Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango

A beautiful piece of writing. It contains good and insightful political analysis. Political game is much too crooked and complex to be comprehended by those who are standing outside.Give some more time to Mr. Advani to show his true colors. If he indeed showed he is for burying the hatchet, he should then be applauded.
Whatever the truth, it was a great step on his part to say what he said in Pakistan. Let us hope he sticks to it by his actions. Regards,
Mohammad Gill

Farzana,

``Of course. The situation as it stands today is the RSS is now praising Vajpayee for his stand against the UPA government, the same Vajpayee who has stood behind Advani. Got it?``

In your own words: ``Wake up.`` India is moving to ``issue-based`` politics from ``party-based`. You can praise what you like and condemn what you don`t like about something or someone. The world isn`t black-and-white you see.

Perhaps, there is a thing like social color blindness or even myopia. A new type of ``Ishihara test`` is needed.

As for the tango, its fun, and very sensual. You should try it more often if you already do.

Let`s leave the ``dirty dancing`` to politicians. Wait, that`s even more fun .....

For the rest of your article: sadly, reflects of ``Bollywood`` designs: Vajapayee/BJP bad, Advani/RSS very bad. Both lost brothers to be united.

Satire

//...There has been a tacit understanding: Use Jinnah who they say fractured the country along communal lines to justify and legitimise your own communalism...//

FV got this one right. Advani has figured that best way to legitimize his communalism is to legitimize the most communal politician that ever existed - MA Jinnah.

And it seems to working, at least in pakiland. Pakis are head over heels on advani for his ``change of heart``. Congress, commies are up in arms because advani seeks to re-dfine the whole [fake]secularism game these freaks have been playing for last 6 decades.

The wily fox had redefined Indian politics once - he is trying to do it again. Very Interesting indeed!!

Dear Farzana,

Regardless of what Advani`s motives were... he has managed to reopen the debate on important part of South Asian History ... if indeed his idea was to justify his own communalism... I am afraid that will backfire... as India reads more about Jinnah... it will learn of how Jinnah, the staunchest Indian nationalist for 30 years, the most non-communal politician produced by South Asia and a thorough secularist who saw himself as an Indian first second and last, was pushed, humiliated and shoved into so called communalism ...

If anything... by opening the debate on ``official Muslim demon`` of Indian history... which will lead to only one conclusion... that Jinnah bent over backwards to save Indian Unity... the next conclusion is obvious ``Muslims were unwilling party to partition`` which means that the Muslims of India can be as patriotic as any other community.

So either way... it is a win win situation.

Dear Farzana:

I said some of the same things you have said in this article on the Beena board. What I had said was that:
-Advani was staging a tamasha
-He has not changed his colours
-That Pakistan should have used a Pakistani Hindu for Temple restoration.

But I have a different take on the RSS-Advani thing, which I am trying to put into an article. In my opinion, Advani is an ambitious politician who used the Hindu card successfully once and he will discard it if he thinks it would bring him to power. If he had remained in Karachi, he would perhaps have recited Kalima long ago to become a popular Pakistani polititician.

This is very interesting way to see it. I being a Pakistani just couldn`t see what maybe an astute Indian would. But now after reading this article I will go back and watch the DVD again.

manto,

your blind admiration for Jinnah is, gawd, it is blinding. i wish i could say it is equally admirable. but for now, your biased use of ``the most non-communal politician produced by south asia`` has in its superlativeness completely blinded me. i can`t say anything else.

as always, regards. :)

Advani messed up Agra;


Once against FV swallows the Paki line...What was messed up in Agra? What`s wrong in getting the military ruler Pakistan to acknowledge the terrorist activities that end up killing citizens of your(?) country?

India, under a secular government, still maintains the same line...no cross border terrorism...and no transfer of land...so how is the congress position any different from the position that supposedly messed up agra?

oh, i should add, since i`ve now read all the responses so far to this article, that mohar`s use of the superlative is equally blinding.

it is really amazing that you all can see just one tree, and not the forest itself.

khair. . . enough said. i saw the direction this board would move in even before the first response, and so far i have not been disappointed. (or should i say i am?)

adios

#7 by ana on June 20, 2005 11:08am PT


your blind admiration for Jinnah is, gawd, it is blinding.


you mean it`s frikking anal....

