The Irreverent Hero Islam Forgot

#302 Posted by Eklavya on March 26, 2008 4:11:13 am

I dont know coz I dont read romair :(

#304 Posted by masadi

“The "facts" of history show that the colonials were more than happy to fragment India, reduce the political clout of the Muslims of India and work with the elites in Pakistan to get us to where we are at.”

This is just an opinion and especially when you say that the purpose of the exercise was to “reduce the political clout of the Muslims in India”. I can understand that the colonialist had some special interest in fragmenting India but reducing this fragmentation effort to just Muslims, fails to meet any logical criteria.

If the goal was to fragment India, they could have easily done that by using the multiple sub-nationalities that lived in the undivided India. What was the need to put together another country with diverse sub nationalities like Pakistan when they could have possibly had just the NWFP, Sindh, Bengal and Punjab as separate countries? Now if they had done that the idea of fragmentation would have made much more sense. Do you agree with that?

The Pakistan idea was sold to the smaller provinces in India by Muslim League by promising them some sort of autonomy which was more than what was offered in the 1935 India act. The Pak resolution of 1940 never called for one Pakistan, it suggested autonomy to Muslim Majority provinces that happened to be on the east and west flank of India.

The 1940 resolution as it was then, would have created several states and as we know that kind of fragmentation would have been whole lot better than creating just one country. All ingredients for this kind of fragmentation were very much visible just before the partition. Bacha Khan in NWFP wanted his own country; Sindhi GM Syed and Somro were more interested in their own country. The Bengali leadership too would have liked that idea. Baloch always wanted to be a separate country. To extend it even further, let’s take the cultural divide that existed in South and North India could have been exploited too.

I think there were several possibilities that existed at that time. Why the colonialists did not explore those possibilities and went after the most difficult proposition of dividing India on the religious grounds?

Taking the ME route of early 20th century would have meant putting together people of different faiths and sects in one geographical entity to keep that country permanently at the edge of disaster, like Lebanon and Iraq! Following your line of reasoning, we find that what Brits did was exactly opposite when they supported Pakistan as you claim, where people overwhelmingly had one faith.

In fact, the solution in the ME too was not some premeditated solution. The British created some artificial countries when all they were trying to do was to destroy the Turkish Empire. It was convenient at that time to create Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, rather than have one Arab country out of the Turkish control.

To wit: If Jinnah was part of the British scheme, then there is no doubt that the Congress leadership especially Gandhi and Nehru were part of the Plan too. Without Gandhi-Nehru consent there was no hope for an independent Pakistan. What about the communists who supported Pakistan, were they part of the conspiracy too?

I think you are jumping the gun here and fail to see the other side of your argument. Though I wouldn’t doubt that some bright British might have seen some opportunities in Pakistan but then they were not the imperialist power after the 2WW.

guru bhai, haven't followed this board recently, but I hope you are NOT impugning Baba Sahib's reputatation by any means. That would be so illogical and unfair, given that Gandhi (and Nehru) always knew what a privilege it was to have Baba Sahib around.

guru brother, after what Baba Sahib and the people he identitifed with the most had been put through for centuries and centuries, whatever frustration he showed, whatever words he used, were the very LEAST he could have done.

Gandhi fully understood that, and at the end of the day, Baba Sahib too recognized what Gandhi brought to the table.

---------

PLEASE, let's not foolishly sully the names of the tallest among us in the last few hundred years, whatever our specific disagreements over details may be. Disagreements are natural, disrespect is regrettable.

---------------

If I misunderstood, I apologize. I just skimmed through some posts.

Re: # 319 Yes! I agree. That was the whole point, what these idiots gathered in one hour from their casual reading using their common sense was missed by the learned chattering BA(Hon)s. BTW the friend developed software for hedge funds raking millions. Guess it pays for being super idiot.

Sticking to the subject. Manto should quote people other than Ambedkar while talking about MAJ or Gandhi. Ideally people should not talk about individual personalities but the social under currents and whether as individuals or group can we overpower them. I guess that is what one should get from reading social sciences, economics or humanities. Masadi spells out these currents much better than others.

