A Work In Progress
Feroz R Khan January 6, 2003
#65 Posted by Androscoggin on January 11, 2003 11:15:29 am
IT WAS NOT THAT JINNAH WAS NOT RIGHT IN HIS PERCEPTION OF RT.WING LURKING .IT WAS DIFFERENT ESTIMATE OF IT THAT SEPERATED AZAD FROM JINNAH.BOTH WERE HIGHLY INTELLIGENT & HONEST PERSON.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jan/02amar.htm
Organised attempt to write historywith slanted agenda:
*******************************************
Amartya Sen
In an obvious criticism of the Sangh Parivar`s stand on the Ayodhya issue, Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen Tuesday said there was an organised attempt in India to ``write a history manoeuvred to suit a slanted agenda in contemporary politics.``
``History could easily become bunk through motivated manipulation. This is especially so if the writing of history is manoeuvred to suit a slanted agenda. There are organised attempts in our country, at this time, to do just that,`` Sen said inaugurating the 61st annual session of the Indian History Congress in Calcutta.
Without naming any political party, Sen said such attempts were being made with ``arbitrary augmentation of a narrowly sectarian view of India`s past, undermining its magnificently multi-religious and heterodox history.``
Among other distortions, Sen said, there was a systematic confounding of mythology with history in the Ayodhya case.
``An extraordinary example of this has been the interpretation of Ramayana, not as a great epic but as documentary history, which can be invoked to establish property rights over places and sites possessed and owned by others,`` he said referring to the recent statement by the director of the Indian Council of Historical Research on the exact site where Rama was born.
The ICHR director`s statement asserting that the Babri masjid itself had no religious significance and then an `embarrassed` dissociation of the ICHR from these `remarkable pronouncements` illustrated the confounding of myth and history, Sen said.
The Ramayana, he said, was ``now being made into a legally authentic account that gives some members of one community an alleged entitlement to particular sites and land, amounting to a licence to tear down religious places of other communities.``
``Thomas de Quincey has an interesting essay called Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts. Rewriting of history for bellicose use can also, presumably, be a very fine art,`` the renowned economist, who described himself as a non-historian taking interest in history, said.
Condemning the ``activist incursions of communal politics in contemporary India like in the Babri Masjid demolition issue,`` he said: ``A heavily carpentered characterisation of Mughal rule as anti-Hindu had repeatedly been invoked by certain political outfits.``
``There are many superb historians in India to give these misconstructions their definite due. I am outlining some issues that relate to the truth and falsehood in general history...why is history such a battleground?`` Sen asked.
PTI
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jan/02amar.htm
Organised attempt to write historywith slanted agenda:
*******************************************
Amartya Sen
In an obvious criticism of the Sangh Parivar`s stand on the Ayodhya issue, Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen Tuesday said there was an organised attempt in India to ``write a history manoeuvred to suit a slanted agenda in contemporary politics.``
``History could easily become bunk through motivated manipulation. This is especially so if the writing of history is manoeuvred to suit a slanted agenda. There are organised attempts in our country, at this time, to do just that,`` Sen said inaugurating the 61st annual session of the Indian History Congress in Calcutta.
Without naming any political party, Sen said such attempts were being made with ``arbitrary augmentation of a narrowly sectarian view of India`s past, undermining its magnificently multi-religious and heterodox history.``
Among other distortions, Sen said, there was a systematic confounding of mythology with history in the Ayodhya case.
``An extraordinary example of this has been the interpretation of Ramayana, not as a great epic but as documentary history, which can be invoked to establish property rights over places and sites possessed and owned by others,`` he said referring to the recent statement by the director of the Indian Council of Historical Research on the exact site where Rama was born.
The ICHR director`s statement asserting that the Babri masjid itself had no religious significance and then an `embarrassed` dissociation of the ICHR from these `remarkable pronouncements` illustrated the confounding of myth and history, Sen said.
The Ramayana, he said, was ``now being made into a legally authentic account that gives some members of one community an alleged entitlement to particular sites and land, amounting to a licence to tear down religious places of other communities.``
``Thomas de Quincey has an interesting essay called Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts. Rewriting of history for bellicose use can also, presumably, be a very fine art,`` the renowned economist, who described himself as a non-historian taking interest in history, said.
Condemning the ``activist incursions of communal politics in contemporary India like in the Babri Masjid demolition issue,`` he said: ``A heavily carpentered characterisation of Mughal rule as anti-Hindu had repeatedly been invoked by certain political outfits.``
``There are many superb historians in India to give these misconstructions their definite due. I am outlining some issues that relate to the truth and falsehood in general history...why is history such a battleground?`` Sen asked.
