Why We Need Islamization of Science
Kamran Meer February 25, 2005
#556 Posted by MantoLives on March 19, 2005 11:59:31 am
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=66264
In an Earlier League
We will have come to terms with our history when we can honestly reckon with figures like Jinnah,
Of all the figures of the nationalist movement who had a decisive influence on shaping the destiny of the subcontinent, Jinnah remains amongst the most enigmatic and least understood. A brilliant lawyer and legislator, he often found himself in political negotiations whose outcome he could not control. By modern standards a resolute liberal and secularist, he laid the foundations of a state that has found it difficult to transcend its religious identity. He was, as Nehru described him, an elitist, but one with great concern for extending the franchise. He was instrumental in creating a sense of corporate identity amongst Muslims, yet he dissociated himself from theology and the Khilafat. He had obvious disdain for Gandhi, yet got along well with Tilak whom he so ably defended. He once defined Swaraj as Hindu-Muslim unity. He changed his position on separate electorates many times and ultimately founded a state that represented both his triumph and his defeat.
Ian Wells gives an account of Jinnah’s politics up till the 1930s, before he became associated with the idea of Pakistan. He clearly charts the trajectory of Jinnah’s early political career describing him as a liberal constitutionalist of sorts, a disciple of Morely in political philosophy and Gokhale in political strategy. Wells does not dwell much on Jinnah’s later ideas. His rendering of Jinnah’s early career will shed little light on the vexed question of what exactly Jinnah was all about during the 1940s. Did Jinnah want unified representation for Muslims, within a loose Indian union as Jalal controversially claimed? Or had his position become sufficiently radical to brook no other alternative than Partition?
If Wells is correct then this is perhaps the wrong question to ask. Too much of Indian history is written backwards. It takes outcomes for granted and then tries to figure out who was responsible. But perhaps we need to open up new vistas in the intellectual history of the period. It is more accurate to say that all the major figures of the period, Gandhi, Jinnah, Ambedkar, Nehru, and Savarkar, had strong convictions. But few of them had any clear idea of what the grand experiment they were undertaking would look like. They were constantly improvising positions in light of events and changing circumstances. And the final political outcomes often exceeded the power and grasp of any single one of them. To read through even Well’s simplistic narrative is to be reminded of how vexed the question of Muslim representation was from the early part of the 20th century. Once it was admitted that deviation from one person one vote was warranted for the protection of the interests of minorities, the question became: what counts as adequate protection? One-third or one-fourth guaranteed representation at the Centre? Veto power for minorities at the Centre? The truth is there never was any real stable answer. Any position was liable to create a political backlash. One-third reservation and some Hindus would argue that too much had been given away. One-fourth and some Muslims would argue that too little had been secured. The backlash to any position would in turn generate a further backlash. The Hindu Mahasabha’s reaction to Jinnah’s proposals seems gradually to have radicalised him, in turn unleashing another round of reactions. This vicious circle found its ultimate denouement in Partition, an outcome nobody apparently wanted, but no one could prevent.
Even though Wells’ book does not add too much to our existing stock of knowledge about Jinnah, it is useful to read Jinnah’s early politics without the final result clearly in view. He gives a clear account of some crucial episodes in the evolution of Jinnah’s politics: Khilafat, Minto-Morley Reform, Poona Pact, the rise of Gandhi. Wells ought to have placed Jinnah’s changing positions in a wider political context. There are glaring omissions. For instance, Wells scarcely discusses Jinnah’s defence of Tilak, and much more could have been said on how Hindu- Muslim relations were constituted in the period he discusses.
But the book will help readers get past the stern looks and encrusted reputation that, amongst other things, makes Jinnah so unapproachable to most Indians. It presents a Jinnah who is neither an opportunist, nor a fanatic, but a leader negotiating his way through changes in politics that were not easy to fathom. It is fair to say that we will have come to terms with our history, not when we understand figures like Gandhi and Nehru, but when we can honestly reckon with figures like Jinnah and perhaps Savarkar. In Jinnah’s case in particular the shadow he cast on Indian history is immeasurably more complicated than our simplistic depictions of him allow us to acknowledge. At least Wells had reminded us of how much we still don’t understand about the key figures of modern Indian history.
In an Earlier League
We will have come to terms with our history when we can honestly reckon with figures like Jinnah,
Of all the figures of the nationalist movement who had a decisive influence on shaping the destiny of the subcontinent, Jinnah remains amongst the most enigmatic and least understood. A brilliant lawyer and legislator, he often found himself in political negotiations whose outcome he could not control. By modern standards a resolute liberal and secularist, he laid the foundations of a state that has found it difficult to transcend its religious identity. He was, as Nehru described him, an elitist, but one with great concern for extending the franchise. He was instrumental in creating a sense of corporate identity amongst Muslims, yet he dissociated himself from theology and the Khilafat. He had obvious disdain for Gandhi, yet got along well with Tilak whom he so ably defended. He once defined Swaraj as Hindu-Muslim unity. He changed his position on separate electorates many times and ultimately founded a state that represented both his triumph and his defeat.
Ian Wells gives an account of Jinnah’s politics up till the 1930s, before he became associated with the idea of Pakistan. He clearly charts the trajectory of Jinnah’s early political career describing him as a liberal constitutionalist of sorts, a disciple of Morely in political philosophy and Gokhale in political strategy. Wells does not dwell much on Jinnah’s later ideas. His rendering of Jinnah’s early career will shed little light on the vexed question of what exactly Jinnah was all about during the 1940s. Did Jinnah want unified representation for Muslims, within a loose Indian union as Jalal controversially claimed? Or had his position become sufficiently radical to brook no other alternative than Partition?
If Wells is correct then this is perhaps the wrong question to ask. Too much of Indian history is written backwards. It takes outcomes for granted and then tries to figure out who was responsible. But perhaps we need to open up new vistas in the intellectual history of the period. It is more accurate to say that all the major figures of the period, Gandhi, Jinnah, Ambedkar, Nehru, and Savarkar, had strong convictions. But few of them had any clear idea of what the grand experiment they were undertaking would look like. They were constantly improvising positions in light of events and changing circumstances. And the final political outcomes often exceeded the power and grasp of any single one of them. To read through even Well’s simplistic narrative is to be reminded of how vexed the question of Muslim representation was from the early part of the 20th century. Once it was admitted that deviation from one person one vote was warranted for the protection of the interests of minorities, the question became: what counts as adequate protection? One-third or one-fourth guaranteed representation at the Centre? Veto power for minorities at the Centre? The truth is there never was any real stable answer. Any position was liable to create a political backlash. One-third reservation and some Hindus would argue that too much had been given away. One-fourth and some Muslims would argue that too little had been secured. The backlash to any position would in turn generate a further backlash. The Hindu Mahasabha’s reaction to Jinnah’s proposals seems gradually to have radicalised him, in turn unleashing another round of reactions. This vicious circle found its ultimate denouement in Partition, an outcome nobody apparently wanted, but no one could prevent.
Even though Wells’ book does not add too much to our existing stock of knowledge about Jinnah, it is useful to read Jinnah’s early politics without the final result clearly in view. He gives a clear account of some crucial episodes in the evolution of Jinnah’s politics: Khilafat, Minto-Morley Reform, Poona Pact, the rise of Gandhi. Wells ought to have placed Jinnah’s changing positions in a wider political context. There are glaring omissions. For instance, Wells scarcely discusses Jinnah’s defence of Tilak, and much more could have been said on how Hindu- Muslim relations were constituted in the period he discusses.
But the book will help readers get past the stern looks and encrusted reputation that, amongst other things, makes Jinnah so unapproachable to most Indians. It presents a Jinnah who is neither an opportunist, nor a fanatic, but a leader negotiating his way through changes in politics that were not easy to fathom. It is fair to say that we will have come to terms with our history, not when we understand figures like Gandhi and Nehru, but when we can honestly reckon with figures like Jinnah and perhaps Savarkar. In Jinnah’s case in particular the shadow he cast on Indian history is immeasurably more complicated than our simplistic depictions of him allow us to acknowledge. At least Wells had reminded us of how much we still don’t understand about the key figures of modern Indian history.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#554 Posted by ballukhan on March 14, 2005 9:43:31 pm
``.........it turns out that the story about Meera being fined originated from the Press Trust of India. Pakistan Government said very clearly that it has nothing to do with it.... and that Meera is free to work any where she wants.
It turns out that Mahesh Bhatt might have been behind the whole thing.............``
That is to say the LeT goons were inspired/asked by Mr.Bhatt to give those threatening statements??
It turns out that Mahesh Bhatt might have been behind the whole thing.............``
That is to say the LeT goons were inspired/asked by Mr.Bhatt to give those threatening statements??
#555 Posted by MantoLives on March 15, 2005 4:06:36 am
Re: # 554
Talking specifically about the ban....
Death threats are issued all the time every where... so what?
Talking specifically about the ban....
Death threats are issued all the time every where... so what?
#552 Posted by rsridhar on March 11, 2005 9:49:01 am
re:#550 by Mantolives
``Had Azad lived longer till the declassification of the transfer of power papers... he would have realized that Nehru`s was a not a blunder but a calculated move. ``
Perhaps it was a calculated move. Perhaps not. History only records events, not intentions. But one thing is clear. Leaders like Nehru, Patel were eager to get on with the task of nation building. They truly believed that Pak would not survive long. Left to itself, it would not have but it benefitted from the Cold War and the generosity of America.
Ambedkar was clearly wrong if he believed that division of a country on the basis of religion would solve all problems. Pak today is a theocratic state with nothing much to be proud of. It just above manages to survive. If Pakis consider this as an achievement, i do not know what to say.
Sridhar
``Had Azad lived longer till the declassification of the transfer of power papers... he would have realized that Nehru`s was a not a blunder but a calculated move. ``
Perhaps it was a calculated move. Perhaps not. History only records events, not intentions. But one thing is clear. Leaders like Nehru, Patel were eager to get on with the task of nation building. They truly believed that Pak would not survive long. Left to itself, it would not have but it benefitted from the Cold War and the generosity of America.
Ambedkar was clearly wrong if he believed that division of a country on the basis of religion would solve all problems. Pak today is a theocratic state with nothing much to be proud of. It just above manages to survive. If Pakis consider this as an achievement, i do not know what to say.
Sridhar
#553 Posted by MantoLives on March 11, 2005 11:41:26 am
Re: # 552
Rsidhar... I am afraid that while on paper you are correct in your assessment of Pakistan i.e. a theocratic state with a Military dictator... you will find the reality quite different from this assessment. Pakistan is neither an Iran nor a totalitarian state. A simple visit to Pakistan will prove that much.
As for your assessment of Pakistan`s failure... Stephen Cohen also talks about the Indian leaders` frustration and even obsession with seeing Pakistan fail. He also says that they in their own fit of anger blame America. Now whatever the merit of that argument, one has to play with the hand that it has been given. America doesn`t love Pakistan any more than it loves India... India actually is a bigger market for them... but it is the way we have played a poor hand ... in the game of Bluff... that we have forced the American hand. Pakistanis are good poker players.... have you played poker with any Pakistani?
I suggest that instead of just believing what the media tells you... make informed decisions and statements. Every country has its problems... but let us call a spade a spade. There is a deliberate effort on the part of some in the India media to distort the reality. Let me give you an example.... I work for the Daily Times... I have been looking into this whole Meera Business... it turns out that the story about Meera being fined originated from the Press Trust of India. Pakistan Government said very clearly that it has nothing to do with it.... and that Meera is free to work any where she wants.
It turns out that Mahesh Bhatt might have been behind the whole thing.
Rsidhar... I am afraid that while on paper you are correct in your assessment of Pakistan i.e. a theocratic state with a Military dictator... you will find the reality quite different from this assessment. Pakistan is neither an Iran nor a totalitarian state. A simple visit to Pakistan will prove that much.
As for your assessment of Pakistan`s failure... Stephen Cohen also talks about the Indian leaders` frustration and even obsession with seeing Pakistan fail. He also says that they in their own fit of anger blame America. Now whatever the merit of that argument, one has to play with the hand that it has been given. America doesn`t love Pakistan any more than it loves India... India actually is a bigger market for them... but it is the way we have played a poor hand ... in the game of Bluff... that we have forced the American hand. Pakistanis are good poker players.... have you played poker with any Pakistani?
I suggest that instead of just believing what the media tells you... make informed decisions and statements. Every country has its problems... but let us call a spade a spade. There is a deliberate effort on the part of some in the India media to distort the reality. Let me give you an example.... I work for the Daily Times... I have been looking into this whole Meera Business... it turns out that the story about Meera being fined originated from the Press Trust of India. Pakistan Government said very clearly that it has nothing to do with it.... and that Meera is free to work any where she wants.
It turns out that Mahesh Bhatt might have been behind the whole thing.
#550 Posted by MantoLives on March 11, 2005 3:31:19 am
Harish,
Let me make some points to you that will hopefuly bring some order to our discussion.
1) About the historians, you keep denouncing all historians as Jinnah worshippers. Ironically none of the historians I have quoted are Pakistanis or can be described as Jinnah worshippers.. but then I am sure you will denounce Raj Mohan Gandhi as well, because he holds a similar view of Jinnah. Please do inform me which book or author you think is a balanced one.
2) About Ambedkar: I posted his quote to counter your assertion about Jinnah`s opportunism. Ambedkar doesn`t agree clearly. As for this book... it shows the case from both sides.. Please find the excerpt below for yourself and see it. Ambedkar was an ally of Jinnah when this book was written, and his aim and objective was to impress upon the Congress to come to settlement ... because Jinnah, who had previously been a staunch Congress Ally even in the league, was ready for one. A fair reading of the book will prove this ...
3) The point about H M Seervai went above you as well. H M Seervai was an Indian who blames Nehru and Patel for partition. You claimed it was the Paki psyche. Last I checked Pakistanis thought Jinnah was the conquering hero who won Pakistan... a view as distorted as yours.
4) As far as I know Mir Qasim was the 4th Nawab of Bengal after Mir Jaffar (the traitor to Sirajuddaulah) ... he was famous for the Battle of Buxar.
5) You are right about fools being fanatical... but they are not convincing, for I would have accepted your claims had that been true.
6) The logic of my position is shared by many Indian writers and historians, including may I add, Azad the great Indian leader (with identical religious views as Maulana Mohamed Ali btw) . Azad blames Nehru`s blunder for partition in his book ``India wins freedom``... though he is no fan of Jinnah`s. Had Azad lived longer till the declassification of the transfer of power papers... he would have realized that Nehru`s was a not a blunder but a calculated move.
Also from Ambedkar`s book:
Compare with this dark vista, the vista that opens out if India is divided into Pakistan and Hindustan. The partition opens the way to a fulfilment of the destiny each may fix for itself. Muslims will be free to choose for their Pakistan independence or dominion status, whatever they think good for themselves. Hindus will be free to choose for their Hindustan independence or dominion status, whatever they may think wise for their condition. The Muslims will be freed from the nightmare of Hindu Raj. Thus the path of political progress becomes smooth for both. The fear of the object being frustrated gives place to the hope of fulfilment. Communal settlement must remain a necessary condition precedent, if India, as one integral whole, desires to make any political advance. But Pakistan and Hindustan are free from the rigorous trammels of such a condition precedent and even if a communal settlement with minorities remained to be a condition precedent it will not be difficult to fulfil. The path of each is cleared of this obstacle. There is another advantage of Pakistan which must be mentioned. It is generally admitted that there does exist a kind of antagonism between Hindus and Muslims which if not dissolved will prove ruinous to the peace and progress of India. But, it is not realized that the mischief is caused not so much by the existence of mutual antagonism as by the existence of a common theatre for its display. It is the common theatre which calls this antagonism into action. It cannot but be so. When the two are called to participate in acts of common concern what else can happen except a display of that antagonism which is inherent in them. Now the scheme of Pakistan has this advantage, namely, that it leaves no theatre for the play of that social antagonism which is the cause of disaffection among the Hindus and the Muslims. There is no fear of Hindustan and Pakistan suffering from that disturbance of peace and tranquillity which has torn and shattered India for so many years. Last, but by no means least, is the elimination of the necessity of a third party to maintain peace. Freed from the trammels which one imposes upon the other by reason of this forced union, Pakistan and Hindustan can each grow into a strong stable State with no fear of disruption from within. As two separate entities, they can reach their respective destinies which as parts of one whole they never can.
