discipline of the RSS. This, however, would also entail a return to that group's ultra-nationalist values which would alienate Muslims,low-castes and religious minorities. The party now finds itself faced with a lingering existential question: whether to return to its core base and whole-heartedly embrace the RSS, or continue to project a more centrist image by distancing itself from Hindu fundamentalist dogma. The repudiation of Singh and his open-minded reinterpretation of Jinnah and Pakistan has signaled, to some analysts, which option the party Mandarins have opted for.
(Read "India's Muslims in Crisis.")
Strident Hindu nationalism worked in the 1990s, channeling upper-caste Hindu resentment at the rising political power of the lower castes, and giving voice to urban middle-classes who backed pro-market, liberalizing reforms. Back then, the BJP successfully occupied a nationalist space ceded to it by a weakened Congress staging events harking back to an idealized Hindu past, such as the theatrical "rath yatra" (literally, a chariot ride, but used here to allude to the mythical Lord Rama's quest to slay the evil Ravana) that motivated frenzied crowds of Hindus to demolish an ancient mosque in December 1992, sparking months of Hindu-Muslim carnage. When in power from 1998 to 2004, the BJP renamed popular cities with names they deemed more "native" and changed school syllabi to ingrain a "Hindu" version of Indian history among students, moving away from the greater complexities of India's diverse religious past.
Yet in elections this year, Indian voters seem to have rejected the politics of religious polarization in favor of stability and economic growth. "Hindu nationalism worked in the 1990s, but today, it is on the margins. It goes against the popular mood," says New Delhi-based political analyst Mahesh Rangarajan. In terms of economic reforms, the BJP seems to have placed itself against a growing consensus. When in opposition, it has been an outspoken critic of the Congress party-led government's liberalization policies, seeking to speak for workers and small businesses perceived to have been disadvantaged by reforms. This marks a reversal from its own professed business-friendly politics when in power not long ago.
The only hope for the BJP, says Jyotirmaya Sharma, professor of politicalscience at the University of Hyderabad, lies in becoming a more mature, modern conservative party espousing the Hindu cause but without the corrosive influence of radical ultra-nationalism. "They need to clarify their stand on a range of issues from liberalization and foreign policy, especially Pakistan, to their stance vis-a-vis religious and other minorities," he says. Sharma agrees that the BJP's current leadership is incapable of leading the party in this direction. Also, as many political analysts have pointed out, the BJP's sectarian agenda is often at odds with the spirit of India's pluralist democracy an internal reckoning and re-branding is necessary, but not in sight.
(Read "In Drought, India's Economy is Feeling the Heat.")
Ironically, amidst the furor created by Jaswant Singh's pro-Jinnah remarks,the BJP top brass seem to have overlooked the fact that Singh lays the blame of Partition mostly on the Congress party and its leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru, India's much-admired first Prime Minister. But it also serves as a reminder that the BJP is the Congress' only real competitor at the national level, and the only likely foil to Congress' national dominance. For decades, the Congress party was the lone player in Indian national politics, a status quo which led to political stagnation. Until the BJP gets its act together, India could teeter down that path once again.
India's Opposition Struggles With Past and Present
For an ancient civilization with a rich and diverse heritage, India remains uncomfortable with the defining event of its modern political history the cataclysmic Partition of 1947 that left a million people dead in fratricidal massacres and caused the largest-ever cross-migration in human history. Six decades after that bloody split which doomed India to seemingly eternal enmity with its conjoined twin, the state of Pakistan, Partition still defines the contours of Indian politics and some of its biggest challenges, from the festering dispute in Kashmir to Islamist and Hindu right-wing terrorism.
It also has led to conflict within India's political establishment. Last week, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a right-wing Hindu nationalist bloc that leads the opposition in Parliament, expelled Jaswant Singh, a former foreign minister in a BJP government and party stalwart. His crime? To have published a revisionist book on the history of Partition and, in particular, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Muslim Pakistan who Indians of all political stripes have often blamed for the violent sundering of the Subcontinent. Singh's Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence portrays Jinnah as a secularist and a great statesman, an image that would make members of India's ruling, secularist Congress party squirm, as well as Islamists in Pakistan. But Singh's book seemed to pose the greatest threat to the BJP, a party struggling to find its political relevance since its thumping defeat in a national election earlier this year.
(Read "The Fiery Nationalist Who's Roiling Indian Politics.")
