The Irreverent Hero Islam Forgot

Ref MantoLives #384

[Yawn. Now you are sounding like a broken record.]

Gandhi was a caste-ist fascist racist pig.

Eklavya,

When a Shankaracharya visits a dalit locality to baptize a temple, does that mean the Shankaracharya has assumed responsibility over the religious lives of the population along with the temple/God or he just merely emphasizes that he is just the care-taker of God and he has nothing to do with the worshippers.

If the notion, Shakarar thinks for the worshippers too, is right, then can we conclude that the worshippers would not hate to see one of them occupying the coveted post?

guru, nkg, cheem sahib

You all made very good points. Essentially, I am a very optimistic person, and know that so long as the direction is right, and we keep moving and changing ahead, we will reach our goals. (Thumbs up to all of you).

Re: # 372 Ekji,

Quickly: India has changed! The crux you missed was Upanayan part in my post. Pendulum moved to extreme of westernization few years back but now younger generation is in search of roots and true spirituality. Sanatan Dharma (hate to use hinduism because it is not a religion or dogma started by an individual) answers their questions without being dogmatic.

dont know much about Shankaracharya except some dispute Chatrapati Shivaji had in installing a lwer caste as a Shankaracharya of Kolhapur. As I recall to be a Shankaracharya one needs to be a celebate thru out ones life. You asking Harijan to be Shankaracharya is like asking Dalai Lama to be chosen from White Plains New York and not from Snowy Maountains in Asia. They choose lama based on revelation to the earlier Lama. With my limited level of consciousness I do not understand their selection process. Should I make a big deal of that? Does this Shankaracharya affects me? Does he send fatwas for me to act upon? Why should I care who is vice-chancellor of the university which me or my kids are not going to attend?

My own exposure to Sanatan Dharma / Hinduism was through the rituals (4 fasts per week and extreme religiosity) of my mother. Got little understanding of the philosophy and reasons behind those when read and interacted with Swami chinmayananda and his disciples. The ritual which I followed of fasting and going to Hanuman temple on Saturday, started at age 7 as a prayer for the quick recovery of neighbor/friend's mother. She was suffering from cancer. Rituals start for most of us in this innocuous way. Now I cannot give that up. As a teen I could safely hide behind Hanuman and not deal with raw sexual desires and later sublimate into hobbies and interests. Whenever I stopped fasting some weird melancholy set in.

Sanatan Dharma is association with Swami Chinmayananda starting from 78 in Pawai, Mumbai, hugs and company of Ma Amrutananda, bhiksha my wife gives to assorted swamis when they visit our part of the world, introduction to TM and wonderful westerners in the fold and most importantly Bikram Yoga. I have my own rope tied to my neck. As Cheema conveyed what is the point in trading that for someone else's, which might look sexy at this moment. When the talk of religion stops true spirituality begins. I should be only be concerned for next Dharana-Dhyan-Samadhi so that I set myself free atleast for some time.

"
Ma Amritananda once described ego like this: "There was a cowherd boy who took his cows to the meadows every morning and brought them back to the cowshed at the end of the day. One evening, as he was tying the cows up for the night, the boy found that one of them was missing her rope. He feared that she might run away, but it was too late to go and buy a new rope. The boy didn't know what to do, so he went to a wise man who lived nearby and sought his advice. The wise man told the boy to pretend to tie the cow, and make sure that the cow saw him doing it. The boy did as the wise man suggested and pretended to tie the cow. The next morning the boy discovered that the cow had remained still throughout the night. He untied all the cows as usual, and they all went outside. He was about to go to the meadows when he noticed that the cow with the missing rope was still in the cowshed. She was standing on the same spot where she had been all night. He tried to coax her to join the herd, but she wouldn't budge. The boy was perplexed. He went back to the wise man who said, "The cow still thinks she is tied up. Go back and pretend to untie her." The boy did as he was told, and the cow happily left the cowshed.

This is what the guru does with the ego of the disciple. The guru helps untie that which was never there. Like the cow, due to our ignorance, we believe that we are bound by the ego when, in fact, we are completely free. We need to be convinced of this, however".

As there are not many guru's like that in Western Culture, we can help each other Let Go of what really is not there. The only commitment to allow such a process is an intent for "gnothi seauton",...Gnow Thyself.

Vicente Marco © 2002, 2005

"

BTW, RSS/DnyanPrabhodini trains lower castes and women to become priests. Many women priests conduct marriages and cremation sanskar. (Ch. Shahu started this 100 years back. Himself became Sanskrit scholar.) There is a movement in making people aware of all the Sanskars one has to go thru in ones life, so that a person can enter into different phases of life knowingly and with commitment for some values. Wish I was born 30 years later. When I see these youngsters I see a pleasant dawn of real India.

Hope all these personal things help some one. I need to stop visiting chowk.

Re: # 363

Yawn. Now you are sounding like a broken record.

Re: # 378
Ekalavya...
These Sankaracharya are just kind of leaders of some obsolete group. Why don't you join R K Mission ( Ramakrishna Mission)? Once you are sanyasi ( after 7 years of Brahmacharya), you will get some name like Swami XXXananda....No previous life...
Brahmins of yesteryear used to be called as Dwija ( born twice). When you complete Brahmacharya, you are sage ( Swami)...

Re: # 380; Eklavya

I'd be honoured to meet you and tahmed both; that may not be as far fetched as you think!

Gotta go

Re: # 356 Tahir

who stepped on your 'poochhal' today paaji?

Cheema ji, since there is no sufi here around, we can safely confess that at the end of the day, we all face fairly similar problems, and respond in fairly similar ways. For all our 'differences' if tahmedji, you, and I (or some other friends from chowk) had occasion to meet we will get just along perfectly.

---------------

That sufi reference is a bit of private joke. I have deliberately built a little history of determinedly rejecting all sufi claims of 'sameness' just so we take another look at a few of our basic assumptions. :):)

Re: # 370; Eklavya:
"tahmedji, I wish things were as simple or as good as that".

I rest my case sir. the above applies not just to Hinduism but other man-made religious traditions just the same, 'semitic/abrahamic' nonsense no exception (btw, most bog-standard Muslims wouldn't have a clue what 'Abrahamic' is! or the connection with Judaism/Christianity etc; this is a old concept recently re-introtuced by the West and Muslims alike; 'the west' so they can keep this nonsense under some control; Muslims because it gives them a sense of satisfaction that they 'belong' to the group of the HAVES of the world, albeit going through a bad phase at present!).

My advice as a well-wisher is, if you are dis-illusioned or disgruntled with your ancestoral traditions, don't try to find solace in another; from a practical viewpoint things may not be much different when you get down to the nitty gritty. That is why converts always appear more enthusiastic because they are trying to justify their decision not just to the world around them, but more importantly to themselves (it is obvious and well known that more than 98% of individuals continue to believe in the nonsense they have been taught since childhood; some 'so-called enlightened' folk delude themselves by 're-interpreting' this same nonsense to make some sense out of it; it retains its original label/title though!).

Best to rely upon one's own metal in this world, I reckon. Use the brain one has been given by nature through millions of years of evolution (OR from a fairy from a parallel universe - depends which version one 'believes' I suppose).

I don't know the 'answer' to the big 'question' any more than any other from the human species; may be it IS 42! Just don't think Zaphod Beeblebrox is any better in that respect than yourself!

