Nirmala Deshpande - A Truly Great Soul

Cheema sahib,

(How happy and supportive would you be if they all decide to have a repeat of 1947 in the future?)

Well, the IMs agreed voluntarily to live with Hindoos under the Principles of the Indian Constitution in 1947-50 didn't they? They made their choice and as long as the principles of the Indian Constt are not violated by the majority, I dont see why they wud want a repeat of the Partition.

Regards

Re: # 111

Cheema Saab,

I wish to think that the majority of the Muslims, who chose to stay back, wanted to have their destiny unfolded in India. They, proly, did not subscribe to the notion of religion as the only uniting factor.

Re: # 114; vengat
"I wish to think that the majority of the Muslims, who chose to stay back, wanted to have their destiny unfolded in India. "

nicely worded vengat; lot of wishful thinking there!

majority stayed back because of obvious logistics involved in mass human movement; let's not be foolish about it.

Cheers

Re: # 111
AKCheema..
Have they gone separate ways sir? There are as many (at least) muslims in India as the population of Pakistan.

Ans: Muslims in India are thinly populated in most of the states. Muslims can survive only through integration. If they want separate state, in current setup, it is not possible to identify an area, which can be made exclusive for muslims.

#113 by majumdar

Well, the IMs agreed voluntarily to live with Hindoos under the Principles of the Indian Constitution in 1947-50 didn't they?

What Cheema Sahib says is spot on. What if the younger generation of Muslims say they weren't the ones who agreed to voluntarily live under the Indian constitution and that they cannot be held responsible for their grandparents' choices? Jinnah set a dangerous precedent; at least theoretically, there's no guarantee that it won't repeat. Like they say, you can be a virgin only once.

Harishbhai,

If Hindoos dont violate the principles of Indian Constt I dont see any reason why IMs shud want another Partition, particularly as Pak/Bdesh do not show an exactly golden precedent. Besides at the time of Partition Muslims formed a majority in NE and NW India, they dont do now anywhere. They are a minority everywhere (except in Kashmir) and if given a fair treatment I dont see them opting for another TNT.

(Jinnah set a dangerous precedent)

OK. Then lets follow MKG's precedent and follow his principles- disband the army and nukes, give up JK without a fight, allow Moplahs to set up Khilafat all over the place and all the rest.

Regards

#118 by majumdar

If Hindoos dont violate the principles of Indian Constt I dont see any reason why IMs shud want another Partition, particularly as Pak/Bdesh do not show an exactly golden precedent.

Majumdar bhai, are you saying they were discriminated by Hindus when the British were ruling India? As for the Pak/B'desh, some Pakis already believe that Pakistan's sorry state of affairs is because Pakis are not being true Muslims and that the imposition of Shariah would be the perfect panacea. How difficult would it be for some IM to pick it up and then demand a separate state where they could correct the "mistakes" made by Pakistan?

Besides at the time of Partition Muslims formed a majority in NE and NW India, they dont do now anywhere.

AFAIK, Muslims (mainly B'deshi) have changed the demographics to such an extent that in many districts of Assam and Tripura, Hindus are already in a minority.

They are a minority everywhere (except in Kashmir) and if given a fair treatment I dont see them opting for another TNT.

What do you mean by fair treatment Majumdar bhai? Muslims are as discriminated against as other communities including Hindus are. But if you make this discrimination the basis and then turn it into a widespread campaign, it wouldn't be long before it turns into the bogey of Hindu domination, which is what Jinnah did 60 years ago.

Then lets follow MKG's precedent and follow his principles- disband the army and nukes, give up JK without a fight, allow Moplahs to set up Khilafat all over the place and all the rest.

What makes you think I'm advocating MKG ideals?

Harishbhai,

( are you saying they were discriminated by Hindus when the British were ruling India? )

No. But they felt that they would be once Hindoos gain control of independent India unless they were given the sort of safeguards that INC was unable was to give, rightly or wrongly.

(Muslims (mainly B'deshi) have changed the demographics to such an extent that in many districts of Assam and Tripura, Hindus are already in a minority.)

Had MKG not cooled down the atmosphere in Calcutta, there would have been a complete exchange of population in NE India (Bengal/Assam) as well like in NW (Punjab) and the scenario that you are visualising would have never happened.

(What do you mean by fair treatment Majumdar bhai? )

I am by no means implying that IMs are treated unfairly in India (except aberrations like Gujarat). And that is why IMs are not talking about TNT nor are so many IMs invovled in the global jihad as some other countries are.

