Muslim League’s Politics (1937-1947)

rsridhar:
``Would you deny that India became secular because of its hindu majority?``
It may be that the hindu ethos is quite compatible with secualrism. But it is well to remember that the two people most credited with the Indian constitution - Nehru and Ambedkar -could hardly be considered as Hindus. Nehru was as much a Hindu as Jinnah was a Muslim; in fact much less so because, unlike Jinnah, he never pretended to be a Hindu. In his will, when he asked his ashes to be immersed in the Ganges, he made it a point to add that the river had no religious significance for him. As far Ambedkar, he explicitly rejected Hindu religion and embraced Buddhism.

doofus #172

You are back? Still trying to ``prove`` that India/Bharat does not exist? Just for the record, these are the two official names of India.

I have asked you this question before and I will ask you this question again: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. are all ``nations`` that have been invented in the last 100 years. Historically, none of these were nations in the modern sense. Indeed, as I pointed our previously, islam is deeply anti-thetical to nationalism and recognizes only itself (and few dhimmis).

If you had even the slightest knowledge of history, you would also be aware that till the mid 19th century there was no such country as Italy or Germany. All of them emerged in the middle of the 1800`s. From your point of view they do not actually exist???

So what is your point? Are you having some kind of mental breakdown? If you feel India does not exist, well, thats I guess a certain kind of delusional thinking. We can only feel sorry for you. Do you feel that you exist? Please enlighten us.

Ancient descriptions of India …

1. From “Indica” by Megasthenis 300 BC – Greek Ambassador to court of Chandragupta Maurya

II. But the parts from the Indus eastward, these I shall call India, and its inhabitants Indians. The boundary of the land of India towards the north is Mount Taurus. It is not still called Taurus in this land; but Taurus begins from the sea over against Pamphylia and Lycia and Cilicia; and reaches as far as the Eastern Ocean, running right across Asia. But the mountain has different names in different places; in one, Parapamisus, in another Hemodus; elsewhere it is called Imaon, and perhaps has all sorts of other names; but the Macedonians who fought with Alexander called it Caucasus; another Caucasus, that is, not the Scythian; so that the story ran that Alexander came even to the far side of the Caucasus. The western part of India is bounded by the river Indus right down to the ocean, where the river runs out by two mouths, not joined together as are the five mouths of the Ister; but like those of the Nile, by which the Egyptian delta is formed; thus also the Indian delta is formed by the river Indus, not less than the Egyptian; and this in the Indian tongue is called Pattala. Towards the south this ocean bounds the land of India, and eastward the sea itself is the boundary. The southern part near Pattala and the mouths of the Indus were surveyed by Alexander and Macedonians, and many Greeks; as for the eastern part, Alexander did not traverse this beyond the river Hyphasis. A few historians have described the parts which are this side of the Ganges and where are the mouths of the Ganges and the city of Palimbothra, the greatest Indian city on the Ganges.

Read more
http://www.und.ac.za/und/classics/india/arrian.htm

---

2. “An account of the Western Regions” by Huan Tsang 7th century Buddhist Pilgrim

From the book “Xuanzang – A Buddhist pilgrim on the Silk Road” by Sally Wriggins

(For the unaware – Xuanzang or Huan Tsang was a seventh century Chinese Buddhist monk who traveled to India in 629 CE, visited Taxila, Multan, Kanauj, Ayodhya, Kashmir, Nalanda, Bodh Gaya, Assam, Kanchipuram, Nasik, Ujjain … for 15 years and studied at Nalanda University in Bihar for several years. )

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813334071/qid=1063385495/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8331646-8029613?v=glance&s=books

---

Chapter 4 – The land of India (Page 53)

When Xuanzang finally reached the neighborhood of Langham, near Jalalabad, he felt as Alexander the Great had, nine centuries earlier, that he had entered a new world. Alexander offered sacrifices to Athena to inaugurate his new campaign. At that point also Xuanzang paused in the detailed narrative of his journey to take an overview of Indian Civilization. Evidently, Xuanzang, like Alexander, must have been aware of having reached the gate of a kind of promised land.

