Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango

Re: # 145:

[Indian nationalism would not ``fall apart`` in case of a friendly Pakistan, it may have to relocate and redefine itself.]

Rahul, well said. However, your other comment is a bit iffy. You say, ``Cultures dont compete with or attack each other, nations do. The relation between cultures and nations is strictly coincidental, IMO.``

If you are talking about culture in the larger civilisational sense, then yes. But in terms of culture as dynamic social mores, there are bound to be drifts and rifts. Contemporary society (and even ancient ones) all over the world has shown us that cultures do compete and attack one another. I would say that the fact that some of them happen to be different countries is co-incidental. Cultures are formulated by how the realities within them resonate AND their difference from others.

This is the reason a cultural identity is invariably strengthened by its uniqueness.

Therefore, in many ways the nation-state too is the creation of culture (however uncivilised it may be!) We do hear the phrase `cultural nationalism` often, and much as we`d like it to be otherwise, it is not a contradiction in terms.

- - -
Ana (#136):

I will choose a general comment you made...

[farzana has questioned various issues in more than just ONE group of indians. she has, whether you agree or not, challenged this more than a notion of us vs. them. but in her passion to do so, she unwittingly falls prey to the very thing she challenges. ]

I understand what you are saying, but I have more often questioned rather than challenged. Some of the questions have no ready answers, not by others and certainly not by me. For example, what I wrote in this article has been seen as my usual conspiracy theory, when one has tried to raise questions about what goes on beneath (or behind) the moves.

Far be it for me to expect, or even want, anyone to toe my line of thinking. That does not stop them from bludgeoning me with their points of view -- whether it is about politics or about when I should laugh.

You mention that I unwittingly fall prey to that which I challenge. I would say that my questions end up getting addressed to walls on which things have already been scrawled in indelible ink. So my voice just boomerangs on me. I have not fallen prey, I have just been heard but unable to get many to try and decipher what I have written in the little space between the scrawls.

If someone says that I have been fed the ``Paki line``, I just let that pass because it has been taken from that ink on the wall. And it has just got tangled...

I am writing this with the belief that you might at least figure out the metaphors...it is a change from the constant confirmation of most who know where I am coming from. Wish they`d tell me. At least I`d become aware of where I can return to!

And yes, thanks...for...just a few words...

Best,
Farzana

tahmed32:

You have been reading some very biased accounts about Bose. He was a bright, courageous, forward-looking and thoroughly secular person. When he started his Azad Hind Fauj, he made sure that the three generals were a Hindu, a Sikh and a Muslim. And the Muslim - a Punjabi - chose to stay in India after the Partition (I believe Shah Rukh Khan is his grandson).

To call him a puppet is a very big insult to one of the greatest, if the greatest patriots in India. At the time of independence his popularity in India was so huge that people believed (wrongly, of course) that he was alive and not allowed into India because he would unseat Nehru in no time.

What is also now becoming clearer is that he perhaps played greater part in India`s freedom than Gandhi and his Congress. Gandhi`s Quit India movement had fizzled out before the war ended and the British were facing no other threat, except perhaps that Britain was financially bankrupt after the War. The enthusiasm with which Indian POWs volunteered to join Azad Hind Fauj and willing to fight even their fellow soldiers of the British Indian Army showed the British that they could no longer count on the loyalty of Indian soldiers. There were always very few British soldiers on the Indian soil and they had always counted on Indian soldiers to to turn against their own, like they did at Jalianwala Bagh, to keep them in power. When their loyalty could not be taken for granted, it was time to pack up and leave. And this is what happened. Of course, Gandhi, et al got all the credit.

If you do not have time to read a good book on him, a prominent Indian film maker, Shyam Benegal (who introduced people like Shabana Azmi, Naseeruddin Shah and Om Puri) has made a film on him - Bose, the Forgotten Hero. It should be released pretty soon.

one of the worst threads..

Doesn`t matter how much makeup YLH applies on Jinnah`s character. Underneath will remain an ugly beast.

Tahmed,

still he is better than Nehru/gandhi/jinnah. whether he was a puppet or just went to resources to liberate India - made pact with enemy`s enemy. he wasn`t a tail wagging dog like the others.

Re: # 141

Kauray...

It is my belief that the truth will always triumph. I have no make up... what I am doing is digging.