More Prof Bose on Ambedkar.

Ambedkar was not from a poor Dalit family; his father was in the British army. The Maharaja of Baroda had financed his education both in Bombay University and in the USA and London. Although he was the representative of only the Mahar community in Maharashtra and unknown in the rest of India, he was sent to London to join the roundtable conference as the representative of the entire backward castes and tribals of India.

The British had the design to create Pakistan, Khalistan of Tara Singh, Dalitstans of Ambedkar and a number of tribal homelands so that there would not be any united India. That was the reason Gandhiji refused to go along with that conference.

Right till 1946, Ambedkar was a vehement opponent of the freedom movement. He claimed with pride that he was the representative of the people who had conquered India for the British. He proclaimed that the freedom movement was a sham, a ruse, and Gandhiji was an agent to perpetuate the Nazi-like suppression of the masses, and the British Viceroy was the saviour of the depressed classes.

In 1941, Dr Ambedkar was appointed as a member of the defence advisory committee of the Viceroy to help the British war efforts against Japan, when Rashbehari Bose and Mohan Singh had already founded the Azad Hind Fauz in Tokyo and were waiting for Netaji to arrive.

In 1942, when people of India were facing bullets from the British, Ambedkar was enjoying a comfortable life as the labour adviser to the Viceroy. Even in April 1946, Ambedkar was telling the Viceroy, Lord Wavell: “If India became independent, it would be one of the greatest disasters that could happen.”

We should ask for the source of finance of Ambedkar so that he could pay Rs 13,000 every month, a great lot of money in those days, to MN Roy since 1936.

As chairman of the drafting committee of the Constitution of free India, Ambedkar supported every suggestion of the British officers. On 6 September, 1949 in the Constituent Assembly, he disregarded the objections of Kuladhar Chaliha and Rohini Choudhury of Assam to make the tribal areas as separate administrative units, the mechanism of which was drafted by a British missionary, Rev Nicholas Roy, so that the Christian missionaries could convert the tribal population en masse. The result is what we are witnessing today in the north-eastern states.

Masadi miaN,

Congratulations on getting your book published!

guruji, EE/CS PHD's are idiots...as a generic class of people. thought I mention that to you at the outset. and frankly blaming others for your your own problems is the height of stupidity. maybe a seminar on that in the EE/CS/BS PHD studies would help

Masadi is probably the only one bringing light to this chowk. May be too bright for many. Masadi, brother thanx for the light but be little lite on elite.

Most of the educated Indians except Gandhi, Subhash Chandra and revolutionary ones were job seekers or salariats. What Masadi is saying was even observed by a Brazilian colleague in Murrey Hill NJ without knowing much about Indian History. He had perused for an hour Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie for an hour. He suspected that MAJ and to some extent Ambedkar were agents of British. At that time I did not know much about MAJ or Ambedkar. In last 20 years how the world events have been unfolding it seems Brazilian EE/CS PhD friend seem to be right. British could not carve out another Dalitisthan but they threatened Congress leadership using Harijan card in many ways. MAJ had turned British agent when he retired to England in 1931.

Instead of blaming this person or that person the next generation should learn how few can manipulate and exploit many. What MCaulay started 150 years back brought us here where we can not be sure about our brothers, cousins and neighbors .... every one looks paraya.

Let more erudite Prof Basu do the talking. Hope it helps in bringing people together.


Affirmative action-I

Experiments In The Former Soviet Union, Japan & America

By Dipak Basu

The author is Professor in International Economics, Nagasaki University

“If our political progress is to be real, the underdogs of our society must be helped to become men” (Rabindranath Tagore, Letters from Russia)

The debate on affirmative action in India tends to drag and isn’t always geared to the desired objective: creation of equality of opportunity. As with secularism, the reservation system in India has a different political aim ~ to make the system more unequal than what it is.

Secularism, far from making the state independent of religion, is intended to provide special privileges to certain religious groups. Similarly, the affirmative system is politically designed to provide restricted, not equal, rights to some chosen people.

