Two Nation Theory

[Joe Shearer]

Thank you.

I had similar results to report, but in addition, it is not clear that the Muslim peasantry was in any way greatly involved before the 40s. The point of that is that claiming Gandhi's movement had the complete support of the Muslim peasantry is unsubstantiated, and is unlikely, considering the widely disparate results soon afterwards.

But these are emotive issues; as the advice to young English barristers went: When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. And when you don’t have either the law or the facts on your side, pound the table!

I'm afraid we're about to witness a lot of pounding!

 

[KS]

Thank you.

I had similar results to report, but in addition, it is not clear that the Muslim peasantry was in any way greatly involved before the 40s. The point of that is that claiming Gandhi's movement had the complete support of the Muslim peasantry is unsubstantiated, and is unlikely, considering the widely disparate results soon afterwards.

But these are emotive issues; as the advice to young English barristers went: When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. And when you don’t have either the law or the facts on your side, pound the table!

I'm afraid we're about to witness a lot of pounding!

Did i hear u pound the table just now..?

Well where r the sources "dear sir" tht u threatened to unleash on me..?

 

[Jackdaws]

well lets look at the election results.

election results of 1937 which is before Pakistan resolution:

political manifesto: of ML and Congress were almost identical with only two major differences. 1, congress stood for joint electorates and the ML stood for separate electorates. 2, congress wanted hindi as official language with Deva Nagri script of writing while ML wanted Urdu with Persian script.

results: congress emerged as the single largest party but failed to secure even 40% of the total number of seats. out of the 1771 total seats in the 11 provinces, congress was only able to win slighly more then 750. thus the results clearly disapproved Gandhi's claim that his party reprented all of india. its sucess was mainly confined to the hindu constituencies. out of the 491 muslim seats, it could only capture 26.
ML condition was also bad enough as it could only win 106 muslim seats.

1945-46 elections after Pakistan resolution:

this time manifestos were totally different. ML stood in the election with following 'if you want pakistan, vote for the Muslim League'
congress stood for united india. the congress also tried to get support of all the provincial and central muslim parties who had some difficulties with the League, and backed them in the elections.

results for Central Legislature: Muslim league had won every muslim seat, securing about 87% of the muslim votes cast in muslim constituencies. It won all the 30 seats reserved for the muslims.
Congress was able to sweep the polls for the non muslim seats. they managed to win more then 80% of the general seats.

results for Provincial elections: these were also not very different. Congress won most of the non muslim seats while Muslim League captured approximately 95% of the muslim seats. the ML won 440 of 492 Muslim seats while congress won 930 seats.

the results clearly showed that Muslim league had become a single Muslim political force which demanded a separate country for Muslims.

That's just one election. There is uncertain fluidity in a democratic process. I bet if the Muslims who voted for ML realized that they would lose the very right to vote and be divided into 3 different countries - they wouldn't repeat their mistake.

 

[ajpirzada]

That's just one election. There is uncertain fluidity in a democratic process. I bet if the Muslims who voted for ML realized that they would lose the very right to vote and be divided into 3 different countries - they wouldn't repeat their mistake.

yup it was just one election in which Muslims decided that they wanted an independent state. one, but surely an important election.

also wat u r saying is that given the opportunity, pakistanis and bangladeshis would lik to merge with india? y i say this is bec only if we want to reverse our history, u can argue that muslims would not have voted for ML had they realised all wat u mentioned. also take into account tht indians on avg are not much better than pakistanis. in terms of per capita income, poverty level and other development indicators. had india totally transformed into developed state, only then some of us might be thinking of starting to regret partition.

 

[EjazR]

@ajpirzada

The results you quoted are for the Muslim only seats. In places like NWFP or Sindh the muslim has to compete in general seats as they were in majority.

If you look at the final election results in terms of seats. ML did not have a majority in either NWFP, Punjab or Sindh. Although it still had a significant support base. Balochistan was under direct rule so there were no elections there. In Bengal, the workers party which had been winning elections all along allied with ML this time and hence ML had a comfortable majority there. In Sindh also a european member joined the ML which allowed it to gain a one member majority in the assembly.

Moreover, the election manifesto was not to create Pakistan as the current borders stand but as a vote for Islam. Many people were unaware of what the new borders would be or even weather a new country would be created. Hence the Cabinet Mission plan exercise. Ayesha Jalal mentions this in quite detail about what the elections meant (from her perspective) to Jinnah.
-------------------------

I personally think that the TWT is not a sustainable concept for present day Pakistan. IMO eve Jinnah rejected it when he mentioned that in the eyes of the state you are no longer Hindu or Muslim. When Indian reject the TWT it should not be looked as rejection of Pakistan which is a reality. These two should be separated.

 

[EjazR]

Here is an interesting recent article that discusses Punjab politics post 1940s

Daily Times - VIEW: The demand for Pakistan and Islam —Ishtiaq Ahmed

The Muslim League’s propaganda struck terror in the hearts of the Hindus and Sikhs who were told that they would be paying jazya and Islamic law will prevail in all sectors of individual and collective life. The minority Shia and Ahmediyya communities were also fearful that it would result in Sunni domination

The recent attack on a congregation of Ahmedis during prayers, which claimed more than 90 innocent lives, has revived a discussion as to whether there is a connection between the creation of Pakistan and Islam. Within the Muslim League there was always a constituency in favour of Pakistan becoming an Islamic state. One of its proponents was a close confident of Jinnah: Raja Sahib Mahmudabad, a Shia. In 1939 he wrote to the historian Mohibul Hassan:

“When we speak of democracy in Islam it is not democracy in the government but in the cultural and social aspects of life. Islam is totalitarian — there is no denying about it. It is the Quran that we should turn to. It is the dictatorship of the Quranic laws that we want — and that we will have — but not through non-violence and Gandhian truth” (Mushirul Hasan, 1997: 57-8).

If the March 23, 1940, Lahore Resolution be taken as the start of the Pakistan campaign, then Jinnah had to make a breakthrough in the Muslim-majority provinces of northwestern India — Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh — each of which had regional parties headed by Muslims. The Muslim League had to convince the Muslim voters in these provinces that their leaders were courting Hindus and Sikhs and thus were paving the way for Hindu Raj under the Indian National Congress. That opportunity arrived in July 1945 when the British government announced provincial elections for February 1946. Punjab Governor Sir Bertrand Glancy has recorded in several secret fortnightly reports (FR) the tactics that the Muslim League adopted during the long election campaign. In the FR of December 27, 1945, Glancy noted:

“Among Muslims the Leaguers are increasing their efforts to appeal to the bigotry of the electors. Pirs and maulvis have been enlisted in large numbers to tour the province and denounce all who oppose the League as infidels. Copies of the Holy Quran are carried around as an emblem peculiar to the Muslim League. Feroz [Khan Noon] and others openly preach that every vote given to the League is a vote cast in favour of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). These deplorable tactics, as I have frequently said, were only to be expected; they provide a grim augury of the future peace of India and they are certainly not easy for the Unionists to counter” (Lionel Carter, 2006: 160).

