Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango

In addition to my #4

Farzana writes:

``Where was Pakistani self-respect? Why were they jumping around only because he was stating the obvious?``

It is obvious to you and I and to those who have studied history. It is not obvious to the ideologues, nationalists, bigots and fanatics on both sides... it is not obvious to those who have grown up on a diet of lies and state sponsored mythologies in South Asia.

The news of Advani`s comment didn`t even stir me or any Pakistanis. I forgot about it ... till next day. It was the reaction from all sides and the continuous debate in India media, reaffirming what I have been saying for years, that pleased me. The DT and Dawn editorials emerged much later. For the first few days there was completely silence in Pakistani media.

This is all very funny to read, though I agree with a lot of what Ms. Versey says. Not all, but a lot.

Does anybody in his right mind seriously believe that Advani meant a word he said about Jinnah? Probably when he uttered (or scrawled, more like) those words, he was being patronising, or possibly even tongue-in-cheek (though the old curmedgeon doesn`t really come across as someone with a sense of humour). Or maybe he did it just to see how his old foes the Pakis would react (predictably, if one goes by the paens sung by Dawn and others).

Now all`s right with the world again and everyone in Pakistan`s feeling a little sheepish, not exactly sure what`s going on- did the wily old fox actually have a closet Jinnah fetish, or was he just being polite, or did he hook up with YLH for a crash course on what to say beforehand- who knows! And Advanijee has skilfully managed to stay on the right side (pun intended) of his party line and got the chaddiwalas a little befuddled as well, which is good because the lesser trouble they cause the easier it is for the BJP to win elections.

The only winner in this entire charade is Mr. Lalkrishna Advani. What a great performance and thoroughly well-orchestrated drama it was! Whatever one thinks of his personality (annoying) or his opinions (archaic), you have to hand it to the guy for being what he is- a consummate politician.

Encore!

We are going overboard.

Jinnah`s secularism is not obvious to many Pakistanis, and certainly not to most Indians. If it was, there would have been far fewer problems.

burpinder

:)

Or it may be merely the case of democracy, in its own way, driving some sense into the heads of the senseless. Here`s something interesting.

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=73008&headline=‘Hindu-only~approach~will~ensure~dynasty~remains~alive’


‘Hindu-only approach will ensure dynasty remains alive’

The Sudheendra Kulkarni paper: A few weeks before Advani’s Pak visit, his key aide came out with a secular blueprint for BJP, a radical departure from its line.

Advani has taken a `gamble`.What else can he do?.Except for Vajpayee and himself the rest of the NDA leaders are pygmies.The NDA has to re-invent itself if it wants to come to power again at the center.The fact is that as of now a majority of indians are secular.Advani has taken a bold step.Only time will tell how all this pans out .

Please pardon the cut-paste, but this confirms my BJP-RSS are together stand. And it comes from a BJP person...I have highlighted the portions that follow this pattern.

The Asian Age - News Worldwide
June 21, 2005

Sound bites
- By Balbir K. Punj

The recent controversy over L.K. Advani’s remarks on Mohammad Ali Jinnah has underlined one facet of our times: that most of us live by headlines and 24-hour sound bites. The Hindustan Times (June 5) banner screamed that Advani had morphed into a dove from a hawk. ``In an act unthinkable of any leader of the BJP or RSS which has questioned Partition, Advani paid homage to Pakistan’s founder... In doing so he overturned years of arguments by the Jan Sangh and the BJP against the man…`` the report said.

With a few exceptions, the underlying tone of most of the TV channels and other newspapers was the same. The fact is, there was nothing new in what Advani said. He had merely reiterated what he had said on earlier occasions in India and what has been said by the RSS on the subject.

Last year (February 28, 2004), I was among hundreds of those present (including many senior RSS and BJP leaders) at a book release function of the India First Foundation where Advani quoted Jinnah’s Constituent Assembly speech. No one at that time raised any objection to the same reference. It is also significant that many reporters who were with Advani in the Pakistan visit, grasped the BJP leader’s speeches there with a greater sense of the background in which they were made.

However, what was left out in many of the reports (except in Pioneer) was the fact that ``Advani had balanced his laudatory reference to Jinnah’s crucial comment exhorting secularism with the observation that ‘there could be no place, much less state protection, for religious extremism and terrorism in a state’.`` The Indian Express also quoted Advani’s statement that there was no place for religious bigotry in South Asia. Those of us who rushed to judgment could have waited for the full text of the speech or more detailed reporting before commenting.