Ambedkar`s book is a good supporting argument for H M Seervai`s view.
Let me make some points to you that will hopefuly bring some order to our discussion.
1) About the historians, you keep denouncing all historians as Jinnah worshippers. Ironically none of the historians I have quoted are Pakistanis or can be described as Jinnah worshippers.. but then I am sure you will denounce Raj Mohan Gandhi as well, because he holds a similar view of Jinnah. Please do inform me which book or author you think is a balanced one.
2) About Ambedkar: I posted his quote to counter your assertion about Jinnah`s opportunism. Ambedkar doesn`t agree clearly. As for this book... it shows the case from both sides.. Please find the excerpt below for yourself and see it. Ambedkar was an ally of Jinnah when this book was written, and his aim and objective was to impress upon the Congress to come to settlement ... because Jinnah, who had previously been a staunch Congress Ally even in the league, was ready for one. A fair reading of the book will prove this ...
3) The point about H M Seervai went above you as well. H M Seervai was an Indian who blames Nehru and Patel for partition. You claimed it was the Paki psyche. Last I checked Pakistanis thought Jinnah was the conquering hero who won Pakistan... a view as distorted as yours.
4) As far as I know Mir Qasim was the 4th Nawab of Bengal after Mir Jaffar (the traitor to Sirajuddaulah) ... he was famous for the Battle of Buxar.
5) You are right about fools being fanatical... but they are not convincing, for I would have accepted your claims had that been true.
6) The logic of my position is shared by many Indian writers and historians, including may I add, Azad the great Indian leader (with identical religious views as Maulana Mohamed Ali btw) . Azad blames Nehru`s blunder for partition in his book ``India wins freedom``... though he is no fan of Jinnah`s. Had Azad lived longer till the declassification of the transfer of power papers... he would have realized that Nehru`s was a not a blunder but a calculated move.
Also from Ambedkar`s book:
Compare with this dark vista, the vista that opens out if India is divided into Pakistan and Hindustan. The partition opens the way to a fulfilment of the destiny each may fix for itself. Muslims will be free to choose for their Pakistan independence or dominion status, whatever they think good for themselves. Hindus will be free to choose for their Hindustan independence or dominion status, whatever they may think wise for their condition. The Muslims will be freed from the nightmare of Hindu Raj. Thus the path of political progress becomes smooth for both. The fear of the object being frustrated gives place to the hope of fulfilment. Communal settlement must remain a necessary condition precedent, if India, as one integral whole, desires to make any political advance. But Pakistan and Hindustan are free from the rigorous trammels of such a condition precedent and even if a communal settlement with minorities remained to be a condition precedent it will not be difficult to fulfil. The path of each is cleared of this obstacle. There is another advantage of Pakistan which must be mentioned. It is generally admitted that there does exist a kind of antagonism between Hindus and Muslims which if not dissolved will prove ruinous to the peace and progress of India. But, it is not realized that the mischief is caused not so much by the existence of mutual antagonism as by the existence of a common theatre for its display. It is the common theatre which calls this antagonism into action. It cannot but be so. When the two are called to participate in acts of common concern what else can happen except a display of that antagonism which is inherent in them. Now the scheme of Pakistan has this advantage, namely, that it leaves no theatre for the play of that social antagonism which is the cause of disaffection among the Hindus and the Muslims. There is no fear of Hindustan and Pakistan suffering from that disturbance of peace and tranquillity which has torn and shattered India for so many years. Last, but by no means least, is the elimination of the necessity of a third party to maintain peace. Freed from the trammels which one imposes upon the other by reason of this forced union, Pakistan and Hindustan can each grow into a strong stable State with no fear of disruption from within. As two separate entities, they can reach their respective destinies which as parts of one whole they never can.
Ambedkar`s book is a good supporting argument for H M Seervai`s view.
#549 Posted by shishapa on March 11, 2005 12:47:39 am
# 547
Manto,
You say in # 547,
``it was the Congress that had decided to be rid of the Muslim majority provinces... instead of accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan``
Why would Congress decide to be rid of Muslim majority provinces? I do not think Congress anti-Muslim!
Afterall Congress, by not wanting partition, was willing to live with those same Muslim majority provinces without changing demographics in unpartitioned India!
Perhaps there should have been two Cabinet Mission Plans, one for India, one for the
two Muslim Majority provinces. May be then Congress would have accepted the
Cabinet Mission Plan and nothing would have got partitioned, neither India nor
Punjab and Bengal.
Anyway, this is my last note on this topic. I will read your reply if you decide to.
Manto,
You say in # 547,
``it was the Congress that had decided to be rid of the Muslim majority provinces... instead of accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan``
Why would Congress decide to be rid of Muslim majority provinces? I do not think Congress anti-Muslim!
Afterall Congress, by not wanting partition, was willing to live with those same Muslim majority provinces without changing demographics in unpartitioned India!
Perhaps there should have been two Cabinet Mission Plans, one for India, one for the
two Muslim Majority provinces. May be then Congress would have accepted the
Cabinet Mission Plan and nothing would have got partitioned, neither India nor
Punjab and Bengal.
Anyway, this is my last note on this topic. I will read your reply if you decide to.
#551 Posted by MantoLives on March 11, 2005 4:32:18 am
Re: # 549
Why would the Congress want to be rid of the Muslim majority provinces?
Please read Hormansji Seervai`s classic ``Partition of India: Legend and Reality``.
Why would the Congress want to be rid of the Muslim majority provinces?
Please read Hormansji Seervai`s classic ``Partition of India: Legend and Reality``.
#548 Posted by harish_hyd on March 11, 2005 12:39:58 am
#546 by Mantolives
[I have come across ignorant people who have argued without any logic... but I never seen such self righteousness coupled with illogical ignorance.]
But I have come across one…that is you.
[Permanent Black Publishers in New Delhi have published yet another book by a foreign author Ian Bryant Wells... I suppose now he will become a worshipper as well.]
I will not argue on this point because in your last post, you were very clear about writers who had a different opinion of Jinnah. Whether they claimed that they weren’t historians or not, you sure do not consider them as historians.
[Atleast think before you write, instead of constantly giving us proofs of your ignorance coupled with stupidity.]
The more I read your posts, the more I am convinced of the saying which goes something like this “The greatest tragedy on the Earth is that the wise are not forceful enough about their beliefs, while the fools are very convincing and fanatical”.
[At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune.]
As if I didn’t know that you would selectively pick passages that cast Jinnah in a flattering light. Here is what the very same Ambedkar said about Jinnah’s mad pursuit of Pakistan in the very same book that you recommended to me. In effect Ambedkar called him insane.
“Must there be Pakistan because the Musalmans are a nation ? It is a pity that Mr. Jinnah should have become a votary and champion of Muslim Nationalism at a time when the whole world is decrying against the evils of nationalism and is seeking refuge in some kind of international organization. Mr. Jinnah is so obsessed with his new-found faith in Muslim Nationalism that he is not prepared to see that there is a distinction between a society, parts of which are disintegrated, and a society parts of which have become only loose, which no sane man can ignore. When a society is disintegrating—and the two nation theory is a positive disintegration of society and country—it is evidence of the fact that there do not exist what Carlyle calls `` organic filaments ``—i.e., the vital forces which work to bind together the parts that are cut asunder. In such cases disintegration can only be regretted. It cannot be prevented. Where, however, such organic filaments do exist, it is a crime to overlook them and deliberately force the disintegration of society and country as the Muslims seem to be doing. If the Musalmans want to be a different nation it is not because they have been but because they want to be. There is much in the Musalmans which, if they wish, can roll them into a nation. But isn`t there enough that is common to both Hindus and Musalmans, which if developed, is capable of moulding them into one people ”.
[As for your cop out about Gandhi using the word ``Mahatma``... Gandhi clearly enjoyed it and had no objections to it. So my comment is in no way close to the collossal blunder that you committed.]
Ha! Ha! Looks like I caught you on the wrong foot. Never mind, we all make mistakes, and so I accept yours.
[Last I checked H M Seervai didn`t change his citizenship to Pakistan before he passed away. He remained one of India`s leading commentators on History, Politics and Law. Now how does he become a Pakistani is beyond me... ]
This is a clear sign of a man who has lost his way. You are running around in circles without making any sense.
[No... my ideas based on logic and history does not require endorsement from you. ]
This has to be the joke of the day for me. Jinnah never wanted Pakistan.. that is logic? Sure.
[No... this is why you should read some History.]
You mean the doctored Paki history of which you have proved such an eminent student? Or the Paki history which teaches that the history of Pakistan begins when Sindh was invaded by Mir Qasim?
[I have come across ignorant people who have argued without any logic... but I never seen such self righteousness coupled with illogical ignorance.]
But I have come across one…that is you.
[Permanent Black Publishers in New Delhi have published yet another book by a foreign author Ian Bryant Wells... I suppose now he will become a worshipper as well.]
I will not argue on this point because in your last post, you were very clear about writers who had a different opinion of Jinnah. Whether they claimed that they weren’t historians or not, you sure do not consider them as historians.
[Atleast think before you write, instead of constantly giving us proofs of your ignorance coupled with stupidity.]
The more I read your posts, the more I am convinced of the saying which goes something like this “The greatest tragedy on the Earth is that the wise are not forceful enough about their beliefs, while the fools are very convincing and fanatical”.
[At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune.]
As if I didn’t know that you would selectively pick passages that cast Jinnah in a flattering light. Here is what the very same Ambedkar said about Jinnah’s mad pursuit of Pakistan in the very same book that you recommended to me. In effect Ambedkar called him insane.
“Must there be Pakistan because the Musalmans are a nation ? It is a pity that Mr. Jinnah should have become a votary and champion of Muslim Nationalism at a time when the whole world is decrying against the evils of nationalism and is seeking refuge in some kind of international organization. Mr. Jinnah is so obsessed with his new-found faith in Muslim Nationalism that he is not prepared to see that there is a distinction between a society, parts of which are disintegrated, and a society parts of which have become only loose, which no sane man can ignore. When a society is disintegrating—and the two nation theory is a positive disintegration of society and country—it is evidence of the fact that there do not exist what Carlyle calls `` organic filaments ``—i.e., the vital forces which work to bind together the parts that are cut asunder. In such cases disintegration can only be regretted. It cannot be prevented. Where, however, such organic filaments do exist, it is a crime to overlook them and deliberately force the disintegration of society and country as the Muslims seem to be doing. If the Musalmans want to be a different nation it is not because they have been but because they want to be. There is much in the Musalmans which, if they wish, can roll them into a nation. But isn`t there enough that is common to both Hindus and Musalmans, which if developed, is capable of moulding them into one people ”.
[As for your cop out about Gandhi using the word ``Mahatma``... Gandhi clearly enjoyed it and had no objections to it. So my comment is in no way close to the collossal blunder that you committed.]
Ha! Ha! Looks like I caught you on the wrong foot. Never mind, we all make mistakes, and so I accept yours.
[Last I checked H M Seervai didn`t change his citizenship to Pakistan before he passed away. He remained one of India`s leading commentators on History, Politics and Law. Now how does he become a Pakistani is beyond me... ]
This is a clear sign of a man who has lost his way. You are running around in circles without making any sense.
[No... my ideas based on logic and history does not require endorsement from you. ]
This has to be the joke of the day for me. Jinnah never wanted Pakistan.. that is logic? Sure.
[No... this is why you should read some History.]
You mean the doctored Paki history of which you have proved such an eminent student? Or the Paki history which teaches that the history of Pakistan begins when Sindh was invaded by Mir Qasim?
#545 Posted by harish_hyd on March 10, 2005 10:33:01 pm
#535 by Mantolives
[For a person who was untill yesterday confusing two very different South Asian leaders, you seem to speak like you are an authority... which is just sad.]
Ah, I was expecting just this. But let me refresh your memory too. In a letter to The Friday Times a couple of years back, you had accused Gandhi of bestowing upon himself the title of Mahatma, which I had to promptly refute in another letter to the editor. So much for your expertise on South Asian history!
Never mind, since you claim to be an expert on South Asian history, may I ask you how many books have you read other than your fellow Jinnah-worshippers Wolpert, Embree, and Seervai? I bet none. Perhaps you should read Ambedkar to get a different perspective.
[The Pakistan demand was a bargaining counter for parity at the center. It has been proved by the transfer of power papers and many researchers including Mr. H M Seervai, the constitution expert from India and a historian.]
However nicely you may try to put it across, the so-called ‘bargaining counter’ was at best a blackmail strategy Jinnah used to bully the Congress into meeting his demands. And please don’t again cite Wolpert, Embree, Seervai, and other so-called historians, but then, if we go by your opinion, those who didn’t praise Jinnah to the skies were not fit to be called historians. Just FYI, there are any number of them who wrote against Jinnah, Ambedkar being one of them, which of course you won’t bother about since you are so blinded by your worship of Jinnah.
[Also thanks for admitting that the creation of Bangladesh in no way was a negation of the so called Pakistan demand. Bangladesh was always envisaged in the original resolution as an independent entity.]
Man, are you so desperate that you would go to this length to extract an endorsement of your views from me? I just said it didn’t matter if the partition envisaged one or two states.
By the way, here is the map of Pakistan, as envisaged by Chaudhry Rehmat Ali.
[No responsible historian does that, be it Ainslee T Embree, Raj Mohan Gandhi, H V Hodson or Wolpert... ofcourse some journalese authors (mostly Indian) have their own way of looking at things, but then they never claimed to be historians.]
Again, like I said before, you hold the view that anyone who wrote contrary to what you have deluded yourselves into believing is not a historian. Difficult to argue with someone who is so fixated and will refuse to believe that Jinnah was as human as anyone else, and as prone to opportunism and errors of judgment like the rest of us.
[If at all you will find a scape goat it will be Nehru, Patel and Mountbatten who insisted on the partition of these provinces... creating the havoc.]
Pardon me for the cliché, but this is typical Paki thinking. Nehru, Patel, et al were responsible for Partition, but not the man who led the movement for Pakistan? Try selling this snake oil to your fellow Pakis, because no one else is buying it.
[No wonder Pakistan-India relations are doomed... because people like you represent the future.]
India-Pakistan relations were doomed beginning from Jinnah, because here was a man who was so paranoid about Hindus that he wanted a separate nation. And after that demand was met, Pakis has tried for the last 60 years to dismember India through their “bleed India from a thousand cuts” strategy, and now we have peace-activist-par-excellence Manto, again blaming Indians for not wanting peace. Sigh!
[For a person who was untill yesterday confusing two very different South Asian leaders, you seem to speak like you are an authority... which is just sad.]
Ah, I was expecting just this. But let me refresh your memory too. In a letter to The Friday Times a couple of years back, you had accused Gandhi of bestowing upon himself the title of Mahatma, which I had to promptly refute in another letter to the editor. So much for your expertise on South Asian history!
Never mind, since you claim to be an expert on South Asian history, may I ask you how many books have you read other than your fellow Jinnah-worshippers Wolpert, Embree, and Seervai? I bet none. Perhaps you should read Ambedkar to get a different perspective.
[The Pakistan demand was a bargaining counter for parity at the center. It has been proved by the transfer of power papers and many researchers including Mr. H M Seervai, the constitution expert from India and a historian.]
However nicely you may try to put it across, the so-called ‘bargaining counter’ was at best a blackmail strategy Jinnah used to bully the Congress into meeting his demands. And please don’t again cite Wolpert, Embree, Seervai, and other so-called historians, but then, if we go by your opinion, those who didn’t praise Jinnah to the skies were not fit to be called historians. Just FYI, there are any number of them who wrote against Jinnah, Ambedkar being one of them, which of course you won’t bother about since you are so blinded by your worship of Jinnah.