In the FR of February 2, 1946, Glancy wrote:

“The ML [Muslim League] orators are becoming increasingly fanatical in their speeches. Maulvis and pirs and students travel all round the province and preach that those who fail to vote for the League candidates will cease to be Muslims; their marriages will no longer be valid and they will be entirely excommunicated...It is not easy to foresee what the results of the elections will be. But there seems little doubt the Muslim League, thanks to the ruthless methods by which they have pursued their campaign of ‘Islam in danger’, will considerably increase the number of their seats and Unionist representatives will correspondingly decline” (Carter, 2006: 171).

Similar tactics were adopted in the campaigns in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh. In his doctoral dissertation, India, Pakistan or Pakhtunistan?, Erland Jansson writes:

“The pir of Manki Sharif...founded an organisation of his own, the Anjuman-us-asfia. The organisation promised to support the Muslim League on the condition that Shariat would be enforced in Pakistan. To this Jinnah agreed. As a result the pir of Manki Sharif declared jihad to achieve Pakistan and ordered the members of his anjuman to support the League in the 1946 elections” (pg 166).

Jinnah wrote in November 1945 a letter to Pir Manki Sharif in which he promised that the Shariat would apply to the affairs of the Muslim majority. He wrote:

“It is needless to emphasise that the Constituent Assembly, which would be predominantly Muslim in its composition, would be able to enact laws for Muslims, not inconsistent with the Shariat laws and the Muslims will no longer be obliged to abide by the un-Islamic laws” (Constituent Assembly of Pakistan Debates, Volume 5, 1949, pg 46).

The Muslim League’s propaganda struck terror in the hearts of the Hindus and Sikhs who were told that they would be paying jazya and Islamic law will prevail in all sectors of individual and collective life. The minority Shia and Ahmediyya communities were also fearful that it would result in Sunni domination. This is obvious from the correspondence between the Shia leader Syed Ali Zaheer and Jinnah in July 1944 (G Allana, 1977: 375-9). Although the Council of Action of the All-Parties Shia Conference passed a resolution on December 25, 1945, rejecting the idea of Pakistan (SR Bakshi, 1997: 848-9), most Shias shifted their loyalty to the Muslim League in the hope that Pakistan will be a non-sectarian state. Initially the Ahmediyya were also wary and reluctant to support the demand for a separate Muslim state (Munir Report, 1954: 196). It is only when Sir Zafarullah was won over by Jinnah that the Ahmedis started supporting the demand for Pakistan. To all such groups Jinnah gave assurances that Pakistan will not be a sectarian state.

In my forthcoming book on the partition of Punjab, now running into more than 1,000 pages but which is at last completed and for which I am now looking for a publisher, I will shed light on how the fierce Islamist propaganda impacted on the partition of Punjab. The Sikhs had more fears than anyone else about what could happen to minorities in Pakistan. In a meeting in May 1947 sponsored by Lord Mountbatten to help the Muslims and Sikhs reach an agreement on keeping Punjab united, Jinnah offered the Sikhs all the safeguards they wanted if they agreed to support Pakistan. Only in March 1947 some 2,000-10,000 Sikhs — depending on who you cite — were butchered in the Rawalpindi rural areas so the Sikhs were very wary of Jinnah’s overtures. Chief Minister of Patiala Hardit Singh Malik writes he had an inspiration and asked Jinnah: “Sir you are making all the promises but God forbid if something happens to you, what will happen then?” The exact words Jinnah used in reply will be revealed in my forthcoming book, but the reasoning was that his followers will treat his words as sacred.

Ishtiaq Ahmed is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Stockholm University. He is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a Garrison State? He can be reached at isasia@nus.edu.sg

 

[toxic_pus]

Thank you.

I had similar results to report, but in addition, it is not clear that the Muslim peasantry was in any way greatly involved before the 40s. The point of that is that claiming Gandhi's movement had the complete support of the Muslim peasantry is unsubstantiated, and is unlikely, considering the widely disparate results soon afterwards.

I understand that it is directed to me since I am the only one who made the point of Muslim support. Let me clarify that my understanding was based on narratives of Philip Talbot and Durga Das. And yes I am well aware of the election results of 1937.

History without a timeline means jack$hit, something an amateur historian should know. 'Gandhi's movement' around which time? 'Afterwards' of what? '37 provincial elections? Lahore Resolution? Failure of Cripp's Mission? Failure of Quit India Movement? Failure of Gandhi-Jinnah talks? Failure of Shimla conference? Failure of Cabinet Mission?

Between the provincial elections of '37 and '46 some of the most critical events in the history of Indian freedom struggle had happened. Just a cavalier 'soon afterwards' doesn't cut it, neither does a rejection, with a hand wave, of Muslim support of Gandhi circa 1940-42 just because you think it is 'unlikely'.

I had already clarified that I was referring to the period circa 1940. During that period of time ML was mostly an urban phenomenon and had no where near the influence that Gandhi had among the rural population in general and Muslim peasantry in particular. This continued till, at least, Quit India movement in 1942, which saw substantial support of Muslim population in spite of ML trying everything to scuttle it.

I am more than willing to accept that it was not the case if you cite something to that effect.

But these are emotive issues; as the advice to young English barristers went: When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. And when you don’t have either the law or the facts on your side, pound the table!

I'm afraid we're about to witness a lot of pounding!

So that's what your credo is, because the only pounding that we are hearing is coming from a certain table in a certain state in North-Eastern India. And the Morse code coming from that table reads 'I-am-right-because-I-said-so'.

Anyway, my other point remains unaddressed. Was a sectarian (non)theory of TNT necessary to make the point of overbearing Hindus?

 

[Raghu]

Here is an interesting recent article that discusses Punjab politics post 1940s

Daily Times - VIEW: The demand for Pakistan and Islam —Ishtiaq Ahmed

The Muslim League’s propaganda struck terror in the hearts of the Hindus and Sikhs who were told that they would be paying jazya and Islamic law will prevail in all sectors of individual and collective life. The minority Shia and Ahmediyya communities were also fearful that it would result in Sunni domination

The recent attack on a congregation of Ahmedis during prayers, which claimed more than 90 innocent lives, has revived a discussion as to whether there is a connection between the creation of Pakistan and Islam. Within the Muslim League there was always a constituency in favour of Pakistan becoming an Islamic state. One of its proponents was a close confident of Jinnah: Raja Sahib Mahmudabad, a Shia. In 1939 he wrote to the historian Mohibul Hassan:

“When we speak of democracy in Islam it is not democracy in the government but in the cultural and social aspects of life. Islam is totalitarian — there is no denying about it. It is the Quran that we should turn to. It is the dictatorship of the Quranic laws that we want — and that we will have — but not through non-violence and Gandhian truth” (Mushirul Hasan, 1997: 57-8).

