The Irreverent Hero Islam Forgot

"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?!