[Also thanks for admitting that the creation of Bangladesh in no way was a negation of the so called Pakistan demand. Bangladesh was always envisaged in the original resolution as an independent entity.]
Man, are you so desperate that you would go to this length to extract an endorsement of your views from me? I just said it didn’t matter if the partition envisaged one or two states.
By the way, here is the map of Pakistan, as envisaged by Chaudhry Rehmat Ali.
[No responsible historian does that, be it Ainslee T Embree, Raj Mohan Gandhi, H V Hodson or Wolpert... ofcourse some journalese authors (mostly Indian) have their own way of looking at things, but then they never claimed to be historians.]
Again, like I said before, you hold the view that anyone who wrote contrary to what you have deluded yourselves into believing is not a historian. Difficult to argue with someone who is so fixated and will refuse to believe that Jinnah was as human as anyone else, and as prone to opportunism and errors of judgment like the rest of us.
[If at all you will find a scape goat it will be Nehru, Patel and Mountbatten who insisted on the partition of these provinces... creating the havoc.]
Pardon me for the cliché, but this is typical Paki thinking. Nehru, Patel, et al were responsible for Partition, but not the man who led the movement for Pakistan? Try selling this snake oil to your fellow Pakis, because no one else is buying it.
[No wonder Pakistan-India relations are doomed... because people like you represent the future.]
India-Pakistan relations were doomed beginning from Jinnah, because here was a man who was so paranoid about Hindus that he wanted a separate nation. And after that demand was met, Pakis has tried for the last 60 years to dismember India through their “bleed India from a thousand cuts” strategy, and now we have peace-activist-par-excellence Manto, again blaming Indians for not wanting peace. Sigh!
#546 Posted by MantoLives on March 10, 2005 11:41:03 pm
Re: # 545
I have come across ignorant people who have argued without any logic... but I never seen such self righteousness coupled with illogical ignorance.
Now to you Harish.. historians like Ainslee Embree, and Indian experts like Seervai... have become Jinnah worshippers to you. Permanent Black Publishers in New Delhi have published yet another book by a foreign author Ian Bryant Wells... I suppose now he will become a worshipper as well.
Atleast think before you write, instead of constantly giving us proofs of your ignorance coupled with stupidity. I have read Ambedkar more than you have clearly. Perhaps I should recommend two books ``Pakistan or Partition of India`` or ``Gandhi and Gandhiism`` both by Dr. Ambedkar. Had you really read Ambedkar... you would not be saying the nonsense you are. If Ambedkar is an authority to you... consider the fact that he called Jinnah the most incorruptible and self less leader in India...
He wrote about Jinnah:
At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune.
http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan/40E2.Pakistan%20or%20the%20Partition%20of%20India%20PART%20IV.htm
Wait... is Ambedkar a Jinnah worshipper too?
And... Ambedkar called Gandhi a ``Hindu fanatic``... in one of his many books on the man.
So are you willing to accept these two views?
As for your cop out about Gandhi using the word ``Mahatma``... Gandhi clearly enjoyed it and had no objections to it. So my comment is in no way close to the collossal blunder that you committed.
Some more of your nuggets:
``Pardon me for the cliché, but this is typical Paki thinking.``
Last I checked H M Seervai didn`t change his citizenship to Pakistan before he passed away. He remained one of India`s leading commentators on History, Politics and Law. Now how does he become a Pakistani is beyond me...
``Man, are you so desperate that you would go to this length to extract an endorsement of your views from me?``
No... my ideas based on logic and history does not require endorsement from you.
``I just said it didn’t matter if the partition envisaged one or two states.``
No you said... the creation of Bangladesh negated the creation of Pakistan. If it didn`t matter your blundered in your post.
``India-Pakistan relations were doomed beginning from Jinnah, because here was a man who was so paranoid about Hindus that he wanted a separate nation. ``
No... this is why you should read some History.
``dismember India``
Whose paranoid?
-YLH
I have come across ignorant people who have argued without any logic... but I never seen such self righteousness coupled with illogical ignorance.
Now to you Harish.. historians like Ainslee Embree, and Indian experts like Seervai... have become Jinnah worshippers to you. Permanent Black Publishers in New Delhi have published yet another book by a foreign author Ian Bryant Wells... I suppose now he will become a worshipper as well.
Atleast think before you write, instead of constantly giving us proofs of your ignorance coupled with stupidity. I have read Ambedkar more than you have clearly. Perhaps I should recommend two books ``Pakistan or Partition of India`` or ``Gandhi and Gandhiism`` both by Dr. Ambedkar. Had you really read Ambedkar... you would not be saying the nonsense you are. If Ambedkar is an authority to you... consider the fact that he called Jinnah the most incorruptible and self less leader in India...
He wrote about Jinnah:
At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune.
http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan/40E2.Pakistan%20or%20the%20Partition%20of%20India%20PART%20IV.htm
Wait... is Ambedkar a Jinnah worshipper too?
And... Ambedkar called Gandhi a ``Hindu fanatic``... in one of his many books on the man.
So are you willing to accept these two views?
As for your cop out about Gandhi using the word ``Mahatma``... Gandhi clearly enjoyed it and had no objections to it. So my comment is in no way close to the collossal blunder that you committed.
Some more of your nuggets:
``Pardon me for the cliché, but this is typical Paki thinking.``
Last I checked H M Seervai didn`t change his citizenship to Pakistan before he passed away. He remained one of India`s leading commentators on History, Politics and Law. Now how does he become a Pakistani is beyond me...
``Man, are you so desperate that you would go to this length to extract an endorsement of your views from me?``
No... my ideas based on logic and history does not require endorsement from you.
``I just said it didn’t matter if the partition envisaged one or two states.``
No you said... the creation of Bangladesh negated the creation of Pakistan. If it didn`t matter your blundered in your post.
``India-Pakistan relations were doomed beginning from Jinnah, because here was a man who was so paranoid about Hindus that he wanted a separate nation. ``
No... this is why you should read some History.
``dismember India``
Whose paranoid?
-YLH
#544 Posted by Maharana on March 10, 2005 12:33:31 pm
Shishapa,
I think you are quite new here.
Let me inform you about a couple of things you may have already observed on chowk. It is hard for indians or pakistanis to accept the ground realities of their respective countries. This site merely becomes a way to posture, even if you come with the intenetion of asking anything with genuine interest.
On the issue of the origin of pakistan, secularism etc. you can debate this point to death, but will not get an honest reply due to the inability of people to look at their respective founding fathers as anything but human. The interpersonal dynamics and individual personalities of various leaders contributed more than anything else to the birth of paksitan.
The mask of any ideology given to justify this was meant to arouse the masses with the most common denominator. In our sub-continent, religion has been made just that. No illeterate mass falls for secularism. But don`t argue on that point, for, some pakistanis believe otherwise. For insecure pakistanis, this is the holy grail never to be touched or doubted. Confident pakistanis do not shy from admitting any such dichotomy. It does not threaten the existence of paksitan in their minds.
I`d rasied this observed Vs. so called intended destiny of paksitan because an expert from bihar raised something similar for the origin of bihar. Namely , that the formation of bihar was the result of british interference without any linguitic or other reason. All other states in india have a sense of nationalism for their respective states because they are based on languages and a unique history. This sense of uniqueness impels to a great extent, the formation of an identitiy within the indian union which can be recognised today. Before my pakistani friends jump pn this analogy, let me just add that, I`m not comparing todays pakistan with bihar in anything else except their sense of lack of clear direction and to some extent identity. It is a result of imposed ideology on the population, which finds no basis to be separate from U.P. in terms of language or culture.
Anyways, Good luck on your endeavor.
Adios
I think you are quite new here.
Let me inform you about a couple of things you may have already observed on chowk. It is hard for indians or pakistanis to accept the ground realities of their respective countries. This site merely becomes a way to posture, even if you come with the intenetion of asking anything with genuine interest.
On the issue of the origin of pakistan, secularism etc. you can debate this point to death, but will not get an honest reply due to the inability of people to look at their respective founding fathers as anything but human. The interpersonal dynamics and individual personalities of various leaders contributed more than anything else to the birth of paksitan.
The mask of any ideology given to justify this was meant to arouse the masses with the most common denominator. In our sub-continent, religion has been made just that. No illeterate mass falls for secularism. But don`t argue on that point, for, some pakistanis believe otherwise. For insecure pakistanis, this is the holy grail never to be touched or doubted. Confident pakistanis do not shy from admitting any such dichotomy. It does not threaten the existence of paksitan in their minds.
I`d rasied this observed Vs. so called intended destiny of paksitan because an expert from bihar raised something similar for the origin of bihar. Namely , that the formation of bihar was the result of british interference without any linguitic or other reason. All other states in india have a sense of nationalism for their respective states because they are based on languages and a unique history. This sense of uniqueness impels to a great extent, the formation of an identitiy within the indian union which can be recognised today. Before my pakistani friends jump pn this analogy, let me just add that, I`m not comparing todays pakistan with bihar in anything else except their sense of lack of clear direction and to some extent identity. It is a result of imposed ideology on the population, which finds no basis to be separate from U.P. in terms of language or culture.
Anyways, Good luck on your endeavor.
Adios
#543 Posted by shishapa on March 10, 2005 9:56:36 am
Re # 535
Mantoji,
I won`t have any more comments about the topic of Mr. Jinnah`s and Muslim League`s
motives till I read all the references you have mentioned.
But you say in # 535,
``The fact is no matter how you look at it.. the massacres of hindus muslims and sikhs happened because of the partition of Bengal and Punjab, to which Muslim League was opposed.``
Congress was opposed to the partition of India, Muslim League wanted partition of India
(after its efforts failed to avoid it as you say) but was opposed to the partition of Punjab and Bengal.
If one was insisting on vivisecting an entity A, why should then it mind other asking for vivisecting B and C?
What was so sacred about not vivisecting B and C after insisting about vivisecting A that was so sacred to other?
Do you think none of that followed partition had happened had Punjab and Bengal remained
united in Pakistan? Sindh, Baluchistan, NWFP were not divided. That did not prevent violence in those provinces and exodus of Hindus and Sikhs from these provices!
Mantoji,
I won`t have any more comments about the topic of Mr. Jinnah`s and Muslim League`s
motives till I read all the references you have mentioned.
But you say in # 535,
``The fact is no matter how you look at it.. the massacres of hindus muslims and sikhs happened because of the partition of Bengal and Punjab, to which Muslim League was opposed.``
Congress was opposed to the partition of India, Muslim League wanted partition of India
(after its efforts failed to avoid it as you say) but was opposed to the partition of Punjab and Bengal.
If one was insisting on vivisecting an entity A, why should then it mind other asking for vivisecting B and C?
What was so sacred about not vivisecting B and C after insisting about vivisecting A that was so sacred to other?
Do you think none of that followed partition had happened had Punjab and Bengal remained
united in Pakistan? Sindh, Baluchistan, NWFP were not divided. That did not prevent violence in those provinces and exodus of Hindus and Sikhs from these provices!
#547 Posted by MantoLives on March 10, 2005 11:48:33 pm
Re: # 543
This again runs counter to history... it is an established fact the vast majority of the killings happened in the East Punjab plains. Please do check up on it.
As for ``vivisecting``... had you read the book that I suggested, you would see clearly that it was the Congress that had decided to be rid of the Muslim majority provinces... instead of accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan... which was on the table even in May 1947 when Nehru rejected it one last time.
Even Azad, no admirer of Jinnah, accepts this in his book.
This again runs counter to history... it is an established fact the vast majority of the killings happened in the East Punjab plains. Please do check up on it.
As for ``vivisecting``... had you read the book that I suggested, you would see clearly that it was the Congress that had decided to be rid of the Muslim majority provinces... instead of accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan... which was on the table even in May 1947 when Nehru rejected it one last time.
Even Azad, no admirer of Jinnah, accepts this in his book.
#541 Posted by shishapa on March 10, 2005 6:00:07 am
# 506
# 533
Manto,
In note #506, you say
``You clearly didn`t get the gist of the argument... Jinnah was after 1937 the spokesman of the Muslims.. but to represent them without any sectarian bias, his personal secularism was a great asset. ``
Is this not changing colour, i.e. before 1937 Mr. Jinnah represented all Indians regardless of religion, after 1937 he was representing only Muslims, and after Pakistan comes into existence, he was going to represent all Pakistanis regardless of religion?
# 533
Was such offer extended to Hindus as well? if not, why only Sikhs were considered for the offer, why not Hindus? Were not Hindus equal or perhaps more in numbers than Sikhs?
Or were there other considerations besides numerical strength?
# 533
Manto,
In note #506, you say
``You clearly didn`t get the gist of the argument... Jinnah was after 1937 the spokesman of the Muslims.. but to represent them without any sectarian bias, his personal secularism was a great asset. ``
Is this not changing colour, i.e. before 1937 Mr. Jinnah represented all Indians regardless of religion, after 1937 he was representing only Muslims, and after Pakistan comes into existence, he was going to represent all Pakistanis regardless of religion?
# 533
Was such offer extended to Hindus as well? if not, why only Sikhs were considered for the offer, why not Hindus? Were not Hindus equal or perhaps more in numbers than Sikhs?
Or were there other considerations besides numerical strength?
#542 Posted by MantoLives on March 10, 2005 7:01:48 am
Re: # 541
Shishpa... Like I pointed out you need to read H M Seervai`s book... or go through the 14 volumes of transfer of power papers... alternatively you can go through Ainslee T Embree`s ``Sources of Indian Tradition`` Volume 2 (Columbia University Press), to see what the aims and objectives of the league were after 1937 and why.
You bring up an interesting point about Hindus ... but Hindus did not form as far as I know any major majority area per se nor did they claim any ``qaumiat`` as the sikhs did. Please correct me if I am wrong. Remember Hindus were wedded to the idea of akhand bharat... Pakistan hadn`t figured into their calcutations.
Shishpa... Like I pointed out you need to read H M Seervai`s book... or go through the 14 volumes of transfer of power papers... alternatively you can go through Ainslee T Embree`s ``Sources of Indian Tradition`` Volume 2 (Columbia University Press), to see what the aims and objectives of the league were after 1937 and why.
You bring up an interesting point about Hindus ... but Hindus did not form as far as I know any major majority area per se nor did they claim any ``qaumiat`` as the sikhs did. Please correct me if I am wrong. Remember Hindus were wedded to the idea of akhand bharat... Pakistan hadn`t figured into their calcutations.
#537 Posted by harish_hyd on March 10, 2005 4:53:18 am
Manto,
I have read your post. I will present a detailed reply when I`m back online tomorrow.
I have read your post. I will present a detailed reply when I`m back online tomorrow.
#540 Posted by MantoLives on March 10, 2005 5:34:44 am
Re: # 537
Will wait for your post. It is sad that people like you are so driven by hate as to prove something that just can`t be proven.
Will wait for your post. It is sad that people like you are so driven by hate as to prove something that just can`t be proven.
#534 Posted by harish_hyd on March 10, 2005 2:40:58 am
#532 by Mantolives
[1) Neither Iqbal, nor the famous Lahore Resolution by Zafrullah Khan envisaged that all Muslims would come to Pakistan. In fact both were clear in stating that there would be no exchange of populations.]
In that case, what was the demand for Pakistan all about? Care to explain? The professed aim of ‘your’ (since you seem to love that word) Jinnah and his cohorts was a nation where Muslims would be in a majority, where they need not fear domination by Hindus. If there was to be no exchange of populations, don’t you think it was a meaningless demand?
[2) The Lahore Resolution did not speak of ONE state. Iqbal for example only spoke of the North west India... and Rahmat Ali gave the idea of ``Pakistan`` and ``Bang-e-Islam/Bangistan`` ... Even as late as 1947, Jinnah was ready to entertain the idea of an independent Bengal... it was your Nehru who balked and said this would lead to ``Balkanization`` of India...]
Please tell me where I have disputed that. One or two, the idea was to have Muslim-majority nation/s, where Muslims need not have to fear subjugation by Hindus.