If the March 23, 1940, Lahore Resolution be taken as the start of the Pakistan campaign, then Jinnah had to make a breakthrough in the Muslim-majority provinces of northwestern India — Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh — each of which had regional parties headed by Muslims. The Muslim League had to convince the Muslim voters in these provinces that their leaders were courting Hindus and Sikhs and thus were paving the way for Hindu Raj under the Indian National Congress. That opportunity arrived in July 1945 when the British government announced provincial elections for February 1946. Punjab Governor Sir Bertrand Glancy has recorded in several secret fortnightly reports (FR) the tactics that the Muslim League adopted during the long election campaign. In the FR of December 27, 1945, Glancy noted:

“Among Muslims the Leaguers are increasing their efforts to appeal to the bigotry of the electors. Pirs and maulvis have been enlisted in large numbers to tour the province and denounce all who oppose the League as infidels. Copies of the Holy Quran are carried around as an emblem peculiar to the Muslim League. Feroz [Khan Noon] and others openly preach that every vote given to the League is a vote cast in favour of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). These deplorable tactics, as I have frequently said, were only to be expected; they provide a grim augury of the future peace of India and they are certainly not easy for the Unionists to counter” (Lionel Carter, 2006: 160).

In the FR of February 2, 1946, Glancy wrote:

“The ML [Muslim League] orators are becoming increasingly fanatical in their speeches. Maulvis and pirs and students travel all round the province and preach that those who fail to vote for the League candidates will cease to be Muslims; their marriages will no longer be valid and they will be entirely excommunicated...It is not easy to foresee what the results of the elections will be. But there seems little doubt the Muslim League, thanks to the ruthless methods by which they have pursued their campaign of ‘Islam in danger’, will considerably increase the number of their seats and Unionist representatives will correspondingly decline” (Carter, 2006: 171).

Similar tactics were adopted in the campaigns in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh. In his doctoral dissertation, India, Pakistan or Pakhtunistan?, Erland Jansson writes:

“The pir of Manki Sharif...founded an organisation of his own, the Anjuman-us-asfia. The organisation promised to support the Muslim League on the condition that Shariat would be enforced in Pakistan. To this Jinnah agreed. As a result the pir of Manki Sharif declared jihad to achieve Pakistan and ordered the members of his anjuman to support the League in the 1946 elections” (pg 166).

Jinnah wrote in November 1945 a letter to Pir Manki Sharif in which he promised that the Shariat would apply to the affairs of the Muslim majority. He wrote:

“It is needless to emphasise that the Constituent Assembly, which would be predominantly Muslim in its composition, would be able to enact laws for Muslims, not inconsistent with the Shariat laws and the Muslims will no longer be obliged to abide by the un-Islamic laws” (Constituent Assembly of Pakistan Debates, Volume 5, 1949, pg 46).

The Muslim League’s propaganda struck terror in the hearts of the Hindus and Sikhs who were told that they would be paying jazya and Islamic law will prevail in all sectors of individual and collective life. The minority Shia and Ahmediyya communities were also fearful that it would result in Sunni domination. This is obvious from the correspondence between the Shia leader Syed Ali Zaheer and Jinnah in July 1944 (G Allana, 1977: 375-9). Although the Council of Action of the All-Parties Shia Conference passed a resolution on December 25, 1945, rejecting the idea of Pakistan (SR Bakshi, 1997: 848-9), most Shias shifted their loyalty to the Muslim League in the hope that Pakistan will be a non-sectarian state. Initially the Ahmediyya were also wary and reluctant to support the demand for a separate Muslim state (Munir Report, 1954: 196). It is only when Sir Zafarullah was won over by Jinnah that the Ahmedis started supporting the demand for Pakistan. To all such groups Jinnah gave assurances that Pakistan will not be a sectarian state.

In my forthcoming book on the partition of Punjab, now running into more than 1,000 pages but which is at last completed and for which I am now looking for a publisher, I will shed light on how the fierce Islamist propaganda impacted on the partition of Punjab. The Sikhs had more fears than anyone else about what could happen to minorities in Pakistan. In a meeting in May 1947 sponsored by Lord Mountbatten to help the Muslims and Sikhs reach an agreement on keeping Punjab united, Jinnah offered the Sikhs all the safeguards they wanted if they agreed to support Pakistan. Only in March 1947 some 2,000-10,000 Sikhs — depending on who you cite — were butchered in the Rawalpindi rural areas so the Sikhs were very wary of Jinnah’s overtures. Chief Minister of Patiala Hardit Singh Malik writes he had an inspiration and asked Jinnah: “Sir you are making all the promises but God forbid if something happens to you, what will happen then?” The exact words Jinnah used in reply will be revealed in my forthcoming book, but the reasoning was that his followers will treat his words as sacred.

Ishtiaq Ahmed is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Stockholm University. He is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a Garrison State? He can be reached at isasia@nus.edu.sg

It seems Mr Jinnah promised everything to everybody.

In fact be precise,IMO he is everything to everybody.

While someone like Emo can refer to Mr Jinnah's Karachi address after partition and argue that Quid-e-Azam always wanted a secular modern state of Pakistan, where religion cease to matter...at the same time her opponents can argue that Jinnah had in fact dreamed up a Muslim state which would be governed according the tenets of Islam , exactly what happened in Pakistan after his death.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Thank you.

I had similar results to report, but in addition, it is not clear that the Muslim peasantry was in any way greatly involved before the 40s. The point of that is that claiming Gandhi's movement had the complete support of the Muslim peasantry is unsubstantiated, and is unlikely, considering the widely disparate results soon afterwards.

But these are emotive issues; as the advice to young English barristers went: When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. And when you don’t have either the law or the facts on your side, pound the table!

I'm afraid we're about to witness a lot of pounding!

Did i hear u pound the table just now..?

Well where r the sources "dear sir" tht u threatened to unleash on me..?

Dear Sir,

Er…not actually.

The pounding sound you heard was my hitting the head against the wall. I’d just read your previous post. ☺

Before going to the comments and responses, I am surprised at your imaginative selection of words. It is not clear to me who threatened you; I did not, and do not appreciate words being put in my mouth.