Again (before someone jumps down my throat again), believe in Santa Clause for all I care, just don't hold your breath with regards to your wishes though!

Sorry for a slightly dis-jointed post, very busy at present. Must rush but will talk soon when I have more time.

Cheers.

ajeya, it is true that my lower caste associations might give me a little chip on my shoulders, but should you (or any one of us) be surprised by that?

That's the point I tried to make earlier about Baba Sahib too.


[Shankaracharayas don't mean anything much to me, beyond than the knowledge and wisdom they bring with them. I am only interested the position's symbolic value. Yes, I dream of a dalit shankaracharya one day - because the tradition itself is too valuable to be given up and without my lower caste brothers on it it is too denuded of humanity to REALLY win my personal admiration.

I admire it, but not TOTALLY, as teenagers might say.]

Now, you may argue all this is teenager logic anyway. I have no problem with being a teenager with dreams on matters so important to all of us. :)

#373 tahmed32

[More seriously - too much of what passes as "religion" is merely primitive culture. It is only the core that makes sense and is timeless. Thus: 200 years ago, maulvis in Turkey were up in arms because the ottoman caliph was being pushed by the UK govt (in turn due to lobbying by Abolitionists in UK) to end the custom of slavery (which included open markets for female slaves sold as concubines). The maulvis were up in arms against this saying the practice of concubines is permitted in Islam and this was an attack on Islam.

Time passed, Turkish culture evolved so women are no longer sold and today no maulvi would dream of considering female slaves to be part of Islam. Same for hinduism.

So, just be happy that you are a hindu who through the powers of his common sense has freed himself from the shackels of the past and so does not need to look at the "greener grass" on other pastures ... and is thus a Shankaracharya. ]

A good and sensible post. But let me correct a typical Abrahamic way of thinking:

If you are referring to Hindu "culture" as Hindu "religion", then your post is accurate. But if you are referring to hindu "philosophy" as Hindu "religion", then your post is not. If you take the time to read the Hindu philosophers (the philosphies of Dualism, non-Dualism etc.), you will find that they are based on incisive, non-dogmatic arguments, and have very little to do with what passes for "hindu culture". You are free to argue and disagree, and NO ONE BELONGS TO IT. It is just philosophy - a way of looking at and analyzing the world. It is a far cry from djinns swooshing around and muhammad riding his horse over the moon.

While it is true that human nature and thus human culture in different parts of the world have a lot in common with each other, hindu philosophy and the Abrahamic philosophies (or the lack thereof) have little in common.

#370 Eklavya

[We must work to be able to offer EVERYONE who prepares himself or herself through learning and other commitments the SAME respect, not deprive them because of some "caste restrictions" that more and more Hindus now find silly, at least ideally.]

Would you like to give us an example of ANY ONE "low-caste" hindu who "prepared himself or herself through learning and other commitments", but were "deprived" because of caste restrictions?

[My guess is that to be formally one has to be a brahmin to be nominated a Shankaracharya. The position doesn't mean much to many many Hindus, but it is important symbolically.]

See my previous question to you about "nomination".

[As I said, if my grandfather heard me say this, he would have thrown a fit, but then he lived at a different time, and we live in a new time. At least I can dream :)]

Yes. Like the Martin Luther "I have a Dream" speech. You are not fooling anyone with this father/grandfather story. It is pretty clear that you are the prototypical "low-caste" hindu chowk-resident with a very big chip on your shoulders.

#372 Eklavya

[guru ji, if Hinduism is the religion of people, then it has to be the religion of the 'lower castes.' So obviously, it is the lower-caste sages who have kept us alive and going.

But I just want to be able to formally see one of them nominated a shankaracharya...It will a great symbolic thing, and will obviously upset many many good people, just because it has never been done before :)]

I am not sure what you are saying from your "lower caste hindu" perspective, so would you do me a favour and give us some historic references for these "nominations" that you are talking about?

Then maybe I'll have a better understanding of your perspective. Because, as of now, I don't have a clue.

Thanks tahmedji, if not myself, at least I can campaign to make vengat or my friend muthu shankaracharyas if they would like to consider that position. :)

[I know, this idea might be upsetting some friends. Apologies in advance. It's a dream some of us want to dream.]

#370 Shankaracharya Elavya Bhai: I trust you are not a brahmin and yet you are a Shankaracharya. I rest my case. :-)

More seriously - too much of what passes as "religion" is merely primitive culture. It is only the core that makes sense and is timeless. Thus: 200 years ago, maulvis in Turkey were up in arms because the ottoman caliph was being pushed by the UK govt (in turn due to lobbying by Abolitionists in UK) to end the custom of slavery (which included open markets for female slaves sold as concubines). The maulvis were up in arms against this saying the practice of concubines is permitted in Islam and this was an attack on Islam.

Time passed, Turkish culture evolved so women are no longer sold and today no maulvi would dream of considering female slaves to be part of Islam. Same for hinduism.

So, just be happy that you are a hindu who through the powers of his common sense has freed himself from the shackels of the past and so does not need to look at the "greener grass" on other pastures ... and is thus a Shankaracharya.

guru ji, if Hinduism is the religion of people, then it has to be the religion of the 'lower castes.' So obviously, it is the lower-caste sages who have kept us alive and going.

But I just want to be able to formally see one of them nominated a shankaracharya...It will a great symbolic thing, and will obviously upset many many good people, just because it has never been done before :)

As an Islamic equivalent, a shankaracharyas would the head of a small number of the most important mosques around the world.

tahmedji, I wish things were as simple or as good as that :(

Anybody can be a 'thinker' but the formal position of a Shankaracharya implies a certain degree of respect (not following).

We must work to be able to offer EVERYONE who prepares himself or herself through learning and other commitments the SAME respect, not deprive them because of some "caste restrictions" that more and more Hindus now find silly, at least ideally.

My guess is that to be formally one has to be a brahmin to be nominated a Shankaracharya. The position doesn't mean much to many many Hindus, but it is important symbolically.

-------------

As I said, if my grandfather heard me say this, he would have thrown a fit, but then he lived at a different time, and we live in a new time. At least I can dream :)

eklavia: i dont think there is any restriction on a dalit from becoming a thinker of deep thoughts (aka shankacharya per my google check). so how does hinduism come in the way?

#367 "No one needs to be Hindu, religion wise. It's your culture .. one cannot change his parents."

this must be the famous hindu logic. by this logic, you should be walking on all fours - since that is the way your ancestors walked 20-30 million years ago.

Re: # 366:
Ekbhai,

No one needs to be Hindu, religion wise. It's your culture .. one cannot change his parents.