The policy was perhaps started in India by Lord Curzon in 1905 by banning the employment of Hindu Bengalis in government services. The official argument was that they were too advanced and others, particularly Muslims, would be deprived of job opportunities. Later it was extended to the military services by giving preferential treatment to Muslims and Sikhs who were branded as martial races.

Divide population

Reservations in government jobs were introduced in 1918 in Mysore in favour of a number of castes and communities that had little representation in the administration. In 1909 and in 1919 the system was introduced for the Muslims in British India. In 1935, political reasons prompted the government to provide job reservation for the backward castes.

The real idea was to divide the population of India into several warring groups along religious, ethnic and caste lines by granting special rights so that India of the future would be divided and weak. A number of prominent politicians had acted as agents of the Raj to implement that line of action. Among them was BR Ambedkar. Although today he is regarded as a founding father of the nation, the writer of the Constitution and the cult figure of the backward castes with four universities named after him, he took no part in the freedom movement. Instead, like EVR Periyarer of Tamil Nadu, CP Ramaswamy Aiyar of Kerala, Jinnah and Mohammed Iqbal, he was a staunch loyalist of the empire, hand-in-glove with the British to divide India along caste, religion and tribal lines. The followers of the same person today include the Communists who, forgetting the essentials of the Marx-Lenin ideology, are supporting job reservation along caste and religious lines.

Equality of opportunity is the basis of a true democracy and as such affirmative action is required to equalise opportunities among people who are endowed differently. Even in the USA, affirmative action was promoted first by President Lyndon Johnson in 1974 to promote American blacks, who were deprived of most opportunities. However, it was not a success. The countries where it was most successful are Japan, the former Soviet Union and other former socialist countries of East Europe along with Cuba and Vietnam. India should take a lesson from them to implement a proper policy on affirmative action.

The success of the Soviet society regarding affirmative action was observed by Rabindranath Tagore, who wrote: “Throughout the ages, civilised communities have contained groups of nameless people. They toil most, yet theirs is the largest measure of indignity. They are deprived of everything that makes life worth living. I had often thought about them, but came to the conclusion that there was no help for them... In Russia at last. Whichever way I look I am filled with wonder. From top to bottom they are rousing everyone up without distinction”.

Immediately after the revolution, Lenin proclaimed the affirmative action known as korenizatsiia to provide affirmative preferences for non-Russians, backward ethnic groups and poor Russians. To gain the support of the non-Russian, who were largely illiterate except in Georgia and Armenia, a Sovietization in three phases was developed. In the first phase, the respective cultures were promoted. This aroused their national conscience. This eventually led to the second phase which was rapprochement and finally to the third phase which was merger. Non-Russians were awarded their own administrative territories and accorded preference in educational and promotion policies. This policy led to the creation of massive educational facilities in the republics of the backward people, employment for the representatives of the ethnic intelligentsia, foundation of republican academies of science and research centres supporting ethnic unions of writers, painters and film-makers. The policy
was applied uniformly to create elites, which, like their culture, would be national in form, but with the same content in all units of the union.

However, there was no fixed quota in admissions to the educational establishments or in jobs. Instead, education was made free at all stages and compulsory up to certain ages depending on their ethnic background. Every qualified student was entitled to scholarship to cover his or her costs of maintenance. Education was taken to the people where they lived. Even mobile schools and libraries were established for the nomadic populations of central Asia. A certain number of students from the backward areas of the Soviet Union was taken to the very best universities and institutes of higher learning. They got separate training so that they could compete effectively with the more advanced Russian students.

Due to this social engineering, within two decades the Soviet Union had eradicated illiteracy and had the best educated population in the world. It wasn’t a reservation system for the backward people, but completely free education and massive extension of education. Both the Soviet Union and Japan improved the lot of the totally uneducated without any formal reservation or quota system but through compulsory free education on a massive scale.

Japanese system

The guiding principle of the Japanese system of education is uniformity, conformity and integration. There is no room for special rights or reservations in that regimented system, which is available equally for everyone.

