Partition Reality

[Spring Onion]

Originally posted by Hammer@Mar 28 2006, 07:21 PM
There you Go!! The Golden moment when Jinnah turned this whole problem into a religious one. Its funny, the champion of secularism asked for a separate state for the muslims.
Nehru remarked about Indian Nationalism and not Hindu nationalism, while Jinnah was talking about a religious community.

[post=7997]Quoted post[/post]​

man dont bask in baise dear.
Jinnah was not a narrow minded person and why he had remarkd liked that it had some reasons.
He was whole heartedly with the Congress but he when he felt that Muslims despite all their loyalities were being sidelined thn he joined Muslim league.
please read the history and u will come to know that he was an active congressmen but alas he also fell victim to biases.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Jana@Mar 28 2006, 09:18 PM
i dont think so i think its time to accept that Pakistan is a reality which if u r honest will approve that u r still not accepting.
now as far as the creation of separate state for Muslims its as clear as anything could although we had not touched a valid reason so far which im gonna post in few days in an article shape on which im wroking on so please wait dear
And till thn try to accept that Pakistan is a reality no matter how much u deny and propogate against.

have a good day

[post=8002]Quoted post[/post]​

Pakistan is a reality and I am in no way disputing it. But I just pointed out that using the justification of religious differences for the creation of Pakistan almost sounded much like Nazi propaganda justifying their ideologies and actions.

 

[Sid]

Hammer, the problem with your thinking is that you fail to acknowledge that Muslims as separate community (the largest minority - 13% of India's population at time of partition) had their own needs and rights which were being denied to them by the Congress (example, cows can't be slaughtered, etc) in addition to political undermining.

If you know a thing or two about politics, having a few Muslims in Congress didn't make Congress a spokes-person party for the Muslims as it was always dominated by Hindus and Gandhi's religious involvement into politics.

Jinnah didn't turn it in to Hindu-Muslim thing from Congress-Muslim League thing because a) Gandhi had already done that earlier by introducing religion in to politics, b)Congress was Hindu dominated while Muslim League was Muslim dominated, the writing was already on the wall and c) if Jinnah wanted to make it a religious issue, he wouldn't have waited until 1940/41 to demand Pakistan.

Jinnah was simply representing a community whose rights and status in Indian social and political environment had to be restored and given a voice to be reckoned with. Now it just so happened that, that community happened to be a religious one! He was always for Hindu-Muslim unity but Congress' 'imperious' attitude and the stubborness on safeguards for Muslims pushed him to the edge after which he was left with no choice but to demand Pakistan as the only way to guarantee rights to the community he represented. It should be kept in mind that Jinnah was the sole person responsible for the Lucknow Pact which showed beyong dispute he wanted unity. It should also be remembered, it was Congress which turned down Cabinet Mission Plan as proposed by the British and then tried to force its own interpretation on the plan on other parties involved later on.

I think you should come up with something more substansive to refute Mr. Seervai's claims. Your extremist remarks putting Muslims and Naziz in the same slot and equating their ideologies really shows what chain of thought your mind is a captive of.

 

[Samudra]

I think you should come up with something more substansive to refute Mr. Seervai's claims. Your extremist remarks putting Muslims and Naziz in the same slot and equating their ideologies really shows what chain of thought your mind is a captive of.

The idea that a certain group of people cannot co-exist with another people just because they subscribe to a religion vastly different than theirs is without any doubt whatsoever akin to Nazism.

To be put it differently, the idea that two people of different cultures and customs(and religion) cannot peacefully co-exist in a society is similar to Nazism.

Hammer has been very accurate in his observation.

Jinnah was simply representing a community whose rights and status in Indian social and political environment had to be restored and given a voice to be reckoned with.

Can you tell us how the community you speak of was denied equal rights and status in Indian social and political environment ?

