Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian

Pardon me...

I misquoted Gandhi...

He said: `I am a Hindu first and hence a true Indian` (Secular and Nationalist Jinnah by Dr Ajeet Javed Singh Page 187- JNU Press )

D-M

My two cents...

Sadna-types say that Hindu cultural life is the central motif of Indian nationalism... and that Shivaji, famous for fighting for Hindu swaraj, are Indian heroes... Nehru says Sivaji represented resurgent Hindu nationalism and yet belonged to all of India...

Meanwhile a man like Jinnah, who did not dress Muslim or live the life of a Muslim, gives up the cause of the Indian nationalism after 3 decades of efforts - and he is a ``c`` type...

Gandhiji says ``I am a Hindu therefore a true Muslim``...

Iqbal writes Hindustan Hamara`` and finally gives the idea of Pakistan and he is ``c`` type.

This is called not taking responsibility for your own actions.

Good night.

dost-mittar #229
``This is why, Iqbal and Jinnah, although a generation or two away from their Hindu religion, thought of creating a country based on their religious identity and said that the genesis of tnt was created when the first hindu converted to Islam. I do not see why a change in allegiance from the Granth Saheb to the Quran should cause such traumatic changes. ``

Jinnah and Iqbal were C types(ref #205). The other day I heard debated on Pak TV whether their theory was still relevant or not. Actually, I am puzzled why anyone is having doubts about it in Pakistan and why it is still debated in Pakistan 70-80 years later.

rsridhar: thanks for the write up on clothing styles during the maurya dynasty which i read with interest. amanasandhu had earlier also provided something similar.

as i also wrote to amanasandhu, by noting the contributions of muslim invaders to india i am by no means demeaning the earlier achievements of indian civilization.

and btw, the book from which i have been presenting some of the facts is not written by a Pakistani(India: A History by John Keay). Indeed, if anything, I was amused to note that this writer passes the litmus test for india vs pakistan allegiance in favor of india. the litmus test being the political map of today that he shows, where the international border is shown to include all of kashmir in favor of India, and not just the LoC. So, if anything, one can expect him to be more favorable to india. Nevertheless, i find the book to be factually based (except for this little error) and so it does not matter that he is emotionally closer to india than pakistan. Aside from this slip-up on his part, the book is quite well balanced. Of course this is not the only book i have read recently on the subject, and i plan to read up a few more (including a couple recommended by an indian poster on chowk).

dm #229 I must protest: you were asking me how i can take a correct view of things given my ``muslim identity`` (which in your view is associated with my having a muslim name, my eating beef, not knowing the hindi script and so forth).

i provided you a response to each one of your questions, which you ignored and simply changed your tune to write ``a frequent mistake is made in trying to identify a person with a position he or she is trying to make. `` which is exactly the mistake you made and the mistake I tried to bring to your attention!!

This is very confusing, so let me ask you explicitly: have you changed your mind now, and are willing to accept that we should focus on WHAT is being written, not on WHO is writing them? if the latter is the case, then there is obviously no basis for a discussion.

jang: no doubt the brits brought a +ve view (as you put it) to India. hail to the britskins!! :-)

regarding akbar..he did not marry any of royal daughters to hindus, but mughal practice was not to marry ANY royal duaghters. they were always destined to die in the harem as spinsters..must be something to do with not being able to afford the dahez ;-)

some historians think there is enough (lack) of evidence to think that jodhabais children were raised hindus, at least not as muslim. mughals meticulously recorded each royal fart, but there is no mention at all of jodhabais childrens suntan (muslim ceremony which marks male children as the chosen ones) ceremony. maybe mansingh insisted on it..a rajput may give his sister to a ferner, but a mutilation of a bhanja perhaps was too much :(

in rapjput protected areas, there are magnificent examples of pre-islamic ancient temple and other architecture for everyone to see, even in north india. check out the jain temple inside jaisselmeer fort, or ranakppur complex, a recently discoverd one in Modhera, khajuraho, dilwara. around mathura, the landscape is strewn with old temple rubble, ordinary people use it as construction material in their huts, some are preserved in mathura museum.