What Advani had said in Lahore on Jinnah and Pakistan was said in detail by H.V. Seshadri, a topmost RSS leader, in his scholarly work on partition, The Tragic Story of Partition, first published in 1982. It has since been reprinted many times, the last being in 2002. Take for instance, the following quote: ``That the two-nation theory was no more than an ideological smoke screen for achieving political ends, has been expressed by Khaliquzzaman himself: ‘Mr Jinnah took the earliest opportunity to bid goodbye to his two-nation theory in his speech on 11 August 1947 as the Governor-General designate of Pakistan and President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan...’ Then follows the part of the Jinnah address where he refers to future Pakistan as a secular state. He also specifically says referring to the religion and caste-based differences even among Muslims as well as Hindus, that ‘this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain freedom and independence and but for this we would have been a free people long ago… You may belong to any religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the State’.``

``Secularists`` normally hold either Savarkar or Jinnah (depending on the target audience — Hindu or Muslim) responsible for the origin of the two-nation theory. The ``theory`` came into vogue much before these two leaders made their presence felt in the Indian political scene. The ``theory`` was first propagated by Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan who had actively assisted the British during the uprising of 1857. Speaking at Meerut on March 16, 1888, he forcefully advised the Muslims not to join the Congress and clearly spoke of ``our Mohammedan Nation`` and dividing India into ``Muslim Nation`` and ``Hindu Nation.`` He founded the Aligarh Muslim University which played a leading role in the creation of Pakistan and which is an icon of ``secularism`` in the country for the present ruling dispensation at the Centre.

Much to the consternation of the nationalist Muslims (including Jinnah), an obviously British sponsored Muslim delegation called on Viceroy Lord Minto at Simla on October 1, 1906 seeking reservation for Muslims in all democratic institutions and government jobs. It was followed by the inaugural session of the All India Muslim League at Dacca in December the same year. Three resolutions were passed delineating the objective of the Muslim League — to promote a feeling of loyalty to the British crown among Muslims and advance the political interests of the Muslims.

Another turning point was when Mahatma Gandhi made the ``Himalayan blunder`` in supporting Khilafat that led to the revival of the theocratic leadership among Muslims. Jinnah had opposed the Khilafat as a reactionary movement, but Gandhiji had supported it and even tied up his own Non-Cooperation Movement of the Twenties with Khilafat. The disaster it led to is part of history now. As widely respected Socialist leader Achyut Patwardhan and several other historians have brought out, that it was Congress’ support to Khilafat that was responsible for a series of subsequent events that led to the formation of Pakistan as almost a logical course.

Referring to the Muslim opposition to Khilafat movement, Seshadri says: ``It is a fact that in those days a few Muslim intellectuals were far from being votaries of separation. Aga Khan in his memoirs had made a revealing observation: ‘Who then was our doughtiest opponent in 1906?’ A distinguished Muslim barrister in Bombay, with a large and prosperous practice: Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah. We had always been on friendly terms, but at this juncture he came out in bitter hostility towards all that I and my friends had done and were trying to do... He said that our principle of separate electorates was dividing the nation against itself…``

RSS leader Seshadri quotes Socialist leader Achyut Patwardhan with approval: ``Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian, revivalist Muslim leadership of Muslims and maulavis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India... The Congress movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude...``

Thus it was not just Advani or RSS leaders like Seshadri who recognised Jinnah’s contribution to the country in the early part of his political career, but Socialists like Achyut Patwardhan, even Sarojini Naidu. When Advani picked up Jinnah’s secular advocacy for Pakistan, he was seeking to link this germ of secularism in Jinnah to his earlier political career as a nationalist, and holding it as mirror to present day Islamic Pakistan where minorities have been reduced to smithereens.

It would be advisable for the Congress leadership to look inward instead of seeking to be critical of Advani and his perception. Why did the same Jinnah become the foremost proponent of the two-nation theory which resulted in the vivisection of India and left behind a trail of blood and destruction? And who were the natural allies of Jinnah’s bloody politics? Can the Congress and Communists escape their responsibility for the partition of the country? In Lahore and elsewhere in 1946, the Congress acceptance of Partition had a cathartic effect on many nationalist Muslims who had opposed Partition and had supported the Congress for that matter. All this is fully and extensively recorded in history.

