Nirmala Deshpande - A Truly Great Soul

Majumdar,

It is STILL right to think through the eyes of Gandhiji. We have a sizeable Muslim population with us and its time we started to think how we win their good will.

As Harish said, if INC or the Indian people thought Gandhiji was making unrequited and inappropriate concessions, which was against their will, they would have prevailed on them. This is what a Hindu is capable of. The concept of 'Dharmam' is too ingrained into the people of this land; they could not have acted in anyother way other than Gandhi's. In a way Gandhi represented the commoners of the majority pool. At least this has inculcated a sense of fairness or at least the importance of being fair. That’s the reason we have had upper caste people becoming the champions of lower caste.

Bharathyar, an important Tamil poet, a Brahmin revolted, against the upper caste for their discriminatory behaviour. He was duly ostracized. There are several instances and leaders like him. What I am trying to say is it was Gandhi or largely Gandhi's way of thinking that others related to shaped/shapes our conscience and made/make aware what our Dharmam is. We cannot afford to deviate.

Harishbhai,

( are you saying they were discriminated by Hindus when the British were ruling India? )

No. But they felt that they would be once Hindoos gain control of independent India unless they were given the sort of safeguards that INC was unable was to give, rightly or wrongly.

(Muslims (mainly B'deshi) have changed the demographics to such an extent that in many districts of Assam and Tripura, Hindus are already in a minority.)

Had MKG not cooled down the atmosphere in Calcutta, there would have been a complete exchange of population in NE India (Bengal/Assam) as well like in NW (Punjab) and the scenario that you are visualising would have never happened.

(What do you mean by fair treatment Majumdar bhai? )

I am by no means implying that IMs are treated unfairly in India (except aberrations like Gujarat). And that is why IMs are not talking about TNT nor are so many IMs invovled in the global jihad as some other countries are.

(What makes you think I'm advocating MKG ideals? )

Are you saying that you dont advocate MKG's ideals?

Regards

#118 by majumdar

If Hindoos dont violate the principles of Indian Constt I dont see any reason why IMs shud want another Partition, particularly as Pak/Bdesh do not show an exactly golden precedent.

Majumdar bhai, are you saying they were discriminated by Hindus when the British were ruling India? As for the Pak/B'desh, some Pakis already believe that Pakistan's sorry state of affairs is because Pakis are not being true Muslims and that the imposition of Shariah would be the perfect panacea. How difficult would it be for some IM to pick it up and then demand a separate state where they could correct the "mistakes" made by Pakistan?

Besides at the time of Partition Muslims formed a majority in NE and NW India, they dont do now anywhere.

AFAIK, Muslims (mainly B'deshi) have changed the demographics to such an extent that in many districts of Assam and Tripura, Hindus are already in a minority.

They are a minority everywhere (except in Kashmir) and if given a fair treatment I dont see them opting for another TNT.

What do you mean by fair treatment Majumdar bhai? Muslims are as discriminated against as other communities including Hindus are. But if you make this discrimination the basis and then turn it into a widespread campaign, it wouldn't be long before it turns into the bogey of Hindu domination, which is what Jinnah did 60 years ago.

Then lets follow MKG's precedent and follow his principles- disband the army and nukes, give up JK without a fight, allow Moplahs to set up Khilafat all over the place and all the rest.

What makes you think I'm advocating MKG ideals?

Harishbhai,

If Hindoos dont violate the principles of Indian Constt I dont see any reason why IMs shud want another Partition, particularly as Pak/Bdesh do not show an exactly golden precedent. Besides at the time of Partition Muslims formed a majority in NE and NW India, they dont do now anywhere. They are a minority everywhere (except in Kashmir) and if given a fair treatment I dont see them opting for another TNT.

(Jinnah set a dangerous precedent)

OK. Then lets follow MKG's precedent and follow his principles- disband the army and nukes, give up JK without a fight, allow Moplahs to set up Khilafat all over the place and all the rest.

Regards

#113 by majumdar

Well, the IMs agreed voluntarily to live with Hindoos under the Principles of the Indian Constitution in 1947-50 didn't they?

What Cheema Sahib says is spot on. What if the younger generation of Muslims say they weren't the ones who agreed to voluntarily live under the Indian constitution and that they cannot be held responsible for their grandparents' choices? Jinnah set a dangerous precedent; at least theoretically, there's no guarantee that it won't repeat. Like they say, you can be a virgin only once.

Re: # 111
AKCheema..
Have they gone separate ways sir? There are as many (at least) muslims in India as the population of Pakistan.