“What Advani did by rattling Jinnah’s skeleton was to in fact draw attention to the two-nation theory.”
“Use Jinnah who they say fractured the country along communal lines to justify and legitimise your own communalism.”

Very good observations; Still, the communalism was legitimized in India long before the current Advani bhashan in Pakistan. BJP won in 1998 based on its communal card and communal politics. What is the need to re-legitimize it? Advani is not looking to “fracture” the country that he will seek inspiration from Jinnah. IMO, changing the BJP image is more likely the cause of all the brouhaha.

Most of what advani said in Pakistan was addressed to his Indian audience. Pakistan provided him the platform that he needed to say those things. His talk about Jinnah in India would have meant nothing or RSS would have ignored it as a “dewaane ki barr” as they often ignore ABV too, but saying that in Pakistan, changed the whole context. I think one also needs to look at this in the current improvement in relations in between the two countries.

You are right about asking why Pakistan provided him the Platform and especially a mandir is extremely important in this analysis. Incidentally, the three Newspapers Jang, Daily times and Dawn that you quoted (you actually read them? What’s wrong w/Indians!) are very close to the Pakistani establishment and their inspiration may have come from the above too.

A third possibility that should also be explored is the changing US stance on the extremist political parties especially in the areas of its immediate interest. We know that new thrust of the US foreign policy would be to sideline or completely alienate extremists. The new double edged US foreign policy is to promote democracy and remove extremist elements from the political scene. The first sign of that came when the US disallowed visa to extremist Modi, and at the same time, Maulana SamiUlhaq of Pakistan was not allowed entry in Belgium, which is an important NATO country.

In view of the US policy,-which I believe, has already been diplomatically communicated to most of the countries where US influence plays an important role-, Advani and the BJP will have to redefine their image from an extremist political party to a moderate party, which is above communalism, and stands for better relations with Pakistan.

I think the next logical step for BJP and Advani would be to distance from their strong Hindutva platform to a softer platform, which may attempt to include Muslims in India as well as show a strong desire to have better relationship with Pakistan by dismantling BJP or even Advani’s Akhand Bharat dream completely.

Re: # 9 ana
//...mohar`s use of the superlative is equally blinding...//

Actually my ``superlative`` on jinnah has spurred YLH to come up with his counter-superlative :). You know, it`s a challenge-response prank on YLH.....Kind of silly, but kills the boredom.

Just to carry the silliness a little further - who would you think is the ``most communal`` politician of the century??

The choices are:
a. Jinnah
b. Adavani
c. Gandhi
d. name your own.

Re: # 7

Dear Ana,

I protest... It is not blind... it is based on historical facts... facts which have once again come out to prove me right... to venture forth a hint... to quote Jinnah himself ``when one asks for 16 anas there is always room for negotiation``...

As for ``admiration``... while I value you as a fellow Pakistani, I am no Gandhian ... like the man I admire, I take positions based on what I see as right or wrong... and not what would get me the most brownie points.

For the record... I knew exactly why Mohar11 put his superlative there... and I was mindful of my superlative.

-YLH


PS: I present to you DT`s editorial :

EDITORIAL: Mr Jinnah’s credentials

It is unfortunate that the secular credentials of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah have been called into question by vested interests in Pakistan and in India. While liberal circles in Pakistan have always maintained that Mr Jinnah believed in a secular state, and substantiate that claim by citing, among other things, his speech to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, the centrists and mullahs in this country twist the ‘Two-Nation’ theory on the basis of which this country was begotten by saying that it was based on the unbridgeable differences between the Muslim-ness or Islam of Muslims and the Hindu-ness or Hinduism of Hindus. Ironically, across the border, the secular Congress and the left-leaning parties have presented Mr Jinnah in the same manner as our centrists and mullahs, for much the same reason. The former want to exploit him to foster anti-India feelings in Pakistan and the latter want to foster anti-Pakistan sentiment in India. Both do it in order to claim some legitimacy for their respective political ideologies.