The only make-up artist here is you.

qazi,

what is your point? when will you evolve?

most of us are not holding our breath, mind you. we do have better things to do with it.

the point is even the best of intentions can be highly skewed and distorted by what one says and how one says it. but you wouldn`t know about the best of intentions, would you?

for someone who believes that it is advantageous to dehumanize muslims in india, you truly have a lot of nerve bringing the best of your intentions here, or knowing exactly where ms. versey is coming from.

enough said. . . for a while.

Ana....do you have a point to make ? Why are you so boring ?

Can you imagine, Sania Mirza plays such a good good wonderful match at Wimbledon, everybody says so many nice nice things about her but nobody even mentioned Jinnah`s or Gandhi`s role in this amazing talent from, ahem, India?

These colonials, I tell you.

ylh #133 I didnt know of this speech he gave, and am glad to see that jinnah made an effort to end the killings. But neverthless, I am sure stronger action could have been taken (by both the indian and pakistani governments as well as by the departing brits) to ensure law and order. e.g., both east and west panjab could have been put under martial law by their respective governments at the first hint of trouble.

also, not one man was brought to trial either in india or in pakistan for the partition killings, no effort made to bring the culprits to justice. the thugs got away with murder on both sides.

arjun:

(my apologies for the longwinded post, and hopefully it is not entirely irrelevant here)

no, you and i are reading the same letter. and when i say that i do not agree with farzana`s definition of what is a refugee when it comes to kashmiri pandits, i am going beyond the actual definition because the issues you have pinpointed all follow that. and i find that there is validity to what you say. . . i in no way mean to demean or minimalize the plight of the kashmiri pandits when i say that there is more to this picture.

okay, laugh at me, or disagree with me if you will, but i am going to say this at the risk of insulting farzana which unlike some of you, is not my intention. i believe that first and foremost, farzana is an indian. let`s put religion aside for now. an indian. and if you agreed with her for the first time in your life about what she wrote in her previous article about the quran, then you should give some thought to that, while reading this. it is not so disconnected. you mention being able to detect the hindutvadi in what harimau says. funny. . . how for ages most of the pakistanis were more than happy to pin that same label on you and some others, when you`ve made your secular humanism known, when i have seen you speak with maturity and lucidity on some occasions on matters that those who disagree with you have agreed on. but ideology gets fuzzy, and affected by other things. . . personal things, events that ultimately skew perspective.

india is huge. it always has been. and there should be room for those who are there, and for those, who perhaps like me, might be one day (most likely just as a visitor i promise!). but there are those who continue to fan these us vs. them fires. and no, contrary to what some choose to believe, it is not just the BJP/RSS. congress did its damage long ago, and not much has changed. there seems to be this push to promote india as an open society, and i believe it is, much more so than pakistan. but here`s the thing, we have certain hindus, and certain muslims who would close it. who would encourage this us vs. them scenario. you`ve expressed this quite well in what you say at the end of your post. the killing of all innocents should be the issue. not the apologists who talk about hindu vs. muslim as to minimize or maximize one or the other, or even to ignore it altogether.

farzana has questioned various issues in more than just ONE group of indians. she has, whether you agree or not, challenged this more than a notion of us vs. them. but in her passion to do so, she unwittingly falls prey to the very thing she challenges. i sometimes balk at reading her more political writings because on the surface, and between the lines that is what i see. so i am not being an apologist for her. having said that, i still do not think some of the responses are justified, and i do not believe she should stop challenging hindutva as an indian. please note that i have said as an indian. i have long made the mistake of challenging pakistanis as a christian more so than as a pakistani, and as evident here on chowk, i have contributed to what already exists as an us vs. them situation.

it is when we examine these things that make us so passionate, and make us believe that we are in the right, and to hell with what you think, these things that contribute to contrary to what kaalchakra says ``hate being positive`` that we begin to have an actual dialogue. contrary to what some might think, we do not live in a black and white world. there are different shades, and more than one touch of grey. it is possible for me to see beyond the ``paki`` this, and the ``paki`` that when it comes to you arjun, but even you might appear as an apologist for hindutva, when rather than challenging it yourself, you seek to dismantle ``liberals``, ``commies``, and yes, even us ``pakis`` for their ``apologies.``

enough said. too much perhaps. i suppose that i should appreciate the fact that at least you`re trying to engage with me, when you don`t do that with most. maybe one of these days you will prove your nani wrong.