Please bear in mind that we are not talking about special provisions for a specific community but only fundamental rights which others were guaranteed.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Sid+Mar 29 2006, 03:35 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sid &#064; Mar 29 2006, 03:35 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Hammer, the problem with your thinking is that you fail to acknowledge that Muslims as separate community (the largest minority - 13% of India&#39;s population at time of partition) had their own needs and rights which were being denied to them by the Congress (example, cows can&#39;t be slaughtered, etc) in addition to political undermining.
[/b]

Sid,
I refuse to acknowledge Muslims as a separate community.They are equal citizens of my country and no special status should be accorded to any particular community,which is sadly not the case in India today. Muslims have their own law board in India. FYI, cows are slaughtered all over India.And yes Indian muslims can eat all the cow they want.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 29 2006, 03:35 AM
If you know a thing or two about politics, having a few Muslims in Congress didn&#39;t make Congress a spokes-person party for the Muslims as it was always dominated by Hindus and Gandhi&#39;s religious involvement into politics.

Gandhi meddled both with Muslim and Hindu religious affairs. So he wasn&#39;t being discriminatory.
And Congress never represented Hindus either. But the Indian muslim mindset was that they didn&#39;t see Hindus as their fellow compatriots but just as NON-MuSLIMS and created an imaginary enemy and finally succeeded in breaking apart the nation on the lines of religion.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 29 2006, 03:35 AM
Jinnah was simply representing a community whose rights and status in Indian social and political environment had to be restored and given a voice to be reckoned with. Now it just so happened that, that community happened to be a religious one&#33; He was always for Hindu-Muslim unity but Congress&#39; &#39;imperious&#39; attitude and the stubborness on safeguards for Muslims pushed him to the edge after which he was left with no choice but to demand Pakistan as the only way to guarantee rights to the community he represented. It should be kept in mind that Jinnah was the sole person responsible for the Lucknow Pact which showed beyong dispute he wanted unity. It should also be remembered, it was Congress which turned down Cabinet Mission Plan as proposed by the British and then tried to force its own interpretation on the plan on other parties involved later on.

You failed to show me even one credible evidence that the Congress party was discriminating or acting against the best interests of the Indian Muslims.Congress party tried to undermine the Muslim league, not muslims. Just like they are trying to undermine the BJP or the RSS today.
Jinnah succesfully created an imaginary enemy and won himself a state based on religion.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sid@Mar 29 2006, 03:35 AM
I think you should come up with something more substansive to refute Mr. Seervai&#39;s claims. Your extremist remarks putting Muslims and Naziz in the same slot and equating their ideologies really shows what chain of thought your mind is a captive of.

[post=8022]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
Infact Mr.Seervai&#39;s claims only support my views on how Jinnah played clever politics to change the whole problem into a religious one. I have quoted the same in my previous posts. I am not refuting any of his claims.
Nazis wanted a pure Aryan state for themselves. Pakistanis wanted a pure Islamic state for themselves. Just a basic comparison. One wanted a state based on race and other on religion.Not much of a difference.

Its an irony that the state "secular" Jinnah created became an Islamic one and the one he broke away from became a thriving secular democracy.We achieved what your secular leader only dreamed of.

 

[Sid]

Originally posted by Samudra+Mar 28 2006, 11:11 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Samudra &#064; Mar 28 2006, 11:11 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>The idea that a certain group of people cannot co-exist with another people just because they subscribe to a religion vastly different than theirs is without any doubt whatsoever akin to Nazism.

To be put it differently, the idea that two people of different cultures and customs(and religion) cannot peacefully co-exist in a society is similar to Nazism.

Hammer has been very accurate in his observation.[/b]

You conveniently post and talk about points that follow your chain of thought, because I&#39;m sure you haven&#39;t read through all what I posted from Mr. Seervai&#39;s book. You cannot compare pre-partition Muslims to Nazism. That is just utter garbage; in my entire life, you and Hammer have been the only people to come up with such a theory. Muslims under their leader Jinnah, were more than happy to live in a united India, &#39;provided&#39; they were guaranteed political safeguards. You can only have united India when you&#39;ve addressed the grievances of all concerned parties, of which the Muslims were the biggest. Read through the post which discussed 1937 elections and maybe you will receive some englightenment.

