Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian

#219/#220 MANTO

Thanks for informing your love and affection for Indus.My best wishes to Indus.

It does not matter whether the area on the banks of Indus was always part of the mainland or not. The matter is that Indus and its banks were not the basis of creation of Pakistan out of undivided India.

Subcontinental civilisation is 5000 years old now. I firmly believe that the subcontinental history has remained frozen after Aurangzeb. The subsequent British Rule is not the part of our History. Its our Dark Age. We have to start again from Mughal Period. The Mughals named their kingdom as ``Hindustan`` which which was spread from Kandhar to Deccan and from Balochistan to Bengal. The Mughals made constant efforts to unite the subcontinent in the South and North-east. When we talk of Hindustan, we talk of Mughal Legacy which is our the nearest History.

As far as your legal position regarding Pakistan is concerned, the legal positions are not sacrosanct, they change with the times. Legally speaking, the agreements British made with the Indian Nawabs are still valid. So does that mean that we have to pay the taxes to the Crown and the East India Company in perpetuity.

Shishapa,

Lets not jump up and down just because we are don`t understand what the other person is saying...

The point about the Indus state was simple. If Indian unity was NOT a fact (which it was not) then you shouldn`t have a problem accepting Pakistan as is... just like we shouldn`t have a problem accepting Bangladesh. 500 years of unity vs 4500 years of disunity... If the Holy Roman Empire existed, it is no reason why Austria and Germany should be one country (and they are not), despite being German speaking protestant christians all... Just because William of Normandy conquered England doesn`t imply French-English unity.

Kapeesh? Maybe not I don`t think you are in a position to understand this given your closeminded hindu nationalist views that are unable to take into account history as is.

The theory given above has nothing to do with the politics of 1940- which has been discussed to death above.

Re # 211

``1- the Primordial Indus state (divorced from Ganges) which has existed as an independent entity for most of the last 5000 years... except 500 years or so under Maurayas, Aurangzeb and the British... ``

So only Muslims in Indus area were feeling this way? Not Hindus, who had been living in
that area even before Muslims arrived there?
And some how only Muslims from Ganges area had this primordial urge to return to Indus
area?

Joshi ji

Even though your research is bad and your writing skills are worse then mine ( very incoherent write up), I must convey my GRATITUDE for your efforts to show Hindus as they wre during those days.
In nutshell, your article makes following points:-

1. Hindu society was NOT casteridden as it is usually claimed by other religions. People of ANY AND EVERY caste had a fair chance of occupying ANY AND EVERY POST EVEN THE HIGHEST OF KING if they had requisite qualities.

2. Brahminism has been WRONGLY CRITICISED as main factor responsible for hindus backwardness. BRAHIMNS of those times WERE PROGRESSIVE AND INTELLIGENT to see which side the wind was blowing. THEY were PRAGMATIC when it came to deciding matter judiciously and WERE NOT DOGMATIC in following ancient books.

3. Hindu society never SHIRKED from LEARNING great ideas from others. Shivaji found observing Aurengzeb`s reign that barbaric punishment was good for maintining law and order and so adopted the same.

Thanks again, young man. You have made my day.

Regards

PS: And don`t show us your true colors by suggesting that I said I reject everything pre-1947. You said that and attributed it to me...

I reject nothing- infact had you not been so dishonest- you would see that I based Pakistan`s legal foundations in the Independence of India Act 1947 which is the culmination of pre-1947 happenings.

Dear Bolta Aina,

If you are not aware of a theory then I am afraid it is your fault and lack of information right ? Is it my fault?

The ``most acceptable`` history that you have put up has been refuted by Anil Seal, Ayesha Jalal, Patrick French and H M Seervai. These 4 are now considered to be absolutely necessary if you wish to understand the history of Partition... I accept that I have done nothing but regurgitate their views... especially the fourth one i.e. H M Seervai, who was a leading Indian jurist with a lot of integrity.

Establishing a nation state doesn`t mean there would be no minorities. Indeed thats where secularism in some form becomes important for countries. Are you suggesting that many jews live in USA, Europe, Australia and even Iran, Israel as a state is invalid- because Jews don`t need a homeland anymore? That would be a highly contentious issue... and for Pakistan it is more so... because we are not talking about a few million, but more than a 150 million...

As for the ``Indus view`` - don`t distort what I am saying because either you are deliberately and shamelessly distorting my view or you are just suffering from bad English comprehension. Calling me names will not make your case stronger. If you accept that historically the Indus has been separate (and it has been for all but 500 years) it doesn`t matter if Muslim nationalism established it or not- it is the reaffirmation of an old reality- that India was NEVER one political unit... always a continent. You are the first person I have come across who has blatantly called a man of Aitzaz Ahsan`s stature a ``pseudo-scholar``... but fine... have you read his book ``Indus Saga and the making of Pakistan``?

-YLH

``Your understanding of history is very confused and colored.