[On both counts you have proved that little knowledge is dangerous.]
And you have proved that love is indeed blind. In your worship of Jinnah, you seem blind to his faults. History holds him guilty for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Hindus as well as Muslims, not to forget Sikhs.
[1) Neither Iqbal, nor the famous Lahore Resolution by Zafrullah Khan envisaged that all Muslims would come to Pakistan. In fact both were clear in stating that there would be no exchange of populations.]
In that case, what was the demand for Pakistan all about? Care to explain? The professed aim of ‘your’ (since you seem to love that word) Jinnah and his cohorts was a nation where Muslims would be in a majority, where they need not fear domination by Hindus. If there was to be no exchange of populations, don’t you think it was a meaningless demand?
[2) The Lahore Resolution did not speak of ONE state. Iqbal for example only spoke of the North west India... and Rahmat Ali gave the idea of ``Pakistan`` and ``Bang-e-Islam/Bangistan`` ... Even as late as 1947, Jinnah was ready to entertain the idea of an independent Bengal... it was your Nehru who balked and said this would lead to ``Balkanization`` of India...]
Please tell me where I have disputed that. One or two, the idea was to have Muslim-majority nation/s, where Muslims need not have to fear subjugation by Hindus.
[On both counts you have proved that little knowledge is dangerous.]
And you have proved that love is indeed blind. In your worship of Jinnah, you seem blind to his faults. History holds him guilty for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Hindus as well as Muslims, not to forget Sikhs.
#535 Posted by MantoLives on March 10, 2005 4:27:47 am
Re: # 534
For a person who was untill yesterday confusing two very different South Asian leaders, you seem to speak like you are an authority... which is just sad. It is no wonder that you take such a simplistic view of history:
``In that case, what was the demand for Pakistan all about? Care to explain?``
The Pakistan demand was a bargaining counter for parity at the center. It has been proved by the transfer of power papers and many researchers including Mr. H M Seervai, the constitution expert from India and a historian.
``The professed aim of ‘your’ (since you seem to love that word) Jinnah and his cohorts was a nation where Muslims would be in a majority, where they need not fear domination by Hindus.``
No... please refer to my response to Rahul Capri.
Also thanks for admitting that the creation of Bangladesh in no way was a negation of the so called Pakistan demand. Bangladesh was always envisaged in the original resolution as an independent entity.
``And you have proved that love is indeed blind. In your worship of Jinnah, you seem blind to his faults. History holds him guilty for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Hindus as well as Muslims, not to forget Sikhs.``
No responsible historian does that, be it Ainslee T Embree, Raj Mohan Gandhi, H V Hodson or Wolpert... ofcourse some journalese authors (mostly Indian) have their own way of looking at things, but then they never claimed to be historians. In fact quite the contrary a serious historian and legal luminary of India, H M Seervai holds Nehru and Patel responsible. Now here is a respected member of the Indian legal fraternity going through the transfer of power papers and coming to this conclusions. The fact is no matter how you look at it.. the massacres of hindus muslims and sikhs happened because of the partition of Bengal and Punjab, to which Muslim League was opposed. If at all you will find a scape goat it will be Nehru, Patel and Mountbatten who insisted on the partition of these provinces... creating the havoc.
Love is not blind... but hatred certainly is .. of which you are a perfect case. You refuse to read history, you make awful errors, and you think that you can rationalize the past in your head. No wonder Pakistan-India relations are doomed... because people like you represent the future.
I can just hope that some day you will pick up a reasonable book on history and bury those snakes of hate...
-YLH
For a person who was untill yesterday confusing two very different South Asian leaders, you seem to speak like you are an authority... which is just sad. It is no wonder that you take such a simplistic view of history:
``In that case, what was the demand for Pakistan all about? Care to explain?``
The Pakistan demand was a bargaining counter for parity at the center. It has been proved by the transfer of power papers and many researchers including Mr. H M Seervai, the constitution expert from India and a historian.
``The professed aim of ‘your’ (since you seem to love that word) Jinnah and his cohorts was a nation where Muslims would be in a majority, where they need not fear domination by Hindus.``
No... please refer to my response to Rahul Capri.
Also thanks for admitting that the creation of Bangladesh in no way was a negation of the so called Pakistan demand. Bangladesh was always envisaged in the original resolution as an independent entity.
``And you have proved that love is indeed blind. In your worship of Jinnah, you seem blind to his faults. History holds him guilty for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Hindus as well as Muslims, not to forget Sikhs.``
No responsible historian does that, be it Ainslee T Embree, Raj Mohan Gandhi, H V Hodson or Wolpert... ofcourse some journalese authors (mostly Indian) have their own way of looking at things, but then they never claimed to be historians. In fact quite the contrary a serious historian and legal luminary of India, H M Seervai holds Nehru and Patel responsible. Now here is a respected member of the Indian legal fraternity going through the transfer of power papers and coming to this conclusions. The fact is no matter how you look at it.. the massacres of hindus muslims and sikhs happened because of the partition of Bengal and Punjab, to which Muslim League was opposed. If at all you will find a scape goat it will be Nehru, Patel and Mountbatten who insisted on the partition of these provinces... creating the havoc.
Love is not blind... but hatred certainly is .. of which you are a perfect case. You refuse to read history, you make awful errors, and you think that you can rationalize the past in your head. No wonder Pakistan-India relations are doomed... because people like you represent the future.
I can just hope that some day you will pick up a reasonable book on history and bury those snakes of hate...
-YLH
#536 Posted by MantoLives on March 10, 2005 4:43:35 am
Re: # 535
PS: Harish Hyd
Please also observe how you are now jumping from argument to argument. You had raised a point about an alleged quote to question my stance on a secular Pakistan. It turned out to be from Maulana Mohamed Ali. Then you moved on to the inviability of Pakistan and how the creation of Bangladesh proved it wrong... when I showed you that the original demand had many states and not just one, you ``golmoled`` it. Now you have moved on to the issue of the loss of life during partition, which I have answered above.
What do you call this? I call this desperation on your part, arising from a refusal to read objective history.
PS: Harish Hyd
Please also observe how you are now jumping from argument to argument. You had raised a point about an alleged quote to question my stance on a secular Pakistan. It turned out to be from Maulana Mohamed Ali. Then you moved on to the inviability of Pakistan and how the creation of Bangladesh proved it wrong... when I showed you that the original demand had many states and not just one, you ``golmoled`` it. Now you have moved on to the issue of the loss of life during partition, which I have answered above.
What do you call this? I call this desperation on your part, arising from a refusal to read objective history.
#538 Posted by harish_hyd on March 10, 2005 4:56:51 am
Re: # 536
As has become a habit with you, you are jumping to conclusions. My aim is to prove that Jinnah was an opportunist of the worst kind who caused the massacre of lakhs of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs just to satisfy his ego. Like a cat on a hot tin roof, only you are getting jumpy and agitated.
May I suggest you stay calm till I come back online tomorrow?
As has become a habit with you, you are jumping to conclusions. My aim is to prove that Jinnah was an opportunist of the worst kind who caused the massacre of lakhs of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs just to satisfy his ego. Like a cat on a hot tin roof, only you are getting jumpy and agitated.
May I suggest you stay calm till I come back online tomorrow?
#539 Posted by MantoLives on March 10, 2005 5:32:10 am
Re: # 538
Yes I know your objective... and it is clear from your posts that you have failed miserably in it as usual.
Yes I know your objective... and it is clear from your posts that you have failed miserably in it as usual.
#531 Posted by ballukhan on March 9, 2005 10:15:32 pm
Some interesting news about the ba$tard mullahs trying their best to reclaim the theological roots of TNT!!
Islamists mount big anti-Pervez protest
REUTERS[ WEDNESDAY, MARCH 09, 2005 11:27:20 PM ]
ISLAMABAD: Several thousand Islamists protested on Wednesday against policies of President Pervez Musharraf that they said are turning Pakistan into a secular state.
Shouting ``Down with Musharraf`` and ``friend of America is a traitor to Islam,`` about 5,000 followers of Islamic parties rallied amid Musharraf`s calls for people to combat extremism and stop the misuse of mosques and madrassas.
``The rulers want to turn Pakistan into a secular state,`` Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a central leader of the six-party Islamic alliance told an emotionally-charged rally. ``But we will never allow them to do so,`` he promised as the crowd cheered.
The latest confrontation between Musharraf and Islamic parties erupted after the government issued new machine-readable passports in October. In line with international standards, they do not include a column specifying the holder`s religion.
Previously, Pakistani passports required bearers to state whether they were Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or affiliates of other religions.
The change has enraged Islamists, who have vowed protests to force the government to reverse it. ``The column of religion was removed to appease America,`` said Qazi Hussain Ahmed, head of the main Islamic opposition alliance.
``We will not accept any change in Islamic laws. They will face strong reaction if they tried to do so,`` said Ahmed.
Islamic groups hope to use the issue to strengthen their anti-Musharraf campaign, which has so far failed to mount any major challenge to the military ruler who in December backed down on his pledge to step down as chief of the country`s powerful army.
Islamists mount big anti-Pervez protest
REUTERS[ WEDNESDAY, MARCH 09, 2005 11:27:20 PM ]
ISLAMABAD: Several thousand Islamists protested on Wednesday against policies of President Pervez Musharraf that they said are turning Pakistan into a secular state.
Shouting ``Down with Musharraf`` and ``friend of America is a traitor to Islam,`` about 5,000 followers of Islamic parties rallied amid Musharraf`s calls for people to combat extremism and stop the misuse of mosques and madrassas.
``The rulers want to turn Pakistan into a secular state,`` Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a central leader of the six-party Islamic alliance told an emotionally-charged rally. ``But we will never allow them to do so,`` he promised as the crowd cheered.
The latest confrontation between Musharraf and Islamic parties erupted after the government issued new machine-readable passports in October. In line with international standards, they do not include a column specifying the holder`s religion.
Previously, Pakistani passports required bearers to state whether they were Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or affiliates of other religions.
The change has enraged Islamists, who have vowed protests to force the government to reverse it. ``The column of religion was removed to appease America,`` said Qazi Hussain Ahmed, head of the main Islamic opposition alliance.
``We will not accept any change in Islamic laws. They will face strong reaction if they tried to do so,`` said Ahmed.
Islamic groups hope to use the issue to strengthen their anti-Musharraf campaign, which has so far failed to mount any major challenge to the military ruler who in December backed down on his pledge to step down as chief of the country`s powerful army.
#530 Posted by harish_hyd on March 9, 2005 8:32:10 pm
#528 by Mantolives
[Now will you consider the possibility that since your premise was wrong... my conclusion might be right ?]
Absolutely not. Your premise was that Jinnah rallied Muslims in the name of Islam to instil a sense of Muslim nationalism in them. While it worked in that it helped Jinnah secure Pakistan, it was overall a failure, because of two reasons:
1. Bangladesh proved that Islam/Muslim identity alone cannot work as the unifying gel.
2. Jinnah demanded a separate nation for Muslims because he feared they would be relegated to second-class stature. Muslims left behind in India have proved that fear wrong.
[Now will you consider the possibility that since your premise was wrong... my conclusion might be right ?]
Absolutely not. Your premise was that Jinnah rallied Muslims in the name of Islam to instil a sense of Muslim nationalism in them. While it worked in that it helped Jinnah secure Pakistan, it was overall a failure, because of two reasons:
1. Bangladesh proved that Islam/Muslim identity alone cannot work as the unifying gel.
2. Jinnah demanded a separate nation for Muslims because he feared they would be relegated to second-class stature. Muslims left behind in India have proved that fear wrong.
#532 Posted by MantoLives on March 10, 2005 1:14:59 am
Re: # 530
First you confuse Maulana Mohammed Ali, held as a great hero by your Gandhiji, with Mr. Jinnah ... and now you are attributing ideas that I have not expressed. Please do show me where I have said that Jinnah used Islam to instill a spirit of Muslim nationalism... quite the contrary, I said that it was the lack of religiousity which made him attractive to all Muslim sects.
Jinnah`s final objectives were not to create Pakistan. That much is clear from H M Seervai`s book ``Partition of India: Legend and Reality`` ... and the transfer of power papers.
Now taking your argument at face value... the Pakistan Demand from day 1 never incorporated the two ``ideas`` you are attributing to it...
1) Neither Iqbal, nor the famous Lahore Resolution by Zafrullah Khan envisaged that all Muslims would come to Pakistan. In fact both were clear in stating that there would be no exchange of populations.
2) The Lahore Resolution did not speak of ONE state. Iqbal for example only spoke of the North west India... and Rahmat Ali gave the idea of ``Pakistan`` and ``Bang-e-Islam/Bangistan`` ... Even as late as 1947, Jinnah was ready to entertain the idea of an independent Bengal... it was your Nehru who balked and said this would lead to ``Balkanization`` of India...
So in essence your Indira ji basically finished off her Father`s idea of two states instead of three in 1971.
On both counts you have proved that little knowledge is dangerous.
First you confuse Maulana Mohammed Ali, held as a great hero by your Gandhiji, with Mr. Jinnah ... and now you are attributing ideas that I have not expressed. Please do show me where I have said that Jinnah used Islam to instill a spirit of Muslim nationalism... quite the contrary, I said that it was the lack of religiousity which made him attractive to all Muslim sects.
Jinnah`s final objectives were not to create Pakistan. That much is clear from H M Seervai`s book ``Partition of India: Legend and Reality`` ... and the transfer of power papers.
Now taking your argument at face value... the Pakistan Demand from day 1 never incorporated the two ``ideas`` you are attributing to it...
1) Neither Iqbal, nor the famous Lahore Resolution by Zafrullah Khan envisaged that all Muslims would come to Pakistan. In fact both were clear in stating that there would be no exchange of populations.
2) The Lahore Resolution did not speak of ONE state. Iqbal for example only spoke of the North west India... and Rahmat Ali gave the idea of ``Pakistan`` and ``Bang-e-Islam/Bangistan`` ... Even as late as 1947, Jinnah was ready to entertain the idea of an independent Bengal... it was your Nehru who balked and said this would lead to ``Balkanization`` of India...
So in essence your Indira ji basically finished off her Father`s idea of two states instead of three in 1971.
On both counts you have proved that little knowledge is dangerous.
#526 Posted by harish_hyd on March 9, 2005 5:06:33 am
#519 by Mantolives
OK Manto, I`m sorry I was wrong about it. It was indeed Maulana Mohammed Ali.
But when and where did I claim about being informed about South Asian history? It is puzzling.
OK Manto, I`m sorry I was wrong about it. It was indeed Maulana Mohammed Ali.
But when and where did I claim about being informed about South Asian history? It is puzzling.
#527 Posted by MantoLives on March 9, 2005 5:12:27 am
Re: # 526
Thanks for the retraction... you have in the past acted in such a way as taking a condescending tone towards me.
Thanks for the retraction... you have in the past acted in such a way as taking a condescending tone towards me.
#528 Posted by MantoLives on March 9, 2005 5:23:20 am
Re: # 527
Now will you consider the possibility that since your premise was wrong... my conclusion might be right ?
Now will you consider the possibility that since your premise was wrong... my conclusion might be right ?
#525 Posted by MantoLives on March 9, 2005 4:51:57 am
Ladies and gentlemen...
It is sad to see a person like Harish Hyd, who claims to be informed about South Asian History, confusing Mohammed Ali of the Ali Brothers with Mr. Jinnah.
Sadly... people don`t listen when I tell them to read more. Mohammed Ali, Gandhi`s ally, had an axe to grind with Gandhi in 1924... after Gandhi left the Khilafat Movement. Gandhi also made a similar statement: ``I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian``.
Poor Jinnah had nothing to do with any of these statements by the two leaders held by the Indians as great freedom fighters... a.k.a Gandhi and Maulana Muhammad Ali.
It is sad to see a person like Harish Hyd, who claims to be informed about South Asian History, confusing Mohammed Ali of the Ali Brothers with Mr. Jinnah.
Sadly... people don`t listen when I tell them to read more. Mohammed Ali, Gandhi`s ally, had an axe to grind with Gandhi in 1924... after Gandhi left the Khilafat Movement. Gandhi also made a similar statement: ``I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian``.