In the USA, the term affirmative action was first used in the Executive Order 11246, issued by President Johnson. The order called on federal government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, colour, or national origin.” However, those who were already educated or advanced financially among the blacks or Hispanics, equivalent to the creamy layers in India, got the benefits. Thus, the affirmative action could not change the basic nature of the most unequal society. There was considerable opposition to the system in the days of Reagan. Today, nearly 26 per cent of the population is functionally illiterate. Social mobility is on the decline. There is widespread homelessness and poverty among the blacks and Hispanics. In a word, affirmative action hasn’t changed the characteristics of American society.

#316
masadi is enjoying his stay in the halfway house.

masadi yaar, US Elite called, they want you to head up the Alternative History department at a Gov't College in Lala Musa. I told them that you will be perfect for it. Pay is a little less than what you make now, but you get to take home all the stationary that is in your desk. what say you pal?

Re: # 294

Massaddi Mian:

"...in furthering the cause of humanity, i.e. in public service...."

Hurling abuses is Massaddi Mian's public service. That public has to yourself and your mirror. Then you never knew what reality is, did you?

RE #312, reasoning with you is like reasoning with a "doorknob" (pardon me Hamid)...

later....

Re: # 312

Like I said I am not interested in discussing anything with you as you are incapable of opening your mind.

Manto writes "What your arguments essentially amount to is the fallacy that is called "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc".

The opposite of doesn't mean it was part of the grand colonial plan..."

You need to learn your "logic" more carefully and not be like Ali Sina pasting definitions of fallicies whenever your opponent stumps you with their arguments. The colonials did not resist the partition of India rather they drew the map that was most beneficial for them, as they did in the ME, where they kept countries busy with each other and used Pakistan. Jinnah was facilitator of the colonial plan, and he was the public face of the colonial game in India- how hard is that for you to understand? A secular person evoking religious identity for the purpose of seperation- knowing nothing about either religion or the pulse of the people who had no part in the partition except through religiously invoked hatred by these elite.

Regarding my "armed struggle"- I am not in a position of power or leadership, if I was and followed through, knowingly or unknowingly, with the grand strategy of the colonials, I would be just as contemptable as Jinnah was. Comparing me to him in this argument is a "straw man fallacy", wherein stumped by your opponent's arguments you "invent" an argument, attribute it to your opponent and then dismantle it and declare victory.....that is the sum total of your "logic" and "knowledge"- your reasoning is quite pathetic....

In #310 read "will claiming to be for "peace"-"

as "while claiming to be for "peace"-

HP writes "Any army action or Martial Law could mean civil war in Pakistan. Now the US might love that but we still don’t know whether the Pak army as a unit would go for any US forced solution that might start the breakup of the army itself."

What I wrote does not imply that the US admits defeat in Pakistan. What I am looking at is the US fulfilling a "new" ulterior motive, that of Iran especially if they can get the Saudis to foot the bill in addition to the tax payers to make this another very short term recession, and breaking from the past by breaking up Pakistan rather than work with its military. Not only does it fuel the WOT and facilitate the Iranian adventure, it ensures this farce continues into the long term. WE know how jumpy these elite can get when what they desire conflicts with the desires of whoever they have used in the past, that would be the example of the current Iraq invasion, they didn't even let Blix finish his morning cereal before declaring a failed inspections of WMDs. I don't think the WOT will simmer come January, it will continue well into the next decade, and Pakistan or the mini Pakistan will remain at the center...I agree and have written earlier as well that a new martial law will not go easy with the people this time around, the civil war will be directed mostly towards the military- the US might coopt this and hand over Pakistan and its nukes to the mullah and his sympathisers for obvious reasons of causing "fasad" in the guise of a WOT will claiming to be for "peace"-

What your arguments essentially amount to is the fallacy that is called "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc".

The opposite of doesn't mean it was part of the grand colonial plan. Simply a tendency to fit in everything in your zero-sum game doesn't make it true.

In any event let us not discuss things that you have no ability to comprehend. Go wage an armed struggle somewhere or else we might have to brand you an establishment stooge or worse... US Elite stooge.