Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango
Farzana Versey June 20, 2005
#49 Posted by ferozk on June 21, 2005 2:30:06 am
Advani`s comments on Jinnah and secularism can be agreed or disagreed with, but the credit must still be given to Advani for starting a debate on the issues, which led to 1947. The point of this debate, as with any other debate, is not to win by scoring points, but to listen to the arguments and then to decide, whether one is willing to accept them as historically correct or reject them as being historically wrong. Advani`s comments will not unhinge history, but by propelling a discussion on the issue, Advani has forced us to reconcile the past as it actually existed, with the pre-1947 past and the post-1947 past which we politically created after the partition in 1947.
From the point of a historian or a student of history, this debate is a boon, because information that challenges the conceptions of the past is being brought forward and what matters is not that Advani was justified or not in making his remarks, but that the record of histriography in India and Pakistan will have a richer bibliographic reference to its various hypothesis and arguments. History is a matter of personal perspective and it is doubtful if any paradigmic shift in the popular opinion vis-a-vis the events leading to 1947 will occur due to Advani`s remarks in Karachi about Jinnah. However, one thing is certain; the popular opinion, will have to adjust its views to accomodate the new contours of debate on the issues, which ultimately led to partition in 1947 and that can only led to a more deeply layered and nuanced understanding of history.
History has to be re-raked every generation so to allow the nutrients (facts) to gain some fresh air, which allows for a review of facts after the passion and emotionalism has ebbed for a better understanding of the past. Historic facts, which are not questioned tend to end up as a historic dogma, which is not a good thing as far as historic scholarship is concerned. In the case of India and Pakistan, it would seem quite safe to conclude that people would react uncomfortably to this revision of history not because their own historic peceptions have been called into question, but because their political views of an historic event have lost some of its self-cherished lustre.
If Advani, by his remarks, has forced a period of historic revisionism in India and Pakistan by questioning basis of our own understanding and acceptance of the events involved in the creation of India and Pakistan, as independent countries, we should thank L. K. Advani. We may still disagree and dispute each other`s view of history, but atleast now we can disagree, with a better understanding of the past. The irony, which manifests itself, as a result of this debate is not about Advani`s remarks about Jinnah. The real irony is that we, Indians and Pakistanis, are still not willing to accept verdict of history and what we claim to be the historic truth is, in most cases nothing more and nothing less than, a glorified personal opinion.
Ciao
From the point of a historian or a student of history, this debate is a boon, because information that challenges the conceptions of the past is being brought forward and what matters is not that Advani was justified or not in making his remarks, but that the record of histriography in India and Pakistan will have a richer bibliographic reference to its various hypothesis and arguments. History is a matter of personal perspective and it is doubtful if any paradigmic shift in the popular opinion vis-a-vis the events leading to 1947 will occur due to Advani`s remarks in Karachi about Jinnah. However, one thing is certain; the popular opinion, will have to adjust its views to accomodate the new contours of debate on the issues, which ultimately led to partition in 1947 and that can only led to a more deeply layered and nuanced understanding of history.
History has to be re-raked every generation so to allow the nutrients (facts) to gain some fresh air, which allows for a review of facts after the passion and emotionalism has ebbed for a better understanding of the past. Historic facts, which are not questioned tend to end up as a historic dogma, which is not a good thing as far as historic scholarship is concerned. In the case of India and Pakistan, it would seem quite safe to conclude that people would react uncomfortably to this revision of history not because their own historic peceptions have been called into question, but because their political views of an historic event have lost some of its self-cherished lustre.
If Advani, by his remarks, has forced a period of historic revisionism in India and Pakistan by questioning basis of our own understanding and acceptance of the events involved in the creation of India and Pakistan, as independent countries, we should thank L. K. Advani. We may still disagree and dispute each other`s view of history, but atleast now we can disagree, with a better understanding of the past. The irony, which manifests itself, as a result of this debate is not about Advani`s remarks about Jinnah. The real irony is that we, Indians and Pakistanis, are still not willing to accept verdict of history and what we claim to be the historic truth is, in most cases nothing more and nothing less than, a glorified personal opinion.
