Mahadev Gobind Ranade (1842-1901)
Yasser Latif Hamdani March 19, 2005
#33 Posted by bongdongs on March 20, 2005 10:32:57 am
Well done Yasser, it is nice to see you broaden your reading. I too purchased a copy of ``Sources of Indian Tradition`` last time I was in India. It`s freely available in paperback. Vol 2 has a nice section on Ram Mohan Roy.
Since I grew up in Maharashtra Phule, Ranade, Tilak et al had a prominent place in school textbooks. To study the conflict between reform and tradition the classic faceoff to study is between Jotirao Phule and Vishnushastri Chiplunkar.
Since I grew up in Maharashtra Phule, Ranade, Tilak et al had a prominent place in school textbooks. To study the conflict between reform and tradition the classic faceoff to study is between Jotirao Phule and Vishnushastri Chiplunkar.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#34 Posted by dost_mittar on March 20, 2005 10:43:32 am
Kaalchakra:
``The person to study alongside Sir Syed would be Raja Rammohan Roy - the father of modern India. Like Sir Syed a few decades later, RRR had faced opposition from his orthodox co-religionists.``
I wonder if this is a valid compariosn. Sir Syed was perhaps the father of the two nation theory, in that he thought of Indian Muslisms as a separate entity. RRR, on the other hand, was purely a religious reformer. In fact, it is doubtful if he could even be called a Hindu reformer, for he wanted to break away from Hinduism and start a new religion, Brahmo Samaj. For a time, many hindus would refuse to enter into marriage with Brahmo Samajis. An excellent description of the friction between the two was described in the novel Gora by Tagore, who was a Brahmo Samaji himself.
A note about hindu revivalists. Yes, they were fundamental revivalists, but they could also be called social reformers. The best example is Daya Nand Saraswati, the best known of revivalists who started the shuddhi movement. They argued in fact that many of the social ills of the hindu society were because it had moved away from the message of vedas. They were by no means obscurantists but also reformers in their own way, even the concept of shuddhi, or ``reconversion`` to hindu religion was an anathema to hindu orthodoxy. They opposed sati, idol worship and tried to reinterpret caste from one based on birth to one based on occupation. Followers of Dayanand opened DAV schools for girls in every city and town, at least in Panjab.
They were opposed by the brahmin orthodoxy but the reformers were also from upper brahmin castes with better education and this, combined with the ancient Hindu respect for scholarship, meant that the Hindu middle class followed them instead of the orthodoxy and the message trickled down to the lower rungs of the society in due time and is indeed still trickling through.
On Sir Syed Ahmed, I wonder if a more appropriate comparison would be Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, the founder of Banaras Hindu University, who I believe took the water from Ganga with him when he went to Europe in order not to be polluted.
``The person to study alongside Sir Syed would be Raja Rammohan Roy - the father of modern India. Like Sir Syed a few decades later, RRR had faced opposition from his orthodox co-religionists.``
I wonder if this is a valid compariosn. Sir Syed was perhaps the father of the two nation theory, in that he thought of Indian Muslisms as a separate entity. RRR, on the other hand, was purely a religious reformer. In fact, it is doubtful if he could even be called a Hindu reformer, for he wanted to break away from Hinduism and start a new religion, Brahmo Samaj. For a time, many hindus would refuse to enter into marriage with Brahmo Samajis. An excellent description of the friction between the two was described in the novel Gora by Tagore, who was a Brahmo Samaji himself.
A note about hindu revivalists. Yes, they were fundamental revivalists, but they could also be called social reformers. The best example is Daya Nand Saraswati, the best known of revivalists who started the shuddhi movement. They argued in fact that many of the social ills of the hindu society were because it had moved away from the message of vedas. They were by no means obscurantists but also reformers in their own way, even the concept of shuddhi, or ``reconversion`` to hindu religion was an anathema to hindu orthodoxy. They opposed sati, idol worship and tried to reinterpret caste from one based on birth to one based on occupation. Followers of Dayanand opened DAV schools for girls in every city and town, at least in Panjab.
