Remembering H.M. Seervai (1906-1996)

Re: # 100

in continuation...

let some hindu start talking about manu and how relevance caste system is and you will see what happens to him.

Re: # 98

``This, to some extent, seems to be the argument BJP uses also, i.e. 13% of the population of India, which happens to be the most backwards in the country, is victimizing the majority. How in the world can that every happen? `

thats not the case, BJP has never said that muslims are victimizing hindus in india, probably in kashmir where the hindus are in minority.

you can say that they don`t trust muslims and are very doubtful of their loyalty. They hold hte view that they are pampered by ``secularists``/commies and are inconsiderate towards others.

Re: # 92

Romair:

``How many Muslims on this site have you seen making fun of Hinduism? Hardly any. Are there Hindus on this site, who in large numbers, regulary make fun of Islam? I will leave that up to you to decide........... `

good observation. Let me let you know why thats the case.

How many time have you seen hindus writing about manu/ram/krishna on this site and trying to justify their actions based on these gods and their lives?
You must have seen how many pakis have written about islam and mohd and its relevance today, including islamic science (whatever that means)

when a person justifies a practise which was carried by the tribals in 7th century arabia and thinks that it has relevance to the 21st century society, he/his idea is open to mockery.

Re: # 96

``... I reacted so badly because I knew Harilal had not converted sincerely ...``

These are gandhis viewpoints: “I disbelieve in the conversion of one person by another. My effort should never be to undermine another’s faith but to make him a better follower of his own faith.” He also said “[No] propaganda can be allowed which reviles other religions” and that “the best way of dealing with such propaganda is to publicly condemn it.”

With regard to harilal, his conversion was not for the prophet and his camel but due to other reasons. Here is the letter...

Anyway I am not here to convince you that gandhi was not a racist or better than jinnah, I just don`t want your half-baked ideas posted here without challenging them.


Gandhi on his son converting to Islam
Journalist Gandhi
Selected writings of Gandhi, compiled by SUNIL SHARMA
published by Gandhi Book center, Bombay Sarvodaya
Mandal, Mumbai- 400 007.
TO MY NUMEROUS MUSLIM FRIENDS

The newspaper report that about a fortnight ago my eldest son Harilal, now nearing fifty years, accepted Islam and that on Friday last 29th May in the midst of a large congregation in the Juma Masjid at Bombay he was permitted to announce his acceptance amid great acclamation and that after his speech was finished, he was besieged by his admirers who vied with one another to shake hands with him. If his acceptance was from the heart and free from any worldly considerations, I should have no quarrel. For I believe Islam to be as true a religion as my own.

But I have the gravest doubt about his acceptance being from the heart or free from selfish considerations. Every one who knows my son Harilal, knows that he has been in the habit of visiting houses of ill fame. For some years he has been living on the charity of friends who have helped him unstintingly. He is indebted to some Pathans from whom he had borrowed on heavy interest. Up to only recently he was in dread of his life from his Pathan creditors in Bombay. Now he is the hero of the hour in that city. He had a most devoted wife always forgave his many sins including his unfaithfulness. He has three grown up children, two daughters and one son, whom he ceased to support long ago.

Not many weeks ago he wrote to the press complaining against Hindus- not Hinduism- and threatening to go over to Christianity or Islam. The language of the letter showed quite clearly that he would go over to the highest bidder . That letter had the desired effect. Through the good offices of a Hindu councilor, he got a job in Nagpur municipality. And he came out with another letter to the Press about recalling the first and declaring emphatic adherence to his ancestral faith.

But, as events have proved, his pecuniary ambition was not satisfied and in order to satisfy that ambition, he has embraced Islam. There are other facts which are known to me and which strengthen my inference.

When I was in Nagpur in April last, he had come to see me and his mother and he told me how he was amused by the attention s that he were being paid to him by the missionaries of rival faiths. God can work wonders. He has been known to have changed the stoniest hearts and turned sinners into saints, as it were, in a moment. Nothing will please me better than to find that during the Nagpur meeting and the Friday announcement he had repented of the past and had suddenly become a changed man having shed the drink habit sexual lust.