The state of Pakistan is also to blame for glossing over Mr Jinnah’s secular credentials and focusing instead on Hindu-Muslim differences to provide the meta-narrative for Pakistan and its identity. Historian Ayesha Jalal has brilliantly analysed the heady days before Partition and in the run-up to it and proved that exclusionary discourses on both sides of the divide were primarily political strategies and that the ‘communalist’ Mr Jinnah was more secular than the ‘secular’ Mahatma Gandhi.

The Congress president, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in India Wins Freedom blames Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru for pushing the League down the road to Pakistan by throwing a spanner in the works of the Cabinet Mission Plan. We now refer to the Lahore Resolution of 1940 as the Pakistan Resolution, but the fact is that the League’s acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan as late as 1946 shows that Mr Jinnah was primarily interested not in a separate state but in ensuring a mechanism through which the rights of the Mussalmans of India could be secured.

Given the recent controversy in India regarding Mr Jinnah’s secular credentials, amid a similar debate in Pakistan as the centre-right and liberal camps lock horns, the Indian newspaper, The Hindu, may have done all of us much good by reporting on what eminent Indian poet Jagan Nath Azad had to say a year prior to his death. According to the late Mr Azad, who was based in Lahore in 1947, he was asked by Mr Jinnah to write the national anthem for the new state of Pakistan. This is how Mr Azad described it: “On the morning of August 9, 1947, there was a message from Pakistan’s first governor-general, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. It was through a friend working in Radio Lahore who called me to his office. He told me ‘Quaid-e-Azam wants you to write a national anthem for Pakistan.’ I told them it would be difficult to pen it in five days and my friend pleaded that as the request had come from the tallest leader of Pakistan, I should consider his request. On much persistence, I agreed.”

Why would Mr Jinnah get an Urdu-speaking Hindu poet to write the national anthem? Mr Azad’s response to that question was that “I believe Jinnah Sahib wanted to sow the roots of secularism in a Pakistan where intolerance had no place.”

We find it interesting that this fact has so far remained little known, indeed almost unknown. Why should that be? Could it be that there has been a conscious effort to bury it? The other interesting part of this story is that after Mr Jinnah’s death, at some point, the anthem written by Mr Azad and used for over a year was dropped and Hafeez Jallundhry, himself an eminent poet, was tasked to write Pakistan’s national anthem. What need was there to do that and who ordered that the anthem be changed? None of this is recorded in our history textbooks, which is understandable because these textbooks have been written with the express purpose of distorting facts or, as Prof KK Aziz wrote, to “murder history”. During General Zia ul Haq’s time the state even took the ‘Two-Nation’ theory back to the time when Mohammad Bin Qasim landed in Sindh on a military expedition. But while the praetorian state may have its reasons for bludgeoning facts for political reasons, we would strongly urge the independent historians of Pakistan to look into what Mr Azad revealed before his death and bring it out of obscurity because it lends weight to Mr Jinnah’s secular credentials. This shouldn’t be too difficult especially if the anthem written by Mr Azad was actually used for more than a year. It certainly seems to us that the League which later decided to trash the legacy of Mr Jinnah’s August 11 speech must have done away with the anthem written by Mr Azad for the same reason. *

Re: # 10

arjunm

``Its frikkin` anal``

Does it you hurt bad?

Manto`s drama of Jinnah worshiping surpasses Advani`s tamasha......give it up.......none is questioning the validity of your Paki/Sunni patriotism.

it is sounding fake and scripted now - nauseaus.

mohar #12

perhaps someday you can rise above the level of silliness, and prankishness, and use that so-called analytical mind of yours for good, and respond out of more than just killing boredom. (hopefully that`s all you kill) forgive me if i don`t hold my breath, you know i`ve got to follow that thing certain folks` favorite pinyata a. k. a. jawaharlal nehru had hung on his wall. . . you know, promises to keep. . and miles to go before i sleep?! now that i write that, it all sounds so ironic.

and are those the only choices you have vis-a-vis communalism. how limiting. can i pick you? (please to note there is no exclamation point)

manto #13

i wonder about all the uncelebrated politicians, and or people who were perhaps equally or more non-communal in their thinking than jinnahji. people history may never tell us about. that was what i had in mind when i responded so baldly to your superlative. i knew you would protest. i`m not going to argue with you.

and as always the best to farzana.
a.