Poor Jinnah had nothing to do with any of these statements by the two leaders held by the Indians as great freedom fighters... a.k.a Gandhi and Maulana Muhammad Ali.
#518 Posted by harish_hyd on March 9, 2005 2:46:14 am
Where can this happen but in India?
A Muslim woman`s Hindu temple in Varanasi
Excerpts:
``Noor Fatima, who laid the foundation for the Shiva Temple, claimed that Shiva had visited her in her dream, prompting her to build the temple. Although Fatima`s faith strictly prohibits idol worship, she decided to build the temple out of respect and tolerance for Hinduism.``
``A lawyer by profession, Fatima claims she has been meeting Lord Shiva of and on in her in dreams for the past six years.``
````I got the inspiration to built this temple in a dream. When I got the idea I had only five thousand rupees with me. But I managed to complete it. Everyone around helped me,`` she said.``
A Muslim woman`s Hindu temple in Varanasi
Excerpts:
``Noor Fatima, who laid the foundation for the Shiva Temple, claimed that Shiva had visited her in her dream, prompting her to build the temple. Although Fatima`s faith strictly prohibits idol worship, she decided to build the temple out of respect and tolerance for Hinduism.``
``A lawyer by profession, Fatima claims she has been meeting Lord Shiva of and on in her in dreams for the past six years.``
````I got the inspiration to built this temple in a dream. When I got the idea I had only five thousand rupees with me. But I managed to complete it. Everyone around helped me,`` she said.``
#517 Posted by harish_hyd on March 9, 2005 1:41:42 am
Re: # 156
Further, this was in 1924, way before 1937 which was when you claim he became the spokesman for Muslims.
Further, this was in 1924, way before 1937 which was when you claim he became the spokesman for Muslims.
#521 Posted by MantoLives on March 9, 2005 4:19:18 am
Re: # 517
As informed earlier... Jinnah had not made any such comments.
It was Mohammed Ali of the Ali Brothers... the erstwhile leader and Gandhi ally... who in 1924 was disillusioned by Gandhi for breaking away from the KM.
As informed earlier... Jinnah had not made any such comments.
It was Mohammed Ali of the Ali Brothers... the erstwhile leader and Gandhi ally... who in 1924 was disillusioned by Gandhi for breaking away from the KM.
#522 Posted by MantoLives on March 9, 2005 4:43:44 am
Re: # 521
PS: Had you read something of Jinnah... you would know that such a statement was not even possible... but its ok... don`t take my advice... don`t read... keep distorting history.
PS: Had you read something of Jinnah... you would know that such a statement was not even possible... but its ok... don`t take my advice... don`t read... keep distorting history.
#516 Posted by harish_hyd on March 9, 2005 1:25:55 am
# various by Mantolives
Manto,
While I really appreciate you belief in Jinnah’s ideals (too bad there aren’t too many takers for Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas these days in India), calling him secular is a colossal injustice to those who suffered as a result of the partition. For wasn’t he the man who said in a speech at Aligarh in 1924, “However pure Mr. Gandhi`s character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion, inferior to any Musalman, even though he be without character.” In another meeting held at Aminabad Park in Lucknow, Mohammed Ali endorsed his previous statement without any hesitation: “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Musalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi” (Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 8. p. 302).
Now how can a man who blatantly believed in such prejudices ever want a secular nation? Even if we go by your claim that he rallied Muslims on the basis of Islam to instill a sense of Muslim nationalism, do you seriously believe he could, or expect Pakistanis to treat non-Muslims in Pakistan in a just manner given his own prejudices?
Thanks.
Manto,
While I really appreciate you belief in Jinnah’s ideals (too bad there aren’t too many takers for Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas these days in India), calling him secular is a colossal injustice to those who suffered as a result of the partition. For wasn’t he the man who said in a speech at Aligarh in 1924, “However pure Mr. Gandhi`s character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion, inferior to any Musalman, even though he be without character.” In another meeting held at Aminabad Park in Lucknow, Mohammed Ali endorsed his previous statement without any hesitation: “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Musalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi” (Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 8. p. 302).
Now how can a man who blatantly believed in such prejudices ever want a secular nation? Even if we go by your claim that he rallied Muslims on the basis of Islam to instill a sense of Muslim nationalism, do you seriously believe he could, or expect Pakistanis to treat non-Muslims in Pakistan in a just manner given his own prejudices?
Thanks.
#520 Posted by MantoLives on March 9, 2005 3:07:05 am
Harish Hyd....
Please do read the response... above.
Mohammed Ali of the Ali Brothers is not the same as Jinnah... just fyi.
Infact Mohammed Ali of the Ali Brothers tried to beat up Jinnah in 1921 ... for not calling Gandhi ``Mahatma`` ... so here is another irony... the chap is yours ... the kind Gandhi brought into forefront of the politics instead of Jinnah.
Please do read the response... above.
Mohammed Ali of the Ali Brothers is not the same as Jinnah... just fyi.
Infact Mohammed Ali of the Ali Brothers tried to beat up Jinnah in 1921 ... for not calling Gandhi ``Mahatma`` ... so here is another irony... the chap is yours ... the kind Gandhi brought into forefront of the politics instead of Jinnah.
#519 Posted by MantoLives on March 9, 2005 3:03:43 am
Re: # 516
This quote is by (Maulana) Muhammad Ali, of the Ali Brothers, who is revered as a great leader of Independence movement... the person Gandhi had preferred over Jinnah. Jinnah never said anything of the sort. This is the problem with people like you ... not reading enough before you speak.
Time to update your information ... and grow up.
This quote is by (Maulana) Muhammad Ali, of the Ali Brothers, who is revered as a great leader of Independence movement... the person Gandhi had preferred over Jinnah. Jinnah never said anything of the sort. This is the problem with people like you ... not reading enough before you speak.
Time to update your information ... and grow up.
#515 Posted by rahul_capri on March 8, 2005 10:15:53 pm
Mantolives #504
However I am going beyond it and suggesting that Seervai and Ayesha Jalal were right.
Can you please elaborate on what you mean by that?
However I am going beyond it and suggesting that Seervai and Ayesha Jalal were right.
Can you please elaborate on what you mean by that?
#524 Posted by MantoLives on March 9, 2005 4:47:18 am
Re: # 515
That Jinnah`s ultimate objective rested on Congress rejecting partition and coming to a middle of the road agreement on the basis of provincial grouping with parity at the center.
That Jinnah`s ultimate objective rested on Congress rejecting partition and coming to a middle of the road agreement on the basis of provincial grouping with parity at the center.
#514 Posted by rsridhar on March 8, 2005 2:54:58 pm
re:#474 by parthaab
Thanks for your post.
There is no dearth of religious nut cases claiming that their own religion is superior. Since science is advancing fast, some would like to believe that the truths that are being unravelled by modern science were known to these religions already. Hence the efforts to find parallels in their own religious or old texts that would indicate that they were advanced in the past. In this case, Indians are not lagging behind! Read this article where someone is suggesting that all secrets of the world are hidden in the ancient sanskrit texts (just like the Da Vinci Code) and one has only to translate these texts!
http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=417689
(A lot has been said of the recent bestseller the Da Vinci Code and what it’s implications are for Christianity. However, did you know that India has it’s own little known about and little talked about ‘code’ and that whoever cracks this code will not only change the future of the planet but will go onto rule it!
This article discusses the following:
1. The Vimanas, space craft and extraordinary weapons referred to in the Indian epics.
2. … AND it’s all true – review the evidence for yourself!
3. Lost fountain of knowledge
- the Indian Emperor Ashoka and the ``Secret Society of the Nine Unknown Men``
4. Talpade:
- The story of the Indian Sanskrit Scholar who built and flew a mercury engine aircraft in 1895 (8 years before the Wright Brothers). He built this aircraft from specs in Sanskrit manuscripts thousands of years old.
5. Who is benefiting from this knowledge today?
- So many have already benefited from these texts while the Indians themselves ignore the knowledge which is right under their nose!
6. Breaking the code.
- Whoever can bring together a multidisciplinary team comprising scientists, philosophers and Sanskrit scholars could unlock the knowledge locked away in these documents and change the future of the world.
I am sure you will agree that the facts discussed in this article are very thought provoking. All comments appreciated.
1. Vimanas, Space craft and extraordinary weapons referred to in the Indian epics
Ancient Indian texts on Vimanas are so numerous it would take several books to relate what they have to say.
The Ramayana describes a Vimana as a double-deck, circular (cylindrical) aircraft with portholes and a dome. It flew with the speed of the wind and gave forth a melodious sound (a humming noise?).
Sanskrit texts are filled with references to Gods who fought battles in the sky using Vimanas equipped with weapons as deadly as any we can deploy in these more enlightened times. For example, there is a passage in the Ramayana which reads: The Puspaka car that resembles the Sun and belongs to my brother was brought by the powerful Ravan; that aerial and excellent car going everywhere at will.... that car resembling a bright cloud in the sky.
``.. and the King [Rama] got in, and the excellent car at the command of the Raghira, rose up into the higher atmosphere.``
In the Mahabharatra, Asura Maya had a Vimana measuring twelve cubits in circumference, with four strong wheels.
The Ramayana, does have a highly detailed story in it of a trip to the moon in a Vihmana (or ``Astra``), and in fact details a battle on the moon with an ``Asvin`` airship. This is a small bit of evidence of anti-gravity and aerospace technology used by Indians.
The Mahabhrata records the use of other deadly weapons. `Indra`s Dart` operated via a circular `reflector`. When switched on, it produced a `shaft of light` which, when focused on any target, immediately `consumed it with its power`.
In one particular exchange, Krishna, is pursuing his enemy, Salva, in the sky, when Salva`s Vimana, the Saubha is made invisible in some way. Undeterred, Krishna immediately fires off a special weapon: `I quickly laid on an arrow, which killed by seeking out sound`.
Many other terrible weapons are described, quite matter of factly, in the Mahabharata, but the most fearsome of all is the one used against the Vrishis.
The narrative records:
Gurkha flying in his swift and powerful Vimana hurled against the three cities of the Vrishis and Andhakas a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousands suns, rose in all its splendor. It was the unknown weapon, the Iron Thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashesthe entire race of the Vrishnis and Andhakas.
The after-affects of this Iron Thunderbolt have an ominously recognizable ring. Apparently, those killed by it were so burnt that their corpses were unidentifiable. The survivors fared little better, as it caused their hair and nails to fall out.
2. … And its all true!!!
There are Sanskrit documents which describe how to build a Vimana!
In the Sanskrit Samarangana Sutradhara, it is written: Strong and durable must the body of the Vihmana be made, like a great flying bird of light material. Inside one must put the mercury engine with its iron heating apparatus underneath. By means of the power latent in the mercury which sets the driving whirlwind in motion, a man sitting inside may travel a great distance in the sky. The movements of the Vimana are such that it can vertically ascend, vertically descend, move slanting forwards and backwards. With the help of the machines human beings can fly in the air and heavenly beings can come down to earth.
The ancient Indians wrote entire flight manuals on the control of the various types of Vimanas, many of which are still in existence, and some have even been translated into English.
The Samara Sutradhara is a scientific treatise dealing with every possible angle of air travel in a Vimana. There are 230 stanzas dealing with the construction, take-off, cruising for thousand of miles, normal and forced landings, and even possible collisions with birds. In 1875, the Vaimanika Sastra, a fourth century B.C. text written by Bharadvajy the Wise, using even older texts as his source, was rediscovered in a temple in India.
It dealt with the operation of Vimanas and included information on the steering, precautions for long flights, protection of the airships from storms and lightning and how to switch the drive to ``solar energy`` from a free energy source which sounds like ``anti-gravity.`` The Vaimanika Sastra (or Vymaanika-Shaastra) has eight chapters with diagrams, describing three types of aircraft, including apparatuses that could neither catch on fire nor break. It also mentions 31 essential parts of these vehicles and 16 materials from which they are constructed, which absorb light and heat; for which reason they were considered suitable for the construction of Vimanas.
This document has been translated into English and is available by writing the publisher: VYMAANIDASHAASTRA AERONAUTICS by Maharishi Bharadwaaja, translated into English and edited, printed and published by Mr. G. R.Josyer, Mysore, India, 1979. Mr. Josyer is the director of the International Academy of Sanskrit Investigation, located in Mysore. There seems to be no doubt that Vimanas were powered by some sort of ``anti-gravity.`` Vimanas took off vertically, and were capable of hovering in the sky, like a modern helicopter or dirigible. Bharadvajy the Wise refers to no less than seventy authorities and 10 experts of air travel in antiquity! (These sources are now lost!)
Vimanas were kept in a Vimana Griha, a kind of hanger, and were sometimes said to be propelled by a yellowish-white liquid, and sometimes by some sort of mercury compound, though writers seem confused in this matter. It is most likely that the later writers on Vimanas, wrote as observers and from earlier texts, and were understandably confused on the principle of their propulsion. The ``yellowish- white liquid`` sounds suspiciously like gasoline, and perhaps Vimanas had a number of different propulsion sources, including combustion engines and even ``pulse-jet`` engines. There are so many such texts and most of them have not even been translated into English yet.
It is evident that ancient Indians flew around in these vehicles, all over Asia, and even, apparently, to South America. Writing found at Mohenjodaro (now in Pakistan) has also been found in one other place in the world: Easter Island! Was Easter Island an ancient Indian air base?
Nuclear war 8,000 years ago
A heavy layer of radioactive ash in Rajasthan, India, covers a three-square mile area, ten miles west of Jodhpur. Scientists are investigating the site, where a housing development was being built.
For some time it has been established that there is a very high rate of birth defects and cancer in the area under construction. The levels of radiation there have registered so high on investigators` gauges that the Indian government has now cordoned off the region. Scientists have unearthed an ancient city where evidence shows an atomic blast dating back thousands of years, from 8,000 to 12,000 years, destroyed most of the buildings and probably a half-million people. One researcher estimates that the nuclear bomb used was about the size of the ones dropped on Japan in 1945.
The Mahabharata clearly describes a catastrophic blast that rocked the continent.
Archeologist Francis Taylor says that etchings in some nearby temples he has managed to translate suggest that they prayed to be spared from the great light that was coming to lay ruin to the city. (Construction has halted while the site is under investigation.)
3. Lost fountain of knowledge
The Indian Emperor Ashoka started a ``Secret Society of the Nine Unknown Men``: great Indian scientists who were supposed to catalogue the many sciences. Ashoka kept their work secret because he was afraid that the advanced science catalogued by these men, culled from ancient Indian sources, would be used for the evil purpose of war, which Ashoka was strongly against, having been converted to Buddhism after defeating a rival army in a bloody battle. The ``Nine Unknown Men`` wrote a total of nine books, presumably one each. One of these books was titled ``The Secrets of Gravitation!`` This book, known to historians, but not actually seen by them dealt chiefly with ``gravity control.`` It is presumably still around somewhere, kept in a secret library in India, Tibet or elsewhere. One can certainly understand Ashoka`s reasoning for wanting to keep such knowledge a secret.
Ashoka was also aware of devastating wars using such advanced vehicles and other ``futuristic weapons`` that had destroyed the ancient Indian ``Rama Empire`` several thousand years before.
Unknown alloys have been revealed in the ancient palm leaf manuscripts. The writer and Sanskrit scholar Subramanyam Iyer has spent many years of his life deciphering old collections of palm leaves found in the villages of his native Karnataka in southern India.
One of the palm leaf manuscripts they intend to decipher is the Amsu Bodhini, which, according to an anonymous text of 1931, contains information about the planets; the different kinds of light, heat, color, and electromagnetic fields; the methods used to construct machines capable of attracting solar rays and, in turn, of analysing and separating their energy components; the possibility of conversing with people in remote places and sending messages by cable; and the manufacture of machines to transport people to other planets!
4. Talpade – The Indian Sanskrit scholar who built and flew a mercury engine aircraft in 1895, 8 years before the Wright brothers!