But the Press reports give no such evidence. He still delights sensation and in good living. If he had changed, he would have written to me to gladden my heart. All my children have had the greatest freedom of thought and action. They have been taught to regard all religions with the same respect that they paid to their own. Harilal knew that if he had told me had found the key to a right life and peace in Islam, I would have put no obstacles in his path. But no one of us, including his son now, twenty-four years old and who is with me, knew anything about the event till we saw the announcement in the Press.

My views on Islam are well known to the Mussalmans who are reported to have enthused over my son`s profession. A brotherhood of Islam has telegraphed to me thus, `` Expect like your son you truth-seeker to embrace Islam truest religion of world.``

I must confess that all this has hurt me. I sense no religion spirit behind this demonstration. I feel that those who are responsible for Hiralal`s acceptance to Islam did not take the most ordinary precautions they ought to have in a case of this kind. Harilal`s apostacy is no loss to Hinduism and his admission to Islam a source of weekness to it, as I apprehend, he remains the same wreck that he was before.

Surely conversion is a matter between man and Maker who alone knows His creatures` hearts. And conversion a clean heart is, in my popinion, a denial of God and religion. Conversion without cleanness of heart can only be a matter for sorrow, not joy, to a godly person.

shishapa #93: ``Romairjee``

I think you are the first person to have ever called me this, in my six years on this site............

jang #94: ``muslims, with the % they held in united india were not exactly a minority like the way jews were e.g. in europe. in their respective pockets in fact they were the majority. the trajectory of muslim influence, (at least in perception) was however declining vastly below their numerical strength since the arrival and consolidation of the Raj.``

This is correct. The Muslim situation, in terms of numbers, was not nearly as bad as that of the Jews.

But it still wasn`t that good. At one time, they did dominate and rule India, as a minority. But those days were long gone. By the time Partition rolled around, circa 47, Muslims were 1/3rd or less the number of Hindus. More importantly, they were the most uneducated, unempowered and illiterate community. In addition, they were quite a bit spread out all over India (other than NorthWest and Bengal). From the stories I have heard, even in colleges that are currently in Pakistan, Hindus greatly outnumbered Muslims as students and professors, before Partition!!..........

I have no idea, how such an unempowered minority can victimize, demonize or harm a large Hindu majority.........

When a majority starts accusing a minority of victimizing it, then that should be considered a very dangerous sign for a society. This is how fascism occurs. In fact, this was the argument that Hitler used against Jews, i.e. Jews are controlling the Germans. This, to some extent, seems to be the argument BJP uses also, i.e. 13% of the population of India, which happens to be the most backwards in the country, is victimizing the majority. How in the world can that every happen?

The minority in any country, nowdays, is at the rahm-o-karam of the majority. And it is the responsibility of the majority to look after it, even it has to bend over backwards to do so. And if it cannot, then it has to let the minority go its own way..............

Re: # 95
//....What about the minority? don`t they have a responsibility....//

Nope. If muslims are minorities in a country - any kind of responsibility is a strict no-no.... Integration with mainstream is a strict no-no.... Striving for education, jobs, professionalism is a strict no-no..... It`s upto the majority to make them ``feel`` secure and give them good jobs - otherwise, jihad....

+++++

Here is an example:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1109334,00.html

``Generation Jihad``

``.....Uzair`s supporters refuse to vote in elections because his sect recognizes only Shari`a, Islamic law. While he does not openly support terrorism, he declares that the July 7 attacks were retaliation for Britain`s support of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ``The majority of Muslims in the U.K. are frustrated, but they cannot speak,`` he says. ``They will not condone the London bombings, but inside they believe that Britain had it coming.``

The hostility Uzair feels toward the country of his birth is not atypical.....``

Netizen,

I did read what you posted... In essence Gandhiji said that ... look here... I reacted so badly because I knew Harilal had not converted sincerely ... I mean give me a friggin` break. I have even read articles defending Gandhi`s racism in this fashion... I am afraid it doesn`t help me...

