Husain, Hinduism, Hindustan: Testing Tolerance

Shishapa ji...

If you read history you will realise that the difference between Hindu Mahasabha and Congress was only that Hindu mahasabha was open about its objectives while Congress operated in a sinister fashion claiming one thing publicly and another behind closed doors...

To quote Maulana Zafar Ali Khan editor of Zamindar and the right hand man of Sadna`s favorite Sir Fazli-Hussain:


Ik heen hain Savarkar o Gandhi
Jhoot ka chalta hai ik jhakkar, makkar ki uthti hai ik Aandhi

Gandhi and Savarkar are one and the same
One is a storm of lies, the other a tempest of deceit.


Read my post addressed to D-M.

Dear D-M,

Congress at the end of the day represented the Hindu bourgeoisie interests - Indian nationalism- tokens aside- was a euphemism for this self confident bourgeoisie class and it generally is that the majority community provides the lead (which is why the nuanced idea of a Muslim majority nation state as a smaller India is a very attractive one for those who could be called Muslim bourgeoisie)... whether we admit it or not. Ofcourse like any national movement it gave a broad facade.

Azad was the Congress president. His admission counts more than an objective historian. I am actually going way beyond what he is saying. To my mind Azad was a simpleton Mullah always easily fooled by Gandhi`s tactics... Recall the ``Hijrat Fatwa``.... Mullahs were always more amenable to Hindu bourgeoisie`s interests because the Mullah did not challenge them politically or economically ... the Mullah always asked for theological power over ``his flock`` so to speak. Therefore there ws a natural alliance between the Hindu Bourgeoisie and the Deoband Mullahs .. with Muslim nationalist movement being an object of their common scorn- one flank describing it as ``too westernised and secular`` and the other flank describing ``medieval and backward- communal -`` ... this was a two pronged strategy from within and without.

Mantoji,

If you have time and inclination, can you please list the things Congress did to be
termed as ``fanatical Hindu party``?
Were they comparable to any existing party in India or Pakistan which can be
labelled as ``fanatical hindu/muslim party``?

What would you term parties/organizations like Hindu Mahasabha, RSS, Abhinav Bharat?
Most, I would say all them did not get along with Congress I think and were not in the
same camp.

Yet this ``fanatical Hindu party``, when came to power in India after Independence, gave a
constitution which is secular in nature, and India has remained secular to whatever degree
because of this party.

And a party in the name of Muslims, striving for only Muslims, asking for a nation
only for Muslims, using communal politics was going to be keep the new nation secular.

Why always blame Hindus for the actions of Muslims? May be Mr. Jinnah was being
influenced by somebody else, may be his thinking was changing, may be he was
being eclipsed by other personalities and he did not like that.
Is it not common in US for a coloured person to sue claiming discrimation based on colour?
May be it is true, may be it is not, but there is always a possibility that there is a better
person to do to job that this coloured person for whatever reason.
All I am observing is this habit of blaming Hindus for all Muslim problems/shortcomings
since days of Sir Syed Ahmed.

``Congress on the other hand was claiming to be a party representing all Indians but was at the core a very fanatical Hindu party that discriminated against its Non-Hindu cadres (please refer to Azad`s belated confession) ... and yet it contnued to claim that it was an Indian party.``

That was certainly not the impression of many Hindus who viewed the Congress as a party which bent backwards and sacrificed the Hindu interests to apease the Muslims. Not that they were correct but, in those communally charged times, the perceptions of Hindus and Muslims were quite different. While you present Azad`s testimony as that of an objective historian, many Hindus presumed that he represented Musim interests in the Congress and accused Nehru to be in Azad`s pocket and therefore also looking after Muslims` interests.

My own perception - very subjective - is that Hindus generally viewed only Patel to represent their interests in the Congress and Muslims expected Azad to do so. Gandhi was, of course, assasinated because he was perceived by the Hindus to be pro-muslim. And it was not just Godse, the surprise in 1948 was not that a Hindu killed Gandhi but that it was a Maharashtrian and not a Punjabi Hindu or Sikh refugee. So, who did the Congress really represent; that question is not very appropriate because the Congress was - and still is - a large tent and it accomodated people of varied lobbies and ideologies connected solely by a desire to achieve independence from the British then and to stay in power now.

Dear D-M,

I certainly did not make that proposition. I believe that Muslim League was a part representing communal interests and Jinnah after 1937 was very justifiably taking a communal stance. It was open and out there. There was no trickery about it...

Congress on the other hand was claiming to be a party representing all Indians but was at the core a very fanatical Hindu party that discriminated against its Non-Hindu cadres (please refer to Azad`s belated confession) ... and yet it contnued to claim that it was an Indian party.

Manto#499:

My post had nothing to do with Jinnah or Gandhi. You and sadna are well aware of my agreements and differences with each of you on that debate. Several years and several thousand posts later, I do not see any reason to change those views.

My post was simply to question the proposition that Sindh politics was/is non-communal.

bjkumar#501:
No, I am not consistent and do not claim to be. If the language you used for FV had been used by someone like ali_1, I could not have cared less. But certain Interactors - nicks to be precise - have established certain personna and one has certain expectations, this is why one reacts. As for the use of sexual references, it all depends upon the context - the context in which you used it for FV seemed to me and others as highly explicit imagery of a degrading type. Hence, the reaction.