Ciao
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#50 Posted by pmishra2 on June 21, 2005 2:42:45 am
Farzanaji,
No doubt Advani is flim-flam artist. But let us not be fooled by ``secularists`` like Soniaji or even her late esteemed husband who kindly revived Ram mandir in Ayodhya. Just recently Soniaji had a wonderful meeting with a mega-mullah (equivalent of one of the VHP crazies) and assurred him of all collaboration in his project of regularly beating his wife and maintaining his flock in the 9th century.
Here is another view of the Advani tamasha:
Exclusive: ‘Hindu-only approach will ensure dynasty remains alive’
Tuesday June 21 2005 00:00 IST
NEW DELHI: A few weeks before he was widely blamed by party colleagues for fashioning L K Advani’s ‘‘revisionist’’ views on Jinnah and Pakistan, BJP president’s key aide Sudheendra Kulkarni had penned a document calling for a major makeover of the BJP - emphasising that with a ‘‘Hindu-only’’ approach and neglect of India’s 15 crore Muslims, the party would never occupy a dominant position in Indian politics.
Kulkarni’s paper was presented at a closed-door ‘Thinkers Meet’ in Bhopal on March 23 and 24, and created a storm for its radical departure from the RSS-inspired certainties that had guided the BJP’s official ideology since its inception.
The paper, which categorically rubbishes the view that the BJP lost the 2004 elections because of alienation of its core ‘‘Hindu’’ voters, assumes significance because Kulkarni is not just one of the many ‘‘intellectuals’’ who presented papers at the Bhopal meet but has been the speech-writer and ideological aide to both Atal Behari Vajpayee when he was prime minister and to L K Advani in his current term as BJP president.
Of even greater significance is that Kulkarni’s formulations-on the BJP’s so-called ‘‘Hindu’’ vote, on Gujarat, on Ayodhya, and most importantly on the need to ‘‘reach out to common Muslim masses’’-clearly influenced some of Vajpayee’s moves while he led the NDA government and are now guiding Advani’s attempts to cast himself and his party in a ‘‘moderate’’ mould.
During the Lok Sabha election last summer in UP, for instance, Vajpayee actively wooed the Muslim populace and the BJP, for the first time, extensively used Urdu in its campaign. Kulkarni was responsible for that decision and constantly monitored Vajpayee’s campaign at the time.
Similarly, Advani’s painstaking efforts to project a moderate and secular image during his recent visit to Pakistan was also part of the Kulkarni blue-print that the Big Two of the BJP seem to have accepted despite stiff opposition from the rest of the Sangh Parivar including large sections of the BJP.
In his paper presented at the Bhopal meet, Kulkarni-who started out as a CPI(M) fellow-traveller before joining the BJP in the early 1990s-made the following major points:
*That there was no nationwide ‘‘Hindu disquiet’’ with the BJP that led to its electoral defeat. There may have been disquiet among a section of Hindus but ‘‘that section is so small that by itself it can neither vote the BJP to power, nor dislodge the BJP from power.’’
* Even that small section of Hindus ‘‘would be chasing a chimera if they thought that a ‘critical mass’ of Hindus would some day bring a ‘‘Hindu political party’’ to power in India on a ‘‘Hindu political agenda.’’ ‘‘Apart from the impossibility of achieving this task, what should be noted is that this task is also undemocratic and not in the interests of the nation.’’
* “We may not like it, but here is the inescapable truth of Indian democracy - at best, the BJP will remain one of the most important poles in Indian politics and, at worst, it will become a slightly larger version of the Hindu Mahasabha. But, with a narrow Hindu-only approach, never will it occupy the dominant position in Indian politics that the Congress once enjoyed.... In fact, this narrow approach is the surest way of allowing the Nehru-Indira-Rajiv-Sonia-Rahul dynasty to remain alive, and as a dominant player, in Indian politics.’’
*That the best option to resolve the Ayodhya dispute is a mutual settlement through talks between representatives of the Hindu and Muslim communities. ‘‘However, hopes of such a purposive dialogue were considerably jolted by the communal violence in Gujarat in 2002. It is not out of place to mention here that the communal violence in Gujarat hardened the Supreme Court’s attitude towards the Ayodhya issue when the ‘Shila Puja’ campaign was undertaken. This closed even the small window of opportunity that Atalji’s government had for making any kind of executive move in the Ayodhya matter.’’