Nor is it clear what you fear will be unleashed on you. If you believe that ideas, facts and evidence are like wild animals or ferocious raptors, and need to be leashed, and unleashed as the situation demands, it is your misfortune, but please do not ascribe such beliefs to others without foundation.

Here are your comments, and the responses with the sources below. Enjoy:

First let me start by saying that im a Tamilian....that too a pure unadulterated ISI(indian standard ) Tamilian ,born,brought up and living in Tamil Nadu for that past 24 years.

So hopefully i know more abt my land than one from Assam.

I am afraid your hopes are about to be belied.

Your number of years as a Tamilian and of living in Tamil Nadu have nothing to do with your knowledge of the local situation. If somebody else has spent greater time in Tamil Nadu, would you defer to him?

If your answer is yes, then you should defer to my judgement on these matters. My credentials are at the bottom of my comment.

However, fortunately for you, I don't agree with your view, that the length of time one spends in a place determines one's local knowledge. Only the evidence that you deploy can show that.

Dear Sir,

You are certainly entitled to object to anything under the Sun, but for what reason? If I were to state that the Earth rotates around the same Sun, and you choose to object to it, without adding reasons, and merely demanding that I update my knowledge, would that be reasonable?

Please recollect what I actually said:

1. Tamilians are a minority, and are one of the minorities to be compared to Muslims;

The first point is itself wrong.Ur comparing a religion with an ethinicity.Apples and Oranges.

If we take from a pure Religious POV then we r majority with the Hindu population being 89 % of the total in TN.

Census_2001_TN

Tamil_Nadu Demographics


And if we take from an ethnic pov then Tamils with abt 65 million population are one of the largest ethnic groups in India..

This is going to be a long slog.

The first point I made was very pertinent. I had already explained, in painful detail, which you evidently didn’t bother to read, that in my opinion, based on whatever I have studied, identity is composed of different attributes at different times, and that religion is only one of them; language, ethnicity, and locational culture being others. I had made the point in that post itself that this was where the TNT was lacking, and that it misled Pakistan and indirectly led to Bangladesh. My post is still on record.

Bang Galore made the point that only the Muslim minority were exercised about their minority status, and asked which other minorities were so concerned. To which I replied with a list of minorities and explained briefly what form their opposition had taken.

At this point, apparently unnoticed by you, the discussion had moved towards the question of minorities, away from the question of religious minorities alone.

To return to the argument concerning minorities. Some were successful; most were not. The explanation for the success of one only is that the Muslims were the most organized and the best led.

The Hindu population being 89% of the population of Tamil Nadu has nothing to do with it. The issue in Madras, as it then was, was the feeling among Dravidian leaders that Dravidians were exploited by 'Aryans' from North India. This was a false categorisation, but this is what they thought, and this is what influenced politics then. This led them to believe that Dravidians and their identity was under threat from the overwhelming number of North Indians.

My reference to minorities was detailed and cannot be mistaken as a question of religious minorities alone.

This minority feeling among Tamils was purely to the resentment felt by the Dravidian movement to the domination of North Indians.

You mention a figure of 65 million Tamilians, and claim that that makes it one of the largest ethnic groups in India.

Of course it is. In what way does that make the Tamil population anything other than a minority in India taken as a whole? The Indian population is 1.18 billion. Clearly, other than the 65 million, the others are not Tamilian. What does the arithmetic suggest to you? And moreover, the number of Indian Muslims is 138 million; why does anybody refer to them as minority, if the vast number of 65 million is not a minority?

Either way we r not a minority.

The first way was not relevant. The second was, and the numbers speak for themselves.

Your opinion where opinion is involved, is important. Unfortunately, on arithmetical matters, opinions don’t matter – yet.

2. At one time, they were subject to centrifugal forces;

May i know wat those "centrifugal forces" were..?

With pleasure.

I am intentionally quoting from ‘Wikipedia’, contrary to my usual habit, to allow you equal and almost immediate access to the sources. However, two or three paragraphs within this particular entry are very topical; I have included them, as they make fascinating reading.

Please read on:
Dravidistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - cite_note-Nicholas_Dirks_Castes_Mind-14

"A separatist conference was held in June 1940 at Kanchipuram when Periyar released the map of the proposed Dravida Nadu. With the promised grant of full self-government after World War II, and posed another threat to the Indian Freedom Movement However, it failed to get British approval. On the contrary, Periyar received sympathy and support from people such as Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and Muhammad Ali Jinnah for his views on the Congress, and for his opposition to Hindi. They then decided to convene a movement to resist the Congress. By the 1940s, Periyar supported Muslim League's claim for a separate Pakistan, and expected its support in return.

In an interview with the Governor of Madras, Jinnah, the main leader of Muslim League, said that India should be divided into four regions: Dravidistan, Hindustan, Bengalistan and Pakistan; Dravidistan would approximately consist of the area under the Madras Presidency. Jinnah stated "I have every sympathy and shall do all to help, and you establish Dravidistan where the 7 per cent Muslim population will stretch its hands of friendship and live with you on lines of security, justice and fairplay."

3. They are no longer of that frame of mind now.

So why bringing it up now..?

I brought it up because Bang Galore asked a question. I was responding to his query about other minorities.

This is not about your personal loyalty; it is about an historical situation.

Please tell me which of these you find objectionable, and why.

Im finding ur whole post objectionable saying Tamils want independence from India.

Even today we consider ourselves to be more Indian than a Tamil or as a Hindu.

I can't help you much if it is an emotional issue with you. BTW, when you say you consider yourselves to be more Indian than a Tamil, what is it that you mean? Thirdly, the word you should use is 'wanted', not 'want'.

Unfortunately, your objections don’t count as historical evidence yet. The facts are in front of you. You weren’t around to see Tamilians burning signposts, buses, and chasing North Indians around, so it is a little late in the day for you to make an appearance and declare that whatever you object to is no longer historically valid. I’m sorry, but it seems that you have no case apart from your personal annoyance.

On my side, I am prepared to cite evidence, the moment it is sought.

Let me see ur sources and wat they say btw.

If you have any more queries, I will be glad to answer them. However, that will not be possible before Monday, due to pressure of work. Please try to restrict yourself to logic and reason, and leave the emotions behind at the door.

About 'Joe Shearer':

I came to serve in the South in 1981, five years before you were born. Since then, until 2006, my service has been in Chennai or in Bangalore. That makes me an observer of Tamilian current affairs and politics for five years more than you, for whatever that is worth, except that I left Chennai in 2006. My roots go back much further than that, however.

If you go to the Guild of Service on RaceCourse Road in Coimbatore, and examine the foundation stone, you will find my maternal grandmother’s name as the person who laid the foundation stone. This grandmother was a personal friend and lifelong correspondent of Ida B. Scudder, of whom you may have heard. You probably have not.