Dost Mittar,

Nehru`s opposition to Indira`s marriage to Feroz was on religious/caste grounds. There are many theories about this... the most famous one- being peddaled by some very respectable socialites like the Iftikharuddin Family which was very very close to Nehru- is that Feroz was a Muslim... and the Parsi story was a cover-up...

I have read it several places... however just like the Indian courts decided in the matter of Jinnah and his daughter that there was no conclusive evidence of the claims made by over zealous Pakistanis like Romair... I am sure all these leaders kept their issues personal... except perhaps Gandhi who went public with his denounciation... or atleast the defence of it.

I also don`t accept your view about Hindu nationalists ... the one man Jinnah was closest to was Gokhale... meanwhile Tilak was just a friend with whom Jinnah had major ideological disagreements.

Furthermore... in my myths about Jinnah post 71... I have pointed out that Jinnah didn`t have a problem with either Gandhi or Nehru... infact Jinnah always called Gandhi the Mahatma in the 1920s contrary to the popular myth... and Jinnah`s introduction of Nehru at the All India Education/Students Conference in 1930s.. was exceptionally generous in praise of Mr Nehru.

I`d say you should explore the other angle... why were the Congress leaders always more comfortable with the Mullahs from Deoband and Ahraris and other extremist outfits amongst Muslims, instead of Jinnah, who bent over backwards till 1938 to come to an arrangement with them ?

-YLH

#92 by Romair on September 30, 2005 10:23am PT


it is the job of the majority to make the minority feel secure.


What about the minority? don`t they have a responsibility, like, not blowing up people in subways just because they feel insecure over their pet Islamists causes in a foreign country?

#92 muslims, with the % they held in united india were not exactly a minority like the way jews were e.g. in europe. in their respective pockets in fact they were the majority. the trajectory of muslim influence, (at least in perception) was however declining vastly below their numerical strength since the arrival and consolidation of the Raj.

Re: # 92

Romairjee,

Baap ray, itna bada note?
Not used to long battles, just hit and runs.
I have to become RanchodDas here. Too many Infiniband problems.
Will respond as time permits.

shishapa #90: ``But the way they demonized Hindu community as a reason of partition and uprooted like vegetables the Hindus and Sikhs living in Pakistan, many of them longer than Muslims living there, that is where I have problem.``

This is incorrect. A majority cannot be, ``demonized,`` that easily. While a minority can.........How many Muslims on this site have you seen making fun of Hinduism? Hardly any. Are there Hindus on this site, who in large numbers, regulary make fun of Islam? I will leave that up to you to decide...........

The community that went through the largest amount of, ``uprooting,`` during Partition, was the Muslim community. If you base it on a ratio of the total population, and not direct comparisons, then the amount becomes even larger.

There were, actually, only two provinces in India that were split, because of the Partition. They were Bengal and Punjab. The rest remained generally intact, and hence weren`t affected, as a whole. Though Kashmir was artifically split. Consider the following:

1. Nearly the whole population of the future Pakistan lived in Punjab and Bengal, in 1947. Perhaps over 85%. While only a small population of future India lived in Punjab and Bengal. Hence nearly all of Pakistan was affected, directly by the uprooting phenomenon. While only a small amount of the Indian population was affected.

2. Do the math of the total individuals who migrated from one side to another, in ratio of population. It is far tilted towards Pakistan, in terms of % of people affected.....

3. Jinnah never wanted Punjab (or Bengal) to be partitioned. There are maps of West Pakistan, which show all of Punjab as a part of Pakistan. And I believe (not sure) Calcutta actually had a higher Muslim population than Hindu. Jinnah`s comment on mothballed Pakistan, refer to the breaking of Punjab, against his wishes.

How exactly did Punjab break? Who broke it? If Jinnah showed it on Pakistani maps, then it certainly wasn`t him. It was the Sikhs. They, themselves did not want to live in Pakistan. Jinnah even offered them autonomy. He would probably have agreed to a separate state for them. But they wanted to split Punjab. Ironically, they would fight for such a free state, against India, forty years later.

