The Irreverent Hero Islam Forgot

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.

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.

#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.

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

I dont know coz I dont read romair :(

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?!

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: # 326

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

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.

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, 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.

than

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.

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

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

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?

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....

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