The Muslims of Hindu Majority Provinces were using the threat of Muslim majority areas seceding for constitutional safeguards within India... that accurately reflected the reality of Hindu-Muslim relations i.e. separate development of Bourgeoisie and Hindu reformers championing Hindu antecedents like Shivaji to the exclusion of Muslims. ``

If my reading of history is flawed, your reading of history is also equally faulty. All the time you are putting new theories which no one has heard them before. Now you are adding Indus-angle to the partition. The most acceptable part of the history is that when Jinnah kept on insisting for Pakistan and it could not be decided at which area Pakistan can come up because Muslims were scattered at each and every nook and corner of the Undivided India, then Mr.Jinnah came up with the proposal that the area in the East(Bangla desh) and West(current Pakistan) where Muslims are in majority will be made Pakistan and other balance area where Hindus are in majority will be made Hindustan. So one India and Two Pakistans-East & West were born in 1947. This is the most accepted version of International History of the Partition. What more is there ?

Now, your Indus-angle to the Partition. Where it has come from. It has come from your own psudo-scholars which includes you. They are again and again fighting to prove a wrong thing right. When Bangla desh was created, the myth of Two Nations theory was broken. Now what to do. They said ,it only means that Muslims may not be a one nation but creation of Bangla desh does not prove that Hindus and Muslims are one nations. Chalo maan liya. Now when in 21st century, India is seen capable of taking on the challenge of Hindu-Muslim and Pakistan fighting its own battle then how to get convinced that if other Indian Muslims can live together with Hindus in India, why couldnt rest of them? So this Indus-theory. And as I have already said that it does not pass the test of East Pakistan, then you say, I am sticking to the western part.

Most of the times you contradict yourself. If some Indian claims Harrapa-Mohenjodaro to be his own, you have problems. And then you say you dont recognise anything before 1947. You should have problems if some Indian says that Gwadar Port is his, or Kahuta`s Nuclear reactor is his or Miner-e-Pakistan is his--then you have a valid objection.

Before you want to have a discussion and want that you are taken seriously-stick to one point. Thali key baigan ki tarah moving from this side to that side will not help.

Your understanding of history is very confused and colored.

The Muslims of Hindu Majority Provinces were using the threat of Muslim majority areas seceding for constitutional safeguards within India... that accurately reflected the reality of Hindu-Muslim relations i.e. separate development of Bourgeoisie and Hindu reformers championing Hindu antecedents like Shivaji to the exclusion of Muslims.

#215 MANTO

But are you sure that the dream Pakistan of Muslims of Undivided India was to come into reality on the banks of River Indus or Euphrates ?? Or, it was to come on the banks of the Ganges??

When Pakistan was established at the banks of Indus, the majority of Muslims living on the banks of the Ganges did not join it though were free to do so. Pakistan failed on the very same day. What actually came out of Partition was a failed dream of the Muslims of Undivided India.Nothing more.

I can`t speak for Bangladesh but this is reality.

History exists consciously and unconsciously... Whatever you think was the reason for the justified liberation of the Indus state from Ganges domination... the fact of the matter is that Muslim League, a representative party of minority Muslims, had to ultimately use independent Pakistan as a bargaining counter, because such a separatist pull had great mileage amongst the people of Punjab and Sindh... there were 88 different schemes between 1880-1930 emerging from what is now modern Pakistan all calling for a separate federation- many from non-Muslims in the region.

If you accept the Indus reality- which is historically very accurate- then it should hardly matter to you whether it was ultimately the force of Muslim nationalism that liberated the region or something else.

harimau #201

`` I have worked with a guy named Aurangzeb -- of all the places, in Fremont, CA.``

The number of ``Aurangzebs`` would pale compared to the number of Akbars, Humayuns, Jehangirs, Shers, Babars etc.

`` This merely means that you have not wandered into the reality-distortion field known as Tamil Nadu. For a while, the Masanamuthus and Sangilikkaruppans (and Soysauces) of Tamil Nadu were so taken up with the Aryan-Dravidian Divide that they used to pay a person named E. V. Ramsawamy Naicker to select a name for their kids. This person, who was of course named for Lord Rama, used denounce Rama as an Aryan invader of the South and laud Ravana as the True Defender of the Dravidians. He used to name kids Ravana and similar Puranic names, completely forgetting that Ravana was supposedly a brahmin on account of his being the son of a sage (rishi). In fact, my sister had a classmate named Surpanakha! ``

I have meet plenty of people with ``Tamil names``. I have yet to meet a single ``Ravana`` or ``Duroyodhana``. You seem more hung up on Dravidian rhetoric than even the originators.

#211 MANTO

``the Primordial Indus state (divorced from Ganges) which has existed as an independent entity for most of the last 5000 years... except 500 years or so under Maurayas, Aurangzeb and the British... ``

But the above, unfortunately, was not the basis of the creation of Pakistan and division of our lands and its people.

If what you say is true, then why East Pakistan was created?? It was always the part of what , according to your definition is ,``India``.