Originally posted by Samudra+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Samudra)</div><div class='quotemain'>Can you tell us how the community you speak of was denied equal rights and status in Indian social and political environment ?

Please bear in mind that we are not talking about special provisions for a specific community but only fundamental rights which others were guaranteed.

[post=8041]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

One example, cows cannot be slaughtered (there are detailed reports on how quickly feuds and communal violence started because some Muslim wanted to eat beef) and Congress lent open support to such religious issues.

Originally posted by Hammer
Sid,
I refuse to acknowledge Muslims as a separate community.They are equal citizens of my country and no special status should be accorded to any particular community,which is sadly not the case in India today. Muslims have their own law board in India. FYI, cows are slaughtered all over India.And yes Indian muslims can eat all the cow they want.

Hammer, the problem with your debating is you lose sight of the time-frame being discussed here. There is no talk over here about what India became after independance. The laws that Muslims have for themselves in present day India and what they can do pertaining to those laws is just a clear example that Indian leaders simply realized the mistake they made pre-partition and learnt from it, because they knew if they didnt, there would be more Pakistans to come. You want to discuss present day India, open another thread; I&#39;m sure we can have interesting debate over freedom for Muslims or their discrimination/indiscrimination (e.g. Babri Mosque, Gujarat Act I and II, etc).

Originally posted by Hammer
Gandhi meddled both with Muslim and Hindu religious affairs. So he wasn&#39;t being discriminatory.
And Congress never represented Hindus either. But the Indian muslim mindset was that they didn&#39;t see Hindus as their fellow compatriots but just as NON-MuSLIMS and created an imaginary enemy and finally succeeded in breaking apart the nation on the lines of religion.

... You failed to show me even one credible evidence that the Congress party was discriminating or acting against the best interests of the Indian Muslims.Congress party tried to undermine the Muslim league, not muslims. Just like they are trying to undermine the BJP or the RSS today.
Jinnah succesfully created an imaginary enemy and won himself a state based on religion.

What you fail to understand here is that it was not about any &#39;enemy&#39;. It was all about the political insecurity of being dominated absolutely my a majority. All minorities share that fear of being dominated, Muslims weren&#39;t talking about something alien, specially to the subcontinent.

<!--QuoteBegin-Hammer@
Infact Mr.Seervai&#39;s claims only support my views on how Jinnah played clever politics to change the whole problem into a religious one. I have quoted the same in my previous posts. I am not refuting any of his claims.
Nazis wanted a pure Aryan state for themselves. Pakistanis wanted a pure Islamic state for themselves. Just a basic comparison. One wanted a state based on race and other on religion.Not much of a difference.[/quote]

If you consider, quoting views out of the context of a larger discussion one of your talents, then that is just sad. I can only suggest revisiting your discussion tactics. Because clearly, if you talk about Mr Seervai&#39;s claims in the context he has used them in his book, then the posts you&#39;ve contributed so far fall flat.

<!--QuoteBegin-Hammer
Its an irony that the state "secular" Jinnah created became an Islamic one and the one he broke away from became a thriving secular democracy.We achieved what your secular leader only dreamed of.[/quote]

Once again you resort to discussion losing sight of the time-frame. What Jinnah wanted was not as much &#39;secular&#39; as &#39;moderate&#39;. Thats why he wanted a &#39;Muslim majority state&#39; and not an &#39;Islamic state&#39;. India succeeded in the years that followed because it inherited established civilian institutions and a massive beauracracy. Pakistan was unfortunate in this case because the land that became Pakistan was mostly used as a army recruiting ground for the British. This is one of the major reasons why Pakistan struggles with civilian rule today (though not all blame can be put to the British).

 

[Samudra]

You conveniently post and talk about points that follow your chain of thought, because I&#39;m sure you haven&#39;t read through all what I posted from Mr. Seervai&#39;s book

I assure you that I have read what you have posted in #16 and #17.I dont find anything wonderfull or new in it.