*But the question we should honestly ask ourselves is: Was enough done to control the violence that took place after Godhra?...Quite apart from the vilification campaign carried out by our opponents, hasn’t Gujarat-and the irresponsible statements made by some self-styled Hindu leaders devoid of ‘vani sanyam’-sullied the image of the Hindu movement, both within India and abroad?
*That the BJP must settle ‘‘two fundamental questions’’ that are ‘‘at the heart of all the challenges and opportunities before us’’: Are we for or against secularism? And are we doing enough to practice even what we ourselves say is genuine secularism -namely, ‘sarva panth sambhav’?
The bulk of the paper is a passionate argument in favour of secularism and for respect and goodwill towards all ‘‘non-Hindu faiths, especially Islam.’’ Turning Advani’s pet 1980s slogan on its head, Kulkarni asks, ‘‘If we are sincere about ‘Justice for All but Appeasement of None’, isn’t there a crying need for a non-appeasement approach to the welfare and development of the poor among non-Hindus, especially Muslims?’’
Underlining that a pro-Muslim approach also made eminent political sense, Kulkarni writes: ‘‘By now every objective election analysis has established, without the thinnest shadow of doubt, that with zero or insignificant support of our Muslim brethren, no political party in India can aspire to have a majority of its own in Parliament. And should a party like the BJP ever come to power in alliance with other parties, we’d be living in a fool’s paradise if we thought that we can retain power from one election to another, by ignoring Muslims altogether.’’
The choice, Kulkarni asserts, is clear-a secular approach that ensures BJP remains an important pole in Indian politics or a narrow ‘‘Hindu-only approach’’ that makes it ‘‘a slightly larger version of the Hindu Mahasabha.’’
The battle between the two options, as the turmoil in the Sangh Parivar following Advani’s Pakistan sojourn testifies, is nowhere near resolution.
No doubt Advani is flim-flam artist. But let us not be fooled by ``secularists`` like Soniaji or even her late esteemed husband who kindly revived Ram mandir in Ayodhya. Just recently Soniaji had a wonderful meeting with a mega-mullah (equivalent of one of the VHP crazies) and assurred him of all collaboration in his project of regularly beating his wife and maintaining his flock in the 9th century.
Here is another view of the Advani tamasha:
Exclusive: ‘Hindu-only approach will ensure dynasty remains alive’
Tuesday June 21 2005 00:00 IST
NEW DELHI: A few weeks before he was widely blamed by party colleagues for fashioning L K Advani’s ‘‘revisionist’’ views on Jinnah and Pakistan, BJP president’s key aide Sudheendra Kulkarni had penned a document calling for a major makeover of the BJP - emphasising that with a ‘‘Hindu-only’’ approach and neglect of India’s 15 crore Muslims, the party would never occupy a dominant position in Indian politics.
Kulkarni’s paper was presented at a closed-door ‘Thinkers Meet’ in Bhopal on March 23 and 24, and created a storm for its radical departure from the RSS-inspired certainties that had guided the BJP’s official ideology since its inception.
The paper, which categorically rubbishes the view that the BJP lost the 2004 elections because of alienation of its core ‘‘Hindu’’ voters, assumes significance because Kulkarni is not just one of the many ‘‘intellectuals’’ who presented papers at the Bhopal meet but has been the speech-writer and ideological aide to both Atal Behari Vajpayee when he was prime minister and to L K Advani in his current term as BJP president.
Of even greater significance is that Kulkarni’s formulations-on the BJP’s so-called ‘‘Hindu’’ vote, on Gujarat, on Ayodhya, and most importantly on the need to ‘‘reach out to common Muslim masses’’-clearly influenced some of Vajpayee’s moves while he led the NDA government and are now guiding Advani’s attempts to cast himself and his party in a ‘‘moderate’’ mould.
During the Lok Sabha election last summer in UP, for instance, Vajpayee actively wooed the Muslim populace and the BJP, for the first time, extensively used Urdu in its campaign. Kulkarni was responsible for that decision and constantly monitored Vajpayee’s campaign at the time.
Similarly, Advani’s painstaking efforts to project a moderate and secular image during his recent visit to Pakistan was also part of the Kulkarni blue-print that the Big Two of the BJP seem to have accepted despite stiff opposition from the rest of the Sangh Parivar including large sections of the BJP.