PTI
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#64 Posted by drsubrotoroy on January 10, 2003 7:38:53 pm
What emerges from Professor FPR Robinson`s essay commissioned in the late 1980s at the University of Hawaii by myself and W. E. James in ``Foundations of Pakistan`s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s``, is the interesting paradox that, by the 1937 provincial election results, there was practically no demand for Pakistan in the areas which today constitute Pakistan! The demand for Pakistan had arisen mainly in Muslim-minority areas of India which would never become Pakistan, not the Muslim-majority areas which became Pakistan!
Jinnah received from the British parity of treatment with the Congress on September 4 1939, in spite of not having anything like a democratic base to support him. That may have been because the British had panicked after Hitler`s invasion of Poland on September 1 1939 followed by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3 1939.
In the same book mentioned above (the history of which is itself yet to be told) I coined the term ``Paradox of Kashmir``, namely, how is it that Kashmir was never mentioned or predicted to be a contentious issue for 100 years before Partititon, and then, since Partition, it has become the single-point agenda of the subcontinent, and the source of an enormous and unending drain of economic resources by the military/political elites of both India and Pakistan? (There have been 19 divisions of standing armies on each side of the India-Pak border!) The answer I gave has to do with the collapse of the political conversation between the major players under game-theory like conditions.
Azad -- whose Islamic identity and beliefs could hardly be doubted especially as compared to Jinnah -- stood as the most clear-headed and objective of all thinking political men of his time. He almost alone tried to bring all the parties to reason, but clearly failed. Solving the problems of India and Pakistan today, especially that of J&K, requires in my view a return to an understanding of something like his prescient analysis. But there are now very deep vested interests on several sides unprepared to actually solve problems reasonably. It would take genuine statesmanship on both sides, like that of De Gaulle and Adenauer or Reagan and Gorbachev, and that is obviously lacking rather sorely.
Sincerely
Subroto Roy, PhD (Cantab.)
Professor, VGSOM,
IIT Kharagpur, India 721302.
Jinnah received from the British parity of treatment with the Congress on September 4 1939, in spite of not having anything like a democratic base to support him. That may have been because the British had panicked after Hitler`s invasion of Poland on September 1 1939 followed by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3 1939.
In the same book mentioned above (the history of which is itself yet to be told) I coined the term ``Paradox of Kashmir``, namely, how is it that Kashmir was never mentioned or predicted to be a contentious issue for 100 years before Partititon, and then, since Partition, it has become the single-point agenda of the subcontinent, and the source of an enormous and unending drain of economic resources by the military/political elites of both India and Pakistan? (There have been 19 divisions of standing armies on each side of the India-Pak border!) The answer I gave has to do with the collapse of the political conversation between the major players under game-theory like conditions.
Azad -- whose Islamic identity and beliefs could hardly be doubted especially as compared to Jinnah -- stood as the most clear-headed and objective of all thinking political men of his time. He almost alone tried to bring all the parties to reason, but clearly failed. Solving the problems of India and Pakistan today, especially that of J&K, requires in my view a return to an understanding of something like his prescient analysis. But there are now very deep vested interests on several sides unprepared to actually solve problems reasonably. It would take genuine statesmanship on both sides, like that of De Gaulle and Adenauer or Reagan and Gorbachev, and that is obviously lacking rather sorely.
Sincerely
Subroto Roy, PhD (Cantab.)
Professor, VGSOM,
IIT Kharagpur, India 721302.
#63 Posted by ferozk on January 10, 2003 6:43:33 am
Re: drsubrotoroy # 43
I would tend to agree with Azad`s contention. Pakistan and its creation, as a seperate response to the Hindu majority, seems to have a better economic reason than a religious one underlying its premise. If the histriography of the pre-partition history is looked at, it would suggest that Muslim political awkening was more a result of their economic complusions than it was due to their fear of a religious alienation in India.
Pakistan seems to have been created in order to give the Muslims of India an economic insularity and to protect their economic interests. Muslim Leaque started out as a response to the cancellation of the partition of Bengal, an idea that was resisted by the Muslims on economic and not religious grounds. Muslim delegation, which went to argue against the unification of Bengal was made of Muslim landlords and businessmen, who had profited from the partition and risked losing their economic advantages in a Hindu dominated province. To perserve their economic interests, they created the All India Muslim Leaque Party and did not create a political party to demand a seperate homeland on theocratic grounds.