My mother and I were born in Madras Presidency, as were my maternal uncles. Both my uncles played cricket for Presidency College. All of them spoke fluent Tamil; my grandmother spoke Telugu as well. Col. Gill, of Gillnagar, and his son, Lt. Gen. Inder (Norman) Gill, the para-trooper, were family friends; but that set of friends and acquaintances would fill more than a page on this blog site. It includes the past Editor of The Hindu, as well as a polo-playing Chettiar petrochemical baron associated with cricket.

And, for what it’s worth, my wife is a Vadagalai Iyengar, while my 28-year old daughter was a correspondent for The Hindu.

I have worked in the North-East since 2006. However, home is Bangalore even now, and I return there whenever I can.

 

[KS]

Dear Sir,

Er…not actually.

The pounding sound you heard was my hitting the head against the wall. I’d just read your previous post. ☺

U gotta do that my man..no wonder.

Before going to the comments and responses, I am surprised at your imaginative selection of words. It is not clear to me who threatened you; I did not, and do not appreciate words being put in my mouth.

Metaphor....u seem to be well versed in english...so its a surprise that u took my words literally rather than figuratively. My bad.

Nor is it clear what you fear will be unleashed on you. If you believe that ideas, facts and evidence are like wild animals or ferocious raptors, and need to be leashed, and unleashed as the situation demands, it is your misfortune, but please do not ascribe such beliefs to others without foundation.

And ur point is my good man...?

I am afraid your hopes are about to be belied.

Too early to assume....

Your number of years as a Tamilian and of living in Tamil Nadu have nothing to do with your knowledge of the local situation. If somebody else has spent greater time in Tamil Nadu, would you defer to him?

Of course it has......if i go and speak about uganda to a Ugandan without myself being there would it not sound foolish..? Definitely.

If your answer is yes, then you should defer to my judgement on these matters. My credentials are at the bottom of my comment.

However, fortunately for you, I don't agree with your view, that the length of time one spends in a place determines one's local knowledge. Only the evidence that you deploy can show that.

Yeah i saw ur credentials...but FYI my whole friggingg 14 identifiable generations has its roots in Tamil Nadu...so even then my point stands.

The first point I made was very pertinent. I had already explained, in painful detail, which you evidently didn’t bother to read, that in my opinion, based on whatever I have studied, identity is composed of different attributes at different times, and that religion is only one of them; language, ethnicity, and locational culture being others. I had made the point in that post itself that this was where the TNT was lacking, and that it misled Pakistan and indirectly led to Bangladesh. My post is still on record.

Still ur making the same mistake as in ur first post.First u started off with religious minorities and then descended upon ethinic minorites and in this case Tamils.

And for that i ve clearly proved that Tamils both from an ethnic POV and religious POV were not a minority at that time or now.

Still ur beating around the bush in flowery terms.

Bang Galore made the point that only the Muslim minority were exercised about their minority status, and asked which other minorities were so concerned. To which I replied with a list of minorities and explained briefly what form their opposition had taken.

At this point, apparently unnoticed by you, the discussion had moved towards the question of minorities, away from the question of religious minorities alone.

To return to the argument concerning minorities. Some were successful; most were not. The explanation for the success of one only is that the Muslims were the most organized and the best led.

The Hindu population being 89% of the population of Tamil Nadu has nothing to do with it. The issue in Madras, as it then was, was the feeling among Dravidian leaders that Dravidians were exploited by 'Aryans' from North India. This was a false categorisation, but this is what they thought, and this is what influenced politics then. This led them to believe that Dravidians and their identity was under threat from the overwhelming number of North Indians.

Utterly false..spoke like a true man who doesnt know the history of Tamil Nadu.

During the independence movement and immediately after it there was never a single voice that demanded freedom from the Indian Union.

Since ur the once accusing us of wanting independence..the burden of proof is on u..and im waiting for it..

Indeed Tamil Nadu gave some of the greatest freedom fighters,patriotic poets and at that time the Tamil cine industry was the most nationalistic one fully espousing the cause of a free India.

My reference to minorities was detailed and cannot be mistaken as a question of religious minorities alone.

This minority feeling among Tamils was purely to the resentment felt by the Dravidian movement to the domination of North Indians.

You mention a figure of 65 million Tamilians, and claim that that makes it one of the largest ethnic groups in India.

Of course it is. In what way does that make the Tamil population anything other than a minority in India taken as a whole? The Indian population is 1.18 billion. Clearly, other than the 65 million, the others are not Tamilian. What does the arithmetic suggest to you? And moreover, the number of Indian Muslims is 138 million; why does anybody refer to them as minority, if the vast number of 65 million is not a minority?
The first way was not relevant. The second was, and the numbers speak for themselves.

Your opinion where opinion is involved, is important. Unfortunately, on arithmetical matters, opinions don’t matter – yet.

U dont even understand the basic ground realities in India..do u..?

U gave a simple 2+2 = 4 formula to prove 65 million in 1.18 billion is a minority.
I would have whole-heartedly agreed with u if India were a ethnically homogenous nation like Saudi Arabia,China or say Japan.

But India is anything other than that..

there are thousands and thousands of ethnic groups in India and how many of them have a population of abt 65 million.....Very few that u can count on ur fingers.

So on that count still Tamils are not a minority.

And as for the question then y Muslims are considered a minority.....from a religion POV they r just 13% compared to a Hindu population of abt 81%.....

I hope u got the answer.

With pleasure.

I am intentionally quoting from ‘Wikipedia’, contrary to my usual habit, to allow you equal and almost immediate access to the sources. However, two or three paragraphs within this particular entry are very topical; I have included them, as they make fascinating reading.

Please read on:
Dravidistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - cite_note-Nicholas_Dirks_Castes_Mind-14

"A separatist conference was held in June 1940 at Kanchipuram when Periyar released the map of the proposed Dravida Nadu. With the promised grant of full self-government after World War II, and posed another threat to the Indian Freedom Movement However, it failed to get British approval. On the contrary, Periyar received sympathy and support from people such as Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and Muhammad Ali Jinnah for his views on the Congress, and for his opposition to Hindi. They then decided to convene a movement to resist the Congress. By the 1940s, Periyar supported Muslim League's claim for a separate Pakistan, and expected its support in return.

In an interview with the Governor of Madras, Jinnah, the main leader of Muslim League, said that India should be divided into four regions: Dravidistan, Hindustan, Bengalistan and Pakistan; Dravidistan would approximately consist of the area under the Madras Presidency. Jinnah stated "I have every sympathy and shall do all to help, and you establish Dravidistan where the 7 per cent Muslim population will stretch its hands of friendship and live with you on lines of security, justice and fairplay."