Xuanzang began by naming the country, Indu, but did not indicate what kingdoms and states he was including. He overestimated the country’s size, although it would be important to know what he is designating as India. The whole territory

``Was above 90,000 li in circuit, with the Snowy Mountains (the Hindu Kush) on the north side and the sea on the three other sides. It was politically divided into seventy Kingdoms; the heat of the summer was very great and the land to a large extent marshy. The northern region was hilly with brackish soil; the east was a rich fertile plain; the southern division had a luxuriant vegetation; the west had a soil coarse and gravelly.``

His overview was virtually an ethnographic survey, for it included measures of time and space and comments on the general characteristics of the people and on both the written and spoken languages. The Indian polysyllabic language, with it’s alphabetic script so different from the ideograms of Chinese, seemed to appeal to him. He provided information on the condition of cities and villages, public buildings, convents, and private houses. He noted Buddhist monasteries had “a most remarkable architecture. They have a tower a each of the four corners of the quadrangle and three halls in a tier. The rafters and roof beams are covered in strange figures, and the doors, windows and walls are covered with strange colors.”

He attached great importance to the clothing of the different classes. “The inward clothing and outward attire of the people have no tailoring” he said, his Chinese way of describing the saris of Indian women and the dhotis of Indian men. He mentioned the extreme cleanliness of the people, which many have noted.

These material details were followed by a description of the morals, the education of children, and the literature of India. Although he regarded Brahmins as heretics, he did justice to their intelligence, love of learning, and intellectual labors. He was less sparing in his discussion of Buddhists, mentioning the eighteen sects in which they were divided and their often acrimonious discussions. He was amazed that for people whose spiritual attainments were high, the distinctions conferred on them were extraordinary; Buddhist paragons of virtue rode richly caparisoned elephants, just as he himself would do at Nalanda and later on King Harsha’s elephant. Finally, he outlined the differences in the major heriditaory castes – the Brahmins, the highest caste, the Kshatriyas, or the race of kings (and warriors); the Vasyas, or the class of traders, and the forth class, the Sudras or agriculturalists. He also mentions the particularly Indian phenomenon of the holy men, or wanderers, who did not care for the material things of life.

As if this were not enough, he discussed the law, the army, administration of justice, royal families, and the nine kinds of salutations in India, which had special significance because of caste differences and funeral practices. He devoted the last three chapters to general, but somewhat disconnected, considerations of public administration, agriculture, and mineral resources. It is in many ways a tour de force. Everything is noted and well organized. Then he continued an account of his travels. The next place he visited was Jalalabad, ancient Nagarahara.


3.”Tarikh al-Hind” by Alberuni - 1017 A.D

OK I’ve run out of STEAM !! … but the point is … here are some ancient descriptions of what people then thought was “India”

And if anyone is interested here is a link to Chapter II of Tarikh al-Hind “On the Belief of the Hindus in God “ which is an amazing read.
http://saif_w.tripod.com/interfaith/hinduism/alberuni_belief_of_hindus_in_god.htm

hamidm:
``however my contention is that india was NOT a nation before 1947 and the division, while not perfect, was a logical separation of people who did not share in the Hindu ethos``

Logical? Does it mean that Muslims who stayed on India shared the Hindu ethos and those who went to Pakistan didn`t? I don`t think so.
One could make a case that British India consisted of several nations or that it was a single nation sharing a common ethos (and I presume you agree with my statement that even Pakistani muslims share some of the same ethos). I think the problem may be with the use of the term `hindu` to describe that ethos. What we are talking about is a common ethos which traces its origin to the pre-islamic era of this landmass. Call it indic or south asian or whatever.
The only way one could make a case of two nations is if Muslims are considered a separate nation, unlike several other religions which constituted British India. And one could certainly make such a case, too. Because the muslim conquerors never explicitly accepted this ethos as their own and the converts claimed to reject it.
Another point. I think a part of the problem may be that the concept of nation is perhaps different in South Asia than in the West. I am thinking here of the urdu term `qaum` which is more nebulous. Thus we may refer variously to someone belonging to the Hindu qaum, rajput qaum, pathan qaum, etc., etc., often refering to the same person, depending upon the context.
I also agree with you that Pakistan, after Bangladesh, is a lot more homogeneous unit than India. Still, it is forever debating the question of its identity whereas it seems to be a non-issue in India.
...I too apologise for some uncalled name calling directed at you.