Ans: Muslims in India are thinly populated in most of the states. Muslims can survive only through integration. If they want separate state, in current setup, it is not possible to identify an area, which can be made exclusive for muslims.

Re: # 114; vengat
"I wish to think that the majority of the Muslims, who chose to stay back, wanted to have their destiny unfolded in India. "

nicely worded vengat; lot of wishful thinking there!

majority stayed back because of obvious logistics involved in mass human movement; let's not be foolish about it.

Cheers

Re: # 111

Cheema Saab,

I wish to think that the majority of the Muslims, who chose to stay back, wanted to have their destiny unfolded in India. They, proly, did not subscribe to the notion of religion as the only uniting factor.

Cheema sahib,

(How happy and supportive would you be if they all decide to have a repeat of 1947 in the future?)

Well, the IMs agreed voluntarily to live with Hindoos under the Principles of the Indian Constitution in 1947-50 didn't they? They made their choice and as long as the principles of the Indian Constt are not violated by the majority, I dont see why they wud want a repeat of the Partition.

Regards

Re: # 102
Haris...
Jinnah was representing moslems. They will resort to any level to achieve their goal. They are not loosing anything. Why should not we/indians make it in such a way that, it does not create ugly situation?
Couple of gems from MG...
"Islam unites, it does not devide...The division of India will be unislamic"- So, he was preaching Islam to moslems. How Islam unites? Khilafat movement...and India will be under Khalifa of middle east...

Re: # 107; majumdar sahib,

" And thankfully we didnt and allowed the Partition to happen. The point is that the Muslims and Hindoos had different POVs and it was best to go separate ways."

Have they gone separate ways sir? There are as many (at least) muslims in India as the population of Pakistan.

How happy and supportive would you be if they all decide to have a repeat of 1947 in the future?

I think we all need to move on from this parochial attitudes like I said on the other board

Khuda Hafiz

Re: # 107

Majumdar,

"But do I take it that you agree that Muslims had far too many whims and fancies that were not acceptable to Hindoos. In that case would it not be unfair to blame MAJ (pbuh) for the Parttition, rather the blame shud be put on the entire Muslim community."

The foremost duty of a leader is to censure if his followers go wrong. When Gandhi could reproach his Hindu brethren, why not Jinnah?

Periyar makes a good example...

Re: # 102
Haris...
Ans: Partition without violence was quite a possibility. The Brit administration was quite capable enough to handle such situation. At the time of direct action day, Brits just allowed Surawardy to carry out massacre.When British Govt. decided to leave, they had almost allowed the anarchy to prevail.

Harishbhai,

(The ML demands were atrociously unfair and against the very principles of democracy.)

From our POV, yes. But from the POV of Muslims who feared Hindoo domination, no?

(Do you seriously think the INC could have accepted those and still remained a true and fair representative of all Indians?)

No. The ML demands were not acceptable to Hindoos and INC wud have been untrue to Hindoos had they accepted it.

(lest we repeat another Derby here )

Nothing wrong in having a derby as long as decorum is maintained. And to be fair you have always been polite and fair as far as interactions with me is concerned.

Regards

Vengat,

(Do you mean to say that we should have been perfect and have yielded to all the whims of Muslims to keep the country intact?)

No. And thankfully we didnt and allowed the Partition to happen. The point is that the Muslims and Hindoos had different POVs and it was best to go separate ways.

But do I take it that you agree that Muslims had far too many whims and fancies that were not acceptable to Hindoos. In that case would it not be unfair to blame MAJ (pbuh) for the Parttition, rather the blame shud be put on the entire Muslim community.

(Gandhiji was ready to go all the distance)

He did say "the country will be divided over my dead body" but didn't keep his word on Aug 14-15, 1947.

Regards

#103 by majumdar

I have never blamed MKG for India's poor economic growth, I have merely blamed him for making JLN the PM.

Majumdar bhai, in #91, you said the following:

#91 by majumdar

I blame him for imposing JLN as India's PM who (along with his daughter) screwed up India's economy.

If we go by the logic in this post, since Jinnah asked for the Partition, and the British for whatever reason did not/could not prevent violence and since the violence happened, Jinnah is to blame. Isn't it?

Had INC accpeted all of ML's demands there wud be no Partition either.

The ML demands were atrociously unfair and against the very principles of democracy. Do you seriously think the INC could have accepted those and still remained a true and fair representative of all Indians?

All said and done, I don't want to press you on this anymore lest we repeat another Derby here :-) You are entitled to your opinion.