Thanx for bringing in this....If u think this validated ur point...sorry ur mistaken...

Speaking of Periyar he was just one man who tried to prey on the emotions of the people in search of his own-fiefdom.
But why his objective failed....?Dont say it was because of lack of mobilisation but because no-one really cared for a separate Tamil Nadu.
Our leaders were pragmatic enough to see that a separate Nation is not possible in the long run..

And wat do u expect of Jinnah...to oppose that....??

He wasnted a separate nation and he would gladly support anyone to support his own demand.

I brought it up because Bang Galore asked a question. I was responding to his query about other minorities.

This is not about your personal loyalty; it is about an historical situation.

U seem to have mistaken the Anti-hindi riots of 1965 to the Independence option ....mishy mashed it and came up with ur opinion.

Let me give the BG on that for u....first see this Link

For ur convinience.....

After an exhaustive and divisive debate, Hindi was adopted as the official language of India with English continuing as an associate official language for a period of fifteen years, after which Hindi would become the sole official language. The new Constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Efforts by the Indian Government to make Hindi the sole official language after 1965 were not acceptable to many non-Hindi Indian states, who wanted the continued use of English.

As the day (26 January 1965) of switching over to Hindi as sole official language approached, the anti-Hindi movement gained momentum in Madras State with increased support from college students. On 25 January, a full-scale riot broke out in the southern city of Madurai, sparked off by a minor altercation between agitating students and Congress party members
To calm the situation, Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri gave assurances that English would continue to be used as the official language as long the non-Hindi speaking states wanted. The riots subsided after Shastri's assurance, as did the student agitation.

So the issue for Tamils was not a physical repression from hindi speaking people as it is made out to be in ur posts..but rather a psycholigical effect of suppressing their language and rightly so.

But even then nowhere was the demand for independence echoed on a large scale..We were still proud Indians.

I can't help you much if it is an emotional issue with you. BTW, when you say you consider yourselves to be more Indian than a Tamil, what is it that you mean? Thirdly, the word you should use is 'wanted', not 'want'.

I mean (when i say "I", I mean the whole of Tamil Nadu) consider ourselves a Proud Indians as our main indentity.the Tamil identity comes second only to that.
Hope i ve clarified it to u..

Unfortunately, your objections don’t count as historical evidence yet. The facts are in front of you. You weren’t around to see Tamilians burning signposts, buses, and chasing North Indians around, so it is a little late in the day for you to make an appearance and declare that whatever you object to is no longer historically valid. I’m sorry, but it seems that you have no case apart from your personal annoyance.

Further proof of u thinking that the Anti-Hindi Language imposition protests were a protest for independence from the Indian Union.
I have already de-bunked ur claims above.

If you have any more queries, I will be glad to answer them. However, that will not be possible before Monday, due to pressure of work. Please try to restrict yourself to logic and reason, and leave the emotions behind at the door.

If u cant find logic and reason in my above posts...sorry i ve chosen the wrong person to argue..
BTW there is an emotion involved wen u wrongly accuse one of something they havent done.

About 'Joe Shearer':

I came to serve in the South in 1981, five years before you were born. Since then, until 2006, my service has been in Chennai or in Bangalore. That makes me an observer of Tamilian current affairs and politics for five years more than you, for whatever that is worth, except that I left Chennai in 2006. My roots go back much further than that, however.

If you go to the Guild of Service on RaceCourse Road in Coimbatore, and examine the foundation stone, you will find my maternal grandmother’s name as the person who laid the foundation stone. This grandmother was a personal friend and lifelong correspondent of Ida B. Scudder, of whom you may have heard. You probably have not.

My mother and I were born in Madras Presidency, as were my maternal uncles. Both my uncles played cricket for Presidency College. All of them spoke fluent Tamil; my grandmother spoke Telugu as well. Col. Gill, of Gillnagar, and his son, Lt. Gen. Inder (Norman) Gill, the para-trooper, were family friends; but that set of friends and acquaintances would fill more than a page on this blog site. It includes the past Editor of The Hindu, as well as a polo-playing Chettiar petrochemical baron associated with cricket.

And, for what it’s worth, my wife is a Vadagalai Iyengar, while my 28-year old daughter was a correspondent for The Hindu.

I have worked in the North-East since 2006. However, home is Bangalore even now, and I return there whenever I can.

And wen u said 1981,five years i was born...sorry man as i previoulsy said my 14 generation were here....My great grand father was a freedom fighter,My grand father was involved in the Anti-Hindi protests and i definitely know a great deal about them...

BTW dont forget ur credible sources on Monday...

 

[ajpirzada]

@ajpirzada

The results you quoted are for the Muslim only seats. In places like NWFP or Sindh the muslim has to compete in general seats as they were in majority.

If you look at the final election results in terms of seats. ML did not have a majority in either NWFP, Punjab or Sindh. Although it still had a significant support base. Balochistan was under direct rule so there were no elections there. In Bengal, the workers party which had been winning elections all along allied with ML this time and hence ML had a comfortable majority there. In Sindh also a european member joined the ML which allowed it to gain a one member majority in the assembly.

Moreover, the election manifesto was not to create Pakistan as the current borders stand but as a vote for Islam. Many people were unaware of what the new borders would be or even weather a new country would be created. Hence the Cabinet Mission plan exercise. Ayesha Jalal mentions this in quite detail about what the elections meant (from her perspective) to Jinnah.
-------------------------

I personally think that the TWT is not a sustainable concept for present day Pakistan. IMO eve Jinnah rejected it when he mentioned that in the eyes of the state you are no longer Hindu or Muslim. When Indian reject the TWT it should not be looked as rejection of Pakistan which is a reality. These two should be separated.

well i fail to understand how does all this change anything. ML won all the Muslim seats in centre and 95% in provinces. where they didnt, local parties aligned with it lik you mentioned bangal. as for balochistan, they later willingly became part of pakistan. there was a referendum held in NWFP on the grounds of 3rd June plan. 244 votes were cast in favour of pakistan out of 289. ML was never expected to win any non muslim seats due to it manifesto.

and the cabinet mission statement was declared 'rope walking' by Jinnah who further said 'We acknowledge the Hindu majority of India but i want to reiterate that muslims of india are not a minority but a nation and self determination is their bring right.' Jinnah called a convention April, 1946, of all muslim members of the Central and Provincial Assemblies. A resolution was passed in which muslims said that they will never accept any constitution based on the concept of United India: it demanded there should be two constitution-making bodies, one for pakistan and another for Hindustan and if the constitution contrary to ML demand would be imposed on Muslims, they would resist such a move.' ML had further demanded that the six provinces of Bengal, Assam, Punjab, NWFP and Baluchistan be constituted into an independent state of pakistan. No agreement was reached as Congress wanted to start from the central government. Congress wanted one independent state for the whole sub-continent and league wanted independent states.