``Hind, Hindustan - post-Islamic/Persian name and only applies to the Hindi-speaking area of Northern India. ``

Crap. Aurangzeb chronicles fighting far south in the Deccan and it is still referred to as hind

``Bharat Varsh - the land of a mythological Hindu prince, historically only applies to a certain area in the Gangetic Plain. ``

Crap again. Tthe Ramayana has reference to Bharat as well as Lanka. I don`t think Lanka was ever in the Gangetic belt.

``India, Indica etc - European origin, only begun to be used by `Indians` in the 20th century.``

True.

``Just tell us why this vast subcontinent of a multitude of distinct and separate races, languages and cultures is a nation called `India`. ``

Umm, coz we choose to call it so dumbass. Oh yeah, different languages have different words for the same country. Bbut then again, that might be too complex for you.

And oh yeah, what is the name of this `country` of yours? Let`s look at the candidates so far:


Hind, Hindustan - post-Islamic/Persian name and only applies to the Hindi-speaking area of Northern India.

Bharat Varsh - the land of a mythological Hindu prince, historically only applies to a certain area in the Gangetic Plain.

India, Indica etc - European origin, only begun to be used by `Indians` in the 20th century.


So, once again, what is the NAME of your `country` ????? It does have one, doesn`t it? :)

Alephnull # 133,

That was an excellent link. Thanks.


Maybe Hamidm needs to read that to know about india before 47.

Adios

#169 ``I don`t think either of us are really hitting the nail on the head though Alep Null comes the closest. ``

AlephNull comes closest?? For crying out loud, we aren`t asking you to explain the principles of Quantum friken Mechanics. This thread is about to die and you Indians still haven`t answered the question. Just tell us why this vast subcontinent of a multitude of distinct and separate races, languages and cultures is a nation called `India`.

Thanks!

HamidM:

``i find it difficult to believe that punjabis and keralites would consider them to be part of the same nation unless it is based on the common denominator of hinduism........``

Oon the flip side I find it hard to believe that Punjabis and Keralites would stay together if it was only Hhinduism that connected them. If religion was that powerful a glue, Pak and Afghanistan would have become one and Nepal would certainly not be an independent country.

I don`t think either of us are really hitting the nail on the head though Alep Null comes the closest.

I apologize for the insults that you are getting because it is completely unwarrented.

re:#162 by dost-mittar

I am a late comer to this forum but i just saw the last few posts and i got interested. A similar question was raised in another forum. Was India a nation before 1947?