So you cannot blame Pakistanis for uprooting Sikhs (or Hindus) like vegetables. They, themselves, wanted a split, thereby uprooting a lot of Muslims in East Punjab, also. Such an argument would be the equivalent of Pakistanis saying that the creation of Pakistan was the Hindus uprooting Muslims. When, in fact, the Muslims wanted a split. I think the Sikhs were well within their rights to split Punjab. It was the job of the majority to make them feel secure. But the majority could not. So the Sikhs left.

However, you cannot then blame Pakistanis for what happened in Punjab. Do keep in mind, that Punjab was a nation. A civilization. As was Bengal. Unlike India and Pakistan, which were aggregated artificial states.

Again, all of this could have been avoided had Nehru accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. With or without its complexities. It was acceptable. After all, Jinnah, Gandhi and the Brits accepted it. I think Nehru misplayed his cards. He thought Pakistan would collapse. And he tried his level best, to make it collapse. Even Gandhi has direct quotes on this subject, and was fed up with Nehru, completely.

Afterwards, all of this could have been avoided had Nehru not moved into Kashmir. Had he used the same rule he applied to Junagarh (a Hindu majority state, whose Muslim ruler had signed it to Pakistan), and allowed a majority vote, South Asia would be a different place today.............He followed one rule in Junagarh and another in Kashmir (and a third in Hyderabad!!)...........

In any society, be in Pakistan, India, Punjab etc. it is the job of the majority to make the minority feel secure. If they cannot, then the minority has every right to break off.........What else can they do? This is what happened in India, in case of Pakistan. This is what happened in Punjab, in case of Sikhs............It is wrong to, thus, try to blame everything on Pakistan. History does not support support such an argument............

I have never been able to figure out, how large majorities can claim that the smaller more fearful minorities were, ``demonizing`` them. Minorities are always more vulnerable..........

Re: # 90
//....when they decided to demonize Hindu community citing all kinds of reasons/fears/magalomania, most of them unfounded to achieve their goals....//

How else were they going to achieve their goals?....How else could they incite the average abdul to bring him out to the street and spill blood?....How else could they precipiate the division?....It`s the oldest trick in the book - easy to use, but NOT easy to stop the consequence....

The demonization of hinuds continues till date....

Re: # 84

I really have no problem in Muslim aksing for a separate state. But the way they
demonized Hindu community as a reason of partition and uprooted like vegetables the
Hindus and Sikhs living in Pakistan, many of them longer than Muslims living there, that
is where I have problem.

As an anology, some people in Fairchild felt they can have a better company, better
product, better vision. So they left Fairchild and founded Intel and prospered and proved
they had different perhaps better vision.
They did not steal secrets from Fairchild, did not vandalize Fairchild property, did
not cast aspersions on Fairchild management and employees and policies and did not
forcibly occupy some of the Fairchild property and evict existing Fairchild employees.
(I am probably glossing over lot of details but I think that is what happened overall)

If Mr. Jinnah and Muslim League and Muslims who wanted to become separate had
that kind of vision, that kind of attitude, I have no problem.

But when they decided to demonize Hindu community citing all kinds of reasons/fears/magalomania, most of them unfounded to achieve their goals, and started
acrimonious separation, that is what I have problem with.

Re: # 68

`` I totally disagree with their cause of resentment and it would be plain wrong on their part
to hold such grudges. ``

about Harilal its a long story, it is not about religious preference but angst, resentment and doing things which would hurt his father. Harilal was a drunkard, womaniser and a loser. he was disowned by his family. Eventually he died a pauper and a broken person. It is said he converted back to hinduism. But it didn`t matter much as his father was dead.

Re: # 67

``So tell us why was Gandhi hurt that his son became a Muslim? Had he become a Maleecha?``

Manto:

a couple of weeks back, on another thread I did post replies about gandhis reaction to harilals conversiont o islam. did you read it?

#85 that nehru was a visionary should not be disputed, his vison (esp economic) may be. he spelt it out in letters to indira, discovery of india, and the the famous tryst withdestiny. he had a vision of india as a nation in community of nations based on history. pakis and many commies hate and belittle this as ``hindu`` vision.