Shivkur Bapuji Talpade, flew an unmanned aircraft, eight years before the Wright brothers demonstrated on December 17th 1903 that it was possible for a ‘manned heavier than air machine to fly’. But, in 1895, eight years earlier, the Sanskrit scholar Shivkar Bapuji Talpade had designed a basic aircraft called Marutsakthi (meaning Power of Air) based on Vedic technology documented in ancient Sanskrit manuscripts. His demonstration flight took place before a large audience in the Chowpathy beach of Bombay. The importance of the Wright brothers lies in the fact, that it was a manned flight for a distance of 120 feet and Orville Wright became the first man to fly. But Talpade’s unmanned aircraft flew to a height of 1500 feet before crashing down and the historian Evan Koshtka, has described Talpade as the ‘first creator of an aircraft’.
This historic day in 1895 (unfortunately the actual date is not mentioned in the Kesari newspaper of Pune which covered the event) was witnessed by the famous Indian judge/ nationalist/ Mahadeva Govin-da Ranade and H H Sayaji Rao Gaekwad.
It is important to note that Talpade was no scientist, just a sanskrit scholar who had built his aircraft entirely from the rich treasury of India’s Vedas.
Shivkar Bapuji Talpade was born in 1864 in the locality of Chirabazar at Dukkarwadi in Bombay. He was a scholar of Sanskrit and from his young age was attracted by the Vaimanika Sastra (Aeronautical Science) expounded by the great Indian sage Maharishi Bhardwaja.
Surprisingly according to the bi-monthly Ancient Skies published in USA, the aircraft engines being developed for future use by NASA also uses mercury bombardment units powered by Solar cells! Interestingly, the impulse is generated in seven stages. The mercury propellant is first vapourised fed into the thruster discharge chamber ionised converted into plasma by a combination with electrons broke down electrically and then accelerated through small openings in a screen to pass out of the engine at velocities between 1200 to 3000 kilometres per minute! But so far NASA has been able to produce an experimental basis only a one pound of thrust by its scientists a power derivation virtually useless. But over 100 years ago Talpade was able to use his knowledge of Vaimanika Shastra to produce sufficient thrust to lift his aircraft 1500 feet into the air!
Maharaja Sayaji Rao Gaekwad of Baroda was a great supporter of the Sciences in India, and was willing to help Talpade with funds to build his aircraft and the mercury engines.
But the success of an Indian scientist was not liked by the Imperial rulers. Warned by the British Government the Maharaja of Baroda stopped helping Talpade.
Talpade passed away in 1916 unhonoured, in his own country. It is said that the remains of the Marutsakthi (the aircraft Tapade built) were ‘sold’ to a British company by Talpade’s relatives.
5. Who is benefiting from this knowledge today?
Robert Oppenheimer inventor of the atom bomb was well known for studying ancient Indian texts and perhaps drew more than inspiration from them. Just before the first Atom Bom test, Oppenheimer famously quoted from the Gita saying, ‘I have become Death, Destroyer of Worlds``.
It is interesting to note, that the Nazis developed the first practical pulse-jet engines for their V-8 rocket ``buzz bombs.`` Hitler and the Nazi staff were exceptionally interested in ancient India and Tibet and sent expeditions to both these places yearly, starting in the 30`s, in order to gather esoteric evidence that they did so, and perhaps it was from these people that the Nazis gained some of their scientific information!
Only a few years ago, the Chinese discovered some sanskrit documents in Lhasa, Tibet and sent them to the University of Chandrigarh to be translated. Dr. Ruth Reyna of the University said recently that the documents contain directions for building interstellar spaceships! Their method of propulsion, she said, was ``anti- gravitational`` and was based upon a system analogous to that of ``laghima,`` the unknown power of the ego existing in man`s physiological makeup, ``a centrifugal force strong enough to counteract all gravitational pull.`` According to Hindu Yogis, it is this ``laghima`` which enables a person to levitate.
Dr. Reyna said that on board these machines, which were called ``Astras`` by the text, the ancient Indians could have sent a detachment of men onto any planet, according to the document, which is thought to be thousands of years old. The manuscripts were also said to reveal the secret of ``antima``; ``the cap of invisibility`` and ``garima``; ``how to become as heavy as a mountain of lead.`` Naturally, Indian scientists did not take the texts very seriously, but then became more positive about the value of them when the Chinese announced that they were including certain parts of the data for study in their space program! This was one of the first instances of a government admitting to be researching anti-gravity.
6. Cracking the code
There is a wealth of knowledge locked away in Sanskrit manuscripts, 80% of which have not even been translated yet. Talpade managed to successfully fly an aircraft in 1895 using the knowledge in these Sanskrit documents. Remember, he was not a scientist, just a Sanskrit scholar. Just imagine what could be achieved if experts in science, Sanskrit and philosophy get together to crack the code! Whoever cracks it will change the future of the world and will probably dominate it.
Ranjan Bhattacharya )
Pity few can read sanskrit now-a-days!
Sridhar
Thanks for your post.
There is no dearth of religious nut cases claiming that their own religion is superior. Since science is advancing fast, some would like to believe that the truths that are being unravelled by modern science were known to these religions already. Hence the efforts to find parallels in their own religious or old texts that would indicate that they were advanced in the past. In this case, Indians are not lagging behind! Read this article where someone is suggesting that all secrets of the world are hidden in the ancient sanskrit texts (just like the Da Vinci Code) and one has only to translate these texts!
http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=417689
(A lot has been said of the recent bestseller the Da Vinci Code and what it’s implications are for Christianity. However, did you know that India has it’s own little known about and little talked about ‘code’ and that whoever cracks this code will not only change the future of the planet but will go onto rule it!
This article discusses the following:
1. The Vimanas, space craft and extraordinary weapons referred to in the Indian epics.
2. … AND it’s all true – review the evidence for yourself!
3. Lost fountain of knowledge
- the Indian Emperor Ashoka and the ``Secret Society of the Nine Unknown Men``
4. Talpade:
- The story of the Indian Sanskrit Scholar who built and flew a mercury engine aircraft in 1895 (8 years before the Wright Brothers). He built this aircraft from specs in Sanskrit manuscripts thousands of years old.
5. Who is benefiting from this knowledge today?
- So many have already benefited from these texts while the Indians themselves ignore the knowledge which is right under their nose!
6. Breaking the code.
- Whoever can bring together a multidisciplinary team comprising scientists, philosophers and Sanskrit scholars could unlock the knowledge locked away in these documents and change the future of the world.
I am sure you will agree that the facts discussed in this article are very thought provoking. All comments appreciated.
1. Vimanas, Space craft and extraordinary weapons referred to in the Indian epics
Ancient Indian texts on Vimanas are so numerous it would take several books to relate what they have to say.
The Ramayana describes a Vimana as a double-deck, circular (cylindrical) aircraft with portholes and a dome. It flew with the speed of the wind and gave forth a melodious sound (a humming noise?).
Sanskrit texts are filled with references to Gods who fought battles in the sky using Vimanas equipped with weapons as deadly as any we can deploy in these more enlightened times. For example, there is a passage in the Ramayana which reads: The Puspaka car that resembles the Sun and belongs to my brother was brought by the powerful Ravan; that aerial and excellent car going everywhere at will.... that car resembling a bright cloud in the sky.
``.. and the King [Rama] got in, and the excellent car at the command of the Raghira, rose up into the higher atmosphere.``
In the Mahabharatra, Asura Maya had a Vimana measuring twelve cubits in circumference, with four strong wheels.
The Ramayana, does have a highly detailed story in it of a trip to the moon in a Vihmana (or ``Astra``), and in fact details a battle on the moon with an ``Asvin`` airship. This is a small bit of evidence of anti-gravity and aerospace technology used by Indians.
The Mahabhrata records the use of other deadly weapons. `Indra`s Dart` operated via a circular `reflector`. When switched on, it produced a `shaft of light` which, when focused on any target, immediately `consumed it with its power`.
In one particular exchange, Krishna, is pursuing his enemy, Salva, in the sky, when Salva`s Vimana, the Saubha is made invisible in some way. Undeterred, Krishna immediately fires off a special weapon: `I quickly laid on an arrow, which killed by seeking out sound`.
Many other terrible weapons are described, quite matter of factly, in the Mahabharata, but the most fearsome of all is the one used against the Vrishis.
The narrative records:
Gurkha flying in his swift and powerful Vimana hurled against the three cities of the Vrishis and Andhakas a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousands suns, rose in all its splendor. It was the unknown weapon, the Iron Thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashesthe entire race of the Vrishnis and Andhakas.
The after-affects of this Iron Thunderbolt have an ominously recognizable ring. Apparently, those killed by it were so burnt that their corpses were unidentifiable. The survivors fared little better, as it caused their hair and nails to fall out.
2. … And its all true!!!
There are Sanskrit documents which describe how to build a Vimana!
In the Sanskrit Samarangana Sutradhara, it is written: Strong and durable must the body of the Vihmana be made, like a great flying bird of light material. Inside one must put the mercury engine with its iron heating apparatus underneath. By means of the power latent in the mercury which sets the driving whirlwind in motion, a man sitting inside may travel a great distance in the sky. The movements of the Vimana are such that it can vertically ascend, vertically descend, move slanting forwards and backwards. With the help of the machines human beings can fly in the air and heavenly beings can come down to earth.
The ancient Indians wrote entire flight manuals on the control of the various types of Vimanas, many of which are still in existence, and some have even been translated into English.
The Samara Sutradhara is a scientific treatise dealing with every possible angle of air travel in a Vimana. There are 230 stanzas dealing with the construction, take-off, cruising for thousand of miles, normal and forced landings, and even possible collisions with birds. In 1875, the Vaimanika Sastra, a fourth century B.C. text written by Bharadvajy the Wise, using even older texts as his source, was rediscovered in a temple in India.
It dealt with the operation of Vimanas and included information on the steering, precautions for long flights, protection of the airships from storms and lightning and how to switch the drive to ``solar energy`` from a free energy source which sounds like ``anti-gravity.`` The Vaimanika Sastra (or Vymaanika-Shaastra) has eight chapters with diagrams, describing three types of aircraft, including apparatuses that could neither catch on fire nor break. It also mentions 31 essential parts of these vehicles and 16 materials from which they are constructed, which absorb light and heat; for which reason they were considered suitable for the construction of Vimanas.
This document has been translated into English and is available by writing the publisher: VYMAANIDASHAASTRA AERONAUTICS by Maharishi Bharadwaaja, translated into English and edited, printed and published by Mr. G. R.Josyer, Mysore, India, 1979. Mr. Josyer is the director of the International Academy of Sanskrit Investigation, located in Mysore. There seems to be no doubt that Vimanas were powered by some sort of ``anti-gravity.`` Vimanas took off vertically, and were capable of hovering in the sky, like a modern helicopter or dirigible. Bharadvajy the Wise refers to no less than seventy authorities and 10 experts of air travel in antiquity! (These sources are now lost!)
Vimanas were kept in a Vimana Griha, a kind of hanger, and were sometimes said to be propelled by a yellowish-white liquid, and sometimes by some sort of mercury compound, though writers seem confused in this matter. It is most likely that the later writers on Vimanas, wrote as observers and from earlier texts, and were understandably confused on the principle of their propulsion. The ``yellowish- white liquid`` sounds suspiciously like gasoline, and perhaps Vimanas had a number of different propulsion sources, including combustion engines and even ``pulse-jet`` engines. There are so many such texts and most of them have not even been translated into English yet.
It is evident that ancient Indians flew around in these vehicles, all over Asia, and even, apparently, to South America. Writing found at Mohenjodaro (now in Pakistan) has also been found in one other place in the world: Easter Island! Was Easter Island an ancient Indian air base?
Nuclear war 8,000 years ago
A heavy layer of radioactive ash in Rajasthan, India, covers a three-square mile area, ten miles west of Jodhpur. Scientists are investigating the site, where a housing development was being built.
For some time it has been established that there is a very high rate of birth defects and cancer in the area under construction. The levels of radiation there have registered so high on investigators` gauges that the Indian government has now cordoned off the region. Scientists have unearthed an ancient city where evidence shows an atomic blast dating back thousands of years, from 8,000 to 12,000 years, destroyed most of the buildings and probably a half-million people. One researcher estimates that the nuclear bomb used was about the size of the ones dropped on Japan in 1945.
The Mahabharata clearly describes a catastrophic blast that rocked the continent.
Archeologist Francis Taylor says that etchings in some nearby temples he has managed to translate suggest that they prayed to be spared from the great light that was coming to lay ruin to the city. (Construction has halted while the site is under investigation.)
3. Lost fountain of knowledge
The Indian Emperor Ashoka started a ``Secret Society of the Nine Unknown Men``: great Indian scientists who were supposed to catalogue the many sciences. Ashoka kept their work secret because he was afraid that the advanced science catalogued by these men, culled from ancient Indian sources, would be used for the evil purpose of war, which Ashoka was strongly against, having been converted to Buddhism after defeating a rival army in a bloody battle. The ``Nine Unknown Men`` wrote a total of nine books, presumably one each. One of these books was titled ``The Secrets of Gravitation!`` This book, known to historians, but not actually seen by them dealt chiefly with ``gravity control.`` It is presumably still around somewhere, kept in a secret library in India, Tibet or elsewhere. One can certainly understand Ashoka`s reasoning for wanting to keep such knowledge a secret.
Ashoka was also aware of devastating wars using such advanced vehicles and other ``futuristic weapons`` that had destroyed the ancient Indian ``Rama Empire`` several thousand years before.
Unknown alloys have been revealed in the ancient palm leaf manuscripts. The writer and Sanskrit scholar Subramanyam Iyer has spent many years of his life deciphering old collections of palm leaves found in the villages of his native Karnataka in southern India.
One of the palm leaf manuscripts they intend to decipher is the Amsu Bodhini, which, according to an anonymous text of 1931, contains information about the planets; the different kinds of light, heat, color, and electromagnetic fields; the methods used to construct machines capable of attracting solar rays and, in turn, of analysing and separating their energy components; the possibility of conversing with people in remote places and sending messages by cable; and the manufacture of machines to transport people to other planets!
4. Talpade – The Indian Sanskrit scholar who built and flew a mercury engine aircraft in 1895, 8 years before the Wright brothers!
Shivkur Bapuji Talpade, flew an unmanned aircraft, eight years before the Wright brothers demonstrated on December 17th 1903 that it was possible for a ‘manned heavier than air machine to fly’. But, in 1895, eight years earlier, the Sanskrit scholar Shivkar Bapuji Talpade had designed a basic aircraft called Marutsakthi (meaning Power of Air) based on Vedic technology documented in ancient Sanskrit manuscripts. His demonstration flight took place before a large audience in the Chowpathy beach of Bombay. The importance of the Wright brothers lies in the fact, that it was a manned flight for a distance of 120 feet and Orville Wright became the first man to fly. But Talpade’s unmanned aircraft flew to a height of 1500 feet before crashing down and the historian Evan Koshtka, has described Talpade as the ‘first creator of an aircraft’.
This historic day in 1895 (unfortunately the actual date is not mentioned in the Kesari newspaper of Pune which covered the event) was witnessed by the famous Indian judge/ nationalist/ Mahadeva Govin-da Ranade and H H Sayaji Rao Gaekwad.
It is important to note that Talpade was no scientist, just a sanskrit scholar who had built his aircraft entirely from the rich treasury of India’s Vedas.
Shivkar Bapuji Talpade was born in 1864 in the locality of Chirabazar at Dukkarwadi in Bombay. He was a scholar of Sanskrit and from his young age was attracted by the Vaimanika Sastra (Aeronautical Science) expounded by the great Indian sage Maharishi Bhardwaja.
Surprisingly according to the bi-monthly Ancient Skies published in USA, the aircraft engines being developed for future use by NASA also uses mercury bombardment units powered by Solar cells! Interestingly, the impulse is generated in seven stages. The mercury propellant is first vapourised fed into the thruster discharge chamber ionised converted into plasma by a combination with electrons broke down electrically and then accelerated through small openings in a screen to pass out of the engine at velocities between 1200 to 3000 kilometres per minute! But so far NASA has been able to produce an experimental basis only a one pound of thrust by its scientists a power derivation virtually useless. But over 100 years ago Talpade was able to use his knowledge of Vaimanika Shastra to produce sufficient thrust to lift his aircraft 1500 feet into the air!