[Mod Edit: Any more Nazism discussion or comparisons drawn will result in appropriate action taken. If I were to compare Nazism, it is more similar to Hinduism and how Brahmins think about themselves compared to lesser caste Hindus, let alone other faiths. If you wish to beat the Nazism drums, open up a new thread. This one is NOT about it]

Muslims under their leader Jinnah, were more than happy to live in a united India, &#39;provided&#39; they were guaranteed political safeguards

What were the political safeguards demanded by Jinnah?

 

[Sid]

Hammer, just for your satisfaction, I had to go through Mr Seervai&#39;s book again and he answers you well enough on your assertion that Congress was not a Hindu party but a national party representing all Indians. Please read (I quote):

"It has been said I failed to recognize that the Indian National Congress was a national and not a Hindu organization and consequently it alone had the right to speak for the whole of India. To avoid needless controversy, it is enough to recall the radically altered position of the Congress vis-a-vis the Muslim League after the 1945-46 elections. This changed position was recognized in the following forumula which Gandhi and Jinnah signed on 4 October 1946:

The Congress does not challenge, and accepts that the Muslim League now is the authoritative representative of the overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India. As such, and in accordance with democratic principles, they alone have today the unquestionable right to represent the Muslims of India.But the Congress cannot agree that any restriction or limitation should be put upon Congress to choose such representative as they think proper, from amongst the members of the Congress as their representative. Legend and Reality, p. 55. (italics supplied)

In a letter which Nehru wrote to Jinnah, after saying that the formula was not happily worded, Nehru accepted the position set out in the words I have italicized above. The formula was not ultimately adopted, but the facts there set out corresponded to admitted and indisputable facts.

After the 1945-46 elections it was impossible to say that Congress was a national body entitled to speak for the whole of India, for it had no right to speak for between 8 to 9 crores of Muslims. It followed that no settlement could be made by the Congress for the transfer of power without accomodation with the Muslim League. The Cabinet Mission Plan recognized this fact and tried to strike a balance between preserving the unity of India and removing the legitimate fears of the Muslims."

This is just the jist of it. Mr Seervai goes into great details which cover about ten pages atleast, which is too much for me to write here. Congress WAS a Hindu organization (with a sprinkling of Muslims for its &#39;facade&#39; of a Nationalist party) and it just became more obvious after the 1945-46 elections.

Do me a favor, instead of disagreeing futilely with Mr Seervai by quoting his passages out of context; spend about 500 Indian Rupees, buy his book and read it for your own benefit. It is a book which every Indian-in-Denial MUST read.

 

[Hammer]

Sorry for the late reply,I &#39;ve been busy and will be for sometime.So I will try and post as often as I can.

Originally posted by Sid+Mar 30 2006, 12:20 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sid &#064; Mar 30 2006, 12:20 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>You conveniently post and talk about points that follow your chain of thought, because I&#39;m sure you haven&#39;t read through all what I posted from Mr. Seervai&#39;s book. You cannot compare pre-partition Muslims to Nazism. That is just utter garbage; in my entire life, you and Hammer have been the only people to come up with such a theory. Muslims under their leader Jinnah, were more than happy to live in a united India, &#39;provided&#39; they were guaranteed political safeguards. You can only have united India when you&#39;ve addressed the grievances of all concerned parties, of which the Muslims were the biggest. Read through the post which discussed 1937 elections and maybe you will receive some englightenment.
[/b]

What political safeguards did they want? Don&#39;t give me this rubbish about ban
on cow slaughter and some imaginary stuff. Nobody else,be it christians, Buddishts or Jains wanted political safeguards. Whats so special about muslims? Its total rubbish to talk about political safeguards when India was to be formed
as a secular and democratic country.You claim of political safeguard for muslims would&#39;ve been valid had India been formed as a Hindu nation.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 30 2006, 12:20 AM
Hammer, the problem with your debating is you lose sight of the time-frame being discussed here. There is no talk over here about what India became after independance. The laws that Muslims have for themselves in present day India and what they can do pertaining to those laws is just a clear example that Indian leaders simply realized the mistake they made pre-partition and learnt from it, because they knew if they didnt, there would be more Pakistans to come.