I think my theory for Advani`s behavior is the most plausible. He fell into a toilet - headfirst.

Farzana,

Your article shows why war, strife, violence etc. and their results will never be eliminated from the world. Person will always find/assign alterior motives to somebody they hate whatever the target does and perpetuate the hate...

Do you know what else Advani has done and said or have you only read the spin generated on it by the left, center or right wing media. Any articles, speeches etc...

And one out of many funnly (oxy-)moronic sentence (from the point of view of the basis of your article) from your article is
``Do the Indian Hindus care about any temple in Pakistan?``
While till date 90% of your articles and the responses to that from posters all over the world are about Babri and its demolition. Do you think only your religion has copyright on idiots/bigots emotional about such issues rather than issues which really matter? IMO, They abound in every religion and somewhat similiar proportions. Just the destruction they cause depend on the society (style of the govt.) they live under...

Farzana, From your articles (and this was the last straw which broke the camels back for me). You appear to me guilty of the same thing which you blame other bigots about their views of Jinnah, muslims, Islam etc. Please write something more sensible instead of keeping on whining about same issue day in day out. Be creative and less prejudiced...

peace out...

yasser #7 & 16:

i responded to the larger note you wrote to me. in case you get here first.

Re: # 16 ana
//...use that so-called analytical mind of yours for good, and respond out of more than just killing boredom. ...//

Come on - don`t be so uptight :) I mean, this Chowk for crying out loud ...... Use my ``analytical mind`` to beat up on YLH? Sure - I do that but not all the time.

Actually, that`s the problem with YLH too - the guy is always taught like a string. If he loosens up a bit once in a while - he can get a better perspectives on things - instead of going ``jinnah, jinnah, jinnha`` all the time :)

I read the complete speech that Advani gave in Karachi. Nowhere he mentions Jinnah being secular. This hue and cry raised by so called intellectuals and journalist like bibi is foolish. Its amazing how the media can interpret it as Advani saying Jinnah is secular. This is the same media that had recent headlines that RSS glorifies Indira. RSS was pointing out to brief bravery of Indira that resulted in creation of Bangladesh.
Advani has explained that the decision during Agra visit of Mushraaf was taken by the cabinet not solely by him. Again FV likes to be feeded by Pakistan lines about this.
FV says that she does not care what advani thinks of pakistan but she needs to be reminded that Advani was a home minister of india and could again be one. His views on pakistan are very important to know.
As usual this article is a Game, Set & Match for FV to write rubbish about BJP & RSS.
Advanis speech in Karachi: http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/jun/06adv1.htm

mohar #20

once again, i give up. and she who fights and runs away, will live to fight another day. . . if we`re all still here.

Re: # 22

What fight? We are just talking here. But, whatever.

The premise on which this article is based is as shallow as that of the movie of the same name.

That this Jinnah-Advani flip-flop game means nothing to most people in India is an accepted fact of life. Wake up in the morning and get along with life. Trains are full, planes are full, people are on the move.

That this Jinnah-Advani flip-flop game provides hacks of all sorts a platform to howl at the moon is also an accepted fact of life. Stay up late howling, and fall asleep when the rest of the country is going ahead.

Farzana ji, you can do better.

I think.

Must be the 46 degrees centigrade ambient temperature in Delhi that gets the baba-baby log English media so uptight lately.

There are two equally valid perspectives. One is quite trivial, the other fairly meaningful.

Trivially, we are presented with the sight of simple politicking by politicians. By Advani, his supporters, his opponents, both in India and in Pakistan. Nothing exceptional.

But we do find something excetional when we focus on the world of our ruling ideas. We notice that the usual dance of our politicians has been overshadowed by the highly unusual dance of our never-too-active intellectuals.

In general, whenever politicians and intellectuals are able to energize each other, societies tend to move, ever so slightly.

This can be positive movement, if we approach it carefully and fairly.