They were opposed by the brahmin orthodoxy but the reformers were also from upper brahmin castes with better education and this, combined with the ancient Hindu respect for scholarship, meant that the Hindu middle class followed them instead of the orthodoxy and the message trickled down to the lower rungs of the society in due time and is indeed still trickling through.
On Sir Syed Ahmed, I wonder if a more appropriate comparison would be Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, the founder of Banaras Hindu University, who I believe took the water from Ganga with him when he went to Europe in order not to be polluted.
#35 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2005 11:27:15 am
Re: # 29
Your inability to read history objectively astounds me...
Your inability to read history objectively astounds me...
#36 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2005 11:28:43 am
Re: # 33
What the fuk?
It seems like talking to people like you is like throwing water on duck`s back...
What the fuk?
It seems like talking to people like you is like throwing water on duck`s back...
#37 Posted by amit on March 20, 2005 11:36:02 am
Re:ferozk
With all due respect, it is escapism to suggest that since Islam cannot be reformed, muslims can never have any reform. If you look at the Islamic world today, you see a large range of systems between say Malaysia or Indonesia at one end and Saudi Arabia at the other end. Malaysia is a dynamic, modern country with a booming economy while Saudi Arabia is a backward, vile place where women cannot drive. This difference depends on how people interpret Islam and setup their political/social structures. Why can`t Pakistan move in the direction of Malyasia or Indonesia in terms of the political/social system? Who says that all muslim countries must copy Saudi Arabia?
The reason Pakistan has resisted modernization is less to do with Islam and more to do with the imaginary fears or pranoia. Prior to 1947, the paranoia was hindu domination and post 1947, the paranoia has been Indian domination. The reaction against these imaginary fears has been the tendency not to embrace modernity since it would somehow dilute the hold of Islam, leading to domination by the neighboring country. After 60 years, most Pakistanis hopefully realize that such fears are absurd. Hence given the good relations developing between the two countries, more Pakistanis would be bold enough to come out and say that they would rather see Pakistan become like Malaysia rather than a copy of Saudi Arabia.
With all due respect, it is escapism to suggest that since Islam cannot be reformed, muslims can never have any reform. If you look at the Islamic world today, you see a large range of systems between say Malaysia or Indonesia at one end and Saudi Arabia at the other end. Malaysia is a dynamic, modern country with a booming economy while Saudi Arabia is a backward, vile place where women cannot drive. This difference depends on how people interpret Islam and setup their political/social structures. Why can`t Pakistan move in the direction of Malyasia or Indonesia in terms of the political/social system? Who says that all muslim countries must copy Saudi Arabia?
The reason Pakistan has resisted modernization is less to do with Islam and more to do with the imaginary fears or pranoia. Prior to 1947, the paranoia was hindu domination and post 1947, the paranoia has been Indian domination. The reaction against these imaginary fears has been the tendency not to embrace modernity since it would somehow dilute the hold of Islam, leading to domination by the neighboring country. After 60 years, most Pakistanis hopefully realize that such fears are absurd. Hence given the good relations developing between the two countries, more Pakistanis would be bold enough to come out and say that they would rather see Pakistan become like Malaysia rather than a copy of Saudi Arabia.
#38 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2005 11:46:52 am
If there has been some confusion about it... I apologize, but with all due respect to Gandhi, I don`t consider him an agent of reform... I consider him an agent of revival. He is roughly the same as Hassan Al Banna ... of India.... and like Hassan Al Banna... his modern followers have gone beyond Gandhi`s revivalism....
My final conclusion of the matter is that Gandhiism (if not Gandhi himsef) was the worst thing that happened to the subcontinent and indeed Hinduism...
The cause of the Hindus as well as India was better served by people like Ranade, Gokhale and even Tilak, a political Hindu himself... Gandhi, with his ``largest`` movement, destroyed the very fabric of unity for his own ends, ego and purposes... and all for what.... how long are we going to kid ourselves that South Asia became free because Gandhi launched a movement in the 1920s?