it is a fact that ferner muslims got in a few things, but indian perhpas think they could have gotten these without the -ves. additionally, the ferners did not seem to change the society in any earth-shattering ways, like the british did. what the british brought in gets a very +ve view in india. i mean, samarkand was supposed to be a well designed city, with broad avenues, but even old description of Agra is that of a haphazard encampment thru mughal period. only after the british, we get a mall road ;-)

PS:

First of all I stand corrected- a more learned colleague of mine has informed me that the 100 years limit is a fabrication - that indeed there is NO limit to Durand Line agreement as it is not mentioned in the agreement- which is why it forms international border for all practical purposes.

Secondly Article 62 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties- as accepted by the United Nations - which both Pakistan and Afghanistan are members of says:


Article 62
Fundamental change of circumstances

1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:

(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and

(b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.

2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty:

(a) if the treaty establishes a boundary; or

(b) if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.

3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

---

The legal position is: According to Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties it is accepted by all that whenever a new state or new country is carved out of an existing colonial domain, all international agreements and undertakings that the previous ruler of the region had entered into, are transferred to the new independent national government.

Your point about the East India Company is also invalid since in 1873 or was it 1874, Comapny`s agreements, liabilities etc passed onto the crown ... East India Company ceased to be a player in those agreements after the crown took them over very legally.

Shishapa,

And I am saying fine prove it. Historical Sindh extends over Punjab and right up to NWFP. Sindh is Indus ... it is around the river that flows. The 5000:500 ratio is only skewed against the name ``Punjab`` and the name ``NWFP``.

Sindh knows well that without Sindhu river there is no Sindh. It will choose to fight within the federation.


Bolta aina,

I am afraid I can`t accept arbitrary comments like the one you`ve put up.

As far as Durand Line is concerned, that is indeed the position that the Afghans have taken... however it is illegal because as the successor state, Pakistan inherited the territorial agreements of the British Empire- that is the succession principle. For example you pay taxes to the Republic of India, rather than the British Empire- this is also the successor principle. Durand Line was to expire in 1993 I believe... and after that the Afghans were free to re-negotiate it or wrest it from our control. As ferozk pointed out a few months ago on another board- Pakistan and Afghanistan have indeed agreed to accept the Durand Line as the permanent border by agreement.

As for ``yesterday`` or the time that just passed... why not? This is our immediate history - and 1947 determined your present nationality. Now- if you feel that you want to change it - try but I have already told you that I`ll make sure the cost will be very high.

Yours sincerely

YLH

#226 /#227 MANTO

#226

The Britshers had two legs in India. One was the East India Company and the other one was British Crown. The East India Company made many agreements with the Indian Rulers from 1750 onwards upto 1857, when the Company`s Rule was transferred to the British Crown. The agreements made by the East India Company were of its own and had nothing to do with the British Crown or the Parliament.They were on one-to-one basis. Further, they did not have a time-frame as to when they will cease to exist (the most famous of them remains that of Durand Line with Afghanistan). In 1947, the British Parliament made India free from its authority. So, the agreements made by Indian Nawabs and East India Company can still be invoked legally today , if both parties agree or if the East India Company is in a position to enforce them, as British Parliament/Crown was not a party to it.

And if you say that prior to 1947, everything from the Britsh Government has elapsed ``Legally``, then why is your country still clinging to the Durand Line Agreement signed by the British with Afgans in 1893?? Why that has not elapsed??

#227

Thats your way of looking at the things. Then why 20th Century, why 1947, why not yesterday, why not the time just passed by.

When we talk about history, we cover a sufficient long period of time. From 1947 is the history of Modern India, divided India. Its immediate prior history is British Rule which are its Dark Ages and need to be forgotten. So its immediate history becomes that of Mughals.