To me, a ``nation`` is constituted by people but a ``nation state`` is a geographical entity with well demarcated boundaries. India was a nation state under the British because the ``administrative unit`` the British called India was a definite geographical entity. It persisted after 1947 but with different boundaries.
A ``nation`` however is a concept, in the minds of people. Jews for millenia, scattered across the globe, kept alive the ``jewish state`` of Israel in their minds. That concept usually comprises of some ideas, common culture, mythology, usually (but not necessarily) a common religion. Israel became a nation-state (or a country) in 1947 but was a nation much before that.
To repeat the question: Was India a nation prior to 1947?
India has always been known by different names in the past: Aryavarta, Bharat-varsha or Bharat, Hindustan, India. These names mean different things to different people. Hindus have for millenia called the land beyond the Sindhu river (moderen day Indus) as Bharat-varsha. Greeks called that Inde or India. Muslims called the land with hindus as Hindustan. The concept that this area of land was somehow different from the rest already existed.
In the old days, during the sacrificial ceremnoies, the invocation to ceremony often started with name of a place, its location and included terminologies like ``Bharat-varsha`` and ``Jambu Dwipa``. This concept was however not concrete and was not well defined.
Long years of struggle for independence against the British colonial rule concretised the concept of India as a nation in the minds of people. Because the struggle by the INC lead by Gandhiji and others, was by and large secular (they were not asking for freedom of hindus alone), the concept of India as a nation also became a secular concept in the minds of majority of Indians.
Some Indians however wanted a seperate homeland for muslims. Despite Pakistan being carved out of British India as a land of muslims, India still retained its secular nature due to the fact that its leaders, who had fought long and hard against the British, probably realised that there was no other way to govern it.
Would you deny that India became secular because of its hindu majority? You only have to look at how Pakistan has shaped in the last 50 years to realise what happens to a muslim majority nation carved out on the basis of Islam? A country formed for muslims could not have remained secular for long even if it tried hard (Turkey for eg has to compel its citizens to be secular and sometimes Army intervenes).
Hindus did not protest against the secular constitution that came into force in 1950. I thought that was a remarkable thing. India had just witnessed religious carnage and emotions ran high among hindus against muslims. Still, we do not hear that hindus protested against the decision of their leaders to give the country a secular constitution. I think, that more than anything else, points to the fact that India is secular because of its hindu majority. If someday, India stops being secular, that will again be because of the way hindus in India feel.
Sridhar

re:#142 by soysauce
Why don`t you start with yourself first. Have you given up on Gandhiji? (I can assure you i have not). You just parrot the lines of some old people who keep bemoaning the fact that Gandhiji is not relevant anymore. Why do you think the majority of people in India today are still secular? Why do you think the press is by and large secular? These ideas were not formed in one day. Have you read any of his books? Are you just one of those who want to show how much you care for Gandhi without even understanding him?
You just sound pathetic when you say India does not care for Gandhi. You do not have to take his name to prove you care. You just need to cherish his values. I believe India is secular today in a large measure due to the legacy left behind by Gandhiji.
Sridhar

dost-mittar,

.... thanks, and i do agree with most of what you say........... however my contention is that india was NOT a nation before 1947 and the division, while not perfect, was a logical separation of people who did not share in the Hindu ethos ............ bangladesh did not negate the multi-nation theory and was a further improvement on the concept ............... i think india is an interesting experiment but if the croats and the serbs or the chezcs and the slovaks couldn`t live together, i find it difficult to believe that punjabis and keralites would consider them to be part of the same nation unless it is based on the common denominator of hinduism.......... in that respect india as a state, like israel, is on very firm ground because it is the only country where hindus are in a majority ............... over time india can evolve to be a truly secular state but hinduism will always be the glue that holds it together .......... of course indian muslims are a wild card ...........

hamidm2 #158

Why not read something about south asia before 1000AD before ranting about ``hindu sharia`` and other imaginary constructions? Or are you, like so many other people from your tradition, proud of your ignorance of others?

Try to understand that south asian religous traditions (buddhism, hinduism, jainism and even Sikhism) are quite distinct from Islam/Christianity. They do not require belief in one prophet/book/way of life. They are closer to theories of group and individual psychology; this is why they are often identified with mysticism. I would not call them religions at all but ``faith traditions.

There is no such concept as a ``hindu nation`` in indic traditions. Nations are controlled by kinds whose dharma is to protect the various religions of their people. Hindus of various types are one such group. It is this concept that underlyies the traditional civilization of india.

The slogan ``Sarva Dharmma Samhav`` is also important to understand the indic traditions. It means that there are many forms of dharmma (rules for living) and that none can be held higher than other. There is general agreement that this rule is key concept in indian traditions and goes back several thousand years.