Maharaja Sayaji Rao Gaekwad of Baroda was a great supporter of the Sciences in India, and was willing to help Talpade with funds to build his aircraft and the mercury engines.
But the success of an Indian scientist was not liked by the Imperial rulers. Warned by the British Government the Maharaja of Baroda stopped helping Talpade.
Talpade passed away in 1916 unhonoured, in his own country. It is said that the remains of the Marutsakthi (the aircraft Tapade built) were ‘sold’ to a British company by Talpade’s relatives.
5. Who is benefiting from this knowledge today?
Robert Oppenheimer inventor of the atom bomb was well known for studying ancient Indian texts and perhaps drew more than inspiration from them. Just before the first Atom Bom test, Oppenheimer famously quoted from the Gita saying, ‘I have become Death, Destroyer of Worlds``.
It is interesting to note, that the Nazis developed the first practical pulse-jet engines for their V-8 rocket ``buzz bombs.`` Hitler and the Nazi staff were exceptionally interested in ancient India and Tibet and sent expeditions to both these places yearly, starting in the 30`s, in order to gather esoteric evidence that they did so, and perhaps it was from these people that the Nazis gained some of their scientific information!
Only a few years ago, the Chinese discovered some sanskrit documents in Lhasa, Tibet and sent them to the University of Chandrigarh to be translated. Dr. Ruth Reyna of the University said recently that the documents contain directions for building interstellar spaceships! Their method of propulsion, she said, was ``anti- gravitational`` and was based upon a system analogous to that of ``laghima,`` the unknown power of the ego existing in man`s physiological makeup, ``a centrifugal force strong enough to counteract all gravitational pull.`` According to Hindu Yogis, it is this ``laghima`` which enables a person to levitate.
Dr. Reyna said that on board these machines, which were called ``Astras`` by the text, the ancient Indians could have sent a detachment of men onto any planet, according to the document, which is thought to be thousands of years old. The manuscripts were also said to reveal the secret of ``antima``; ``the cap of invisibility`` and ``garima``; ``how to become as heavy as a mountain of lead.`` Naturally, Indian scientists did not take the texts very seriously, but then became more positive about the value of them when the Chinese announced that they were including certain parts of the data for study in their space program! This was one of the first instances of a government admitting to be researching anti-gravity.
6. Cracking the code
There is a wealth of knowledge locked away in Sanskrit manuscripts, 80% of which have not even been translated yet. Talpade managed to successfully fly an aircraft in 1895 using the knowledge in these Sanskrit documents. Remember, he was not a scientist, just a Sanskrit scholar. Just imagine what could be achieved if experts in science, Sanskrit and philosophy get together to crack the code! Whoever cracks it will change the future of the world and will probably dominate it.
Ranjan Bhattacharya )
Pity few can read sanskrit now-a-days!
Sridhar
#513 Posted by sattar2 on March 8, 2005 12:11:25 pm
Romair,
Similarities sounded ok to me … based on a quick glance. Not much to add there.
- ”Ahmedis believe they are Muslims, despite their belief in Mirza Ahmad”.
Belief in a prophets after revelation of Quran is fully consistent with message of Quran. There is absolutely nothing in Quran that even remotely suggests end to prophethood. There is no contradiction between Quran and accepting prophets as they appear.
Sometime ago, when you asked, I provided support from Quran on truthfulness of Mirza Sahib. You then started discussing the need for much research to understand Quran’s position on prophethood etc. Holy mother of Christ … it’s been 1400 years!!! When will this research get done? And who will do it? That was a lame argument you presented when you failed to negate validity of my argument. You current statement is an extension of your earlier argument.
OK, fine, if you still stick by your statement, here’s one that makes the point: Romair, despite fasting in Ramadan, considers himself a Muslim. Fair enough?
- “I am against people declaring themselves Prophets.” What kind of a lame statement is this??? You defend this by further stating that … “there are enough prophets as it is”. What is the basis of your opinion? Such a statement would have been valid when Jesus, Noah, Lot showed up also.
How about if one says … there are too many divine books as it is … and therefore I am against considering Quran as a divine book. Such reasoning makes no arguments … only absurd statements, based on fanciful notions.
#512 Posted by Romair on March 8, 2005 10:34:02 am
sattar2 #510: You did not comment on the similarities I showed between our two replies. You seemed to completely disregard those. If my views are absurd, then are the similarities absurd also. I would be interested in your comments on those similarities.......
``”Ahmedis believe they are Muslims, despite their belief in Mirza Ahmad”
Yes. This is a fact. Is it not? I am not making a value judgement on Ahmedis, which should be completely clear from the part of my reply on which you did not offer any comments. I am not saying they are non-Muslims. I am just stating a fact, that Ahmedis consider themselves Muslims, even though they have a distinct difference in belief, with the rest of the Muslims on the issue of Mirza Ahmad. Is this not a fact?
``“I am against people declaring themselves Prophets.”
Yes. I am against this. Again this is my personal belief. I think there are enough prophets as it is. This is the personal belief of everyone who doesn`t consider Mirza Ahmad a prophet. Otherwise they would consider him one. I am openly and honestly stating it. Once again, I am not making a value judgement on you. I am just pointing out my own belief. Which I have a right to do. Just like you have a right to state your own......
I am not saying your belief of considering Mirza Ahmad a prophet is absurd, yet you are calling my opinions absurd......You are passing a judgement on my opinions, while I am not passing a judgement on yours.........Perhaps because you are getting overly defensive, and assuming that I am attacking your beliefs.........
In essence you are calling my opinions absurd, even though I belong to the minority (most likely) who is actually arguing in the favor of Ahmedis, based on my comment on which you did not reply. I have spent a better time of my interacts arguing with people that the Quran does not define a mechanism for declaring anyone a non-Muslim...........Yet you consider that absurd.........
``”Ahmedis believe they are Muslims, despite their belief in Mirza Ahmad”
Yes. This is a fact. Is it not? I am not making a value judgement on Ahmedis, which should be completely clear from the part of my reply on which you did not offer any comments. I am not saying they are non-Muslims. I am just stating a fact, that Ahmedis consider themselves Muslims, even though they have a distinct difference in belief, with the rest of the Muslims on the issue of Mirza Ahmad. Is this not a fact?
``“I am against people declaring themselves Prophets.”
Yes. I am against this. Again this is my personal belief. I think there are enough prophets as it is. This is the personal belief of everyone who doesn`t consider Mirza Ahmad a prophet. Otherwise they would consider him one. I am openly and honestly stating it. Once again, I am not making a value judgement on you. I am just pointing out my own belief. Which I have a right to do. Just like you have a right to state your own......
I am not saying your belief of considering Mirza Ahmad a prophet is absurd, yet you are calling my opinions absurd......You are passing a judgement on my opinions, while I am not passing a judgement on yours.........Perhaps because you are getting overly defensive, and assuming that I am attacking your beliefs.........
In essence you are calling my opinions absurd, even though I belong to the minority (most likely) who is actually arguing in the favor of Ahmedis, based on my comment on which you did not reply. I have spent a better time of my interacts arguing with people that the Quran does not define a mechanism for declaring anyone a non-Muslim...........Yet you consider that absurd.........
#510 Posted by sattar2 on March 8, 2005 9:48:36 am
Romair,
The issue is not whether you accept Mirza Sahib as a prophet or not. The issue is your absurd comments on Ahmadi views.
- ”Ahmedis believe they are Muslims, despite their belief in Mirza Ahmad”. As I have stated, belief in Mirza Sahib as a prophet of Allah in no way contradicts Islam. Rather, it is fully consistent with the message of Quran.
- “I am against people declaring themselves Prophets.” Apply this criterion to various prophets mentioned in Quran, and you’ll discover absurdity of your argument.
#509 Posted by arjun_m on March 8, 2005 8:14:41 am
#508 by Mantolives on March 8, 2005 8:10am PT
I`ll leave out the swallow/summer cliche...The ``dalits`` in question can always convert to sunni Islam and move to Pakistan...Of course, they`ll HAVE to convert to sunni Islam if they want to go to Pakiland....capt clueless has shown how Pakistan is an Islamic and not secular state...
I`ll leave out the swallow/summer cliche...The ``dalits`` in question can always convert to sunni Islam and move to Pakistan...Of course, they`ll HAVE to convert to sunni Islam if they want to go to Pakiland....capt clueless has shown how Pakistan is an Islamic and not secular state...
#504 Posted by MantoLives on March 8, 2005 6:34:53 am
rahul capri...
Indeed this nuanced position is what people like me have been harping about...
However I am going beyond it and suggesting that Seervai and Ayesha Jalal were right.
Indeed this nuanced position is what people like me have been harping about...
However I am going beyond it and suggesting that Seervai and Ayesha Jalal were right.
#503 Posted by rahul_capri on March 8, 2005 5:58:10 am
Manto,Jinnah`s concept of a secular state, where Muslims are in majority and Hindus have to do the assimilation,and not the other way around as happens in India,makes sense to me. But it is a nuanced concept, not easy to understand or to follow by people in general.
#502 Posted by tahmed32 on March 8, 2005 5:55:19 am
further to my post #500: At the end of my second para. there, please add the following sentence to make my point perfectly clear: ``And the fact is that you (Mr. Meer) have studiously ignored this very relevant example in every single post you have written in response, even though it is central to the point I have been making!!``
#501 Posted by tahmed32 on March 8, 2005 5:43:36 am
ballukhan #498 Thanks. It is obvious that on chowk at least Mr. Meer is fooling no one but himself.
#500 Posted by tahmed32 on March 8, 2005 5:41:15 am
Kamran Meer #500 You write ``What is most strange is that on the one hand you say that I am welcome to my beliefs but in the same sentence you tell me that I have no right to present my beliefs as having any basis in the Quran. ``
Nothing strange here - you have a right to your beliefs. You dont have right to distort facts and you dont have a right to ignore facts brought to your attention. And the fact is that you have been unable to back your claims about the role of sharia in Islam with anything in the Quran. And the fact is I have have repeatedly given you the example of those who consider themselves to be muslims because they do ``remembrance of God`` (repeating one of his 99 names as you said, e.g. or even doing the hajj), and yet murder muslims saying prayers in mosques.
Final Post.
Nothing strange here - you have a right to your beliefs. You dont have right to distort facts and you dont have a right to ignore facts brought to your attention. And the fact is that you have been unable to back your claims about the role of sharia in Islam with anything in the Quran. And the fact is I have have repeatedly given you the example of those who consider themselves to be muslims because they do ``remembrance of God`` (repeating one of his 99 names as you said, e.g. or even doing the hajj), and yet murder muslims saying prayers in mosques.
Final Post.
#499 Posted by ayaan2002 on March 8, 2005 5:21:07 am
#495 by tahmed 32:
tahmed32,
You have presented a strange argument by distorting almost everything I have written and you are still avoiding to interpret the Qur`anic verses I requested you to interpret.
I do not focus on ``dhikr`` or ``remembrance`` as the only aspect of Qur`an. I mentioned this subject only in connection with my examples on symbolic language. Please re-read my earlier posts.
What is most strange is that on the one hand you say that I am welcome to my beliefs but in the same sentence you tell me that I have no right to present my beliefs as having any basis in the Quran.
You are indeed not only a confused individual but an intolerant authoritarian because you want to impose your interpretation of Islam on everyone else.
wa llahu alam.
tahmed32,
You have presented a strange argument by distorting almost everything I have written and you are still avoiding to interpret the Qur`anic verses I requested you to interpret.
I do not focus on ``dhikr`` or ``remembrance`` as the only aspect of Qur`an. I mentioned this subject only in connection with my examples on symbolic language. Please re-read my earlier posts.
What is most strange is that on the one hand you say that I am welcome to my beliefs but in the same sentence you tell me that I have no right to present my beliefs as having any basis in the Quran.
You are indeed not only a confused individual but an intolerant authoritarian because you want to impose your interpretation of Islam on everyone else.
wa llahu alam.
#498 Posted by ballukhan on March 7, 2005 11:42:47 pm
Tahmed Saheb-
Full marks to you! Your point has been very well made . And you were very patient with the mumbo jumbo behind the `semiotics` and `cryptology` of divine signs that is being pushed by our friend as Islam. Indeed, the simplest of all the messages of the God has been turned into an art of obfuscation by the neo-mullahs!!
Full marks to you! Your point has been very well made . And you were very patient with the mumbo jumbo behind the `semiotics` and `cryptology` of divine signs that is being pushed by our friend as Islam. Indeed, the simplest of all the messages of the God has been turned into an art of obfuscation by the neo-mullahs!!
#497 Posted by MantoLives on March 7, 2005 11:21:43 pm
HP...
I see that you are arguing with Romair ... a pointless exercise in futility.
I asked him the same question about the ``Secular PPP``... he copped out with some excuse or the other... I have asked him this question several times in the last 4 or so years. It is ironic that PPP which says ``Islam is our religion`` is a ``Secular`` party, but Jinnah who said conclusively on several occasions that state would be completely impartial to religion is merely a Muslim modernist at best.
Romair`s answer then is that there is no mention of the word secular in Jinnah`s speeches, as if a clear pronouncement of religion being a personal matter and no business of the state is not enough. When confronted with the US constitution which doesn`t have the word secular in it... Romair beats the retreat... though he could have done well to borrow from the Christian fundamentalists (like he gets into bed Hindu fundamentalists as a matter of necessity) who say that the US constitution is not a secular document.
He says that the creation of Pakistan was not an outcome of a secular struggle. Here he fails to distinguish between ``Muslim nationalism`` (which had to be unconcerned with religion because of the division within the Muslim community) and ``Islam. He forgets that it was precisely Jinnah`s own personal secularism that made him attractive to Agha Khanis, Sunnis, Shias and Ahmadis alike... who rallied behind him. Had Jinnah been religious, he would be denounced by any of these groups. Romair forgets that the champions of Islamic order and Islamic theocracy like JUH etc with very few exceptions sided with the Congress Party and if they didn`t they were against Muslim League as with the Jamat-e-Islami.
Finally he forgets that Jinnah NEVER expected to get a Pakistan in the form that he got on August 14th 1947... he had rejected such a Pakistan in 1943. Jinnah`s final solution, now shown conclusively by the transfer of power papers, was along the lines of the Cabinet Mission Plan. So the developments of 3rd June 1947 were absolutely new for Mr. Jinnah. Jinnah was, by Mountbatten`s own admission, bullied into accepting the solution that had been prepared by Mountbatten, Nehru and Patel. So on 11th August 1947 when Jinnah stood up... he was making a new beginning, as his best laid plans had been disrupted by shortsighted Congress Leadership and their British champs...
On 11th August 1947 he sought to fashion a state that would not repeat the follies that had been committed till then. He reminded the constituent assembly members of that the British had ruled as long as they did simply because they were able to play Muslim against Hindu.... ``otherwise no one can hold a nation of 400 souls in subjection``. He wanted Pakistan to be a secular democratic state... because he had before him the mistakes the collective leadership of India, whether Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or Parsis had made.
-YLH
I see that you are arguing with Romair ... a pointless exercise in futility.
I asked him the same question about the ``Secular PPP``... he copped out with some excuse or the other... I have asked him this question several times in the last 4 or so years. It is ironic that PPP which says ``Islam is our religion`` is a ``Secular`` party, but Jinnah who said conclusively on several occasions that state would be completely impartial to religion is merely a Muslim modernist at best.
Romair`s answer then is that there is no mention of the word secular in Jinnah`s speeches, as if a clear pronouncement of religion being a personal matter and no business of the state is not enough. When confronted with the US constitution which doesn`t have the word secular in it... Romair beats the retreat... though he could have done well to borrow from the Christian fundamentalists (like he gets into bed Hindu fundamentalists as a matter of necessity) who say that the US constitution is not a secular document.