So where am I wrong??

ranjit, tahmed32, sadna and others:

At chowk, a frequent mistake is made in trying to identify a person with a position he or she is trying to make. I do believe that there are at least two, maybe more, historical perspectives on Indian history. Both these perspectives are based on part facts, part myths. For example, there is the hindu myth that all or most converstions to Islam were forced - I don`t think that most of them were; the muslim myth is that most of these converstions were due to the oppressive caste system of the Hindu religion - I dont think caste was a factor in most converstions, indeed, if conversion did not change one thing in the convert, it was the casteist attitude.

I do not think that these two perspectives are easily reconcilable. Nehruvian India made a sincere attempt to do that by rewriting the British textbooks and using them for more than a generation, but with very limited success. In my opinion, it is best to recognize that these two perspectives exist but maintain that they should have no bearing on the present or future course of history in, at least, India.

As for change, I believe that change is the law of nature, including human beings. But there is a distinct difference between evolutionary and revolutionary change. Personally, I eat beef, enjoy, appreciate and perhaps speak Urdu better than most Pakistanis and would not be able to wear a dhoti if my life depended upon it. All these changes have occurred over a period of time and in a natural way. But when such changes are forced on a person as a consequence of his or her change in faith they have a traumatic effect which transforms one`s identity. This is why, Iqbal and Jinnah, although a generation or two away from their Hindu religion, thought of creating a country based on their religious identity and said that the genesis of tnt was created when the first hindu converted to Islam. I do not see why a change in allegiance from the Granth Saheb to the Quran should cause such traumatic changes.

Tahmed, amansandhu is right, in my opinion, about Guru Nanak. Monotheism is not inconsistent with Hinduism; indeed, some Arya Samaji fanatics would insist that this is indeed the true Vedic philosophy and all the rest are deviations. But you are correct in suggesting that Sikhism did borrow some ideas from Islam. I have always viewed Sikhism as a Hindu body with Islamic apparel. For example, replacing a living guru with a holy scripture which cannot be changed or defiled, the concept of langar/communal kitchen, the concept of using force to resist religious persecution, the concept of equality before God and other similar concepts, and lately the rejection of pluralism in the panth under which several diverse sects existed until recently.

Manto,

All I am saying is that 5000:500 ratio is much more skewed in favour of Sindh
in Sindh:Pakistan equation. So there is nothing sacrosact (sp?) for Sindh to stay in
Pakistan. If Sindh or Baluchistan wants to stay in Pakistan, that for Sindhis and
Baluchis to decide, not you and me.

Now the merits for one region to stay within another region or not to stay, people do
concoct reasons for either to justify, right or wrong.

PS: Your nearest history is the 20th century and Independence of India Act 1947.

Bolta-aina,

``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. ``

I am afraid you are not very well versed with the working of the law. The British authority was extinguished legally with the Independence of India Act 1947... with amendment to the Government of India Act 1935 which provided for two legal successor states i.e. The Dominion of Pakistan and the Dominion of India (on insistence of Nehru). It must be recalled that Nehru and the Congress, as a party to the negotiations, vetoed the ``Dominion of Bengal`` proposed by Sarat Chandrabose from the Congress and Suhrawardy from the Muslim League, which was endorsed by Jinnah (So much for your ironic claim that 1971 ended the original idea of Pakistan- if anything it undid Congress` insistence in 1947).


Shishapa,

Try to extend that logic- I challenge you... but historical reality is that Sindhudesh aka Indus State exists alongside Sindhu river hence Punjab is also Sindhudesh ... and the people of Balochistan generally remain in favor of the federation of Pakistan.

Do you think the people of Sindh, who vote for PPP and PML two national parties, are stupid enough to forego a federation that is their only guarantee of of water? The people of Sindh, barring a few idiots here and there, are well aware that if Sindh was to separate from its upper region aka Pakistani Punjab, there would no ``Sindhu`` river for Sindh to live by. It makes an indivisible whole... they know that even against Kalabagh, their best hope is in the federation rather than out of it.

-YLH

Re: # 223

``just like we shouldn`t have a problem accepting Bangladesh.``

And Baluchistan and Sindhudesh as well right? Afterall same logic can be extended here.