In his paper presented at the Bhopal meet, Kulkarni-who started out as a CPI(M) fellow-traveller before joining the BJP in the early 1990s-made the following major points:
*That there was no nationwide ‘‘Hindu disquiet’’ with the BJP that led to its electoral defeat. There may have been disquiet among a section of Hindus but ‘‘that section is so small that by itself it can neither vote the BJP to power, nor dislodge the BJP from power.’’
* Even that small section of Hindus ‘‘would be chasing a chimera if they thought that a ‘critical mass’ of Hindus would some day bring a ‘‘Hindu political party’’ to power in India on a ‘‘Hindu political agenda.’’ ‘‘Apart from the impossibility of achieving this task, what should be noted is that this task is also undemocratic and not in the interests of the nation.’’
* “We may not like it, but here is the inescapable truth of Indian democracy - at best, the BJP will remain one of the most important poles in Indian politics and, at worst, it will become a slightly larger version of the Hindu Mahasabha. But, with a narrow Hindu-only approach, never will it occupy the dominant position in Indian politics that the Congress once enjoyed.... In fact, this narrow approach is the surest way of allowing the Nehru-Indira-Rajiv-Sonia-Rahul dynasty to remain alive, and as a dominant player, in Indian politics.’’
*That the best option to resolve the Ayodhya dispute is a mutual settlement through talks between representatives of the Hindu and Muslim communities. ‘‘However, hopes of such a purposive dialogue were considerably jolted by the communal violence in Gujarat in 2002. It is not out of place to mention here that the communal violence in Gujarat hardened the Supreme Court’s attitude towards the Ayodhya issue when the ‘Shila Puja’ campaign was undertaken. This closed even the small window of opportunity that Atalji’s government had for making any kind of executive move in the Ayodhya matter.’’
*But the question we should honestly ask ourselves is: Was enough done to control the violence that took place after Godhra?...Quite apart from the vilification campaign carried out by our opponents, hasn’t Gujarat-and the irresponsible statements made by some self-styled Hindu leaders devoid of ‘vani sanyam’-sullied the image of the Hindu movement, both within India and abroad?
*That the BJP must settle ‘‘two fundamental questions’’ that are ‘‘at the heart of all the challenges and opportunities before us’’: Are we for or against secularism? And are we doing enough to practice even what we ourselves say is genuine secularism -namely, ‘sarva panth sambhav’?
The bulk of the paper is a passionate argument in favour of secularism and for respect and goodwill towards all ‘‘non-Hindu faiths, especially Islam.’’ Turning Advani’s pet 1980s slogan on its head, Kulkarni asks, ‘‘If we are sincere about ‘Justice for All but Appeasement of None’, isn’t there a crying need for a non-appeasement approach to the welfare and development of the poor among non-Hindus, especially Muslims?’’
Underlining that a pro-Muslim approach also made eminent political sense, Kulkarni writes: ‘‘By now every objective election analysis has established, without the thinnest shadow of doubt, that with zero or insignificant support of our Muslim brethren, no political party in India can aspire to have a majority of its own in Parliament. And should a party like the BJP ever come to power in alliance with other parties, we’d be living in a fool’s paradise if we thought that we can retain power from one election to another, by ignoring Muslims altogether.’’
The choice, Kulkarni asserts, is clear-a secular approach that ensures BJP remains an important pole in Indian politics or a narrow ‘‘Hindu-only approach’’ that makes it ‘‘a slightly larger version of the Hindu Mahasabha.’’
The battle between the two options, as the turmoil in the Sangh Parivar following Advani’s Pakistan sojourn testifies, is nowhere near resolution.
#51 Posted by ballukhan on June 21, 2005 2:48:40 am
Re: # 49
``we should thank L. K. Advani.``
this is precisely the difference between the two perspectives across the border.
Whereas Pakistan as an Islamic Republic needs Jinnah`s secularism desperately, India does not need to redefine its secularism via TNT. So there is nothing that the IMs have to thank Advani for........................ except for helping them in getting Advani exposed again.......
``we should thank L. K. Advani.``
this is precisely the difference between the two perspectives across the border.
Whereas Pakistan as an Islamic Republic needs Jinnah`s secularism desperately, India does not need to redefine its secularism via TNT. So there is nothing that the IMs have to thank Advani for........................ except for helping them in getting Advani exposed again.......
#52 Posted by MantoLives on June 21, 2005 3:40:30 am
Ballu
But ofcourse you don`t want to do that... so I promise not to take away the advani focus.