Simla conference also failed on a similar note.

then came cabinet plan which suggested to divide provinces into three groups. one of hindu majority and two of muslim majority (northern and eastern). each group was to have its own constitution, and each would be autonomous in all departments, except defence, foreign affairs and communication which would be controlled by the Union of India. The groups had the right to secede from the indian federation after 10 years. ML accepted the plan and entered the central gov. congress also accepted the plan but did not enter the gov. Nehru who became the president of Congress declared in bombay 'once we get the power and are in the govt, we will act according to our desire and plan'. after this ML rejected the proposal and resolved that 'direct action' be resorted to achieve the aim.

its was after this that ML took a direct course to achieve pakistan. but the manifesto of ML was always clear. it wanted separate state for muslims where they could make their own constitution. be it in the form of union of india or 100% independent pakistan. but thanks to nehru's statement, we didnt get tricked.

and about TNT not taking into account ethnic and geographic limitations. well if u read the 1940 resolution you will read the word 'states' with an 's'. ML never wanted one state for all muslims in india but more than one depending on the geography. later when it became clearer that britishers were leaving much earlier, it became politically impossible and hence ML had to ask for one state alone to make it sound sensible.

about Jinnah's speech after the creation of pakistan, well lets not get into this. its a whole new topic. ill quote Jinnah mentioning new contitution to be based on islamic principles which were democracy, equality and social justice which will then allow everyone to be free to go to their religious places and do watever they want. furthermore TNT was never about kicking out all the minorities from muslim majority areas but had to do with muslims having a right to make their own constitution in their majority areas. so on these two grounds, Jinnah's speech was 100% compatible with TNT.

 

[vsdoc]

It is my opinion that there is great irony in a thread that runs 16 pages dissecting Two Nation theory, in a time and a place where the reality is that there are actually Three Nations. Where are the Bangladeshis?

Cheers, Doc

 

[deepak75]

Thank you.

I had similar results to report, but in addition, it is not clear that the Muslim peasantry was in any way greatly involved before the 40s. The point of that is that claiming Gandhi's movement had the complete support of the Muslim peasantry is unsubstantiated, and is unlikely, considering the widely disparate results soon afterwards.

But these are emotive issues; as the advice to young English barristers went: When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. And when you don’t have either the law or the facts on your side, pound the table!

I'm afraid we're about to witness a lot of pounding!

Dear Sir, during my schooling days at a boarding school around Shimla, as a member of the English Club (language), I was fortunate to be mentored by a certain Mr. Williams.

Now our old Mr. Williams, after he had made life hell for us over all of the academic term, had a way of imbibing lasting education.

One particular year, he kept on summarily rejecting all of our weekly essays thru the term with a wave of his hand. He would tear and dismissively throw our papers, sometimes even before reading them, would say “my dog can write better” and would tell us to rewrite the same essay and submit for grading. He was quite lenient with grades so even though we had to rewrite the essays, we did not mind all that much.

At the end of that term, on one miserably cold and snowy winter evening, after our preps, Mr. Williams invited us all to his home and treated us to a most delectable of Chettinad meals that he had himself cooked (I missed mentioning that he was a Tamil and a bachelor). And after having fed our ugly and cold faces, he told us to quiet down our giggling and gather around the bukhari to listen to him.

And it was then that he said something that has stayed with me to this day and which I will remember to my pyre and from hereon I quote him,

You mutts, you make me worry about the legacy that you will create for your alma mater. Even though I kept trying to educate you all year and kept tearing your disgusting papers, yet you just won’t come around to learn a simple thing!

Always remember that eloquence is an utter waste of a language if it does not convey your message

Unquote. (I only replaced a particular adjective with "mutts" as I am not sure of Mr. Williams choice of the epithet that evening passing the muster on this forum).

Not daring to spite you Sir. You are evidently a very distinguished gentleman but I always believe that everybody can learn from our Mr. Williams. It stood me in good stead in my life to this day.


Now to what you wrote in response to our dear Karthic’s post:

It is important Sir that we keep a point of reference while discussing history. I think our friend toxic_pus alluded to that already. Without the point of reference, our discussion completely loses relevance.

In-re our discussion of the muslims as a minority chosing a separate country, while responding to Bang Galore’s post you also drew reference to a several strata of the Indian society as minority populations, which is non-relevant because in 1947, they all chose to be a part of India and this is exhibited in the sweeping results in favor of Congress in their territories to which you, yourself attributed credibility.

Neither did the Dravidians nor other strata of the Indian Diaspora that you mentioned in your list of 7 to Bang Galore, ask for a separate nation except for the muslims.

Though history can be quoted per expediency, the relevance is what is most important. Thus to ensure the relevance of our discussion, it is important that we discuss TNT in-situ as was in 1947 and not draw a reference to matters such as the Dravidian resistance which as Kartic highlighted, occurred not till the 60s.


Finally about your introduction: Thank you very much Sir. It is my (and I am sure that of a lot of other Indians on this forum), honour to interact with a gentleman with distinguished antecedents as yourself.

Though I made friends with fellow students of a lot distinguished families during my school days, but more was to follow when for about a year after my B-School, I had the pleasure of staying in Kolkata working for a leading Tea company.

In my days there, during evening piss drinking sessions at CCFC or Tolly, it was fun to be around a lot of people with blue blood and a bunch who thoroughly enjoyed Rugby, Cricket, Polo and had a great –good color in the shirt – life.

For me, in those days, being a part of this social circle was an opportunity beyond my contemplation. Hailing from a poor family of farmers from Gurgaon, Haryana, grandson of a decorated INA Signalman and son of a decorated Indian Army Officer, it was a great opportunity for me to participate in discussions with the current generation of what used to be pre-independence India’s aristocracy and the elite and they were all so friendly and nice to me.

However, over the days I realized that once we move beyond the family names, there was in general no difference, if not superlative, in the intellect and knowledge of a person with a normal lineage vis-a-vis some of my friends with these artistocratic and elite antecedents.

It was then that I truly understood the impact of the role of INA in our history as my grandfather had explained to me.

He said that the biggest achievement of the INA was that it helped dawn up on the Indian psyche that we could beat the British.

Everything from then was only as easy.

And that Sir, is what I think is the beauty of today’s independent India. Today in my lovely country, credibility does not flow from an individual’s bloodline, but from his actions and words.


Happy to yield to you now…..