The reality was that the Muslims of India, due to their lack of education, orthodoxy, dogmatic political believes and diminished economic status were not (and this is debatable, did not feel) confident in competing with the Hindus in an economic sense. Pakistan was never destined to happen and there is merit to the arguement that had it not been for the stubborness of the Congress party and its desire to monoployize the power in the post-British India, Pakistan would have remained as nothing more than an utopian idea; a bargaining chip to gain more concessions from the majority by moderating the Congress` position on sharing power in the post-British India.
Partition makes more sense economically than it does religiously and the tragedy in Pakistan has been that we have ignored the economic reasons and have solely concentrated on the religious reasons to show a difference between the Hindus and the Muslims. Religion was used to unify the Muslims of India under the Muslim Leaque, because it was a more powerful agrument than an economic one and this argument was suggested by leaders of the Muslim Leaque, who belonged to the urbanized land owning intelligensia of the Muslims of India. They did so to protect their own economic interests and were of the opinion that their economic interests could be better protected outside of India; outside the gambit of a Hindu majority India, which would have undermined their economic influence.
Religion was employed to give the whole excerise a cover from the accusations of greed and profit making and to legitimize the protection a few peoples` vested economic interests. The real reasons for partition and Pakistan are economic and religion is only a pretext.
The question is, if Pakistan was founded on the basis of religion then why did the Muslim religious leaders of India condemned its idea - a nation founded on the basis of Islam?
Religion, in hindsight, was used to make an acute distinction between the Hindus and the Muslims and to rationalize Pakistan as nation founded on religious grounds instead of its reality - the preservation of economic interest of the Muslim community and that too, only a selected Muslim community, which did not represent the economic interests of the entire Muslim community of India.
It is time that the Pakistanis really moved beyond religion and asked the real reasons behind the creation of Pakistan. I fear that the truth will be less noble than the lies.
Ciao
I would tend to agree with Azad`s contention. Pakistan and its creation, as a seperate response to the Hindu majority, seems to have a better economic reason than a religious one underlying its premise. If the histriography of the pre-partition history is looked at, it would suggest that Muslim political awkening was more a result of their economic complusions than it was due to their fear of a religious alienation in India.
Pakistan seems to have been created in order to give the Muslims of India an economic insularity and to protect their economic interests. Muslim Leaque started out as a response to the cancellation of the partition of Bengal, an idea that was resisted by the Muslims on economic and not religious grounds. Muslim delegation, which went to argue against the unification of Bengal was made of Muslim landlords and businessmen, who had profited from the partition and risked losing their economic advantages in a Hindu dominated province. To perserve their economic interests, they created the All India Muslim Leaque Party and did not create a political party to demand a seperate homeland on theocratic grounds.
The reality was that the Muslims of India, due to their lack of education, orthodoxy, dogmatic political believes and diminished economic status were not (and this is debatable, did not feel) confident in competing with the Hindus in an economic sense. Pakistan was never destined to happen and there is merit to the arguement that had it not been for the stubborness of the Congress party and its desire to monoployize the power in the post-British India, Pakistan would have remained as nothing more than an utopian idea; a bargaining chip to gain more concessions from the majority by moderating the Congress` position on sharing power in the post-British India.
Partition makes more sense economically than it does religiously and the tragedy in Pakistan has been that we have ignored the economic reasons and have solely concentrated on the religious reasons to show a difference between the Hindus and the Muslims. Religion was used to unify the Muslims of India under the Muslim Leaque, because it was a more powerful agrument than an economic one and this argument was suggested by leaders of the Muslim Leaque, who belonged to the urbanized land owning intelligensia of the Muslims of India. They did so to protect their own economic interests and were of the opinion that their economic interests could be better protected outside of India; outside the gambit of a Hindu majority India, which would have undermined their economic influence.
Religion was employed to give the whole excerise a cover from the accusations of greed and profit making and to legitimize the protection a few peoples` vested economic interests. The real reasons for partition and Pakistan are economic and religion is only a pretext.
The question is, if Pakistan was founded on the basis of religion then why did the Muslim religious leaders of India condemned its idea - a nation founded on the basis of Islam?
Religion, in hindsight, was used to make an acute distinction between the Hindus and the Muslims and to rationalize Pakistan as nation founded on religious grounds instead of its reality - the preservation of economic interest of the Muslim community and that too, only a selected Muslim community, which did not represent the economic interests of the entire Muslim community of India.
It is time that the Pakistanis really moved beyond religion and asked the real reasons behind the creation of Pakistan. I fear that the truth will be less noble than the lies.
Ciao
#62 Posted by jay on January 10, 2003 6:43:23 am
FINISHED WORK,
An egyptian and a yemeni, members of al quida have been arrested in karachi. A pakistani, name Hamdani arrested in the US. Pak UN ambassador to be recalled to avoid prosecution.