Thanks to the prejudice, the general impression is that the BJP and the RSS are all the time conspiring to finish Pakistan. As the BJP president pointed out, there has been no occasion when either the BJP or the former Jan Sangh called for undoing partition by force. The 1982 book by Seshadri is the best evidence that RSS is not asking for a forcible undoing of the division.

The RSS leader referring to a possible reconciliation between India and Pakistan and a return to united India, says: ``With the passage of time, forces of nature are bound to assert themselves pulling down artificial barriers between the three parts which have caused so much unnecessary heart-burning, hardships and scarcities, and giving rise of a natural rapprochement in all spheres of mutual benefit and happiness.``

It remains to the credit of Atal Behari Vajpayee that as Prime Minister, he showed the courage to take the first step to this reconciliation by calling for confidence building measures. The current government is only following that path and expanding it. At the same time, it is also best to remember that many leaders outside the RSS-BJP have believed in reunification — Ram Manohar Lohia, the perpetual Socialist rebel, was the one who consistently advocated a confederation of the three nations of the subcontinent. This brouhaha on Advani’s remarks therefore should be dismissed as a political outcome of some leaders’ impatience with their future.

How did the media commit this faux pas on Advani’s remarks on Jinnah? Possibly for two reasons. One: the media has itself become a prisoner of the images of the BJP and the RSS it has created over the decades. The two organisations in general and Advani in particular have been demonised, and painted in the most lurid colours regarding their attitude towards Muslims and Pakistan. The competitive media presence and 24-hour television sound bites muffle a more detailed and in-depth reporting. Even most serious subjects are reduced to instant sound bites. No wonder all sense of proportion or journalistic restraint is lost in the process.

Balbir K. Punj is a Rajya Sabha MP and convener of the BJP’s Think Tank.

Please pardon the cut-paste, but this confirms my BJP-RSS are together stand. And it comes from a BJP person...I have highlighted the portions that follow this pattern.

The Asian Age - News Worldwide
June 21, 2005

Sound bites
- By Balbir K. Punj

The recent controversy over L.K. Advani’s remarks on Mohammad Ali Jinnah has underlined one facet of our times: that most of us live by headlines and 24-hour sound bites. The Hindustan Times (June 5) banner screamed that Advani had morphed into a dove from a hawk. ``In an act unthinkable of any leader of the BJP or RSS which has questioned Partition, Advani paid homage to Pakistan’s founder... In doing so he overturned years of arguments by the Jan Sangh and the BJP against the man…`` the report said.

With a few exceptions, the underlying tone of most of the TV channels and other newspapers was the same. The fact is, there was nothing new in what Advani said. He had merely reiterated what he had said on earlier occasions in India and what has been said by the RSS on the subject.

Last year (February 28, 2004), I was among hundreds of those present (including many senior RSS and BJP leaders) at a book release function of the India First Foundation where Advani quoted Jinnah’s Constituent Assembly speech. No one at that time raised any objection to the same reference. It is also significant that many reporters who were with Advani in the Pakistan visit, grasped the BJP leader’s speeches there with a greater sense of the background in which they were made.

However, what was left out in many of the reports (except in Pioneer) was the fact that ``Advani had balanced his laudatory reference to Jinnah’s crucial comment exhorting secularism with the observation that ‘there could be no place, much less state protection, for religious extremism and terrorism in a state’.`` The Indian Express also quoted Advani’s statement that there was no place for religious bigotry in South Asia. Those of us who rushed to judgment could have waited for the full text of the speech or more detailed reporting before commenting.

What Advani had said in Lahore on Jinnah and Pakistan was said in detail by H.V. Seshadri, a topmost RSS leader, in his scholarly work on partition, The Tragic Story of Partition, first published in 1982. It has since been reprinted many times, the last being in 2002. Take for instance, the following quote: ``That the two-nation theory was no more than an ideological smoke screen for achieving political ends, has been expressed by Khaliquzzaman himself: ‘Mr Jinnah took the earliest opportunity to bid goodbye to his two-nation theory in his speech on 11 August 1947 as the Governor-General designate of Pakistan and President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan...’ Then follows the part of the Jinnah address where he refers to future Pakistan as a secular state. He also specifically says referring to the religion and caste-based differences even among Muslims as well as Hindus, that ‘this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain freedom and independence and but for this we would have been a free people long ago… You may belong to any religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the State’.``

``Secularists`` normally hold either Savarkar or Jinnah (depending on the target audience — Hindu or Muslim) responsible for the origin of the two-nation theory. The ``theory`` came into vogue much before these two leaders made their presence felt in the Indian political scene. The ``theory`` was first propagated by Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan who had actively assisted the British during the uprising of 1857. Speaking at Meerut on March 16, 1888, he forcefully advised the Muslims not to join the Congress and clearly spoke of ``our Mohammedan Nation`` and dividing India into ``Muslim Nation`` and ``Hindu Nation.`` He founded the Aligarh Muslim University which played a leading role in the creation of Pakistan and which is an icon of ``secularism`` in the country for the present ruling dispensation at the Centre.