The British left, because Americans made them leave. The great Gandhian movement amounted to nothing, except awakening the ghosts of superstition that exist close to the surface of the subcontinent...
Look at the kind of people Gandhi unleashed in 1920... instead of working with staunch secular Indian nationalists like Jinnah who said ``I am an Indian first second and last`` .... he teamed up Maulana Mohammed Ali who once famously remarked ``I prefer a drunkard sinner Musalman over saintly Gandhi``... this after he had compared Gandhi to Christ...
And what of the untouchables.... there is a great polemic against Gandhi by Ambedkar called ``What have the Congress and Mr. Gandhi done to the untouchables``.... I suggest all of you read it... clearly to Ambedkar the word ``Harijan`` was an insult and a gali....
Ladies and gentlemen.... I don`t deny Gandhi his intentions... whether driven by some innate egocentric desire to do good for humanity as Christ, or Buddha or Mahavira... but people The road to hell is paved with good intentions and so is true of Gandhiji`s movement.
-YLH
My final conclusion of the matter is that Gandhiism (if not Gandhi himsef) was the worst thing that happened to the subcontinent and indeed Hinduism...
The cause of the Hindus as well as India was better served by people like Ranade, Gokhale and even Tilak, a political Hindu himself... Gandhi, with his ``largest`` movement, destroyed the very fabric of unity for his own ends, ego and purposes... and all for what.... how long are we going to kid ourselves that South Asia became free because Gandhi launched a movement in the 1920s?
The British left, because Americans made them leave. The great Gandhian movement amounted to nothing, except awakening the ghosts of superstition that exist close to the surface of the subcontinent...
Look at the kind of people Gandhi unleashed in 1920... instead of working with staunch secular Indian nationalists like Jinnah who said ``I am an Indian first second and last`` .... he teamed up Maulana Mohammed Ali who once famously remarked ``I prefer a drunkard sinner Musalman over saintly Gandhi``... this after he had compared Gandhi to Christ...
And what of the untouchables.... there is a great polemic against Gandhi by Ambedkar called ``What have the Congress and Mr. Gandhi done to the untouchables``.... I suggest all of you read it... clearly to Ambedkar the word ``Harijan`` was an insult and a gali....
Ladies and gentlemen.... I don`t deny Gandhi his intentions... whether driven by some innate egocentric desire to do good for humanity as Christ, or Buddha or Mahavira... but people The road to hell is paved with good intentions and so is true of Gandhiji`s movement.
-YLH
#39 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2005 11:47:00 am
If there has been some confusion about it... I apologize, but with all due respect to Gandhi, I don`t consider him an agent of reform... I consider him an agent of revival. He is roughly the same as Hassan Al Banna ... of India.... and like Hassan Al Banna... his modern followers have gone beyond Gandhi`s revivalism....
My final conclusion of the matter is that Gandhiism (if not Gandhi himsef) was the worst thing that happened to the subcontinent and indeed Hinduism...
The cause of the Hindus as well as India was better served by people like Ranade, Gokhale and even Tilak, a political Hindu himself... Gandhi, with his ``largest`` movement, destroyed the very fabric of unity for his own ends, ego and purposes... and all for what.... how long are we going to kid ourselves that South Asia became free because Gandhi launched a movement in the 1920s?
The British left, because Americans made them leave. The great Gandhian movement amounted to nothing, except awakening the ghosts of superstition that exist close to the surface of the subcontinent...
Look at the kind of people Gandhi unleashed in 1920... instead of working with staunch secular Indian nationalists like Jinnah who said ``I am an Indian first second and last`` .... he teamed up Maulana Mohammed Ali who once famously remarked ``I prefer a drunkard sinner Musalman over saintly Gandhi``... this after he had compared Gandhi to Christ...
And what of the untouchables.... there is a great polemic against Gandhi by Ambedkar called ``What have the Congress and Mr. Gandhi done to the untouchables``.... I suggest all of you read it... clearly to Ambedkar the word ``Harijan`` was an insult and a gali....