The country and the people were not divided on the basis of seniority/ juniority in terms of length of time a particular part/its people have remained together with the mainland. It was divided on something other than this.

SALIMBHAI/OTHERS.

There is no point discussing and dissecting A.Zeb-Shivaji, Akbar-Maharana Pratap etc. etc. They all represent our process of evolution into a Modern, Secular State what we are today. When we got independence from the Birtish and became a republic on 26th January.1950, we have surrendered all our history , all our lands, all our heroes to the Nation. Nothing belongs to you and me anymore, it all belongs to the nation. All the historic figures except two i.e. Jai Chand and Mir Jaffar, are either heroes or all of them are villains. There is no third categorisation.

We will be commiting treason we if we label somebody as foreigner or somebody as more- Indian-than-the-other. Segregating people on communal lines is the worst insult we can inflict on our Secular credentials and nature. We have to take care in this regard.

Bolta Aina...

I am afraid you`ve been unable to comprehend the nuances in what I suggested.

I told you two things which equally contributed to my Pakistani nationalism...

1- the Primordial Indus state (divorced from Ganges) which has existed as an independent entity for most of the last 5000 years... except 500 years or so under Maurayas, Aurangzeb and the British...

2- the new constitutional and legal reality of the republic...

Even if we ignore 1 ... my friend by the very definition of 2- taxilla is in Pakistan`s borders...

Yes our cultures are similar and our history was the same for about 500 of the last 5000 years... but the reality is 1 and 2.

#94 MANTOLIVES

``Just like Taj Mahal is 100% Indian... Taxila is Pakistan`s heritage so I say hands off! ``

This is a clear No-ball from you. On hand you say that you dont recognise anything which existed prior to 1947 as far as Pakistan is concerned..then how can you lay your hands on any history prior to 1947. Its all our because we dont recognise and never will 1947.

Taj Mahal is not Indian and Taxila is not Pakistani. Both of them are Hindustani. Thats what I have emphasising every now and then.

Our land has been divided, its people have been divided. But for God`s sake ,dont divide the history, culture, wind, sky, rivers, mountains and what have you.

Re:einsteinwallah#202

You wrote,``...we should do is to keep Pakistan as an adversarial state forever just to reap more and more benefit out of unity...``

India`s synergies across north-south and east-west are not because of our adversarial relationship with Pakistan or Bangladesh. The reaction against jihadi attacks is definitely a catalyst for synergy. However, the real cause of our synergy is our sound economic and political system. We have a strong growing economy which is encouraging synergy in a big way by providing opportunities to everyone. Also we have a robust democratic system that enables people to negotiate their differences and come up with acceptable compromises.

Having said that, I am under no illusions about Pakistan. Pakistanis in general, save a few exceptions like Salim Chauhan, have extreme ill-will against India. If it is not overt jihadi mindset, it is covert two-nation theory based hostility. In fact, Pakistan has officially followed exactly the advice you are giving, which is to make India an adversarial state forever to reap synergies. They have done that very well, which is why the majority of their population hates India. However, they have not pursued the real way to build synergies i.e. democracy and economic growth. Thats why they broke up in 1971 and are still facing so many internal problems.

From a purely Indian nationalistic perspective, it makes immense sense for us to integrate Indian muslims fully into our system. Leaving behind 120 million people with the potential for jihadi behavior makes no sense. Therefore, the current thaw with Pakistan gives us a great tactical advantage to totally integrate Indian muslims into our mainstream. That means massive spread of education, shutdown of any madrassahs, propagation of secular ideals like uniform civil code, spreading message for family planning, providing scholarships to deserving muslim students to go for higher education, providing micro-loan programs to deserving muslims to help them start businesses etc. Having adversarial relations with Pakistan makes Indo-Pak relations a proxy for hindu-muslim relations which provides an excuse for the mullahs to hold back Indian muslims from integrating with the mainstream. The other benefit is to solidy our hold on Kashmir. If the LOC fencing is solid and the jehadi supplies are turned off in Pakistan to some extent, it gives us the opportunity to consolidate in Kashmir.

But does that mean that we lose the benefits of an adversarial relationship with Pakistan i.e. getting us all united against a common enemy? Well, we have nothing to fear since Pakistanis are too stupid to let go of the enmity with India. It is so ingrained in their education and social system, that it will take them 100-200 years to get over it if they start today, even though it makes no sense for them and keeps them economically backward. We can always count on the right wing in Pakistan to make anti-Indian noises and keep the adversarial flames burning for a very long time. But by getting some thaw, it may be just the right opportunity for us to fix some of our internal issues and help us move towards our real goal - which is to be an economic superpower. By some chance if Salim Chauhan manages to convert all Pakistanis to his viewpoint, we may have a real problem :-). Hopefully by then, our positive synergies may be enough to sustain us and also we may get additional synergies from trade with Central Asia to build up on our economic base even more.