What is this RSS? There is a school in Pune DnyanPrabhodini which my boys attended initially hesitantly, instead of MercBenz IB school. We had reservations about the school because the school was Marathi medium and was founded by some one who was associated with RSS and the school maintains strong links to RSS. Boys really enjoyed esp travel/trips to remote part of India. Working with hands in fields and selling books. Their language barrier and diffidences disappeared in no time. Our boys ran a canteen on their own based on the diet based on Ayurved for age 13-14 year old. The syllabus is CBS. The difference is learning Sanskars such as Upanayan. Upanayan is done by every one even girls. Mind that we are not Bramhin. In the first week our driver was furious because our sons had to be taken to the worst part of the town in a slum area for a birthday party of their classmate. Whole class spent half a day in one room slum hut. A generation or two back even though I attended "Rs.2 per month school", never had a Bhangi as a peer. More than thirty percent of the class belongs to the lowest of the strata. Not reservation but school reaches out and teachers/student/alumni prepare the kids from this strata, so that they clear the school entrance exam whose results are 1-2% get admition. School with the help of students runs a migratory school and health camps for kids of migrant workers and construction workers. School is big on Jungian Psychology. In my time the school used to send the most no of kids to IITs in Maharashtra. Thru my leftist goggle I had saw the school of Bramhin and for Bramhin. Some of the dedicated teachers are OBCs and even SC/S. I hate to use these castists terms. The school was refreshing oasis in the desert of consumerim and superficial westernization in the name of globalization. Kids were exposed to the good of India. Kids learned classical music, bharat natyam, Marathi drama without losing anyhing in Math & Science. Social Project based approach made real growth possible. If I compare to my schooling in Kolhapur ... learned nothing besides gali-galloch and fighting .. shear wastage of childhood..

Shankarachayas are happening from lower castes for some time. Thanks to Ch Shahu of Kolhapur. The recent one is Narendra Maharaj who is from SC/ST... may not be exactly Harijan. If u r raising ur consciousness then title of Shankaracharya of certain Peethas does not matter to u. Hindu culture is not dependent on these peethas. Sufi Saibaba preserves Hinduism much better. Most of the Swamis and Rishis were Dalit. SC/ST or nonBramhins such as Chinmayanand, Valmiki, Vyasa, Kabir, Rohidas, most of the Varakari Sants were nonBramhi, Dalits and one Muslim.

So if I were u, unless I experience some thing bad I would not label because of some columnist writing/shouting in his echo chamber. My experience is limited ie thru this school. But it was so much better that my own reservation about RSS have disappeared. They might be little uncompromising idealist. The school had large portraits of Mahatma Phule, Ambedkar, Shivaji and surprisingly of Arabindo. Principal an RSS member had association to Pondichery.

Vengat

I, personally, will be happy being a 'Hindu' when a 'Dalit' becomes a Shankaracharya. Until then, the base-level Indic faith is simply not living upto its potential.

That idea would have made my grandfather very upset, would have made my dad chuckle, and positively excites me. So we will see how long it takes to materialize. Slow and steady..., since are not revolutionizing people.

-----------------------------

nkg, guru bhai

You put us in a difficult situation. Some of what you say is true - Baba Sahib had his great strengths, other leaders had theirs. Isn't combining the strengths of great poeple and great ideas, and respecting them all if they respect us, our great strength?

Some of what you wrote, I would submit is not totally fair. Baba Sahib worked with different actors to get the best deal possible WITHOUT hurting anyone else, and when Gandhi ji put his put down (for ultimately, good of all, as we saw later) he complied. He was a great constitutionalist, no doubt, but he was above all, a man of a great heart. And he really had no reason to have any love for the RSS or anybody else who did not reach out to him.

We are not a land of perfect people. And we don't have to agree with every aspect of everybody. Our great things get done because everybody does his or her little part, sometimes happily, sometimes unhappily, without breaking the house down. Nothing is gained by abusing Gandhi for drinking goat's milk. And nothing at all by expecting Baba Sahib to have been the all-knowing, all-capable perfect man.

-------------

Yes, tamil brahmins have gotten a raw deal. But, as a fan of Tamilians in general, I can tell you, they are ALL great and brilliant folks, brahmins and non-Brahmins. As to discrimination, I have always argued that they have carried the heavey burden of our collective sins, not just their own. Let's hope the pendulum swings back to the middle soon.

(Sorry for the soap box. I just feel strongly about this issue. Hope you would not take any of this amiss. Thanks for understanding.)

Re: # 364
Molega,

My dad always says that Thamizh Brahmin girls make great wives and mothers...:)

Nkg,

There are always two sides to a coin...I don't believe, assuming you are from a different state, it is easy for a non-Tamil to have a clear grasp of the complete picture.

Re: # 362

Molaga,

Thanks for slowing down things. I do not see Tamizh :) Brahmins as aliens and I have never done that in the past. I will have to tell you that I have spent a big part of my childhood in the Agraharam. My family has supported them quite decently. My dad's brother, a doctor, has been practicing his profession in Agraharam for the past 30 years. He is a very religious man and Periyaval and others in the mutt knew him very well.

I think this should have given you a clear idea about my moorings. To be candid, Tamizh Brahmins have come out, to my understanding, of what could be termed as their difficult period. Though I do not want to dwell on it for long, I can say that Periyar had the right reasons. I see they have melted into the rest of the population without any trace. Its my conviction that they have understood the danger of isolating from the rest of society.

It is quite painful when somebody tries to picture Non-Brahmin Tamizhs as hate mongers and people of lower intellect when comparing to the Brahmins. It's commonsense that intelligence cannot be inherited.

Brahmins belong to this land as much as anybody else. Nkg's was a false assertion and it was a sweeping statement. I believe in reacting proportionally.

I am not a great admirer of Karunanidhi but when you look at things objectively he has been good to the Brahmins than Jayalalitha. But for him Sankaracharyas would have been spending their days in the jail and JJ was behind it.

I hope Harimaus of Chowk understand or stop feigning that they don't understand. In todays Tamilnadu, Brahmins are as much relevant as they were in the pre-DK period. They have not lost their social standing as you claim though they do not pull the strings from the top anymore. At a societal level they still wield enormous influence.

I have to leave now...I would want to speak to you on reservation and the reasons behind it...

P.S:- I have seen Brahmins coming to my dad's brother to know which way the cotton should be wound for kuthuvilakku wick ;)...

manto writes "How is it a Strawman?

Did you not write this?

"Muslims would have become a formidable force in India politically if this division didn't fragment them into 3"


Lawyer sahib, you really need to work on your comprehension abilities, that was presented by me not as a "cause" of the partition but a "consequence" of it- thereby busting the farcial reason presented by the MAJ and his colonial "behind the scenes" partners that Muslims of India would somehow be strenghtened by the partition so they should go for it....you are still pushing that argument when you claim- without knowing a goddmaned thing about me- that were it not for Jinnah I'd be in some sewer somewhere...like I said earlier the Church of MAJ is dead and soon it will be expunged from the minds of the Muslims of Pakistan- they are getting conscious with every new shenanigan of the US elite. Recently Nawaz Sharif surprised me by saying " For the peace of others, we will not turn Pakistan into a killing field", tells me that this is a apt reply to Bush and the Hamid types who tout " If we don't fight them there we will be fighting them at home in the US"

Dear Vengat # 361 and 360

I wonder what prompted ur outburst against nkg. I don't agree to his views...but ur remarks on Tamizh Brahmins were unwarranted and uncharitable.

The TN Brahmins have a deep sense of alienation....not because of the fine Tamil people, who have always recognised and respected Brahmins as resourceful and industrious people, but because of the anti-brahmanical stance of the Governing class. The real issue for Brahmins in TN is NOT one of opportunity (they are capable of finding their way)....but the anti-brahmanical polemic from the Political class.
(For e.g, even in the middle of 2007 Karunanidhi made unpleasant remarks on brahmins and when the OBC saga erupted, the pro-quota brigade in TN turned their ire towards brahmins).