Sid, I did not lose sight of the time-frame.I exactly know what
I am talking about. I refuse to acknowledge muslims as a separate
community even during the 1940&#39;s. The muslims wanted some
special treatment, which they didnt and Jinnah used fully to his advantage.
And you really can&#39;t be serious about Indian leaders fearing
more Pakistan. . Except for kashmir no other state has that many
muslims to ask for a separate nation. Don&#39;t overestimate the muslims in
India. If Indian leaders and the population had wanted to take an extreme
stance, they could&#39;ve really purged Islam off the face of India, which they
didnt and that shows they didnt have any sort of aggressive designs over muslims before or after 1947. Jinnah took the Indian muslims for a big
ride.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 30 2006, 12:20 AM
You want to discuss present day India, open another thread; I&#39;m sure we can have interesting debate over freedom for Muslims or their discrimination/indiscrimination (e.g. Babri Mosque, Gujarat Act I and II, etc).
If you consider, quoting views out of the context of a larger discussion one of your talents, then that is just sad. I can only suggest revisiting your discussion tactics. Because clearly, if you talk about Mr Seervai&#39;s claims in the context he has used them in his book, then the posts you&#39;ve contributed so far fall flat.

I am more than ready for it.Why don&#39;t you open one yourself.
Its rather childish to see you shout "Out of context", when its me
who quotes Seervai to prove my points.
He did write those stuff and meant it, didnt he?. His own words prove
that when Nehru was talking about Indian nationalism, while Jinnah all
of sudden takes a new avatar of the savious of muslims and
cries "Mussalmans".

<!--QuoteBegin-Sid@Mar 30 2006, 12:20 AM
Once again you resort to discussion losing sight of the time-frame. What Jinnah wanted was not as much &#39;secular&#39; as &#39;moderate&#39;. Thats why he wanted a &#39;Muslim majority state&#39; and not an &#39;Islamic state&#39;. India succeeded in the years that followed because it inherited established civilian institutions and a massive beauracracy. Pakistan was unfortunate in this case because the land that became Pakistan was mostly used as a army recruiting ground for the British. This is one of the major reasons why Pakistan struggles with civilian rule today (though not all blame can be put to the British).

[post=8099]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

A whole lot of excuses.The idea of Pakistan(whatever that might be)
froze in 1947, while India moved on and was more than successful.

And you are yet to quote one full sentence from Seervai&#39;s
book which explicitly states that Congress was acting against muslims
before 1947.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Sid+Mar 30 2006, 09:48 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sid &#064; Mar 30 2006, 09:48 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Hammer, just for your satisfaction, I had to go through Mr Seervai&#39;s book again and he answers you well enough on your assertion that Congress was not a Hindu party but a national party representing all Indians. Please read (I quote):

"It has been said I failed to recognize that the Indian National Congress was a national and not a Hindu organization and consequently it alone had the right to speak for the whole of India. To avoid needless controversy, it is enough to recall the radically altered position of the Congress vis-a-vis the Muslim League after the 1945-46 elections. This changed position was recognized in the following forumula which Gandhi and Jinnah signed on 4 October 1946:

The Congress does not challenge, and accepts that the Muslim League now is the authoritative representative of the overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India. As such, and in accordance with democratic principles, they alone have today the unquestionable right to represent the Muslims of India.But the Congress cannot agree that any restriction or limitation should be put upon Congress to choose such representative as they think proper, from amongst the members of the Congress as their representative. Legend and Reality, p. 55. (italics supplied)

After the 1945-46 elections it was impossible to say that Congress was a national body entitled to speak for the whole of India, for it had no right to speak for between 8 to 9 crores of Muslims. It followed that no settlement could be made by the Congress for the transfer of power without accomodation with the Muslim League. The Cabinet Mission Plan recognized this fact and tried to strike a balance between preserving the unity of India and removing the legitimate fears of the Muslims."
[/b]

Very funny logic. Congress acknowledging Muslim league as representatives of Indian muslims doesnt naturally make it into a Hindu party. Seriously, where do you even get these ideas?