BJ...

First make a saint out of a person who is in essence is casteist bigoted Hindu politician... and then beat down on those who disagree.. Beautiful- So you abused Farzana because you are not happy with the views expressed on Gandhi...

The only person without any sense of integrity here is you- even Sadna cautioned you... imagine that.

#496 DM-jee (further thoughts)

And let me make one thing categorically clear to all of you.

I strongly insist that there was not the least element of sexual ``degradation`` implicit in that metaphorical comparison (made in #480) that you alluded to - and that riled you and others up so much!

The sexual allusion is perfectly legitimate - it is used all over the place to make a point, which has been done even on this web site. If gods and goddeses are not exempt from it (as seen on another board), what is the big deal about humans (This writer IS human, or isn`t she?) Unlike many of you, I took the same position on that depiction, also. So what`s wrong in thinking of this author or any other or depicting in sexual terms? Such thinking perhaps takes place all over the place for every high profile person - why is it to be considered wrong - and especially why so if it takes place openly?

And who is more consistent - and open? You or I?

And by the way, the proverbial real-life whore who sells her body for a few bucks is only trying to make a living. Why should such a person be an object of hate? Aren`t we all out there trying to sell something or other? A physical body is something concrete - some value for the money.

Perhaps it is much worse to be selling ``snake oil`` of the kind that YLH and some others constantly are ``selling`` here - because snake oil is highly dishonest!

In my personal opinion, the ``whores`` who sell their souls are in a much worse situation. Let me excerpt this quote from an earlier time - it was applied in another instance - but many parts are also very much applicable here.

....This writer, supposedly a woman who professes feminism as her goal, is little different from her male stooges here and those cowardly jackal-like cohorts – that callous company of clueless culprits – who superbly give the appearance of simulating a level of openness of thought exactly like a high class lady of easy virtue simulating first-rate orgasm – an act which, in reality, all that it represents – and indeed CAN represent is an intellectual harem which can only inbreed – and is only comfortable with its own. Period!

The ultimate form of “penis envy” meets the ultimate safe-sex of solutions – kick the non-violent guy – the violent guys are just too risky – and feel the warmth of victory rushing through – that high to end all highs – that crumb to end all cramps – no matter what time of the month it be!

Individuals committing intellectual dishonesty at this level (in my personal view) rank many a notches worse below the lowliest of those ladies making a living in an ocean of sin!!

But hey, this is the chowk – bazaar, you know, and everything is for sale, and professional integrity does not really fetch a high value – not in these shark-infested waters – and certainly not when one is trying to look TOUGH like a man – especially THIS bunch of REAL men who really specialize in dealing with women, yeah! Don’t believe me? Go ask that lady who got that special salty treat – that flavor of flavors to end forever her own thirst, and through vicarious extension – that of all the other women ....!

Will this weasel lawyer ever have the courage to rain his choice words over THOSE people –those paragons of feminism embodied – SURE! Pigs do indeed fly!

So the “brains” of this pathetic excuse for a web-site help themselves to a big helping of that “adrak” and send this baby-face Yasser the lotion to lubricate the passage – with that voluminous outflow from his mouth – .... the figurative “penis” now in full thrust as exemplified in all its glories through this article.

And thus these morons climax! They hoop, and they applaud!

Oooohhhh….What a feeling! O what a mind-blower! You see, we SHOWED this Gandhi guy, didn’t we!!! Look, how ALL those ... problems just disappeared, especially in Pakistan!


However, even such individuals - who willingly ``sell`` those souls for a few ``bucks`` are not to be reviled - rather simply pitied, perhaps. Therefore, there ought to be no element of revulsion on the part of you, or Ms. Sadna, or Nasah, or anybody else from the vast chowk multitudes.

I wonder WHY you get such feelings of revulsion.

Each of you should perhaps ask that question of yourself - why such double standards?

PS:

Yes- I am sure looking for feudal politicians in Sindh Punjab etc is a remarkable enterprise.

It is amazing that you guys claim that Gandhiji came and used religion to mobilise the masses and wrested the freedom movement from the ``Elite`` (actually Gandhi was in reality just a British pawn) ... but when Muslim League wrested Punjab and Sindh from lackeys like Sir Fazli-Hussain etc its a problem.

Remarkable hypocrisy.

India ought to realise what caused the staunchest secular politician in the subcontinent to abandon the Indian Nationalist enterprise and jump on to the ship of Muslim communalism... answering that question would solve many problems... but no- we would rather look for lackeys.

Dear D-M, Sadna...

The issue is here is very simple. Lets put the self righteousness aside for a minute. We know that what Muslim League`s stance after 1937 was and we know what you think of it and we know what we think of it... it is hardly necessary to drum this point. If anything Muslim League after 1937 remained constant... and went the other direction with Jogindranath Mandal...

You see the problem here is simple... and this is why we consider your stance completely dishonest... I quoted the Azad book ... it shows that despite its purported claims the Congress was an ``Indian Party`` it only promoted Hindus as leaders on many occasions.