The used to be a YLH on chowk, he was a Hamdani and he maintains that hamdanis are direct decendents of the man.
An egyptian and a yemeni, members of al quida have been arrested in karachi. A pakistani, name Hamdani arrested in the US. Pak UN ambassador to be recalled to avoid prosecution.
The used to be a YLH on chowk, he was a Hamdani and he maintains that hamdanis are direct decendents of the man.
#61 Posted by Ashok on January 9, 2003 5:46:36 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#60 Posted by einsteinwallah on January 9, 2003 5:40:27 pm
[ #43 by drsubrotoroy on January 9, 2003 3:20am PT]
At the link: (http://ghazali.net/book1/body_reference1.htm), the author, Abdus Sattar Ghazali, has following to say:
17. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in his biography, India Wins Freedom, fixes the responsibility for the partition of India, at one place on Jawaharlal Nehru, and at another place on Vallabh-bhai Patel by observing that ``it would not perhaps be unfair to say that Vallabh-dhbai Patel was the founder of Indian partition.`` H.M. Seervai, Partition of India: Legend and Reality, p-162
If you read links Google throws up on searching ``Direct action day`` (without quotes) and also searching ``G.M. Syed Jinnah`` (without quotes) you will find tones of writing which implicate Jinnah as chief mastermind of partition. So it surprises me that Maulana had different view. Obviously Maulana had no opportunity to observe Jinnah from very near. May be Maulana received his information from biased sources?
At the link: (http://ghazali.net/book1/body_reference1.htm), the author, Abdus Sattar Ghazali, has following to say:
17. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in his biography, India Wins Freedom, fixes the responsibility for the partition of India, at one place on Jawaharlal Nehru, and at another place on Vallabh-bhai Patel by observing that ``it would not perhaps be unfair to say that Vallabh-dhbai Patel was the founder of Indian partition.`` H.M. Seervai, Partition of India: Legend and Reality, p-162
If you read links Google throws up on searching ``Direct action day`` (without quotes) and also searching ``G.M. Syed Jinnah`` (without quotes) you will find tones of writing which implicate Jinnah as chief mastermind of partition. So it surprises me that Maulana had different view. Obviously Maulana had no opportunity to observe Jinnah from very near. May be Maulana received his information from biased sources?
#59 Posted by arjun_m on January 9, 2003 12:26:36 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#58 Posted by arjun_m on January 9, 2003 11:50:54 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#57 Posted by Ali87 on January 9, 2003 11:37:34 am
#41 by arjun_m on January 8, 2003 10:52pm PT
and what else is new from the RSS chaddiwala? He feels free to gloat on the hardwork of Narayan Murty, Premji et al
He critisizes the pakistani fundus while he pretends to be a moderate.
How come he does not feel any shame in the plight of the those Indians who are die time and again while attempting to go to western countries by illegal means, some times in Slovenia, some times in cargo ships.
He feels no shame on the plight of those living Sub -Human lives in Orissa eating Mango kernels to keep away hunger.
He feels no shame in the millons in Mumbai who live equally sub- human lives.
He feels no shame in the Killing of thousands of Srilankans at the hands of Hindu LTTE which was trained by India in the jungles of Tamil Nadu and supplied with arms till Rajiv Gandhi was killed and IPKF was routed in Sri Lanka.
And why should he feel any shame. He is the one who feels that Prercived wrongs committed few centruies back need to be first corrected before he can breath. All the while he can be found with the VHP nanga Sadhus who will cheerfully claim that Life of a Cow is more sacred than of a Human.
These Chaddi walas are the one who find so much time to indulge in Pakistan/Muslim bashing be cause they feel they can take safe credit for the work of likes of Manmohan Singhs, Shiv Nadar, Premji, Murtys of India.
and what else is new from the RSS chaddiwala? He feels free to gloat on the hardwork of Narayan Murty, Premji et al
He critisizes the pakistani fundus while he pretends to be a moderate.
How come he does not feel any shame in the plight of the those Indians who are die time and again while attempting to go to western countries by illegal means, some times in Slovenia, some times in cargo ships.
He feels no shame on the plight of those living Sub -Human lives in Orissa eating Mango kernels to keep away hunger.
He feels no shame in the millons in Mumbai who live equally sub- human lives.
He feels no shame in the Killing of thousands of Srilankans at the hands of Hindu LTTE which was trained by India in the jungles of Tamil Nadu and supplied with arms till Rajiv Gandhi was killed and IPKF was routed in Sri Lanka.