<!--QuoteBegin-Sid@Mar 30 2006, 09:48 AM
This is just the jist of it. Mr Seervai goes into great details which cover about ten pages atleast, which is too much for me to write here. Congress WAS a Hindu organization (with a sprinkling of Muslims for its &#39;facade&#39; of a Nationalist party) and it just became more obvious after the 1945-46 elections.

Do me a favor, instead of disagreeing futilely with Mr Seervai by quoting his passages out of context; spend about 500 Indian Rupees, buy his book and read it for your own benefit. It is a book which every Indian-in-Denial MUST read.

[post=8129]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
Seervai&#39;s book can&#39;t be interpreted as YOU wish Sid. I challenge you to quote his lines to prove the Congress was a hindu party. Dont just keep repeating stuff when you really can&#39;t prove it with Seervai&#39;s book.It really doesnt prove anything.Its you who has been quoting Seervai out of context so far.
Seervai says Congress recognized Muslim league as the representatives of Indian muslims and you quote that to prove that Congress was a hindu party&#33;&#33; Very illogical and out of context.When did Congress claim to represent hindus? Do you get what I mean?
And thanks for the advice.I will read his book when I get time. Judging by your quotes of Seervai that you have tried so hard to quote "out of context" through out this thread, I dont think its going to do much to change my views about the partition drastically.

 

[Sid]

As much as it pains me to say this, I have to because you will, otherwise not understand what impression I am getting from your posts. Clearly from all that you&#39;ve written so far it makes me believe I&#39;m arguing about politics with a ten year old.

You live in a democratic society, yet the posts you make here, make me think otherwise. In a democratic society, things only work out when the needs of all concerned parties are taken in to account. Other minorities were taken very well in to consideration at the time of partition but Muslims were the largest one (at that time 9 crores against 19 crore Hindus - 1 Muslim for every 3 Hindus as Mr Seervai puts it). Now when you have THAT large a minority, you cannot turn a deaf ear to them which the Congress was bent on doing by repeatedly asking HMG for Dominion status so that when the British leave, they&#39;ll deal with the Muslim League and others as they saw fit.

Congress &#39;accepting&#39; that it DID NOT represent Muslims (but the M.L. did) tells you what, if not what I said? Please do tell me. The fact that Congress acknowledged it did NOT represent Muslims speaks more than anything that it was NOT a nationalist party. I dont know how simpler you want me to make that for you. Please ask any political science student or even a lawyer to explain it to you if you still do not get it. I did not give Mr Seervai&#39;s quotes a twist of my own which is why I said I cannot write ten pages in which he gives too many details. He talks about this Congress acknowledgement of Muslim League as sole representative of the Muslims of India, PRECISELY in the context to show that Congress was a &#39;communal&#39; organization geared towards Hindus - yes he SAYS it very clearly because this point only appears in the latter edition of his book as an answer to some critics who had earlier argued that Mr Seervai was wrong in painting Congress as a &#39;communal&#39; organization in his book&#39;s former edition. He PROVES what he said earlier was right&#33;

Congress&#39; ultimate decision that led to the breakup of British India => Rejection of Cabinet Mission Plan. Biggest mistake in Indian history&#33;

Once again, you haven&#39;t read the book and you are telling me that I have misinterpreted the book (when I&#39;ve read it THRICE). I dont have to interpret it in any way since Mr Seervai clearly keeps reminding his readers what he is talking about.

I won&#39;t even bother arguing with the rest of your comments as this is just a waste of time since you have NOT read the book and continue to rant about things that just aren&#39;t there.

My suggestion once again: Buy the book and enjoy&#33;

 

[sword9]

Gents,
Why are we arguing over an issue over which our beliefs and thinking is at tangents?...

 

[sigatoka]

Sid,
I refuse to acknowledge Muslims as a separate community. No special status should be accorded to any Minority community,which is sadly not the case in India today.


The larger a nation is, the more it has to compromise in order to accomodate differences. Its alright to oppress minority communities but then be ready for rebellion. With the case of the Sikhs who were heavily outgunned, it even worked by ruthlessly military force and street lynchings (1980's).