``Whereas Pakistan as an Islamic Republic needs Jinnah`s secularism desperately``
Yes...it does. And having read Advani`s statements carefuly... he didn`t speak of India or partition. He did refer to Jinnah`s earlier phase that is well documented and he spoke of his 11th August speech. So I think a little too much has been made of a statement that was originally insignificant but true.
What I am glad is.. is what ferozk said! And nothing else.
But ofcourse you don`t want to do that... so I promise not to take away the advani focus.
``Whereas Pakistan as an Islamic Republic needs Jinnah`s secularism desperately``
Yes...it does. And having read Advani`s statements carefuly... he didn`t speak of India or partition. He did refer to Jinnah`s earlier phase that is well documented and he spoke of his 11th August speech. So I think a little too much has been made of a statement that was originally insignificant but true.
What I am glad is.. is what ferozk said! And nothing else.
#53 Posted by mohar11 on June 21, 2005 5:14:52 am
//..FV gets quite a few things right…//
Nah. Almost always, you are way off the course.
Nah. Almost always, you are way off the course.
#54 Posted by drlokraj on June 21, 2005 5:56:06 am
BJP and RSS are two sides of the same coin.Lot of people including me thought for a while that BJP may be trying to come out of the shadow of RSS and assert its own independent identity,but were proved wrong soon.
Advani is at present one of the senoir most active politicians on Indian scene and will not do anything without an underlying agenda.This whole drama ia a prelude to what might be unfolding closer to the elections.
What he did to the socio-political scene of India with his Rath yaatra is still acting as a big reinforcement for the whole sangh parivaar and Advani will be the last person to spoil that.At the moment they are just setting the stage for their future programmes.
Calling Jinnah secular does not go against their stand on partition at the national level as they have always been holding Congress and Mahatma Gandhi responsible for that more than anybody else.
Advani is at present one of the senoir most active politicians on Indian scene and will not do anything without an underlying agenda.This whole drama ia a prelude to what might be unfolding closer to the elections.
What he did to the socio-political scene of India with his Rath yaatra is still acting as a big reinforcement for the whole sangh parivaar and Advani will be the last person to spoil that.At the moment they are just setting the stage for their future programmes.
Calling Jinnah secular does not go against their stand on partition at the national level as they have always been holding Congress and Mahatma Gandhi responsible for that more than anybody else.
#55 Posted by mohar11 on June 21, 2005 6:12:00 am
Re: # 27 YLH
//...I have survived many who claim to ``beat up on YLH`` over the last six years. Most of them have been lost to obscurity. I suspect you will too..//
Lost to obscurity? Obscurity of what? Obscurity of Chowk? Man, you have to go out and get some fresh air, man. You are choking up with too much sh!t from Chowk. Chowk is not reality. Reality is outside.
Boy - this guy has gone cukcoo.
//...I have survived many who claim to ``beat up on YLH`` over the last six years. Most of them have been lost to obscurity. I suspect you will too..//
Lost to obscurity? Obscurity of what? Obscurity of Chowk? Man, you have to go out and get some fresh air, man. You are choking up with too much sh!t from Chowk. Chowk is not reality. Reality is outside.
Boy - this guy has gone cukcoo.
#56 Posted by KaalChakra on June 21, 2005 7:08:31 am
drlokraj ji
``Calling Jinnah secular does not go against their stand on partition``
That is precisely right. That is why, BJP`s accounts of what led to the partition are MUCH MUCH closer to Pakistani accounts than they are to the Indian/Congress accounts. I wonder how many people have cared to notice and acknowledge those similarities and dissimiliarities.
So here is the great irony: Most people who support the BJP feel justified in hating Jinnah, and most people who love Jinnah feel justified in hating the BJP.
This shows either an unfamiliarity with facts, or an unwillingness to fairly yield to others what one claims for oneself.
``Calling Jinnah secular does not go against their stand on partition``
That is precisely right. That is why, BJP`s accounts of what led to the partition are MUCH MUCH closer to Pakistani accounts than they are to the Indian/Congress accounts. I wonder how many people have cared to notice and acknowledge those similarities and dissimiliarities.
So here is the great irony: Most people who support the BJP feel justified in hating Jinnah, and most people who love Jinnah feel justified in hating the BJP.