Farzana bi,

Can you please post your alternative piece based on what-if Advani had bad mouthed Jinnah in Pakistan, I am sure you had even that written up before he left for Pakistan.

Each time I think your articles are turning from bad to worse, you prove me wrong! Great!

Dear Mohar,

Please sir... You don`t have an analytical mind. It was my pleasure to relieve you of that unnecessary burden that you have taken upon yourself on Beena Sarwar`s board.

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.

-YLH

FV

You are very knowledgable on Indian politics. So nothing on that.

But Advani`s untterances on `secularism` were quite theurapetic for Pakistanis. `Secularism` in Pakistan is like sex. Everyone wants it but is afraid to ask.

Not a single voice was raised against it. Even the Mullas kept silent. They were wise to know that by objecting to it, they will rake up a dormant issue.

Odd intellectuals & editors keep talking about it but it is a non-news. Advani`s utterances kept splashing on the media for days contributing well to this cause.

Maybe, at times, it is better to take things at their face value. Life becomes easier.

nhk

Very nice article with well made points. I think you will(or should)appreciate the humour of some comments. :)

Mantolives #4
If anything... by opening the debate on ``official Muslim demon`` of Indian history... which will lead to only one conclusion... that Jinnah bent over backwards to save Indian Unity... the next conclusion is obvious ``Muslims were unwilling party to partition`` which means that the Muslims of India can be as patriotic as any other community.
This aint too logical dont u think?The minorities of both countries who did not migrate made a conscious decision.There should be lesser doubt on their patriotism if any than the majorities, who did nothing to prove their patriotism, speaking in the reference of partition.
I am totally with Farzana on this, that it is an insult to IMs. Do consider that this has nothing to do with the truth(or the falsehood), but with the person who is uttering it.
Besides, there is one more reason why Indians wont believe the Jinnah is secular thing. For a nationalism to nurture u need an ``other nation``, kinda like China and Japan. A big chunk of Indian nationalism, for better or for worse,centers around Pakistan(and prolly vice versa too).

#30 by rahul_capri

“why Indians wont believe the Jinnah is secular thing. For a nationalism to nurture u need an ``other nation``, kinda like China and Japan. A big chunk of Indian nationalism, for better or for worse,centers around Pakistan(and prolly vice versa too).”

Very well said Rahul… I wanted to say this to Manto, but some day he will get a hang of it.

It is straw man, Emanuel Goldstein, Terrorism, Communism, Straw man everywhere!

Re: # 30

Rahul,

Your second argument makes much more sense the first one. I think that is what the DT Editorial I quoted is also trying to say. Your first argument is just idealistic and perhaps historically inaccurate. Partition as it happened was not designed to accomodate migration.

Regardless of whether Indians/Pakistanis will give up their mythology about partition, my point in #4 stands. The whole equation, if FV and others, are to be believed is made to backfire. The ``other`` is then created by all in India including the secular Congress. It is unfortunate ...

Reading history is a liberating experience. A year ago I wouldn`t have imagined visiting India... but today I look forward to it.

Whatever Advani`s motives... the cat is out of the bag.

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..........

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

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.

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.......

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.

//..FV gets quite a few things right…//

Nah. Almost always, you are way off the course.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

#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.

{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.``

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.

manifest destiny, obsession with uniqueness, some beyond-just-the-material collective motivation, and pride....these are all afflictions of strong cultural nations. Their `other` is the entire world. All have global aspirations of some sort, however irrational or unjustified those aspirations may seem to outsiders.

#64 by cayenne

Since you are the village idiot of this site, I will just say that you read this article again and figure out what this article is about and what the whole Indian press is talking and it is not about mirchi in your slimy behind!

Re: # 66

And you must be the grand vazir of bullshit, of this site.The whole indian press ain`t talking about this crap.Only a few english language dailies and weeklies at the most.And, believe you me, most of the public will skip any article that continues to deal with Jinnah and Gandhi.BORING.AAH, i know now that you must be fantasizing about my behind.You have certified your nationality to all.

Actually, this Advani-Jinnah-Laloo Prasad Yadav thing is very important.

It has caused crude oil to cross 61 dollars and NBA to go on strike.