So did any of this penetrate your skull?

re:#138 by Romair
I bet Field Marshal Romair has not read even one of the books written on Gandhiji (there are a plethora of them). Yet, this man is talking about Gandhism and Nehruvism and theorising on how BJP must have come to power. It just sounds pathetic.
Nehru inherited much of Gandhiji`s aura by being a constant ``political companion`` of Gandhiji. Gandhiji was by far the more popular figure but he was not merely a politician. For most Indians of the time, he was a saint who strayed into politics because he saw much evil in British colonialism and saw how impoverished the masses had become due to British rule (He is said to have adorned his now famous loin cloth after seeing utter poverty in South India). His fight against British rule was just one of the many fights he waged. He also fought agaisnt the other evils of the day viz untouchability, child marriage, dowry etc. He was a champion of hindu-muslim unity. As he became increasingly popular with the masses, and as his methods of satyagraha (peaceful civil disobedience) became increasingly effective, he became the unquestioned leader of Congress (producing much disenchantment among some people including Jinnah).
Nehru was also the choice of PM by Gandhiji. Had Gandhiji lived on, there is no doubt he would have been the biggest critic of Nehru`s vision of centralised planning and would have waged a war against corruption. He would have definitely become an ambassador of peace between India and Pakistan but would he have succeeded? I doubt it. Even though Ganhiji saved thousands of muslim lives by his last fast in Birla house, most muslims even today do not acknowledge their debt. Gandhiji is not a muslim, so he cannot be considered our leader, muslims seem to say. It is that simple. How many Pakis know that it was Gandhiji who was responsible for the repayment of a vast sum of money that GOI owed to the new nation state of Pakistan.
I am amused to see some Pakis pay lip service to Ganhiji. Pakistan was born out of hatred and continues to live in hatred. It has today become a hotbed of Jehad and training ground of IT (International Terrorism and NOT Information Technology). So, it is kind of amusing to see People like F.M Romair wax eloquence on Gandhiji.
Gandhijis ideas of rural service, religous tolerance, simple living are all great ideas but were perfect pills for imperfect pratitioners. Not all Gandhians were as spiritual or as motivated as gandhi was. And not all followed his principles to the core after his death. Nehru himself deviated from the gandhian path when he set out to build a vast infrastructure on the Soviet model, completely forgetting the villages. Gandhians were supposed to live in villages and serve the people but Nehru and others lived in City and governed the villages. Result was huge inefficiency, middlemen, corruption.
Still Gandhiji lives on. Sarvodhaya movement (by Vinobha, JP), Chipko movement (by Bahuguna) and more recently the Narmada Andolan are all based on Gandhian principle of peaceful protests.
The following Url deals with Gandhians of today. Many are doing work silently. Not being in the political fora, they are not well known. However, Ganhism as a political force is dead.
http://www.transnational.org/forum/Nonviolence/2001/Weber_Gdead-live.html

Instead of pointing out to Indians what to do, Pakis would do well to follow the eg of Gandhiji in solving their own problems. Instead of reacting violently to everything under the sun, Gandhiji gave us an alternate way of expressing discontent, which is both peaceful and effective. Pakis may do well to learn that and use it in solving their own problems viz Shia vs Sunni. Instead of sending Jehadist armed to the teeth, let them send peaceful protesters to Kashmir from across the LOC. May be then, fate of the subcontinent will be different.

Rise of BJP has a lot to do with the increasing tide of miltant Islam. It is a direct reaction to latter as well as to the increasing disenchantment of hindus with Congress version of secularism. Congress usurped Gandhi as an election symbol and used him to garner votes. Gandhi`s idea of secularism came to mean appeasing the minorities at the cost of majority population. Ayodhya problem is a result of this enchantment. I am not saying Ayodhya problem is right. But that is how it has come about. BJP just made use of popular disenchantment of the middle class with the policies of Congress.
BJP has done much in the field of economic activity, something that Congress could not do. BJP is not inherently anit-muslim or fundamentalist. It is only so due to the circumstances favouring such a stance.
Sridhar

re:#135 by AlephNull
Very well put. Pakistan is, by strict definition, a nation state and NOT a nation. That is why, they fall into this seeminlgy endless debate about the relevance of Paksitan.
``Side head shakers`` is a nice way of describing the south indian way of saying Yes compared to nodding their head. To this day, this creates confusion among people who do not know what this means.
Sridhar