Ladies and gentlemen.... I don`t deny Gandhi his intentions... whether driven by some innate egocentric desire to do good for humanity as Christ, or Buddha or Mahavira... but people The road to hell is paved with good intentions and so is true of Gandhiji`s movement.
-YLH
My final conclusion of the matter is that Gandhiism (if not Gandhi himsef) was the worst thing that happened to the subcontinent and indeed Hinduism...
The cause of the Hindus as well as India was better served by people like Ranade, Gokhale and even Tilak, a political Hindu himself... Gandhi, with his ``largest`` movement, destroyed the very fabric of unity for his own ends, ego and purposes... and all for what.... how long are we going to kid ourselves that South Asia became free because Gandhi launched a movement in the 1920s?
The British left, because Americans made them leave. The great Gandhian movement amounted to nothing, except awakening the ghosts of superstition that exist close to the surface of the subcontinent...
Look at the kind of people Gandhi unleashed in 1920... instead of working with staunch secular Indian nationalists like Jinnah who said ``I am an Indian first second and last`` .... he teamed up Maulana Mohammed Ali who once famously remarked ``I prefer a drunkard sinner Musalman over saintly Gandhi``... this after he had compared Gandhi to Christ...
And what of the untouchables.... there is a great polemic against Gandhi by Ambedkar called ``What have the Congress and Mr. Gandhi done to the untouchables``.... I suggest all of you read it... clearly to Ambedkar the word ``Harijan`` was an insult and a gali....
Ladies and gentlemen.... I don`t deny Gandhi his intentions... whether driven by some innate egocentric desire to do good for humanity as Christ, or Buddha or Mahavira... but people The road to hell is paved with good intentions and so is true of Gandhiji`s movement.
-YLH
#40 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2005 11:48:48 am
Re: # 31
Letters from Iqbal to Jinnah
A copy of the book can be found from Iqbal Academy Lahore.
Letters from Iqbal to Jinnah
A copy of the book can be found from Iqbal Academy Lahore.
#41 Posted by KaalChakra on March 20, 2005 11:51:17 am
IMHO we mustn`t `blame` anyone for ``not understanding`` Hinduism.
That will be most unfair. It will take us away from addressing our own internal problems. It will also not save us from repeating our tragically costly historical mistakes.
Hard elementary facts need to be acknowledged. It was not Muslims` fault that the concept of Ram Rajya scared them. Many Christians and even our own dalits could not be blamed in any shape or form for expecting a more successful and secure democratic experience in post-independence Pakistan than in post-independence India.
Hindu leaders never bothered to put themelves in the shoes of others. They made abolutely no attempt to convey to any Muslim, Christian, or even dalit, any sort of integrated vision of what a democratic, yet essentially Hindu, nation would be like. They actually believed the very idiotic, but completely Hindu myth that others should be as little concerned with the `accidental fact` of their Hinduism as they themselves were.
Even today, the Hindu contribution on Chowk to actually explaining Hinduism in any systematic manner (not counting endless rantings against Islam) is minimal. In fact, the author took the most remarkable step of going back in time and questioning a basic assumption of one of his heroes WITHOUT, to the best of my knowledge, ANY HELP FROM OTHERWISE HYPERACTIVE HINDUS.
We shape or don`t shape our own history.
The blame for all avoidable disasters and missed opportunities rested (and rests) entirely on the shoulders of half cowardly and half greedy liberal Hindus: men and women who were (and are) in the enviable position of being in the inter-faith situations, and for whatever personal and social reasons, did not (and do not) tell the truth as they know it.
That will be most unfair. It will take us away from addressing our own internal problems. It will also not save us from repeating our tragically costly historical mistakes.
Hard elementary facts need to be acknowledged. It was not Muslims` fault that the concept of Ram Rajya scared them. Many Christians and even our own dalits could not be blamed in any shape or form for expecting a more successful and secure democratic experience in post-independence Pakistan than in post-independence India.
Hindu leaders never bothered to put themelves in the shoes of others. They made abolutely no attempt to convey to any Muslim, Christian, or even dalit, any sort of integrated vision of what a democratic, yet essentially Hindu, nation would be like. They actually believed the very idiotic, but completely Hindu myth that others should be as little concerned with the `accidental fact` of their Hinduism as they themselves were.