Much to the consternation of the nationalist Muslims (including Jinnah), an obviously British sponsored Muslim delegation called on Viceroy Lord Minto at Simla on October 1, 1906 seeking reservation for Muslims in all democratic institutions and government jobs. It was followed by the inaugural session of the All India Muslim League at Dacca in December the same year. Three resolutions were passed delineating the objective of the Muslim League — to promote a feeling of loyalty to the British crown among Muslims and advance the political interests of the Muslims.

Another turning point was when Mahatma Gandhi made the ``Himalayan blunder`` in supporting Khilafat that led to the revival of the theocratic leadership among Muslims. Jinnah had opposed the Khilafat as a reactionary movement, but Gandhiji had supported it and even tied up his own Non-Cooperation Movement of the Twenties with Khilafat. The disaster it led to is part of history now. As widely respected Socialist leader Achyut Patwardhan and several other historians have brought out, that it was Congress’ support to Khilafat that was responsible for a series of subsequent events that led to the formation of Pakistan as almost a logical course.

Referring to the Muslim opposition to Khilafat movement, Seshadri says: ``It is a fact that in those days a few Muslim intellectuals were far from being votaries of separation. Aga Khan in his memoirs had made a revealing observation: ‘Who then was our doughtiest opponent in 1906?’ A distinguished Muslim barrister in Bombay, with a large and prosperous practice: Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah. We had always been on friendly terms, but at this juncture he came out in bitter hostility towards all that I and my friends had done and were trying to do... He said that our principle of separate electorates was dividing the nation against itself…``

RSS leader Seshadri quotes Socialist leader Achyut Patwardhan with approval: ``Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian, revivalist Muslim leadership of Muslims and maulavis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India... The Congress movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude...``

Thus it was not just Advani or RSS leaders like Seshadri who recognised Jinnah’s contribution to the country in the early part of his political career, but Socialists like Achyut Patwardhan, even Sarojini Naidu. When Advani picked up Jinnah’s secular advocacy for Pakistan, he was seeking to link this germ of secularism in Jinnah to his earlier political career as a nationalist, and holding it as mirror to present day Islamic Pakistan where minorities have been reduced to smithereens.

It would be advisable for the Congress leadership to look inward instead of seeking to be critical of Advani and his perception. Why did the same Jinnah become the foremost proponent of the two-nation theory which resulted in the vivisection of India and left behind a trail of blood and destruction? And who were the natural allies of Jinnah’s bloody politics? Can the Congress and Communists escape their responsibility for the partition of the country? In Lahore and elsewhere in 1946, the Congress acceptance of Partition had a cathartic effect on many nationalist Muslims who had opposed Partition and had supported the Congress for that matter. All this is fully and extensively recorded in history.

Thanks to the prejudice, the general impression is that the BJP and the RSS are all the time conspiring to finish Pakistan. As the BJP president pointed out, there has been no occasion when either the BJP or the former Jan Sangh called for undoing partition by force. The 1982 book by Seshadri is the best evidence that RSS is not asking for a forcible undoing of the division.

The RSS leader referring to a possible reconciliation between India and Pakistan and a return to united India, says: ``With the passage of time, forces of nature are bound to assert themselves pulling down artificial barriers between the three parts which have caused so much unnecessary heart-burning, hardships and scarcities, and giving rise of a natural rapprochement in all spheres of mutual benefit and happiness.``

It remains to the credit of Atal Behari Vajpayee that as Prime Minister, he showed the courage to take the first step to this reconciliation by calling for confidence building measures. The current government is only following that path and expanding it. At the same time, it is also best to remember that many leaders outside the RSS-BJP have believed in reunification — Ram Manohar Lohia, the perpetual Socialist rebel, was the one who consistently advocated a confederation of the three nations of the subcontinent. This brouhaha on Advani’s remarks therefore should be dismissed as a political outcome of some leaders’ impatience with their future.