Hammer if people like you continue to wield influence and power then India will be known as a place where people are burnt, mutilated and raped in the streets for their difference (Gujarat). It will also add to separatist feelings in places like Kashmir.

 

[Hammer]

As much as it pains me to say this, I have to because you will, otherwise not understand what impression I am getting from your posts. Clearly from all that you've written so far it makes me believe I'm arguing about politics with a ten year old.

Funny, I think the same about you.

You live in a democratic society, yet the posts you make here, make me think otherwise. In a democratic society, things only work out when the needs of all concerned parties are taken in to account. Other minorities were taken very well in to consideration at the time of partition but Muslims were the largest one (at that time 9 crores against 19 crore Hindus - 1 Muslim for every 3 Hindus as Mr Seervai puts it). Now when you have THAT large a minority, you cannot turn a deaf ear to them which the Congress was bent on doing by repeatedly asking HMG for Dominion status so that when the British leave, they'll deal with the Muslim League and others as they saw fit.

In a democratic society things will only work when all people leave their damned religion back at home and not wear it on their sleeves.

Congress 'accepting' that it DID NOT represent Muslims (but the M.L. did) tells you what, if not what I said? Please do tell me. The fact that Congress acknowledged it did NOT represent Muslims speaks more than anything that it was NOT a nationalist party. I dont know how simpler you want me to make that for you. Please ask any political science student or even a lawyer to explain it to you if you still do not get it. I did not give Mr Seervai's quotes a twist of my own which is why I said I cannot write ten pages in which he gives too many details. He talks about this Congress acknowledgement of Muslim League as sole representative of the Muslims of India, PRECISELY in the context to show that Congress was a 'communal' organization geared towards Hindus - yes he SAYS it very clearly because this point only appears in the latter edition of his book as an answer to some critics who had earlier argued that Mr Seervai was wrong in painting Congress as a 'communal' organization in his book's former edition. He PROVES what he said earlier was right!

The Congress party, apart from hindus, represented Sikhs, Christians,a part of muslims,Jains, Buddists, athiests and any pagan tribe that may have existed. It is a national party. Acknowledging ML as representatives doesnt make Congress a Hindu party. All the above mentioned faiths doesnt come under hinduism. I bet you dont need a political science student or a lawyer to vouch for that.

Again your logic is skewed. Even if you manage to prove that most Indian muslims supported ML and not the Congress party, it doesnt prove the Congress is a hindu nationalist party.

And instead of repeating that Seervai proved Congress was a national party, why don't you quote him to prove that? Now that is easy, isnt it?

Once again, you haven't read the book and you are telling me that I have misinterpreted the book (when I've read it THRICE). I dont have to interpret it in any way since Mr Seervai clearly keeps reminding his readers what he is talking about.

Man, you have read the book three times and you still couldn't quote one solid line on Congress being a hindu nationalistic party.

I won't even bother arguing with the rest of your comments as this is just a waste of time since you have NOT read the book and continue to rant about things that just aren't there.
My suggestion once again: Buy the book and enjoy!

You managed to prove nothing with that book.

 

[Hammer]

The larger a nation is, the more it has to compromise in order to accomodate differences. Its alright to oppress minority communities but then be ready for rebellion.

In a democratic society, where people of all races and religion live side by side, its imperative that they never ever bring religion into politics. Religion is a very private affair and it should be inside your home and not on the streets. When there is no minority community, why would there be a rebellion? No, I dont mean genocide. The so called minority community owns this land as much as anyone does. They are not a minority.They belong to the majority. Get my logic?

With the case of the Sikhs who were heavily outgunned, it even worked by ruthlessly military force and street lynchings (1980's).

The Sikh terrorists were put down by the Indian army units which was mostly comprised of Sikh majority. The General who lead the operation was a Sikh. The Indian police officer who wiped out the Sikh insurgency is a Sikh.Cry me a river, boy.

Hammer if people like you continue to wield influence and power then India will be known as a place where people are burnt, mutilated and raped in the streets for their difference (Gujarat). It will also add to separatist feelings in places like Kashmir.

You don't know me or what I believe in. So don't bloody judge me.