Lotus_stalk
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2016
- Messages
- 837
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
Final political battle was against Gandhi-Nehru vs Hinnah, On Jinnah's calling 90% of Muslim in Indian subcontinent voted to create Pakistan. Only poor muslims stayed in India who could not emigrate to Pakistan.I didn't claim Tipu Sultan to be a saint, he was a ruler just like any other contemporary King of his times. He did what rulers normally do. So my point was, why single him out when others were no better. Marathas raped, plundered, pillaged and killed but they never receive the flak like Tipu Sultan does.
It wasn't Jinnah who first brought up the 2 nation theory, it was Hindu nationalists who opined so, Here are some excerpts for you...
In the late 19th century, Nabagopal Mitra, one of the pioneers of Hindu nationalism, authored a paper in which he described the Hindus of India as a nation that was better than the Muslims and the Christians. He added that ‘the basis of national unity in India was the Hindu religion’ and that the Hindus should strive to form an ‘Aryan nation.’
In an early 20th century pamphlet, Bhai Paramanand, a leading member of the Hindu reformist movement the Arya Samaj, described the Hindus and Muslims as being two separate nations who were ‘irreconcilable.’ In his autobiography, ‘My Life’, Pramanand mentions how in 1908 he called for an exchange and settling of Hindu and Muslim populations in different geographical areas.
In a December 14, 1924 article in the Bombay daily, The Tribune, Congress leader and Hindu nationalist Lajpat Rai too called for a ‘clear partition of the region into a Hindu India and non-Hindu India …’
In 1923, poet and playwright, VD Savarkar, coined the word, ‘Hindutva’ in a book (also titled Hindutva). He coined the word to mean ‘Hinduness’ and wrote that the Muslims (and the Christians) of India were outside of ‘Hindu nationhood.’ Then, in 1937 while speaking at the 19th session of the influential Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar insisted ‘there are two nations in India: Hindus and the Muslims.’
In 1939, MS Golwalker — the supreme leader of the radical Hindu organisation the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) — published his book, ‘We, Or Our Nationhood Defined’. In it he asserted that the minority communities of India (specifically, Muslim) should merge with the Hindu nation or perish. He wrote that non-Hindus in India could not be considered Indian unless they were ‘purified’ (i.e. converted to Hinduism).
Its chief mentor V.D. Savarkar formulated the two-nation theory in his essay Hindutva, published in 1923, 16 years before Jinnah came up with it. The Hindu Mahasabha leader Lala Lajpat Rai wrote in The Tribune of December 14, 1924:
"Under my scheme the Muslims will have four Muslim States: (1) The Pathan Province or the North-West Frontier; (2) Western Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It means a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Mulsim India." This was 16 years before the League adopted the Pakistan Resolution in Lahore, on March 23, 1940 (emphasis added, throughout). Prof. Muhammad Aslam Malik claims: "The present study concentrates only on how the resolution was shaped. It deals with the subject exhaustively and explains some of the intriguing questions objectively... Nevertheless, it is not the last word on the subject." This stroke of modesty is preceded by a sustained belittling of all others who wrote on the subject. In bringing to light important archival material, the author renders high service. In proceeding to analyse them, however, he only amuses the reader when his aim, apparently, is to enlighten him. One who can confidently assert that B. Shiva Rao was "the proprietor of The Hindu", that the hill-station Matheran, which Jinnah loved, was an "island", and that Sir Chimanlal Setalvad was a Parsi, can assert anything. He draws freely on his imagination. "It can be imagined that Jinnah would have agreed to favour Sir Sikandar only when the latter agreed to support the League's Pakistan proposition, which he had vehemently opposed at the Delhi meeting of the Working Committee. It can also be visualised that, for the sake of saving his face, Sikandar should have demanded the inclusion of some of his suggestions in the 'outline'..."
The author is out to prove a thesis which some people in India also espouse - Jinnah was for Partition from the mid-1930s and the Lahore Resolution was not a bargaining counter. He thinks that his leader is belittled if the contrary is averred. One is reminded of the judge who said "this court may often be in error, but it is never in doubt."
There were four forces at work then. The historians of the Hindu Right, R.C. Majumdar and A.K. Majumdar, refer in Struggle for Freedom (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan; 1969; page 611) "to one factor which was responsible to a very large extent for the emergence of the idea of Partition of India on communal lines. This was the Hindu Mahasabha..." Recently, the veteran socialist Prem Bhasin wrote: "The ease with which a large number of Congressmen and women - small, big and bigger still - have walked into the RSS-BJP boat and sailed with it is not a matter of surprise. For, there has always been a certain affinity between the two. A large and influential section in the Congress sincerely believed even during the freedom struggle that the interests of Hindu Indians could not be sacrificed at the altar of a united Independent India. Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and Lala Lajpat Rai had, for instance, actually broken away from the Congress and founded the Nationalist Party which contested elections against the Congress in the mid-twenties" (Janata; Annual Number, 1998). G.B. Pant was the architect of the Ayodhya problem.
Source:
http://caravandaily.com/portal/how-hindu-right-helped-propound-the-2-nation-theory-and-pakistan/
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1826/18260810.htm
Saying that India is secular because of majority Hindus is like stating Turkey is secular because it is a muslim majority. It was popular Leaders like Nehru etc who sold the idea of secular state to masses and bought the idea, the way Modi is selling his idea of India and many Hindus seem to latch it up in the present times.
Not a single Hyderabadi muslim participated in Indian Independence? LOL brush up your knowledge. Sayyid Ahmedullah Qadri was a Hyderabadi muslim and a freedom fighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Ahmedullah_Qadri
Its an irony that those who never fought for Indian independence are doling out Nationalism certificates.
Do you post just for the sake of it? Your source clearly stated that muslims were majority in Jammu yet you keep coming back stating otherwise. Your source also states that it was Hari Singh who initiated this massacre and you speak of some "reaction".
Not sure why you brought up Dalits into the debate. And for the rest of your post, you just posted what is already known and what other rulers including Hindu Kings did during their rule.
Hyderabad's Nizam and muslim elite where first with Turks Mughals Afghans etc against local Hindus, then they were with British against Tipu sultan, then in Independence era they were with Pakistan against India. These people in video emigrated to Britain after Operation polo 1948, see their views, not pressurized by India.