Indeed, the spat over Jinnah has highlighted the profound crisis facing India's most prominent opposition party. Its rise less than two decades ago as a dominant force in Indian national politics coincided with the opening up of the country's economy and the emergence of a more confident, muscular middle-class. Its leaders were in power until a little over five years back, when the party lost the elections then by a thin margin. But those days seem long gone. The humbled BJP is now faced with serious questions over its leadership, seen to be out of sync with a fast-changing India as well as unable to control dissent within its ranks. Since the electoral defeat,there has been a string of high-profile resignations and infighting between party members has dominated headlines in recent weeks.
But the problem runs deeper ever since an overwhelming mandate in this year's elections returned the centre-left Congress party to power, the BJP has been caught in ideological drift, unsure of its own identity and role as India grows into a world power. On Monday, BJP stalwart Arun Shourie urged the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the BJP's mother organization and champion of Hindu nationalist orthodoxy, to "take over" the party, implying that the only way the party could get its act together is to go back to the lock-step discipline of the RSS. This, however, would also entail a return to that group's ultra-nationalist values which would alienate Muslims,low-castes and religious minorities. The party now finds itself faced with a lingering existential question: whether to return to its core base and whole-heartedly embrace the RSS, or continue to project a more centrist image by distancing itself from Hindu fundamentalist dogma. The repudiation of Singh and his open-minded reinterpretation of Jinnah and Pakistan has signaled, to some analysts, which option the party Mandarins have opted for.
(Read "India's Muslims in Crisis.")
Strident Hindu nationalism worked in the 1990s, channeling upper-caste Hindu resentment at the rising political power of the lower castes, and giving voice to urban middle-classes who backed pro-market, liberalizing reforms. Back then, the BJP successfully occupied a nationalist space ceded to it by a weakened Congress staging events harking back to an idealized Hindu past, such as the theatrical "rath yatra" (literally, a chariot ride, but used here to allude to the mythical Lord Rama's quest to slay the evil Ravana) that motivated frenzied crowds of Hindus to demolish an ancient mosque in December 1992, sparking months of Hindu-Muslim carnage. When in power from 1998 to 2004, the BJP renamed popular cities with names they deemed more "native" and changed school syllabi to ingrain a "Hindu" version of Indian history among students, moving away from the greater complexities of India's diverse religious past.
Yet in elections this year, Indian voters seem to have rejected the politics of religious polarization in favor of stability and economic growth. "Hindu nationalism worked in the 1990s, but today, it is on the margins. It goes against the popular mood," says New Delhi-based political analyst Mahesh Rangarajan. In terms of economic reforms, the BJP seems to have placed itself against a growing consensus. When in opposition, it has been an outspoken critic of the Congress party-led government's liberalization policies, seeking to speak for workers and small businesses perceived to have been disadvantaged by reforms. This marks a reversal from its own professed business-friendly politics when in power not long ago.
The only hope for the BJP, says Jyotirmaya Sharma, professor of politicalscience at the University of Hyderabad, lies in becoming a more mature, modern conservative party espousing the Hindu cause but without the corrosive influence of radical ultra-nationalism. "They need to clarify their stand on a range of issues from liberalization and foreign policy, especially Pakistan, to their stance vis-a-vis religious and other minorities," he says. Sharma agrees that the BJP's current leadership is incapable of leading the party in this direction. Also, as many political analysts have pointed out, the BJP's sectarian agenda is often at odds with the spirit of India's pluralist democracy an internal reckoning and re-branding is necessary, but not in sight.
(Read "In Drought, India's Economy is Feeling the Heat.")
Ironically, amidst the furor created by Jaswant Singh's pro-Jinnah remarks,the BJP top brass seem to have overlooked the fact that Singh lays the blame of Partition mostly on the Congress party and its leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru, India's much-admired first Prime Minister. But it also serves as a reminder that the BJP is the Congress' only real competitor at the national level, and the only likely foil to Congress' national dominance. For decades, the Congress party was the lone player in Indian national politics, a status quo which led to political stagnation. Until the BJP gets its act together, India could teeter down that path once again.
Omar1984
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,296
- Reaction score
- 0
Pakistan is a reality and no one can undo what happened on August 14, 1947 sixty-two years later because of a book, especially if the book is from an Indian.
Most of the Pakistanis who saw partition have passed away. 180 million Pakistanis would never identify themselves as Indians. Pakistani is our identity and I can never imagine these people identifying themselves anything other than Pakistani.
Last edited:
Similar threads