Unfortunately, even you seem to have taken this recourse - of calling them crammers and people who wagged their tails for the Brits. Please review the freedom struggle in TN and you will find quite a lot of Tamil Brahmins taking lead in the struggle.

The brahmins benefitted mostly because a majority of them were based in cities and in industrial towns and hence had access to English education. Once educated they managed to establish themselves as doctors and other professionals.

Periyar (and later Karunanidhi) rightfully broke the Brahmin dominance and today they have absolutely NO political/economical clout.

P.S -
1. Throwing away all philosphical/religious discouse into garbage, the TN brahmins are a separate group in themselves. I don't know if words like separate "race" or "ethnicity" can be attributed...but the Tamil Brahmin's group-allegiance is NOT merely restricted to religious principles.

2. I support caste-based reservations...but NOT the way it is implemented in TN where it is heavily stacked in favor of the cream amongst BCs, MBCs and even in certain SCs. 89% of Tamizhs are grouped under one of the quota category. Do u genuinely think that 89% of Tamizhs are backward ?? Obviously not.

3. I know the difference in the cut-offs for BCs and OCs is negligible. But that beggars the question - why then the difference in categories. Can't then the BC category be merged with the OC category ??

Nkg,

If you are serious to know about What, Why and How of TN history, I am open for a discussion of a place of your choice. But, yes that is contingent on the deliverables I have at work.

As an appetizer or to give you a head start, try to find out the cut-off difference, for all courses, between open category and the rest of them, in Tamilnadu...


Ciao

Re: # 347

Nkg,

"In Tamilnadu, more than 67% seats are reserved (now Karunanidhi included Muslims and Christians) to suppress Tamil brahmins...That failed"

I am sorry I have to disagree...Can you tell me what failed? It was not aimed at suppressing Brahmins but to enable the uninitiated masses into education. Please do not attribute this ingenuity to Karunanidhi, rather it was advocated by Periyar.

Tamil Brahmins are enterprising people like the rest of the discriminated people. The nature of their profession, which they had been practicing for several 100 years, gave them an unfair edge over others to master Lord Macaulay's idea of education.

Until Lord Macaulay's education gained importance, everyone were educated as far as their domains were concerned. Now tell me what can a history graduate IAS, if you want him to be a Brahmin the be it so, bring in path breaking ideas into the already teetering Indian agri? Brahmins took their cramming ability as an undue advantage to lord over other communities. The problem further aggravated when they cosied up with the British and became one within...

Now tell me if the inventors had been Brahmins, why is that the Brahmins during the British rule did not have in their posession all of the knowledge you claim that they already posessed?

Nobody feels happy to see Brahmins suffer in Tamilnadu...Do you know the latest comedy that happened in TN. The TN government has promulgated that anybody could be a priest provided he learn all that are required to be...You have for many times told that a Brahmin is not because of his lineage but due to the knowledge, wisdom and virtues that are in his posession. Now tell me why would the Brahmins oppose the move? Why is that they are against devotees praising God in Tamil Thevaram.

Thevaram is a collection of songs in praise of Shiva...

When Sankaracharya Swamigal reinforced that Brahmins way of life, why is that nobody heeded to him? Do you the latest happenings in Kanchi Mutt? But for Karunanidhi both of the swamigal would have been savouring the delicacies served in Tamilnadu jails...

Before the advent of Macaulay's education, majority of the doctors, administrators, engineers were all non-brahmins. Now I am not trying to say that Brahmins cannot aspire for these professions. After the new sysem of education got introduced, people who practiced knowledge acquisition through practice and observation were relegated to the periphery...better they totally denied to practice what they were doing for generations...Simply because they were practicing knowledge acquisition in a different form they could not adapt to the new requirements of cramming.

Also when others are ok to let Brahmins into other professions why do they oppose, in Tamilnadu, others to enter into their domain?

Re: # 291
Who needs planted royalty to tell THIS to the believers? The oneness of God was pronounced not 1400 years ago, but much before that.

Too bad, you got the news now; but it's never too late.

Shanti.

Re: # 281
Red-flagged? I'm sure that was done by those who 'know not what they do'.

If this is from the man I'm hinting at, he ought to be man enough to say that it is him!

If this is a belated reaction of the editors, what can I say? I've already said enough to them.

If this is done by someone who is sick and tired of being corrected, I say,"The best is yet to come".

Peace to the shattered.

Re: # 344

How is it a Strawman?

Did you not write this?

"Muslims would have become a formidable force in India politically if this division didn't fragment them into 3"

I am assuming the entire thing was a grand white conspiracy against "coloreds" then?

Re: # 268
I read Freud (actaully a sexist Fraud) when I was (shhh...) still suffering from P-envy. But that was when I was under ten years old!

Re: # 341

Yar BJ ok. While you have failed to impugn the facts you so liberally call fiction, we all know that even your fiction is plagiarized. The King of Plagiarism is mortally estopped from accusing others of misconduct- especially on the basis of flimsy evidence and prejudice.

Re: # 248

Please correct that to read: "...was shown the doorknob."

PS: Now let me try the condo-zamin, as you suggested. Never realised what a dual-purpose REAL THING it is!

Re: # 227
Sorry, surgeon Cheema, I did not read this blasphemous interact! So is THIS what makes Razi great in your eyes? One fool misleads a hundred.

Again, read the Qur'an translation that I recommend to see for yourself if you need guidance (if!).

I always give full credit to the devil, and have noticed with great joy that you've FINALLY learnt to spell Qur'an right! Hallelujah--no wait, al-hamdu lilah!

Doctors are an intelligent lot I think.

Peace.

Re: # 226
I'm afraid Mr. Cheema, if you listen to Mr. Hawkins explain who and what God is, beware that scientists are the greatest secret believers in God, yet they never admit so in public out of fear of being laughed at. But it doesn't matter; guess who will get the last laugh?

When you finally grow up (one does utter nonsense in the teens), the reality of things will dawn upon you. For now, I must leave you alone with your resident demons.

Peace.
PS: I know so many Cheemas; we will connect somewhere someday! Until then, more peace...

Re: # 346
Guru...
Babasaheb was not so much of a people leader like Mayawati. He was not a visionary like Kanshiram. He could have reached out to even leaders like Sawarkar who were working for abolishing casticism. He did not open any educational institutions or built any cooperatives for Harijans.

Ans: agree...
Actually, Babasaheb was the tool used by Congress to weaken RSS...He was not a popular leader like Babu Jagajivan Ram or Kanshiram....

Contd...
Political voice does not empower people, education does...

I mean empoverished Gulf Land without oil.

Few hints for compulsions:

When did Shah of Iran grabbed the throne?

11th of Sept 1973, crippling railway strike led to Pokharan I.

Who killed Mujib? Nehru, Patel and Indira feared becoming Salvador. Indira used to complain about hidden hand whose birth was on the eastern side of Atlantic in 1947.

# masadi
Religion,idealogy and democracy etc. is a fodder used by Machavillian pundits to sedate or inflame the masses to achieve certain objectives,sometimes they succed and sometimes they dont.Sometimes thier objectives are selfserving and sometimes they are noble(Machavillians are capable of doing good).Now lets come to Pakistan.Without being pedantic or googling unnecessary details one can ask a simple question,what was the need for pakistan?Was it religion or something else?
If you study the history objectively,that you cannot do without being detached from it,you will draw the conclusion that underlying currents for every religion,idealogy and war etc.were economic.The creation of pakistan is no exception,religion was a tool to mobblize the masses.Now the question is,has pakistan served the purpose?Yes it has. but what about the indian muslims?Too bad its not good for them.But thier lot would not have changed even if there was no partition. sorry i can not type for too long.