Even today, the Hindu contribution on Chowk to actually explaining Hinduism in any systematic manner (not counting endless rantings against Islam) is minimal. In fact, the author took the most remarkable step of going back in time and questioning a basic assumption of one of his heroes WITHOUT, to the best of my knowledge, ANY HELP FROM OTHERWISE HYPERACTIVE HINDUS.
We shape or don`t shape our own history.
The blame for all avoidable disasters and missed opportunities rested (and rests) entirely on the shoulders of half cowardly and half greedy liberal Hindus: men and women who were (and are) in the enviable position of being in the inter-faith situations, and for whatever personal and social reasons, did not (and do not) tell the truth as they know it.
#42 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2005 11:53:12 am
Re: # 39
PS... those saying that Jinnah was some sort of an elitist... let me put forth some excellent evidence to contradict that...
According to a new book published by Permanent Black publishers Delhi ``The Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity`` ....
1) Jinnah was the only politician who consistently tried to get universal adult suffrage for all of India... he tabled the bill several times...
2) Jinnah was the only politician in the legislative history of the Delhi assembly in the British times who tried to get free education for all of India...
If this is what an elitist does... then I am afraid I am happier siding with an elitist then running on the beach with salt in one hand and a stick in the other ... putting up token displays of resistance .... while dressed as an ancient Jain priest...
PS... those saying that Jinnah was some sort of an elitist... let me put forth some excellent evidence to contradict that...
According to a new book published by Permanent Black publishers Delhi ``The Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity`` ....
1) Jinnah was the only politician who consistently tried to get universal adult suffrage for all of India... he tabled the bill several times...
2) Jinnah was the only politician in the legislative history of the Delhi assembly in the British times who tried to get free education for all of India...
If this is what an elitist does... then I am afraid I am happier siding with an elitist then running on the beach with salt in one hand and a stick in the other ... putting up token displays of resistance .... while dressed as an ancient Jain priest...
#43 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2005 11:55:39 am
Re: # 41
Thank you... a sane and reasonable post.
Thank you... a sane and reasonable post.
#44 Posted by echoboom on March 20, 2005 12:03:20 pm
MantoLives:40
You just proved you are a skimmer, a charlattan, and a true representative of the westernised scum now at the helm and trying to unravel an Islamic-Pakistan.
Very RAND agenda is in the works. just a coincidence? Is it wagging the dog here or a Musharrf U-turn was his own prayers answered at the most opportune moment.
But muslims will never let it work.
You just proved you are a skimmer, a charlattan, and a true representative of the westernised scum now at the helm and trying to unravel an Islamic-Pakistan.
Very RAND agenda is in the works. just a coincidence? Is it wagging the dog here or a Musharrf U-turn was his own prayers answered at the most opportune moment.
But muslims will never let it work.
#45 Posted by amit on March 20, 2005 12:05:41 pm
Re:HP#32
The reformers of hinduism came in different shades in the 19th century. Some were elitists, some wanted gradual change, others wanted radical change. However, their collective impact was a complete transformation of hindu society. You cannot imagine how hindu society was 200 years back and how it is today. We all know about sati which got banned early on. Hindus were obsessed with ``purity``. Touching this, eating that would make you impure. You could not go abroad since that would make you ``impure`` and an outcaste. The obsession with caste was at its peak, where even the shadow of a lower caste person would make you impure. Girls at the age of 6 years were married off. If the groom died, the 6 year old would become a widow and stay that way for the rest of her life. My own great-grand mother`s sister was a child widow who got widowed at 8 years age and remained that way till her death at 82 years age.