P.S: I will appreciate your indulgence for continuing our original discussion at a later date. I only seek a hiatus till you have finished your discussions with our friends here so as to not press on your time and focus. In the interim, I remain your sincerely.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir, during my schooling days at a boarding school around Shimla, as a member of the English Club (language), I was fortunate to be mentored by a certain Mr. Williams.

Now our old Mr. Williams, after he had made life hell for us over all of the academic term, had a way of imbibing lasting education.

One particular year, he kept on summarily rejecting all of our weekly essays thru the term with a wave of his hand. He would tear and dismissively throw our papers, sometimes even before reading them, would say “my dog can write better” and would tell us to rewrite the same essay and submit for grading. He was quite lenient with grades so even though we had to rewrite the essays, we did not mind all that much.

At the end of that term, on one miserably cold and snowy winter evening, after our preps, Mr. Williams invited us all to his home and treated us to a most delectable of Chettinad meals that he had himself cooked (I missed mentioning that he was a Tamil and a bachelor). And after having fed our ugly and cold faces, he told us to quiet down our giggling and gather around the bukhari to listen to him.

And it was then that he said something that has stayed with me to this day and which I will remember to my pyre and from hereon I quote him,



Unquote. (I only replaced a particular adjective with "mutts" as I am not sure of Mr. Williams choice of the epithet that evening passing the muster on this forum).

Not daring to spite you Sir. You are evidently a very distinguished gentleman but I always believe that everybody can learn from our Mr. Williams. It stood me in good stead in my life to this day.


Now to what you wrote in response to our dear Karthic’s post:

It is important Sir that we keep a point of reference while discussing history. I think our friend toxic_pus alluded to that already. Without the point of reference, our discussion completely loses relevance.

In-re our discussion of the muslims as a minority chosing a separate country, while responding to Bang Galore’s post you also drew reference to a several strata of the Indian society as minority populations, which is non-relevant because in 1947, they all chose to be a part of India and this is exhibited in the sweeping results in favor of Congress in their territories to which you, yourself attributed credibility.

Neither did the Dravidians nor other strata of the Indian Diaspora that you mentioned in your list of 7 to Bang Galore, ask for a separate nation except for the muslims.

Though history can be quoted per expediency, the relevance is what is most important. Thus to ensure the relevance of our discussion, it is important that we discuss TNT in-situ as was in 1947 and not draw a reference to matters such as the Dravidian resistance which as Kartic highlighted, occurred not till the 60s.


Finally about your introduction: Thank you very much Sir. It is my (and I am sure that of a lot of other Indians on this forum), honour to interact with a gentleman with distinguished antecedents as yourself.

Though I made friends with fellow students of a lot distinguished families during my school days, but more was to follow when for about a year after my B-School, I had the pleasure of staying in Kolkata working for a leading Tea company.

In my days there, during evening piss drinking sessions at CCFC or Tolly, it was fun to be around a lot of people with blue blood and a bunch who thoroughly enjoyed Rugby, Cricket, Polo and had a great –good color in the shirt – life.

For me, in those days, being a part of this social circle was an opportunity beyond my contemplation. Hailing from a poor family of farmers from Gurgaon, Haryana, grandson of a decorated INA Signalman and son of a decorated Indian Army Officer, it was a great opportunity for me to participate in discussions with the current generation of what used to be pre-independence India’s aristocracy and the elite and they were all so friendly and nice to me.

However, over the days I realized that once we move beyond the family names, there was in general no difference, if not superlative, in the intellect and knowledge of a person with a normal lineage vis-a-vis some of my friends with these artistocratic and elite antecedents.

It was then that I truly understood the impact of the role of INA in our history as my grandfather had explained to me.

He said that the biggest achievement of the INA was that it helped dawn up on the Indian psyche that we could beat the British.

Everything from then was only as easy.

And that Sir, is what I think is the beauty of today’s independent India. Today in my lovely country, credibility does not flow from an individual’s bloodline, but from his actions and words.


Happy to yield to you now…..




P.S: I will appreciate your indulgence for continuing our original discussion at a later date. I only seek a hiatus till you have finished your discussions with our friends here so as to not press on your time and focus. In the interim, I remain your sincerely.

@Deepak75

Thank you for your entertaining anecdote, which certainly made a point, and for your reminiscences of Calcutta, again rather pointed, but in an unexceptionable manner.

I could put the same arguments forward in point form if it agrees with you and with others better. Do let me know if that will help convey my meaning more clearly. As far as the self-introduction was concerned, it was only in response to the insolent tone in which I was informed about a part of the country where I have spent the bulk of my working career, and not to demonstrate my blue-blooded superiority. If it comes to that, you will notice that the characters concerned in my account were all professional or civil service Indians; it is true that their friends were the high and mighty, and how else does one silence the boorish?

Your examples regarding the Tamils and the Scheduled Castes are both wrong, and if you had read the Wikipedia article, you would have realised that. The facts are clearly laid out. The heyday of the Tamil agitation was the period of the 40s; by the 60s, there was violence but the movement was in the direction of compromise. But more anon; I just wished to acknowledge your very nice message, whether you meant it in sarcasm or in good humour.

Finally, you must accept my apology for breaking off an incomplete response. The fact is that I have limited time, tend to be painfully detailed in my writing, and keep looking anxiously at old-fashioned things like spelling and punctuation which I am persuaded doesn't matter any more. If I had stayed at the SMS level of communication that one of those you mentioned in your post uses, perhaps I could have replied quicker and easier.

I hope to catch up with answers to you, meaning your original post, and to those who have written subsequently, including this very post, over the weekend. Unfortunately, we always have Heraclitus' example of Achilles and the tortoise.

Sincerely,
'Joe'

PS: May I pay homage to your Mr. Williams by pointing out that you may have substituted a particular noun with the word 'mutts', not a particular adjective.

You will understand how difficult it is for older people in these days of failing grammar, and in some cases, not yours thankfully, failing civility. >

 

[KS]

Your examples regarding the Tamils and the Scheduled Castes are both wrong, and if you had read the Wikipedia article, you would have realised that. The facts are clearly laid out. The heyday of the Tamil agitation was the period of the 40s; by the 60s, there was violence but the movement was in the direction of compromise. But more anon; I just wished to acknowledge your very nice message, whether you meant it in sarcasm or in good humour.

Dear Sir again ur treading the wrong path here.

I have already clarified that u must have mistook the Anti-Hindi agitation in 1960's to be a demand for separate state in the 1940's.
Of course there will be some voices demanding everything under the sun in a period of "free for all".
But wat matters really is the thinking of the silent majority not the wish of the vocal yet puny minority.
The silent majority among the Tamils led by briiliant,farsigted leaders did not support the demand for a free state realising it was not feasible in the long run.

Cheers