To quote something from Sindh in 1938 from Jinnah who had effectively abandoned his Indian Nationalism for Muslim Nationalism by then... is just mere obfuscation ... this is my problem with the whole thing. Because Muslim League did not claim to be an Indian party and Jinnah did not deny that after 1937 he was a politician favoring communal interests.

But Congress continued to claim it was an Indian Party and yet continued to discriminate against Muslims, Parsis, Christians etc nevertheless. This is the problem.

-YLH

#496 DM-jee

May I turn the question around and ask - ``can`t a writer be provocative without using sexually suggestive language``? Now, who bears a higher level of responsibility - writers or interactors? Has that happened around here?

Forget it, I did not mean to put you on the spot by asking that question!

PS: I disagree that my posts contain any malice - perhaps they are more intense so they may stand out more!

#494 Sadna

I almost missed the choicest part of your note.

[...To use your own words, why are you whoring your time here...]

I am sorry Sadna - try as I may, I can not find that word anywhere in my interacts - in fact, I don`t remember having used it for a long while. Besides, how CAN one ``whore`` time - at best one utilizes it, usually one spends it, and at worst, one wastes it. You probably mean it in the latter sense. However, the emotion you convey through the intensity of your statement is appreciated - because most people (and especially you) do not use such strong language unless they hold specific expectations and perceive that those expectations have been damaged or hurt - so I do appreciate your holding me in sufficiently high esteem to have felt that way. Of course, in reality one can not read others` minds.

I thought about the question a bit - why do people like me spend so much time here? In reality, I have been spending less and less time. I skipped the web site for two whole months without too much (but not zero) difficulty. Certainly, I spend a lot less time than many other interactors here - certainly a lot less cumulative time than veterans like yourself.

People like me do not have a very in-depth knowledge of most of the topics discussed here - especially those which are historic in nature - yet I put in my two cents wherever I can - usually it is humor, sometimes humor that can bite, sometime it bites rather deep and sometimes I simply use plain, simple statements which occasionally can still connect with part of the readership.

I do not think I have been wasting my time here. I also do not think I have been wasting others` time, either. How so?

You see Sadna, while many interactors here are regular, active participants in the proceedings here - like reactants in a chemical reaction, they get consumed by it - I am unable to give very much yet I sometimes feel that my presence here HAS made a difference (others may disagree if the difference was for the better or otherwise). It is somewhat analogous to a catalyst - it speeds up or slows down the reaction. There have been times when - after I posted something - the interactions paused - as people tried to munch it (or perhaps got ``intimidated`` by its intensity). The reverse has also taken place. And call it my fancy if you will, I DO feel in my bones that I have brought about changes in SOME people`s perspective - to the extent such changes can take place in a site of this nature.

With best wishes,
BJK

bjkumar#495:

Provocation is the spice of chowk and most of us, especially me, have no problem with it. But can`t one be provocative without using sexually degrading language? For what it`s worth - and it ain`t worth much - I am otherwise an admirer of your malice-towards-one-and-all style.

#various

Sadna (and DM, and others)

(Parts of Sadna’s interact need no reply from me, because some of your (and others’) choice superlatives already indicate what answers you have assumed. Your answers are your own prerogatives – you can see it any way YOU choose to.)

People have different ways of expressing themselves – I have mine. Some people were made to write in a more provocative manner than others, I am no writer but my style is what you see – and what virtually everyone here has been at the receiving end of – at one time or another! (This paragraph was for everyone, but especially for DM.)

Nobody is completely objective – that is not the way people were created. Most people can not help being so. But few make a virtue out of not being objective. When one is less than objective on purpose and is so consistently – it is called dishonesty. There is no such thing that being open about being dishonest makes one honest. (Just like attacking sitting ducks does not make one a hunter and spearing weak victims does not make one a crusader!)

I speak my mind when I sense dishonesty (as I did in #480). I do so using my own style – which is God-given and certainly not something which I cultivated!

Also, I stick to my guns when I believe I am being accused unjustly (as I did in #488).

Anyway!

I will make it REALLY simple for everybody and especially the writer of this piece.

The writer can show up here and say just one sentence (no qualifiers or additions or elaborations):

“What was said in #480 has no substance!”

Just that one simple sentence and I promise not to interact on her boards (and perhaps other such boards). And then Sadna and her old chums and the rest of these crowds can return to their usual chit-chat – a long-term activity sans resolutions – from all indications!

What could be simpler? Go for it!

bjkumar
How is the space `made available` to you and me any different from the space `made available` to anyone else ? Why is your vivid imagery only for the latter and not for the former? I fail to see in most of your own posts too any connection to the article. To use your own words, why are you whoring your time here, bjkumar? Be honest if you are asking others to be honest.

dost-mittar
I agree with you. My biggest problem with Pakistani readings of history is that they wilfully de-emphasize or malign the many Muslim politicians who stood against the communal tide often at great cost to themselves. I think Indians instead of buying the Pakistani line w/o second thought, need to honestly acknowledge that these were noncommunal Muslim politicians, the same species we Indians claim to be in search of today for god`s sake.