And why should he feel any shame. He is the one who feels that Prercived wrongs committed few centruies back need to be first corrected before he can breath. All the while he can be found with the VHP nanga Sadhus who will cheerfully claim that Life of a Cow is more sacred than of a Human.
These Chaddi walas are the one who find so much time to indulge in Pakistan/Muslim bashing be cause they feel they can take safe credit for the work of likes of Manmohan Singhs, Shiv Nadar, Premji, Murtys of India.
#56 Posted by arjun_m on January 9, 2003 10:21:24 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#55 Posted by arjun_m on January 9, 2003 10:11:36 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#54 Posted by arjun_m on January 9, 2003 10:11:36 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#53 Posted by arjun_m on January 9, 2003 10:11:36 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#52 Posted by arjun_m on January 9, 2003 10:11:36 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#50 Posted by veeresh on January 9, 2003 10:11:35 am
````After all, the real reason for Pakistan was that the Muslims of India, having debated the wisdom of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, were still resisting learning English and as a result, were economically and politically disadvantaged. At the turn of the century, the Hindus had adopted the ways of the British; just like a hundred years later they would take to water like ducks in adopting American mannerisms, and were politically and economically better off than the Muslims. ````
This bit I didn`t understand. From all accounts, it was the pre-partition Muslims who were able to merge with the ``British way`` with ease.
Right?
#49 Posted by stuka on January 9, 2003 10:11:35 am
Post 48:
That is nothing compared to the high hopes that UrsTruly had for providing US with assistance. Pls note points 1, 2 and 3...talk about fond hopes...
#34 by Urstruly on September 16, 2001 11:23pm PT
THE COMING DAYS
Pakistan must brace for a wave of ethnic violence and a series of terrorist bombings all across its bazars, railway lines, and densely populated areas. The GOP must anticipate this in advance because CIA and RAW will work in unison to unleash such terror on Pakistani nation. THe Western media will of course be used to spin doctor the whole thing and blame this violence on to Talibans. The purpose of such camapagin would be to change the general public opinion about Talibans in Pakistan. The sympathizers of Talibans in Pakistan will thus also be neutralized.
In this scenario Pakistan has two choices:
1. Expedite the handing over of OBL to a neutral Europeon nation.
If that is not possible
2. Provide US army the camp sites to launch ground operations into Afghanistan. The war of course will take years to end in Afghanistan because Iran, Russia, and China will be more than happy to help Afghans with weapons and supply line because each has some scores to settle. If Russia doesnt do that the Russian mafia definitely will. Afghanistan is definitely a Vietnam in the making.
Meanwhile:
1. Pakistan must raise the case for its 40 F-16s which are already been paid for but US government has hold them for years now, shamelessly and arrogantly.
2. Paksitan should have all its debts paid off by Americans.
3. The issue of plebicite in Indian Oppressed Kashmir must be put on the priority in the United Nations agenda.
That is nothing compared to the high hopes that UrsTruly had for providing US with assistance. Pls note points 1, 2 and 3...talk about fond hopes...
#34 by Urstruly on September 16, 2001 11:23pm PT
THE COMING DAYS
Pakistan must brace for a wave of ethnic violence and a series of terrorist bombings all across its bazars, railway lines, and densely populated areas. The GOP must anticipate this in advance because CIA and RAW will work in unison to unleash such terror on Pakistani nation. THe Western media will of course be used to spin doctor the whole thing and blame this violence on to Talibans. The purpose of such camapagin would be to change the general public opinion about Talibans in Pakistan. The sympathizers of Talibans in Pakistan will thus also be neutralized.
In this scenario Pakistan has two choices:
1. Expedite the handing over of OBL to a neutral Europeon nation.
If that is not possible
2. Provide US army the camp sites to launch ground operations into Afghanistan. The war of course will take years to end in Afghanistan because Iran, Russia, and China will be more than happy to help Afghans with weapons and supply line because each has some scores to settle. If Russia doesnt do that the Russian mafia definitely will. Afghanistan is definitely a Vietnam in the making.
Meanwhile:
1. Pakistan must raise the case for its 40 F-16s which are already been paid for but US government has hold them for years now, shamelessly and arrogantly.
2. Paksitan should have all its debts paid off by Americans.
3. The issue of plebicite in Indian Oppressed Kashmir must be put on the priority in the United Nations agenda.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: #70 hamidm: you wrote... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 33 You... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- KaalChakra: DM ji, we will... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 102 Do... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 102 Problem is... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 104 Quetta will... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 94 Jokingly... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- sadna: OK, thanks d_m, that... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