How did the media commit this faux pas on Advani’s remarks on Jinnah? Possibly for two reasons. One: the media has itself become a prisoner of the images of the BJP and the RSS it has created over the decades. The two organisations in general and Advani in particular have been demonised, and painted in the most lurid colours regarding their attitude towards Muslims and Pakistan. The competitive media presence and 24-hour television sound bites muffle a more detailed and in-depth reporting. Even most serious subjects are reduced to instant sound bites. No wonder all sense of proportion or journalistic restraint is lost in the process.

Balbir K. Punj is a Rajya Sabha MP and convener of the BJP’s Think Tank.

This piece is not about Jinnah…I wish I could have omitted his name completely, but the context and the controversy were surrounding his name. The essence remains what has been stated in the headline – it could well be “a shallow premise”, but I’d rather start with that than fall into a pit that some people like to market as depth.

This is not the first time I have talked about the ‘understanding’ between the BJP and RSS. I stand by this theory and, do mark my words, in the UP elections or any other movement that has to do with Hindutva, Mr. Advani together with the RSS will be at the helm.

Thanks for the comments and the digs. I don’t have that much space to accommodate everyone on my side anyway. A few responses…

#1:
Gill saab, thank you…how much more time can we give Advani to show his true colours? In the first segment I did convey that the leopard’s spots cannot change. Perhaps the colour looks different beneath different lights.

#2:
Satire, could you please point out the “issue-based” politics of the BJP? Even this current drama was issueless.

There is a rainbow in my sky, so I know the world is not black and white, but be kind enough to tell that to your RSS-BJP buddies.

It isn’t lost brothers being reunited – it is brothers-in-arms pretending to go in different directions and then meeting to share the spoils.

#3:
Mohar, FV gets quite a few things right if you don’t wear blinkers…

#4:
Yasser, my views on Jinnah are known to you. But this opening of the debate is not going to make Indians see him in a different light. I find a contradiction when you say that this would be followed by ``Muslims were unwilling party to partition``. Did not Jinnah seem to voice Muslim needs?

When I talk about contemporary IM patriotism, I am very certain I want it without the crutch of both Jinnah and Pakistan. Neither has anything to do with IMs today – something that our politicians ought to realise.

#5:
Dost-mittarji, as I was away I missed out completely on that board. As I have already said, Advani will never discard the Hindu card. Never. I await your article and therefore will not try and pre-empt what you might like to state there.

#8:
arjun…
[Once against FV swallows the Paki line…]

This is a 2000 plus word article, so I obviously have a few lines of my own.

#11:
HP, of course communalism has been in existence before this speech. When I talked about legitimising it, it was vis-à-vis Pakistan – the portion where I talked about his meeting with a jihadi and how both would use religion to justify their existence and use the ‘peace motive’ to suit their narrow ends.

My political antenna does not permit me to believe that the BJP will try a softer stand next time. It did not work in the last elections. They are looking to revive the Hindutva movement. And, anachronistic as it may sound, what is happening now is the groundwork.

#17:
Ana, thanks for the best wishes. And your comment elsewhere about this board getting ‘typical responses’ is an apt observation and in no way an insult.

I have not lost hope, though…I still await the day someone says offers to take me for coffee to the Sea Lounge…

#18:
besharm…am rather embarrassed to address you in such a manner, but your self-deprecation is so utterly charming. See, I do not perpetuate hate and no wars will be fought because of what I write. Heck, not even a piddly duel…

My comment, “Do the Indian Hindus care about any temple in Pakistan?” ought to have been seen in a positive light…that the Hindus don’t give a damn about it. How many had heard about this Katasraj temple? Why have you failed to notice that I saw this as opportunism and in fact questioned why the Pakistani government had not given the honour of inaugurating it to one of its own Hindu leaders?

It is easy to call someone prejudiced, but your post reveals some of your own. You too are making it a Muslim-Hindu battle. 90 per cent of my pieces…??? I don’t like men who keep count.

Having said that, objectivity for objectivity’s sake is an over-rated virtue. One tries to seek a balance, creatively if you will…

#21:
AG, since you have gone through the whole speech of Advani, will it be asking for too much to read the whole article, even if it is tedious? I haven’t bothered to discuss Jinnah’s secularism and have not created a “hue and cry”. Amazing that you did not notice that in the beginning itself I took pot-shots at the intellectuals and the media.