(What makes you think I'm advocating MKG ideals? )

Are you saying that you dont advocate MKG's ideals?

Regards

Majumdar,

It is STILL right to think through the eyes of Gandhiji. We have a sizeable Muslim population with us and its time we started to think how we win their good will.

As Harish said, if INC or the Indian people thought Gandhiji was making unrequited and inappropriate concessions, which was against their will, they would have prevailed on them. This is what a Hindu is capable of. The concept of 'Dharmam' is too ingrained into the people of this land; they could not have acted in anyother way other than Gandhi's. In a way Gandhi represented the commoners of the majority pool. At least this has inculcated a sense of fairness or at least the importance of being fair. That’s the reason we have had upper caste people becoming the champions of lower caste.

Bharathyar, an important Tamil poet, a Brahmin revolted, against the upper caste for their discriminatory behaviour. He was duly ostracized. There are several instances and leaders like him. What I am trying to say is it was Gandhi or largely Gandhi's way of thinking that others related to shaped/shapes our conscience and made/make aware what our Dharmam is. We cannot afford to deviate.

Vengat,

(We have a sizeable Muslim population with us )

When have I argued otherwise? Btw, what needs to done to win their heart is no different from waht is needed by non-Muslims as well. These include:

Fast economic growth.
Improved policing, law and order and administration of justice.
Investment in the country's HRD sector (education/ healthcare).
Social harmony.

Re: Dharmam. MKG's concept of Ram Rajya is the same as Hukumat-e-Ilahi that Maulana Baitullah Mehsud and his ilk advocate in Pakistan. I hope you have no problems with H-e-I either.

Regards

#122 by majumdar

MKG's concept of Ram Rajya is the same as Hukumat-e-Ilahi that Maulana Baitullah Mehsud and his ilk advocate in Pakistan.

Majumdar bhai, you know very well what the Taliban rule meant for women and minorities. Are you saying Mehsud is going to do anything different? OTOH, is there any evidence that Gandhi's Ram Rajya meant the Hindu equivalent of Taliban rule?

Both concepts mean rule of God and I dont think the Islamists have ever claimed that they intend to oppress the minorities and women (what happens in actual practise is a different matter altogether!!!). We feel threatened by Talibs but I am sure Muslims dont feel comfortable when they hear the word Ram Rajya either.

Regards

Just in short…

(5) Anybody who thinks that Gandhiji believed in state controlled religion is either deluded or engaged in the worst form of deception. The term “Ram Rajya” was used symbolically, and only symbolically.

(6) Support for the Khilafat movement was VERY prevalent among large sections of Indian Muslims around the First World War, well before Gandhiji became active in INDIAN politics. Gandhiji did not bring it about. His intent in supporting it – perhaps misguided – was the notion that it would generate goodwill among Mussalmans and Hindus and coalesce into one force. To an extent it did happen – during 1919-1922, Indians were very united although a point has been made by historian Lawrence James that many of the Muslims did not believe in Gandhiji’s techniques and were only interested in using his “vehicle” of the agitation. Anybody who preaches the canard that it was Gandhiji’s support for the Khilafat movement which caused Muslim fundamentalism in India is being dishonest – the roots of that characteristic are far deeper and longer in history. The fundamentalism was there to be tapped – Jinnah tapped into it rather well and benefited in attaining his ambitions.

More in the evening, if I can get around to it.

Majumdar,

Whatever u try to dominate the board here is not going to take away the greatness of Gandhi.

Gandhi is Gandhi. What I get from ur michief is that Gandhi was not khattarpanthi enuff.

Re: # 124

Majumdar,

Muslims know that their God is different from Ram. Afterall almost all of the IMs know Ramayana upside down...:)

VRV,

(not going to take away the greatness of Gandhi.)

MKG is a great man. And yet his followers will never advocate that India follow "Gandhian ideals" (unilaterally that is).

Beej bhaiyya,

(Jinnah tapped into it rather well and benefited in attaining his ambitions.)

So basically what you are saying is that Muslims are basically fundamentalist and separatist people by nature and that MAJ (pbuh) merely tapped into their basic tendency. In that case would it not be fair to admit that:

Pakistan was created by Muslim's innate fundamentalism and that MAJ (pbuh) was merely a unwitting agent of it.
MKG was a fool to have tried to represent both Hindoos and Muslims and that it wud have been better to have just defended the Hindoo's interest.

Regards