This shows either an unfamiliarity with facts, or an unwillingness to fairly yield to others what one claims for oneself.
#57 Posted by dost_mittar on June 21, 2005 8:12:37 am
Not everyone in the parivaar is singing the same tune....
From Rediff.com`s Capital Buzz:
The Sangh Parivar is yet to get over the Jinnah affair.
``Even the Bharatiya Janata Party hasn`t quite got over the ghost of Jinnah, woken from deep slumber by party chief Lal Kishenchand Advani on his visit to Pakistan. Now, everyone who had deserted the party boss when he needed support the most is keen to explain his or her role in the four-day drama.
Advani is fully aware who said what to whom in the Parivar when they thought he had written his political obituary. In the coming weeks and months it might reflect in his handling of the party affairs.
Consider this episode. When party secretary Sudheendra Kulkarni called the BJP headquarters to read out the fulsome tribute Advani had recorded in the visitors` book at the Jinnah mausoleum in Karachi and wanted it given wide publicity in the Indian media, even the stand-in party spokesman Prakash Javdekar developed cold feet.
Despite Kulkarni`s urgent phone calls, the BJP head office refused to issue a press release taking note of Advani`s homage to the founder of Pakistan. Sometime later when Sushma Swaraj came to know of Advani`s entry, she wanted Kulkarni to be told in no uncertain terms that there was no question of the party giving wide currency to his tribute to Jinnah.
`Advaniji ko samjhana chahiey key hum ney election yahan ladna hain, Pakistan mein nahin (Advaniji should know we have to contest elections here in India, not in Pakistan),` she said.
When the BJP chief returned from Pakistan, and the Parivar severely pilloried him, it was again Swaraj who reacted with contempt. She was heard saying, `Saath saal ki kamai, chhai din mein khatam kar li (Advani has destroyed the political capital he earned over 60 years in just six days).`
Of course, Sushma and others now make light of the remarks, even ascribing them to others in the party.
From Rediff.com`s Capital Buzz:
The Sangh Parivar is yet to get over the Jinnah affair.
``Even the Bharatiya Janata Party hasn`t quite got over the ghost of Jinnah, woken from deep slumber by party chief Lal Kishenchand Advani on his visit to Pakistan. Now, everyone who had deserted the party boss when he needed support the most is keen to explain his or her role in the four-day drama.
Advani is fully aware who said what to whom in the Parivar when they thought he had written his political obituary. In the coming weeks and months it might reflect in his handling of the party affairs.
Consider this episode. When party secretary Sudheendra Kulkarni called the BJP headquarters to read out the fulsome tribute Advani had recorded in the visitors` book at the Jinnah mausoleum in Karachi and wanted it given wide publicity in the Indian media, even the stand-in party spokesman Prakash Javdekar developed cold feet.
Despite Kulkarni`s urgent phone calls, the BJP head office refused to issue a press release taking note of Advani`s homage to the founder of Pakistan. Sometime later when Sushma Swaraj came to know of Advani`s entry, she wanted Kulkarni to be told in no uncertain terms that there was no question of the party giving wide currency to his tribute to Jinnah.
`Advaniji ko samjhana chahiey key hum ney election yahan ladna hain, Pakistan mein nahin (Advaniji should know we have to contest elections here in India, not in Pakistan),` she said.
When the BJP chief returned from Pakistan, and the Parivar severely pilloried him, it was again Swaraj who reacted with contempt. She was heard saying, `Saath saal ki kamai, chhai din mein khatam kar li (Advani has destroyed the political capital he earned over 60 years in just six days).`
Of course, Sushma and others now make light of the remarks, even ascribing them to others in the party.
#58 Posted by mohar11 on June 21, 2005 8:38:13 am
Re: # 30 rahul
//.... For a nationalism to nurture u need an ``other nation``, kinda like China and Japan....//
No, you don`t need ``other nation`` to define nationalism - and Indian Nationalism has been defined on its own right from the beginning. Pakistan has been a very marginal component ..... Of course, attack in Kargil brought a sharp and widespread focus on the jihadland next door - and that`s to be expected.....So if pakistan cease to exist today - Indian nationalism would not fall apart. Nothing will change - except for a welcome respite from jihad in Kashmir ... And Modi will have no Mian Mushy to crow about.