Re: # 312
Masadi...

The colonials did not resist the partition of India rather they drew the map that was most beneficial for them, as they did in the ME, where they kept countries busy with each other and used Pakistan. Jinnah was facilitator of the colonial plan, and he was the public face of the colonial game in India- how hard is that for you to understand? A secular person evoking religious identity for the purpose of seperation- knowing nothing about either religion or the pulse of the people who had no part in the partition except through religiously invoked hatred by these elite.

Ans: Again blaming British!!!!! Were Brits involved during 1971 partition of Pakistan?
What Jinnah had done was good for muslims. The other alternative available for muslims was little difficult. Work hard and bridge the gap with upper caste Hindus/Parsees...Jinnah had taken the safest route.
In undevided India, muslims were far backward in education and related professional fields (teacher,professor,doctor, engineer,lawyear,scientist...). For British, muslims were never threat (numerically Hindus were more; so were the intellectually).Why British will discriminate against muslims?
Coming back to political voice, it would not have ensured quality of life for muslims in undevided India....
In Tamilnadu, more than 67% seats are reserved (now Karunanidhi included Muslims and Christians) to suppress Tamil brahmins...That failed ...
Hitler had tried to eliminate German jews...They (jews) migrated to USA and made the place most advanced in all sectors (media, banking, technology,medical science, physical science, agriculture....)...

Re: # 322 Ekbhai,

I was goading Manto not to quote Babasaheb for whom I respect. But we should keep in mind that he was tallest among the leader who were job seekers under British rule which included many in Congress, except Gandhi, Subhash and other revolutionary with socialist types. Job seeking leaders are needed and have there space. But the foundation is laid and organization is built by the spiritual, inspirational leaders such as Gandhi and Subhash. MAJ was a super job seeker. When British brought MAJ and Babasaheb on their side of the table, congress leadership panicked. Compulsions they felt never came on the pages of Times of India. World war II was good for India ... it exhausted British and they left in a haste. If they had stayed a decade longer India would look like Gulf land.

Babasaheb was not so much of a people leader like Mayawati. He was not a visionary like Kanshiram. He could have reached out to even leaders like Sawarkar who were working for abolishing casticism. He did not open any educational institutions or built any cooperatives for Harijans. On day to day basis he could not relate to them. I do not fault him so much because of his long stay in west and marriage (second marriage to saraswat bramhin) he had very less in common with them. A milder version of MAJ. I hate to talk about other people esp dead ones. He was a great man given the odds he faced. Period. But keep it in mind that India is functional democracy because it has Dharmic culture. His greatest contribution was choosing a Dharmic Panth over Abrahmic religion. I think some where even Babasaheb wrote that his decision was based on which among the choices does not alienate Harijans from their neighbor, which does not make them give up their language, script and culture, which does not make rever distant land and prophet. I can respect the prophet but not at the expense of my mom and dad.

In #344 read "otherwise they could have just as readily used that.."

as "otherwise they would have just as readily used that.."

Manto writes "Now I understand why that horrible Hindu Majumdar puts up (PBUH) next to Jinnah's name. The whole thing was a grand anti-Muslim conspiracy just like the Hizb-e-Tahrir claims."

Classic use of the straw man fallacy. When stumped by his opponents genuine arguments, he "invents" an alien argument, attributes it to me so he can dismantle the argument of his own creation and muddy my real arguments. It was not an "anti-Muslim conspiracy" as it was a "pro-colonial conspiracy"- Muslims just happened to be at the receiving end whose religion was exploited to fragment India...they couldn't use Hinduism for that purpose because of the Hindu association with India as a nation, otherwise they could have just as readily used that.....

In #342 read "What is fictitious in your BS is your cheerleading for anil " as

What is fictitious is your BS in your cheerleading for anil

Manto writes "The fact is that you've failed to answer the basic question asked by HP in his post. I suggest you read and learn from it."

No need to return to your dishonest lying self if you have been stumped by my arguments. No question raised by HP in his post has been left unanswered by me. The new order that emerged, partners to which the British were- that of US hegemony used Pakistan and is still using it- that was the least of the questions that needed addressing because it is so obvious. His other questions regarding further division by ethnicity etc were comprehensively answered by me. What escapes you in all this is the fact that HP acknowledges that the colonials extrated mileage out of this division, it was a division granted not gained through struggle, in ohter words the country "was given". Except for the details of the methodology of division and his confusion that I was claiming that the "purpose" was primarily to weaken the Muslim political strength, when I wasnt claiming that as the primary motive is the only difference. In the broader picture he agrees more with me than with you. What is fictitious in your BS is your cheerleading for anil who claims that there was no such thing as British colonization, it was merely an extension of Mughal rule with white faces....and you called that a great post! Go figure.....

[Dear Masadi,
That is an interesting bit of fiction.]

Pay attention Masadi miaN. The interactor who said that has left a long track record of creative fiction behind him.

"colonization from a distance, for that purpose this division using MAJ as the public face, as history has shown, worked out quite well for them. Muslims would have become a formidable force in India politically if this division didn't fragment them into 3, and considering how they treated the Muslims vis-à-vis the Hindus of India to ferment conflict"

Now I understand why that horrible Hindu Majumdar puts up (PBUH) next to Jinnah's name. The whole thing was a grand anti-Muslim conspiracy just like the Hizb-e-Tahrir claims.

Dear Masadi,

No need to resort to abuse because you can't defend your thesis. Your lack of substance is availabe in that you've not even established a motive or gain let alone anything concrete to base it on. As for your freudian slip, it is not my interpretation that matters but your own.

Your failure to answer the simple question of what the British have gotten out of this (given that you've admitted that their hands were being twisted by the new imperial power) proves what I am saying? Or is there a grand western elite that is at work both in the US and UK and other "assorted" countries of Western imperialism?

The fact is that you've failed to answer the basic question asked by HP in his post. I suggest you read and learn from it.

Re: # 332; Masadi

Without agreeing with every word in your post, and reserving the right to differ with you at times on certain matters, your explanation is the one I find closest to my own on the subject in question.

Cheers.

In #335 read "I didn't know you were not practicing "shrinkery" as

"I didn't know you were now practicing "shrinkery"

By the way that was another Freudian Slip, Manto's new terminology for "typo"

now I don't have time left for your BS....later...

Manto writes "That is an interesting bit of fiction."

What it is is stumping your a$$ and showing the true face of your "god", MAJ, it also shows your inability to counter my arguments with anything substantial.

Regarding the "freudian" slip, I didn't know you were not practicing "shrinkery", when did you give up your law diploma to become a psychologist? By the way Allah has been used by people of many faiths to invent myths, we have the hadith among Muslims, the assorted books of the Holy Babble and so on, even though I was referring to that other agent of the colonials, the Allama who became a mass appeal "Islamic" mullah overnight....

Dear Masadi,

That is an interesting bit of fiction.

In my view ... it is the a fallacy in excess of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Now my knowledge of latin is rather poor but in your theory it is Propter Hoc Ergo Post Hoc.

Given your magical thinking routine, how would you interpret your freudian slip of Allah as the myth creator?