This was the rotten caracass of hindu society which has now completely transformed. When you look at India today, at the urban centers, religion is more like an extra-curricular thing, like enjoying festivals such as holi and diwali. That is it. Otherwise, no one gives a rat`s a$$ about religion or religious practices. Once in a while people will do a Puja where some pundit will say some mumbo-jumbo and leave. No one cares about it. As far as political system, economy or other sectors are concerned, it is unimaginable to bring in religion. When the BJP tried to revive some of that nonsense, people kicked them out uncermoniously. Recently the Shankaracharya got arrested and the entire country yawned. This change is seeping through in small towns and rural areas as well, as people`s outlook towards religion is changing drastically. The new god is materialism and having a good time and I say, lets bring it on.
The reformers of hinduism came in different shades in the 19th century. Some were elitists, some wanted gradual change, others wanted radical change. However, their collective impact was a complete transformation of hindu society. You cannot imagine how hindu society was 200 years back and how it is today. We all know about sati which got banned early on. Hindus were obsessed with ``purity``. Touching this, eating that would make you impure. You could not go abroad since that would make you ``impure`` and an outcaste. The obsession with caste was at its peak, where even the shadow of a lower caste person would make you impure. Girls at the age of 6 years were married off. If the groom died, the 6 year old would become a widow and stay that way for the rest of her life. My own great-grand mother`s sister was a child widow who got widowed at 8 years age and remained that way till her death at 82 years age.
This was the rotten caracass of hindu society which has now completely transformed. When you look at India today, at the urban centers, religion is more like an extra-curricular thing, like enjoying festivals such as holi and diwali. That is it. Otherwise, no one gives a rat`s a$$ about religion or religious practices. Once in a while people will do a Puja where some pundit will say some mumbo-jumbo and leave. No one cares about it. As far as political system, economy or other sectors are concerned, it is unimaginable to bring in religion. When the BJP tried to revive some of that nonsense, people kicked them out uncermoniously. Recently the Shankaracharya got arrested and the entire country yawned. This change is seeping through in small towns and rural areas as well, as people`s outlook towards religion is changing drastically. The new god is materialism and having a good time and I say, lets bring it on.
#46 Posted by HaroonEllahi on March 20, 2005 12:35:33 pm
Mr. Feroz, Islam has a concept of Reform. Ishtihad -Consensus - Get together, talk, think, reform. Ever heard of it?
Most of your remarks and views on post #21 fall flat on their face since there IS a concept of Reform in Islam. It is known as Ishtihad. It`s about consensus, to get together, to talk it out, think about it, and then whether or not to reform it and in which manner to respond.
I am truly hurt and insulted whenever any one says things like `Islam can`t do this`, `Islam can`t do that`.
What I have to say to people like this is, let the Muslims sit down as equals and discuss all these outstanding disputes.
Our religion has been sacrifisied at the altar of politics. The rise of Firkas and nations amongst us have created political tensions. The rise has also led to socio-economic tensions, which have led to many years of sulky relations between A or B and many wars.
The day the foreign occupation troops leave all the bases of Islam in the world today, then we will be one step closer in solving the problem and taking part in an EXTENSIVE 365 days of Ishtihad.
Most of your remarks and views on post #21 fall flat on their face since there IS a concept of Reform in Islam. It is known as Ishtihad. It`s about consensus, to get together, to talk it out, think about it, and then whether or not to reform it and in which manner to respond.
I am truly hurt and insulted whenever any one says things like `Islam can`t do this`, `Islam can`t do that`.
What I have to say to people like this is, let the Muslims sit down as equals and discuss all these outstanding disputes.
Our religion has been sacrifisied at the altar of politics. The rise of Firkas and nations amongst us have created political tensions. The rise has also led to socio-economic tensions, which have led to many years of sulky relations between A or B and many wars.
The day the foreign occupation troops leave all the bases of Islam in the world today, then we will be one step closer in solving the problem and taking part in an EXTENSIVE 365 days of Ishtihad.