In case of pakistan - well, there is no such thing as ``pakistani nationalism``. All you have there is something called ``pakistani ideologies`` - a rancid mixture of TNT, islamic fundamentalism and rabid anti-india[hindu] fascism.
//.... For a nationalism to nurture u need an ``other nation``, kinda like China and Japan....//
No, you don`t need ``other nation`` to define nationalism - and Indian Nationalism has been defined on its own right from the beginning. Pakistan has been a very marginal component ..... Of course, attack in Kargil brought a sharp and widespread focus on the jihadland next door - and that`s to be expected.....So if pakistan cease to exist today - Indian nationalism would not fall apart. Nothing will change - except for a welcome respite from jihad in Kashmir ... And Modi will have no Mian Mushy to crow about.
In case of pakistan - well, there is no such thing as ``pakistani nationalism``. All you have there is something called ``pakistani ideologies`` - a rancid mixture of TNT, islamic fundamentalism and rabid anti-india[hindu] fascism.
#59 Posted by KaalChakra on June 21, 2005 9:09:50 am
To define a sense of the self, one needs some sort of `other.` But what kind of other one needs depends upon the kind of self one wants to construct.
Is India`s sense of the self limited to being the other of Pakistan?
I am open to seeing any evidence in support of that theory.
Is India`s sense of the self limited to being the other of Pakistan?
I am open to seeing any evidence in support of that theory.
#60 Posted by mohar11 on June 21, 2005 9:32:11 am
Re: # 59
//...To define a sense of the self, one needs some sort of `other.`..//
Not always. Americans are very nationalistic - but that`s not defined on any ``other``. In fact, americans are not aware of too many ``others``.
India`s sense of self comes from Indian Civilization. The root is traced back to thounsands of years. Pakistan has been considered the way it should be - an break-away part which has fallen into severe negative ideologies and indulges in periodic hostile activities.
//...To define a sense of the self, one needs some sort of `other.`..//
Not always. Americans are very nationalistic - but that`s not defined on any ``other``. In fact, americans are not aware of too many ``others``.
India`s sense of self comes from Indian Civilization. The root is traced back to thounsands of years. Pakistan has been considered the way it should be - an break-away part which has fallen into severe negative ideologies and indulges in periodic hostile activities.
#61 Posted by KaalChakra on June 21, 2005 10:02:54 am
For great civilizations, the `other` is never a specific location or a specific nation. I will be extremely surprised if the Chinese can`t define themselves without thinking of the Japanese somehow.
All great civilizations have a strong sense of the self, based on their view of their own inner worth, as separate from the amorphous REST OF THE WORLD.` These boundaries need not be oppositional; they can be complementary, supportive etc.
All great civilizations have a strong sense of the self, based on their view of their own inner worth, as separate from the amorphous REST OF THE WORLD.` These boundaries need not be oppositional; they can be complementary, supportive etc.
#62 Posted by HP on June 21, 2005 10:15:27 am
#52
“But ofcourse you don`t want to do that... so I promise not to take away the advani focus.
``Whereas Pakistan as an Islamic Republic needs Jinnah`s secularism desperately``
Yes...it does..``
I know Manto would be ready to kill me after this but I have to say it before things get muddled up on this board.
Like Gandhi, Jinnah has become irrelevant in Pakistani politics. Jinnah is still not irrelevant in India and that’s why Advani decided to use him in internal Indian politics.
However, any suggestion that Jinnah is relevant in Pakistani politics or his secular image is desperately needed is sure a sign that the poster, who originally wrote this, has no knowledge and understanding of Pakistani ground politics.
Jinnah is relevant to only a handful of intellectuals sitting in Punjab. In fact, pressing Jinnah in on intellectual, ideological level or on the current political scene in Pakistan would be construed as another attempt by the dominant Punjab province to control Pakistan, a perception that has already caused many serious problems in Pakistani politics.
Pakistan national politics now primarily is regional politics where different provinces wrestle with Punjab for share in the power and the economic resources. The army ensures the Punjabi dominance and other provinces oppose the army and consider the army as the representative of the Punjabi elite.
Just a look at the Pakistan politics would tell that different political parties that espouse different political ideologies represent four provinces. The last party that held power in both Punjab and Sindh was the PPP. PPP’s politics in Punjab is entirely different from its politics in Sindh and for all practical purposes, the PPP is two parties united by Bhutto clan on a minimum political platform.