In #332 read "and the Allah as the myth creator and legitimizer."

"and the Allama (meaning Iqbal) as the myth creator and legitimizer."

HP writes "If the goal was to fragment India, they could have easily done that by using the multiple sub-nationalities that lived in the undivided India. What was the need to put together another country with diverse sub nationalities like Pakistan when they could have possibly had just the NWFP, Sindh, Bengal and Punjab as separate countries? "


Actually I have not jumped the gun, I thought through this quite carefully unlike Manto who has "jumped the gun" in cheerleading for HP's piece that has several holes. The first and foremost thing that needs to be recognized is that the British divided India into three parts for all intents and purposes, Bengal whose "Muslim identity" Jinnah had forgotten was set up for further division from Pakistan down the road. Why further division were not attempted of NWFP, Sindh and Punjab was i) because given their size and dependency they would have rejoined the union down the road making this entire division an exercise in futility. Their size and strength within a larger nation state could be controlled to prevent expulsion, where the size was larger as in Bengal, we know what happened therefore I claim it was setup for division from day one. Further (ii) if these ethnicities were granted "independence" what prevented the other many ethnicities from demanding their own independence as well. Have you thought that one out? The British might be dimwits but they are not that stupid. Now, the two major divisions in India, whom the British had been playing against each other, were the Hindus and the Muslims and the difference between the two, religion was used, with Jinnah as its public face and the Allah as the myth creator and legitimizer. What the British wanted was a viable state, large enough to cause trouble to India, rife with internal problems, where the ruling elite, the feudals could maintain the status quo dangling the threat of India, where the military would warp, faced by an external enemy, to what it became, one that could be used by it - as it was. The British were under tremendous pressure to decolonize by the US, whose new order (new window dressing same old colonization through a distance and implicitly through institutions) was emerging. These divisions given the Indian context are similar in principle to the divisions that took place in the ME. Regarding why a similar religion Pakistan was created and not different religion entities as in some countries of the ME, because that would defeat the whole purpose of creating a nation based on the religious identity- the religious difference with India was exploited not intra-country religious difference- have they not created a "uniform religion" country in the ME as well for ulterior motive, i.e. Israel?

Like I said I have thought through this, have not jumped the gun, and the arguments are sound. By the way I did not mention that the division was for the supreme purpose of fragmenting Muslim political clout, that was an added benefit, their division was to facilitate for themselves (the new order of the US in which they are partners) colonization from a distance, for that purpose this division using MAJ as the public face, as history has shown, worked out quite well for them. Muslims would have become a formidable force in India politically if this division didn't fragment them into 3, and considering how they treated the Muslims vis-à-vis the Hindus of India to ferment conflict, how they have acted in the ME etc, all evidence would suggest that this added benefit was sought by them as well.

than

HP, Anil and Majumdar,

Excellent posts. I hope Masadi comes up with a fruitful response (which I am sure he is capable of) then his routine knee jerks.

HP sain,

Re: 323

Well-written. This business of "Brits divided us b4 they left" is a way of avoiding blame for our own karnamey. Rather than admit our own unwillingness to make the kind of compromises/adjustments to stay together blame the Brits for dividing us.

Regards

HP Mian:

Here are my few words to add:

Colonialism was essential to the industrialization of European economies in those days. At its core was the urgent need to secure raw materials for economic engines of the Europe. Colonialists / imperialists used both their force and their religion to secure “trading posts” and the supply chain both inland and on-seas globally.

This trading nature of colonialism, and extended on-land and at-sea supply chain triggered development of trading posts all over the world. These trading posts became highly prosperous; entirely all prosperity was always brought home to the Europe. Inter-colony trade was shady, involved slave-trade, drug trade etc., all other trade was mainly with the mother country. All other legitimate trade between colonies was taxed by the mother country.

“No Taxation without Representation” was the first organized opposition to the colonialism. Boston tea party is something we have all read about. Why American colonies pay tax to the crown in England to bring tea from India was the heart of the issue.

Boer war was another. In both cases European settlers did not want to be burden with taxes on their consumption to mother country or countries.

It is more accurate that imperialism more than colonialism came to Asia, shortly after the trade had started, as traders met fierce resistance from the native people, culture and civilization.

East India Company traders and enforcers used Mogul techniques to establish themselves. Even their feudal system was re-institutionalized through zamindari and royatwari as means of revenue collection, and appointment of native subedars and maharajas was no different than Mogul approach. Except that the agent was either and an British or a French (in case of French colonies).

Opposition caused East India Company to be replaced by direct rule. Even Karl Marx reported that this change was inevitable. One may not be wrong that only a pretext was being searched, which Indians provided it in 1857.

Role of religion in those days, as I see was considered to accord privilege.

Missionaries in those days were not on the “deliverance” mission. Islam had already provided an example, and the British went on to perpetuate the system of reward and punishment that Moguls had successfully used to. They too created an Anglo-Indian class.

India had a very unique position. It was here Islam’s march was halted, and as was the halt of European imperialism with the grant of independence to India.

Many factors had convinced the British that after the world war II their days in India were numbered. As imperialists they had realized the benefit of trading with “India” as single trading block. East India Commpany remains the most successful venture for its shareholders.

Divide and conquer no doubt was central doctrine only while they ruled and could be rulers. I am not sure if there was much to be received by the imperialists through division after they leave. Reasons for creating state of Israel are quite different, than creation of Pakistan.

Many new courses were charted in 1930 – 1940s in India-British relationship. Treatment of India was very different than the treatment of middle east where, in true colonial spirit need was to secure raw material – oil, like in Africa.

Massaddi Mian is wrong on both counts when he asserts that weakening of Indian Muslims as central for the British, and when he terms the Brits as colonials in India.

British Empire emulated imperial Mogul empire to succeed in India. However, there was one major difference that British indeed built education and trade in India.

Aurangzeb was the principal reason to weaken Indian Muslim position. I can share my reasons, but later.

British happened to be the force to shake the last domino of the Mogul empire many years later. They had beaten the French, the other competing European empire builders, elsewhere.

Sir Sayyed indeed tried to bring in, education and trade that the British had introduced into Muslim India. I do not know if you are aware, Benares Hindu University was formed after the formation of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and was patterned on AMU. Otherwise Muslims from Punjab and NWFP were happy to be soldiers and feudals that they had been during Mogul period.

Congress forced the hand to quickly get over with the process of Independence. Jinnah did not have any better plan than TNT to wait for. He was a committed TNTist and religionist by that time.

Although, I highly doubt, that as smart and secular that he was, he must have known TNT would be bankrupt as policy. It was at best theory as symbolized in its name.

Real issue was for Muslims to accept a new role in post independent India, where they can no longer be the ruler of India. To some extent this turmoil still continues in Pakistan, although other religion is not an issue, identity is.

British wanted to leave when it became obvious to them that it was no longer viable for them to rule India.

Jinnah-Gandhi-Nehru & Co. were ready buyers for this trading of places. Brits were quite eager to trade with the minimum bloodshed on their watch.

They negotiated a great package for the sterling debt they had owed to India, to pay back through selling back British goods and services. Commonwealth indeed was a precursor of global economy in those days.

I also can debunk that elitism is not an issue, and has never been an issue. It has always existed among humans and will continue to exist for a long time due to human nature and dynamics that allow some to excel more than the others.