Re # 129

tahmed32,

Agree 100% percent.

kaura #128 Bose was a japanese puppet. The nazis delivered him to the japanese in a submarine. Do you think they went to all this trouble because the nazis and japanese were concerned about introducing democracy in India?? They did this because they saw India as a potential slave state, with Bose serving as a convenient tool to break up the British Indian Army.

And what would have happened if the japanese had won? do you think the japanese would have given Indians freedom if they had won WWII?? Check with the philippinos and chinese and koreans and other ``lesser races`` that they took over and they will enlighten you of . This is the reality. You wont like me for presenting it to you, perhaps. But think about it. Dont let the BJP propoganda mislead you.

127,

i am not a bhed like u. I have already lamented the stupidity of sikh leaders like Tara Singh/Baldev singh etc. and even Sikh Rajas of Punjab who failed miserably as leaders.

shishapa #126 national boundries are not important. They can be changed - as long as it is done in a civilized manner (as in case of Czech - Slavakia) rather than with bloodshed (as in case of India - Pakistan).

In that sense i partially agree with kaura: indian AND pakistani politicians in power in 1947 did not lift their little finger to protect hindus/sikhs (on pakistan side) and muslims (on india`s side) when they were being brutalized during partition. Gandhi at least went on hunger strike and calmed down things in bengal. But then...how many indians and pakistanis have ever given two hoots about the massacres of 1947?? not one. Another indication of the primitive mindsets that pervade the subcontinent. They could learn a lot from the Czechs and Slovaks.

Re: # 129

Tahmed...

Please read the following.... there are several such cases... ofcourse Unlike Gandhi, Jinnah didn`t always get his picture taken when doing a good deed.



I was passing the Eidgah Maidan when I found Jinnah Sahib addressing the crowds. He had passionately spoken for about 10 to 15 minutes. He had his famous “Jinnah cap” in his hands upside down, extended towards the crowds, imploring them to desist from bloodshed and not to make Hindus the target of their wrath. His unforgettable words spoken in Urdu, which ring in my ears even today, were about Pakistan not having been created for the massacre of Hindus who had an equal right to live with Muslims and others in this “pak” (pure) land not to be made “napak” (impure) by killing them.

He desired the crowds to return and help in returning all the loot to their area police stations. He had sternly warned the masses that shoot-at-sight orders were being given to deal with offenders. And that did have a salutary effect as under the direct orders of the then military chief, the military did open fire a few times on the miscreants and riots came to a halt much to the relief of everyone including our family. It was a pleasant surprise to find the crowds returning the “loot” which piled up at Eidgah Maidan to form a mini hillock.

That was the only time I had seen and heard the creator of Pakistan. I owe my life to him and to my Muslim neighbours, the migrants from India.

HIRA GULRAJANI
Mumbai, India.

Re: # 129

Tahmed...

Please read the following.... there are several such cases... ofcourse Unlike Gandhi, Jinnah didn`t always get his picture taken when doing a good deed.



I was passing the Eidgah Maidan when I found Jinnah Sahib addressing the crowds. He had passionately spoken for about 10 to 15 minutes. He had his famous “Jinnah cap” in his hands upside down, extended towards the crowds, imploring them to desist from bloodshed and not to make Hindus the target of their wrath. His unforgettable words spoken in Urdu, which ring in my ears even today, were about Pakistan not having been created for the massacre of Hindus who had an equal right to live with Muslims and others in this “pak” (pure) land not to be made “napak” (impure) by killing them.

He desired the crowds to return and help in returning all the loot to their area police stations. He had sternly warned the masses that shoot-at-sight orders were being given to deal with offenders. And that did have a salutary effect as under the direct orders of the then military chief, the military did open fire a few times on the miscreants and riots came to a halt much to the relief of everyone including our family. It was a pleasant surprise to find the crowds returning the “loot” which piled up at Eidgah Maidan to form a mini hillock.

That was the only time I had seen and heard the creator of Pakistan. I owe my life to him and to my Muslim neighbours, the migrants from India.

HIRA GULRAJANI
Mumbai, India.