None of the political parties representing smaller provinces in Pakistan has anything in common with Jinnah nor can they be swayed by any attempt by the so called Jinnah lobby to make Jinnah relevant in their politics.
“But ofcourse you don`t want to do that... so I promise not to take away the advani focus.
``Whereas Pakistan as an Islamic Republic needs Jinnah`s secularism desperately``
Yes...it does..``
I know Manto would be ready to kill me after this but I have to say it before things get muddled up on this board.
Like Gandhi, Jinnah has become irrelevant in Pakistani politics. Jinnah is still not irrelevant in India and that’s why Advani decided to use him in internal Indian politics.
However, any suggestion that Jinnah is relevant in Pakistani politics or his secular image is desperately needed is sure a sign that the poster, who originally wrote this, has no knowledge and understanding of Pakistani ground politics.
Jinnah is relevant to only a handful of intellectuals sitting in Punjab. In fact, pressing Jinnah in on intellectual, ideological level or on the current political scene in Pakistan would be construed as another attempt by the dominant Punjab province to control Pakistan, a perception that has already caused many serious problems in Pakistani politics.
Pakistan national politics now primarily is regional politics where different provinces wrestle with Punjab for share in the power and the economic resources. The army ensures the Punjabi dominance and other provinces oppose the army and consider the army as the representative of the Punjabi elite.
Just a look at the Pakistan politics would tell that different political parties that espouse different political ideologies represent four provinces. The last party that held power in both Punjab and Sindh was the PPP. PPP’s politics in Punjab is entirely different from its politics in Sindh and for all practical purposes, the PPP is two parties united by Bhutto clan on a minimum political platform.
None of the political parties representing smaller provinces in Pakistan has anything in common with Jinnah nor can they be swayed by any attempt by the so called Jinnah lobby to make Jinnah relevant in their politics.
#63 Posted by ana on June 21, 2005 10:19:00 am
{america is not aware of too many ``others``}
to use a phrase in punjabi which my mother would undoubtedly click her tongue at depending on where and when i used it ``ai lai!``
jinaab, america is a huge conglomeration of ``others`` many of those already ``here`` but exterminated, many of those forcibly brought here and enslaved, many indentured to build the railroad, many who are immigrants and exiles and expatriates. and america has been aware of their otherness, like in wwii when hundreds of ``others`` were put in relocation camps. oh, in some sense america is aware of many ``others.``
manifest destiny. . . part and parcel of american nationalism. . . is based on ``others.``
to use a phrase in punjabi which my mother would undoubtedly click her tongue at depending on where and when i used it ``ai lai!``
jinaab, america is a huge conglomeration of ``others`` many of those already ``here`` but exterminated, many of those forcibly brought here and enslaved, many indentured to build the railroad, many who are immigrants and exiles and expatriates. and america has been aware of their otherness, like in wwii when hundreds of ``others`` were put in relocation camps. oh, in some sense america is aware of many ``others.``
manifest destiny. . . part and parcel of american nationalism. . . is based on ``others.``
#64 Posted by cayenne on June 21, 2005 10:33:48 am
Re: # 62
Jinnah is still not irrelevant in India and that’s why Advani decided to use him in internal Indian politics.
I`ve read quite a bit of `kaka` on this site and i`ve written my fair share too, i admit, BUT, the above takes the cake.A majority of the indian population wouldn`t know Jinnah if you spelt the name.Fer crissakes.GET A LIFE , Mon.
Jinnah is still not irrelevant in India and that’s why Advani decided to use him in internal Indian politics.
I`ve read quite a bit of `kaka` on this site and i`ve written my fair share too, i admit, BUT, the above takes the cake.A majority of the indian population wouldn`t know Jinnah if you spelt the name.Fer crissakes.GET A LIFE , Mon.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- quin: Asif, I am glad... Translation of a (Love)
- Naqshbandi: quin: thanks for your... Translation of a (Love)
- quin: I don't know why... Translation of a (Love)
- Naqshbandi: I wrote 'love' in... Translation of a (Love)
- Naqshbandi: Tahir, I apologise for calling... Translation of a (Love)
- chaltahai: masadi, how would you... Translation of a (Love)
- mullah_toofani: Masadi baitay, You seem like... Translation of a (Love)
- masadi: g'night... Translation of a (Love)