Re: # 326

i WILL be back if you call again saab. happy life for now saab

Re: # 311

thank you masadi saab you didn't even curse me once saab last 3/4 interacts. that is good saab. like i said you are a very clever man saab and we do love you. and don't get upset by idiots saab.

Regards

Peon of the West

Re: # 323

HP my dear, the way I understand it, the colonials really did not set out to fragment India (even less so along to fragment it along religious lines). Their original objective was to guard their own commercial interests (by avoiding local taxes, etc.) However, those people from East India Company who were locally in charge – because of the six-month or so time gap between messages crossing back and forth from England, felt enabled to make a lot of “on the spot” decisions which they understood that the parent company (and country) would not approve of but would be unable to do much about after the fact. They saw opportunities to advance Britain’s commercial interests by taking advantage of the numerous fault lines that existed, while simultaneously making themselves VERY rich.

It went like this.

There were a LOT of local rulers. These folks had no qualms of conscience taking help of the British to win over OTHER local rulers. When the (superior and better trained British forces) would win against the adversary, whoever those may be, the “winning” party would hand over a part of the land to the British as reward. The local East India Company officials would take home a substantial amount of cash, also the “winner” would hand over a LOT of precious gifts further enriching them and the Company would be guaranteed a steady source of revenue because it could impose a tax on the ryots of that land. The “winning” rulers did not think far enough (or did not care to think far enough) that eventually, their turn will come too, as it certainly did.

It was a long-term habit. We were a fractious people and perhaps still are.

Even as late as the second half of twentieth century, what was Pakistan’s accord with China on dividing Kashmir – if not just another example of that same old “come side with me in my tiff with my neighbor and I hand over a piece of our land to you!” mentality?!

#302 Posted by Eklavya on March 26, 2008 4:11:13 am

I dont know coz I dont read romair :(

#304 Posted by masadi

“The "facts" of history show that the colonials were more than happy to fragment India, reduce the political clout of the Muslims of India and work with the elites in Pakistan to get us to where we are at.”

This is just an opinion and especially when you say that the purpose of the exercise was to “reduce the political clout of the Muslims in India”. I can understand that the colonialist had some special interest in fragmenting India but reducing this fragmentation effort to just Muslims, fails to meet any logical criteria.

If the goal was to fragment India, they could have easily done that by using the multiple sub-nationalities that lived in the undivided India. What was the need to put together another country with diverse sub nationalities like Pakistan when they could have possibly had just the NWFP, Sindh, Bengal and Punjab as separate countries? Now if they had done that the idea of fragmentation would have made much more sense. Do you agree with that?

The Pakistan idea was sold to the smaller provinces in India by Muslim League by promising them some sort of autonomy which was more than what was offered in the 1935 India act. The Pak resolution of 1940 never called for one Pakistan, it suggested autonomy to Muslim Majority provinces that happened to be on the east and west flank of India.

The 1940 resolution as it was then, would have created several states and as we know that kind of fragmentation would have been whole lot better than creating just one country. All ingredients for this kind of fragmentation were very much visible just before the partition. Bacha Khan in NWFP wanted his own country; Sindhi GM Syed and Somro were more interested in their own country. The Bengali leadership too would have liked that idea. Baloch always wanted to be a separate country. To extend it even further, let’s take the cultural divide that existed in South and North India could have been exploited too.

I think there were several possibilities that existed at that time. Why the colonialists did not explore those possibilities and went after the most difficult proposition of dividing India on the religious grounds?

Taking the ME route of early 20th century would have meant putting together people of different faiths and sects in one geographical entity to keep that country permanently at the edge of disaster, like Lebanon and Iraq! Following your line of reasoning, we find that what Brits did was exactly opposite when they supported Pakistan as you claim, where people overwhelmingly had one faith.

In fact, the solution in the ME too was not some premeditated solution. The British created some artificial countries when all they were trying to do was to destroy the Turkish Empire. It was convenient at that time to create Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, rather than have one Arab country out of the Turkish control.

To wit: If Jinnah was part of the British scheme, then there is no doubt that the Congress leadership especially Gandhi and Nehru were part of the Plan too. Without Gandhi-Nehru consent there was no hope for an independent Pakistan. What about the communists who supported Pakistan, were they part of the conspiracy too?

I think you are jumping the gun here and fail to see the other side of your argument. Though I wouldn’t doubt that some bright British might have seen some opportunities in Pakistan but then they were not the imperialist power after the 2WW.

guru bhai, haven't followed this board recently, but I hope you are NOT impugning Baba Sahib's reputatation by any means. That would be so illogical and unfair, given that Gandhi (and Nehru) always knew what a privilege it was to have Baba Sahib around.

guru brother, after what Baba Sahib and the people he identitifed with the most had been put through for centuries and centuries, whatever frustration he showed, whatever words he used, were the very LEAST he could have done.

Gandhi fully understood that, and at the end of the day, Baba Sahib too recognized what Gandhi brought to the table.

---------

PLEASE, let's not foolishly sully the names of the tallest among us in the last few hundred years, whatever our specific disagreements over details may be. Disagreements are natural, disrespect is regrettable.

---------------

If I misunderstood, I apologize. I just skimmed through some posts.

Re: # 319 Yes! I agree. That was the whole point, what these idiots gathered in one hour from their casual reading using their common sense was missed by the learned chattering BA(Hon)s. BTW the friend developed software for hedge funds raking millions. Guess it pays for being super idiot.

Sticking to the subject. Manto should quote people other than Ambedkar while talking about MAJ or Gandhi. Ideally people should not talk about individual personalities but the social under currents and whether as individuals or group can we overpower them. I guess that is what one should get from reading social sciences, economics or humanities. Masadi spells out these currents much better than others.

More Prof Bose on Ambedkar.

Ambedkar was not from a poor Dalit family; his father was in the British army. The Maharaja of Baroda had financed his education both in Bombay University and in the USA and London. Although he was the representative of only the Mahar community in Maharashtra and unknown in the rest of India, he was sent to London to join the roundtable conference as the representative of the entire backward castes and tribals of India.

The British had the design to create Pakistan, Khalistan of Tara Singh, Dalitstans of Ambedkar and a number of tribal homelands so that there would not be any united India. That was the reason Gandhiji refused to go along with that conference.

Right till 1946, Ambedkar was a vehement opponent of the freedom movement. He claimed with pride that he was the representative of the people who had conquered India for the British. He proclaimed that the freedom movement was a sham, a ruse, and Gandhiji was an agent to perpetuate the Nazi-like suppression of the masses, and the British Viceroy was the saviour of the depressed classes.

In 1941, Dr Ambedkar was appointed as a member of the defence advisory committee of the Viceroy to help the British war efforts against Japan, when Rashbehari Bose and Mohan Singh had already founded the Azad Hind Fauz in Tokyo and were waiting for Netaji to arrive.

In 1942, when people of India were facing bullets from the British, Ambedkar was enjoying a comfortable life as the labour adviser to the Viceroy. Even in April 1946, Ambedkar was telling the Viceroy, Lord Wavell: “If India became independent, it would be one of the greatest disasters that could happen.”

We should ask for the source of finance of Ambedkar so that he could pay Rs 13,000 every month, a great lot of money in those days, to MN Roy since 1936.