#47 Posted by amit on March 20, 2005 12:45:41 pm
Yasser,
Gandhi`s fetish for religion was his biggest weakness. It was at odds with the overall march of hinduism towards modernity and it certainly spooked the muslims. Note that no Indian leader since then has adoped Gandhi`s ideology like having a fetish for religion or experimenting with weird diets (except for Morarji Desai :-)) or having weird notions about sexual relations or supporting mindless pacifism or resistance to industrialization. What Gandhi did accomplish was to prove to the ordinary Indian that they could collectively mobilize and take actions against the government. Until then, the ordinary Indian felt completely impotent and unable to take on the might of the British Empire. There was widespread despondency that any resistance to the brits was futile. So in a sense, he raised the confidence level of the ordinary people to take their own destiny in their hands. That is the reason Gandhi is looked up to. Otherwise, his ideology and his tactics have all been dumped into the dustbin of history.
Jinnah was no doubt a great leader and someone who might have made a great Prime Minister of undivided India. His greatest weakness was his inability to aggressively negotiate a constitutional solution for muslims in India. He did support the Cabinet Mission Plan, but in my opinion, he could have been a lot more creative on getting muslims full share of power in entire India, such as constitutionally guaranteed proportional share in all branches of power and military along with veto powers over consitutional amendments. Anyone looking objectively has to conclude that muslims did not really win much after partition, given that they used to rule the entire place once upon a time and vast numbers of them could not belong to Pakistan. As a result, Jinnah`s legacy has been dumped in Pakistan as well.
Since India has moved past Gandhi and Pakistan has moved past Jinnah, it is probably pointless to debate the two and it is time to think of the future.
Gandhi`s fetish for religion was his biggest weakness. It was at odds with the overall march of hinduism towards modernity and it certainly spooked the muslims. Note that no Indian leader since then has adoped Gandhi`s ideology like having a fetish for religion or experimenting with weird diets (except for Morarji Desai :-)) or having weird notions about sexual relations or supporting mindless pacifism or resistance to industrialization. What Gandhi did accomplish was to prove to the ordinary Indian that they could collectively mobilize and take actions against the government. Until then, the ordinary Indian felt completely impotent and unable to take on the might of the British Empire. There was widespread despondency that any resistance to the brits was futile. So in a sense, he raised the confidence level of the ordinary people to take their own destiny in their hands. That is the reason Gandhi is looked up to. Otherwise, his ideology and his tactics have all been dumped into the dustbin of history.
Jinnah was no doubt a great leader and someone who might have made a great Prime Minister of undivided India. His greatest weakness was his inability to aggressively negotiate a constitutional solution for muslims in India. He did support the Cabinet Mission Plan, but in my opinion, he could have been a lot more creative on getting muslims full share of power in entire India, such as constitutionally guaranteed proportional share in all branches of power and military along with veto powers over consitutional amendments. Anyone looking objectively has to conclude that muslims did not really win much after partition, given that they used to rule the entire place once upon a time and vast numbers of them could not belong to Pakistan. As a result, Jinnah`s legacy has been dumped in Pakistan as well.
Since India has moved past Gandhi and Pakistan has moved past Jinnah, it is probably pointless to debate the two and it is time to think of the future.
#48 Posted by silly on March 20, 2005 12:48:26 pm
Nice Article. Though i am an Indian, I have heard about Ranade but never read anything extensively about him. Apart from the reformers like Ranade, Pule, Raja Ram Mohan Roy there are some more reformers from South India notably Ramasami Naicker from Tamilnadu and Kandukuri Veeresalingam from Andhra Pradesh (I am from this state).
One notable thing about these reformers is all of them are Bramins except for Ramasami Naoicker ( He can be called more of an Ahiest as he doesn`t believe in God).
Here is a link in Veeresa Lingam.
http://www.vepachedu.org/veeresalingam.html
Yasser,
I have been following articles and interactions on Chowk for a long time though i participate a little in them as most of the discussions turn into discussions on Islam and Pakistan. One thing i can surely say is you are one true patriot of your country. We need more people like you in both India and Pakistan.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- mohar11: A conversation with a... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- rabiawsti: #147:btw didnot mean to... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- harish_hyd: ...all past incidents engineered... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- harish_hyd: #151 by tahmed32 e.g. no... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: #153 good questions. all... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- beenasarwar: Re: # 150 -... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- harish_hyd: Beena, tahmed32 sahib et... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: #149 Aha_Snark bhai: in... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