If, as you say Advani’s views on Pakistan are important, why did we not pay attention to it when he was home minister? Or was he saying things that are at odds with what he is saying now? And what earth-shattering comment has he made – that he does not hate Pakistan?

Good for him.

#24:
veeresh…one has to be good to “do better”, so thank you.

The 46 C heat seems to have made you skip the piece, except for the headline, which is why you mention the Jinnah-Advani flip-flop…it isn’t about that. Now that I have reassured you, you may go back to your Bhojpuri newspaper…I couldn’t find any in Dilli, so I just stacked up the angrezi ones and brought them back home.

#28:
NHK, I am appalled that Advani’s words on secularism were therapeutic for Pakistanis. How can you people forget his recent history? How will his views help your country? Besides quoting Jinnah, did he have anything original to say on the subject?

I understand it is simpler to take things at face value…but not when you know the man is wearing a mask.

#29:
Rahul, thanks…and yes, I do see the humour in most comments, sometimes even when unintended.

Farzana

Hear ye! Hear ye! Political analysts in Dawn, Daily Times should go sell pani-puris cos they aint know anything of politics and even less of analysis.
And Pronnoy Roy of NDTV/Star News doesnt know his dick from his nose but our bibi knows exactly where her G-spot is. And that`s something to be reckoned with.

Bunty and Babli!!!!! Well said! Nice title..............

Contrary to what some Pakistani Nationalists may say, I agree to what FV has said about the latest drama by Advani the rascal....and it certainly resounds what I said when someone broke the news with a heavy heart that Advani has resigned and become a martyr in the cause of `secularism`

---

Like I said....some Pakistanis are too naive to understand the Indian democracy..................IM-s are far more mature when it comes to the issues regarding communalism and secularism and do not need a patronizing hug from the ``shining lights`` of the Ummah!!!

As has been said, the good/bad thing that Advani has done is to bring out many absurdities and contradictions to the fore.

RSS is no doubt an evil organization. The closer BJP is to RSS the worse an outfit it ought to be in every way.

But read the whole of Balbir Punj`s article as posted by Farzana. Notice how close it is to what Pakistanis have been saying for a long time. And how different it is from what the Congress has been preaching in India.

It`s not clear how that article is supposed to be unfriendly to Pakistanis, or supposed to paint Advani in unfriendly colors .

---

To Farzana, the Quaid’s secularism is so obvious a fact that it should be taken for granted. In contrast, she has reservations about the secularism of Gandhi - at least that is not so obvious to her.

Ballukhan has strongly opposed the suggestion that Jinnah was secular. To him it would be blasphemy that Jinnah was any more secular than were the leaders of the Congress.

So speaking of Indian Muslims as being one on this issue doesn`t seem to be rational. There is nothing in common between the perspectives of Farzana Versey and Ballukhan.

It`s not the question of India/Pakistani Hindu/Muslim. It`s about what perspective on history one is willing to take. The only thing we can ask is that one maintain a certain consistency. Not paint people good or evil depending entirely upon one`s convenience.

Re: # 43

``This piece is not about Jinnah…I wish I could have omitted his name completely, but the context and the controversy were surrounding his name. The essence remains what has been stated in the headline – it could well be “a shallow premise”, but I’d rather start with that than fall into a pit that some people like to market as depth.``

Please..........let us not talk about Jinnah here (and let this thread be hijacked by YLH again!) but about ADVANI and his views on communalism and (psuedo-)secularsim!!!

Ballukhan

All said and done, I know exactly where you are coming from, and I agree with you.

I am just trying to highlight the absurdities and the silliness of many statements that people so easily and so self-righteously take. But I will sign off for now :)

Currenlty both Indian and Pakistani leaders are dancing on American tune. So in my opinion it does not matter how they actually perform thier part of drama.

Nice pics of Mumbai...i`m getting sick and tired of this indo-pak harangue that goes on ceaselessly on this site......one provocation after another....i like looking at pictures instead.......more satisfying......

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=226884

Re: # 40

``I am surprised that no comment has been made about Advani’s meeting with Maulana Samiul Haq, who is known for his support to the jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir. A report in ‘The Week’ states, “Haq runs a seminary in Akora Khattak, the North West Frontier Province, which reportedly has trained many Kashmiri militants. Advani and Haq shook hands at a dinner and said that the leadership of both sides should join hands for a peaceful future.”



This was by far one of the best exposition of the Advani drama........should publish in the print media..........