As chairman of the drafting committee of the Constitution of free India, Ambedkar supported every suggestion of the British officers. On 6 September, 1949 in the Constituent Assembly, he disregarded the objections of Kuladhar Chaliha and Rohini Choudhury of Assam to make the tribal areas as separate administrative units, the mechanism of which was drafted by a British missionary, Rev Nicholas Roy, so that the Christian missionaries could convert the tribal population en masse. The result is what we are witnessing today in the north-eastern states.

Masadi miaN,

Congratulations on getting your book published!

guruji, EE/CS PHD's are idiots...as a generic class of people. thought I mention that to you at the outset. and frankly blaming others for your your own problems is the height of stupidity. maybe a seminar on that in the EE/CS/BS PHD studies would help

Masadi is probably the only one bringing light to this chowk. May be too bright for many. Masadi, brother thanx for the light but be little lite on elite.

Most of the educated Indians except Gandhi, Subhash Chandra and revolutionary ones were job seekers or salariats. What Masadi is saying was even observed by a Brazilian colleague in Murrey Hill NJ without knowing much about Indian History. He had perused for an hour Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie for an hour. He suspected that MAJ and to some extent Ambedkar were agents of British. At that time I did not know much about MAJ or Ambedkar. In last 20 years how the world events have been unfolding it seems Brazilian EE/CS PhD friend seem to be right. British could not carve out another Dalitisthan but they threatened Congress leadership using Harijan card in many ways. MAJ had turned British agent when he retired to England in 1931.

Instead of blaming this person or that person the next generation should learn how few can manipulate and exploit many. What MCaulay started 150 years back brought us here where we can not be sure about our brothers, cousins and neighbors .... every one looks paraya.

Let more erudite Prof Basu do the talking. Hope it helps in bringing people together.


Affirmative action-I

Experiments In The Former Soviet Union, Japan & America

By Dipak Basu

The author is Professor in International Economics, Nagasaki University

“If our political progress is to be real, the underdogs of our society must be helped to become men” (Rabindranath Tagore, Letters from Russia)

The debate on affirmative action in India tends to drag and isn’t always geared to the desired objective: creation of equality of opportunity. As with secularism, the reservation system in India has a different political aim ~ to make the system more unequal than what it is.

Secularism, far from making the state independent of religion, is intended to provide special privileges to certain religious groups. Similarly, the affirmative system is politically designed to provide restricted, not equal, rights to some chosen people.

The policy was perhaps started in India by Lord Curzon in 1905 by banning the employment of Hindu Bengalis in government services. The official argument was that they were too advanced and others, particularly Muslims, would be deprived of job opportunities. Later it was extended to the military services by giving preferential treatment to Muslims and Sikhs who were branded as martial races.

Divide population

Reservations in government jobs were introduced in 1918 in Mysore in favour of a number of castes and communities that had little representation in the administration. In 1909 and in 1919 the system was introduced for the Muslims in British India. In 1935, political reasons prompted the government to provide job reservation for the backward castes.

The real idea was to divide the population of India into several warring groups along religious, ethnic and caste lines by granting special rights so that India of the future would be divided and weak. A number of prominent politicians had acted as agents of the Raj to implement that line of action. Among them was BR Ambedkar. Although today he is regarded as a founding father of the nation, the writer of the Constitution and the cult figure of the backward castes with four universities named after him, he took no part in the freedom movement. Instead, like EVR Periyarer of Tamil Nadu, CP Ramaswamy Aiyar of Kerala, Jinnah and Mohammed Iqbal, he was a staunch loyalist of the empire, hand-in-glove with the British to divide India along caste, religion and tribal lines. The followers of the same person today include the Communists who, forgetting the essentials of the Marx-Lenin ideology, are supporting job reservation along caste and religious lines.

Equality of opportunity is the basis of a true democracy and as such affirmative action is required to equalise opportunities among people who are endowed differently. Even in the USA, affirmative action was promoted first by President Lyndon Johnson in 1974 to promote American blacks, who were deprived of most opportunities. However, it was not a success. The countries where it was most successful are Japan, the former Soviet Union and other former socialist countries of East Europe along with Cuba and Vietnam. India should take a lesson from them to implement a proper policy on affirmative action.

The success of the Soviet society regarding affirmative action was observed by Rabindranath Tagore, who wrote: “Throughout the ages, civilised communities have contained groups of nameless people. They toil most, yet theirs is the largest measure of indignity. They are deprived of everything that makes life worth living. I had often thought about them, but came to the conclusion that there was no help for them... In Russia at last. Whichever way I look I am filled with wonder. From top to bottom they are rousing everyone up without distinction”.

Immediately after the revolution, Lenin proclaimed the affirmative action known as korenizatsiia to provide affirmative preferences for non-Russians, backward ethnic groups and poor Russians. To gain the support of the non-Russian, who were largely illiterate except in Georgia and Armenia, a Sovietization in three phases was developed. In the first phase, the respective cultures were promoted. This aroused their national conscience. This eventually led to the second phase which was rapprochement and finally to the third phase which was merger. Non-Russians were awarded their own administrative territories and accorded preference in educational and promotion policies. This policy led to the creation of massive educational facilities in the republics of the backward people, employment for the representatives of the ethnic intelligentsia, foundation of republican academies of science and research centres supporting ethnic unions of writers, painters and film-makers. The policy
was applied uniformly to create elites, which, like their culture, would be national in form, but with the same content in all units of the union.

However, there was no fixed quota in admissions to the educational establishments or in jobs. Instead, education was made free at all stages and compulsory up to certain ages depending on their ethnic background. Every qualified student was entitled to scholarship to cover his or her costs of maintenance. Education was taken to the people where they lived. Even mobile schools and libraries were established for the nomadic populations of central Asia. A certain number of students from the backward areas of the Soviet Union was taken to the very best universities and institutes of higher learning. They got separate training so that they could compete effectively with the more advanced Russian students.

Due to this social engineering, within two decades the Soviet Union had eradicated illiteracy and had the best educated population in the world. It wasn’t a reservation system for the backward people, but completely free education and massive extension of education. Both the Soviet Union and Japan improved the lot of the totally uneducated without any formal reservation or quota system but through compulsory free education on a massive scale.

Japanese system

The guiding principle of the Japanese system of education is uniformity, conformity and integration. There is no room for special rights or reservations in that regimented system, which is available equally for everyone.

In the USA, the term affirmative action was first used in the Executive Order 11246, issued by President Johnson. The order called on federal government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, colour, or national origin.” However, those who were already educated or advanced financially among the blacks or Hispanics, equivalent to the creamy layers in India, got the benefits. Thus, the affirmative action could not change the basic nature of the most unequal society. There was considerable opposition to the system in the days of Reagan. Today, nearly 26 per cent of the population is functionally illiterate. Social mobility is on the decline. There is widespread homelessness and poverty among the blacks and Hispanics. In a word, affirmative action hasn’t changed the characteristics of American society.

#316
masadi is enjoying his stay in the halfway house.

masadi yaar, US Elite called, they want you to head up the Alternative History department at a Gov't College in Lala Musa. I told them that you will be perfect for it. Pay is a little less than what you make now, but you get to take home all the stationary that is in your desk. what say you pal?

Re: # 294

Massaddi Mian:

"...in furthering the cause of humanity, i.e. in public service...."

Hurling abuses is Massaddi Mian's public service. That public has to yourself and your mirror. Then you never knew what reality is, did you?