He says that the creation of Pakistan was not an outcome of a secular struggle. Here he fails to distinguish between ``Muslim nationalism`` (which had to be unconcerned with religion because of the division within the Muslim community) and ``Islam. He forgets that it was precisely Jinnah`s own personal secularism that made him attractive to Agha Khanis, Sunnis, Shias and Ahmadis alike... who rallied behind him. Had Jinnah been religious, he would be denounced by any of these groups. Romair forgets that the champions of Islamic order and Islamic theocracy like JUH etc with very few exceptions sided with the Congress Party and if they didn`t they were against Muslim League as with the Jamat-e-Islami.
Finally he forgets that Jinnah NEVER expected to get a Pakistan in the form that he got on August 14th 1947... he had rejected such a Pakistan in 1943. Jinnah`s final solution, now shown conclusively by the transfer of power papers, was along the lines of the Cabinet Mission Plan. So the developments of 3rd June 1947 were absolutely new for Mr. Jinnah. Jinnah was, by Mountbatten`s own admission, bullied into accepting the solution that had been prepared by Mountbatten, Nehru and Patel. So on 11th August 1947 when Jinnah stood up... he was making a new beginning, as his best laid plans had been disrupted by shortsighted Congress Leadership and their British champs...
On 11th August 1947 he sought to fashion a state that would not repeat the follies that had been committed till then. He reminded the constituent assembly members of that the British had ruled as long as they did simply because they were able to play Muslim against Hindu.... ``otherwise no one can hold a nation of 400 souls in subjection``. He wanted Pakistan to be a secular democratic state... because he had before him the mistakes the collective leadership of India, whether Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or Parsis had made.
-YLH
#505 Posted by shishapa on March 8, 2005 7:33:34 am
Re: # 497
``He forgets that it was precisely Jinnah`s own personal secularism that made him attractive to Agha Khanis, Sunnis, Shias and Ahmadis alike... who rallied behind him``
Mantoji, then why did not Hindus and Sikhs perhaps with very few exceptions rally behind Mr. Jinnah? Was not his personal secularism attractive and convincing for them?
Afterall, Mr. Jinnah had been articulating vision and concept of Pakistan for years,
why were not Hindus and Sikhs of convinced to join Muslim League to fight to
establish Pakistan?
Digressing here, I do not see Hindus, and Sikhs, and Buddhists joing or clamouring
behind Hurriyat in J & K eventhough Hurriyat claims to be fighting for Kashmiriyat,
just like you did not see Muslims joining Janasangh and later BJP in droves eventough
they claimed to be party of and for all Indians of all colours and hues!
``He forgets that it was precisely Jinnah`s own personal secularism that made him attractive to Agha Khanis, Sunnis, Shias and Ahmadis alike... who rallied behind him``
Mantoji, then why did not Hindus and Sikhs perhaps with very few exceptions rally behind Mr. Jinnah? Was not his personal secularism attractive and convincing for them?
Afterall, Mr. Jinnah had been articulating vision and concept of Pakistan for years,
why were not Hindus and Sikhs of convinced to join Muslim League to fight to
establish Pakistan?
Digressing here, I do not see Hindus, and Sikhs, and Buddhists joing or clamouring
behind Hurriyat in J & K eventhough Hurriyat claims to be fighting for Kashmiriyat,
just like you did not see Muslims joining Janasangh and later BJP in droves eventough
they claimed to be party of and for all Indians of all colours and hues!
#508 Posted by MantoLives on March 8, 2005 8:10:14 am
Re: # 505
But just to show you... here is a repeat of the events of 1939 when Ambedkar and Jinnah were together in protest against the Congress...
http://www.satribune.com/archives/jan05/P1_arun5.htm
Dalit Minority Raises Pakistan Flag in Indian Republic Day Protest
By Arun Rajnath
NEW DELHI, January 30: Indian minorities protest against discrimination in different ways but on India’s Republic Day on Jan 26, when the downcast Dalits raised the Pakistan flag in Meerut, they elevated their protest to an unacceptable level and were immediately arrested.
It was for the first time that Dalits had come forward with such a mode of raising their voice because even after 58 years there is no substantial reduction in abuse and maltreatment they face. They feel so oppressed, and depressed, they thought the best way to get noticed was to unfurl the Pakistani national flag on the Republic Day of India.
On occasions like the Independence Day, Republic Day and birth anniversary of the Father of the Nation, Mahatama Gandhi, this sort of anti-national activity is not uncommon. Raising diatribes against the system, burning effigies and copies of the Constitution of India, are normal ways of protest.
On January 26, 2005, the Republic Day of India, some Sikhs were arrested in Amritsar for hoisting the ‘Sikh Flag’ as a protest against the Indian system. Eight activists of the Dal Khalsa International were arrested under various charges, including sedition. Similar protests were also reported in the Northeastern States of India, apart from Jammu and Kashmir.
In Meerut, 60 kilometers Northeast of Delhi, two Dalits were arrested for hoisting the National Flag of Pakistan at the Ambedkar Park. They were demanding separate homeland for Dalits on the same argument as that of Pakistan.
The two arrested persons, Vijay Singh and Amit told the police that they hoisted the Pakistan flag because they consider Pakistan to be better than India. He said that the Dalit leader Bhimrao Ambedkar was elected to the Parliament by the help of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, which is why Dalits are natural allies of the Pakistani people.
Another Dalit, Amit was arrested for putting up posters in which Pakistan Zindabad (long live Pakistan) was written. Amit said that Indian polity is based on Brahaminical values, and Dalits are still a slave class. That is why a separate homeland is needed for Dalits, he said.
Dalit activist and Professor of the Jawahar Lal Nehru University, Surinder Singh Jodkha told the South Asia Tribune: “Such incidents are the manifestation of alienation and frustration. I cannot say that Dalits are safe in Pakistan or not. This is not the main question. The main question is if the Dalits are safe in India or not”.
“India is a democratic country, but Dalits are the most deprived class. They do not even have the right of franchise. In some of the areas, the upper classes decide to which candidate the Dalits would vote,” he said.
Jodkha said: “Dalits face ‘social apartheid’ even after 58 years of Independence. In fact, atrocities and violence against them have increased. Such violent incidents are on the increase in the Hindi-speaking belt, such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh. But you will be taken aback when you will know that Punjab has surpassed all the Indian States as far as maltreatment with Dalits is concerned.”
According to a report of the Social Justice and Empowerment Ministry, out of the 22,066 registered cases of atrocities against Dalits Madhya Pradesh had 5,087; Uttar Pradesh 1,778; Rajasthan 5,241 but Punjab had 6,771. The victims were mostly the agricultural laborers who have migrated to Punjab from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. But some of the Punjabi Dalits are known as Balmiki Sikhs who are also maltreated by Jat and Khatri Sikhs.
Ironically, Balmiki was a saint poet who had composed the epic Ramayana. Initially, he was a dacoit and known by the name of Ratnakar. He was a Shoodra, a lower caste person. But after the enlightenment, he set out for penance. He was so engrossed in the meditation, that balmikis (white ants) made home on his body. Hence, his name became Balmiki.
Religion is the easy target for the religiously and socially distressed people. In the Hindi-speaking belt, Dalits denounce Hinduism, and embrace Buddhism. But in Punjab, they denounce Sikhism, and found their own religious belief, apart from setting separate Gurdwaras for themselves.
In May 2004, one Baba Piyara Singh Bhaniyarawala and two others, Balbir Singh and Ramphal, were arrested by the police of Sirhind for disrespecting the Guru Granth Sahib.
Surinder Singh Jodkha says that the Dalits of the Doaba sub-region of Punjab hardly resemble their counterparts elsewhere in India. While they do not mind being identified as a scheduled caste, some of them dislike being called Dalits.
He says: “Despite the fact that very few among them own agricultural land, a large majority of them live in well-built brick houses and there would be hardly any lower caste family whose children did not go to school. Many of them have urban jobs and at least one person from every alternate household is abroad, either somewhere in the west or in the Gulf.”
“But some people are now having sympathy for Baba Piyara Singh and the like, because they are not allowed to enter the Gurdwaras built by the Jats. Many of them have built their separate Gurdwaras, but some of them go to the extent of sacrilegious outbursts,” he added.
Dalit Gurdwaras are locally known as ‘Ravidas Mandir’. Their structure is more or less look like a Sikh Gurdwara. The only major difference is that beside the Sikh holy book, the Dalits also keep a picture of Ravidas and Balmiki. They also keep photographs of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar.
However, the report of the Ministry says that in most of the cases, accused persons are released due to lack of evidence. This is the main reason of their resentment. During the last year, Indian courts passed decrees in 20,781 cases and only in 2,694 cases, the accused persons were punished. 18,087 cases were withdrawn due to pressure on the complainants.
Social Justice and Empowerment Minister, Meera Kumar told the South Asia Tribune: “There are about 140,000 cases of atrocities against Dalits pending in various Indian courts. Justice is delayed for the victims and they feel alienated and frustrated. I know well that the situation of Punjab is not better than other States. Frankly, in some cases, it is worse.”
“The Meerut incident should be an eye opener for everybody. We should try to understand the root cause of such incidents. Realizing the failure in the amelioration of the poor condition of Dalits, we are coordinating with the Human Rights Commission, Schedule Caste Commission, Schedule Tribe Commission, National Commission for Women and National Commission for Scavengers,” she added.
But just to show you... here is a repeat of the events of 1939 when Ambedkar and Jinnah were together in protest against the Congress...
http://www.satribune.com/archives/jan05/P1_arun5.htm
Dalit Minority Raises Pakistan Flag in Indian Republic Day Protest
By Arun Rajnath
NEW DELHI, January 30: Indian minorities protest against discrimination in different ways but on India’s Republic Day on Jan 26, when the downcast Dalits raised the Pakistan flag in Meerut, they elevated their protest to an unacceptable level and were immediately arrested.
It was for the first time that Dalits had come forward with such a mode of raising their voice because even after 58 years there is no substantial reduction in abuse and maltreatment they face. They feel so oppressed, and depressed, they thought the best way to get noticed was to unfurl the Pakistani national flag on the Republic Day of India.
On occasions like the Independence Day, Republic Day and birth anniversary of the Father of the Nation, Mahatama Gandhi, this sort of anti-national activity is not uncommon. Raising diatribes against the system, burning effigies and copies of the Constitution of India, are normal ways of protest.
On January 26, 2005, the Republic Day of India, some Sikhs were arrested in Amritsar for hoisting the ‘Sikh Flag’ as a protest against the Indian system. Eight activists of the Dal Khalsa International were arrested under various charges, including sedition. Similar protests were also reported in the Northeastern States of India, apart from Jammu and Kashmir.
In Meerut, 60 kilometers Northeast of Delhi, two Dalits were arrested for hoisting the National Flag of Pakistan at the Ambedkar Park. They were demanding separate homeland for Dalits on the same argument as that of Pakistan.
The two arrested persons, Vijay Singh and Amit told the police that they hoisted the Pakistan flag because they consider Pakistan to be better than India. He said that the Dalit leader Bhimrao Ambedkar was elected to the Parliament by the help of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, which is why Dalits are natural allies of the Pakistani people.
Another Dalit, Amit was arrested for putting up posters in which Pakistan Zindabad (long live Pakistan) was written. Amit said that Indian polity is based on Brahaminical values, and Dalits are still a slave class. That is why a separate homeland is needed for Dalits, he said.
Dalit activist and Professor of the Jawahar Lal Nehru University, Surinder Singh Jodkha told the South Asia Tribune: “Such incidents are the manifestation of alienation and frustration. I cannot say that Dalits are safe in Pakistan or not. This is not the main question. The main question is if the Dalits are safe in India or not”.
“India is a democratic country, but Dalits are the most deprived class. They do not even have the right of franchise. In some of the areas, the upper classes decide to which candidate the Dalits would vote,” he said.
Jodkha said: “Dalits face ‘social apartheid’ even after 58 years of Independence. In fact, atrocities and violence against them have increased. Such violent incidents are on the increase in the Hindi-speaking belt, such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh. But you will be taken aback when you will know that Punjab has surpassed all the Indian States as far as maltreatment with Dalits is concerned.”
According to a report of the Social Justice and Empowerment Ministry, out of the 22,066 registered cases of atrocities against Dalits Madhya Pradesh had 5,087; Uttar Pradesh 1,778; Rajasthan 5,241 but Punjab had 6,771. The victims were mostly the agricultural laborers who have migrated to Punjab from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. But some of the Punjabi Dalits are known as Balmiki Sikhs who are also maltreated by Jat and Khatri Sikhs.
Ironically, Balmiki was a saint poet who had composed the epic Ramayana. Initially, he was a dacoit and known by the name of Ratnakar. He was a Shoodra, a lower caste person. But after the enlightenment, he set out for penance. He was so engrossed in the meditation, that balmikis (white ants) made home on his body. Hence, his name became Balmiki.
Religion is the easy target for the religiously and socially distressed people. In the Hindi-speaking belt, Dalits denounce Hinduism, and embrace Buddhism. But in Punjab, they denounce Sikhism, and found their own religious belief, apart from setting separate Gurdwaras for themselves.
In May 2004, one Baba Piyara Singh Bhaniyarawala and two others, Balbir Singh and Ramphal, were arrested by the police of Sirhind for disrespecting the Guru Granth Sahib.
Surinder Singh Jodkha says that the Dalits of the Doaba sub-region of Punjab hardly resemble their counterparts elsewhere in India. While they do not mind being identified as a scheduled caste, some of them dislike being called Dalits.
He says: “Despite the fact that very few among them own agricultural land, a large majority of them live in well-built brick houses and there would be hardly any lower caste family whose children did not go to school. Many of them have urban jobs and at least one person from every alternate household is abroad, either somewhere in the west or in the Gulf.”
“But some people are now having sympathy for Baba Piyara Singh and the like, because they are not allowed to enter the Gurdwaras built by the Jats. Many of them have built their separate Gurdwaras, but some of them go to the extent of sacrilegious outbursts,” he added.
Dalit Gurdwaras are locally known as ‘Ravidas Mandir’. Their structure is more or less look like a Sikh Gurdwara. The only major difference is that beside the Sikh holy book, the Dalits also keep a picture of Ravidas and Balmiki. They also keep photographs of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar.
However, the report of the Ministry says that in most of the cases, accused persons are released due to lack of evidence. This is the main reason of their resentment. During the last year, Indian courts passed decrees in 20,781 cases and only in 2,694 cases, the accused persons were punished. 18,087 cases were withdrawn due to pressure on the complainants.
Social Justice and Empowerment Minister, Meera Kumar told the South Asia Tribune: “There are about 140,000 cases of atrocities against Dalits pending in various Indian courts. Justice is delayed for the victims and they feel alienated and frustrated. I know well that the situation of Punjab is not better than other States. Frankly, in some cases, it is worse.”
“The Meerut incident should be an eye opener for everybody. We should try to understand the root cause of such incidents. Realizing the failure in the amelioration of the poor condition of Dalits, we are coordinating with the Human Rights Commission, Schedule Caste Commission, Schedule Tribe Commission, National Commission for Women and National Commission for Scavengers,” she added.
#506 Posted by MantoLives on March 8, 2005 7:45:38 am
Re: # 505
You clearly didn`t get the gist of the argument... Jinnah was after 1937 the spokesman of the Muslims.. but to represent them without any sectarian bias, his personal secularism was a great asset.
The issue here is not that we are denying ``Muslim nationalism``... but whether this Muslim nationalism could be dogmatic. It is clear to me that you are operating on an agenda... otherwise you would not place such a loaded position.
Please refer to Rahul Capri`s post 503.
You clearly didn`t get the gist of the argument... Jinnah was after 1937 the spokesman of the Muslims.. but to represent them without any sectarian bias, his personal secularism was a great asset.
The issue here is not that we are denying ``Muslim nationalism``... but whether this Muslim nationalism could be dogmatic. It is clear to me that you are operating on an agenda... otherwise you would not place such a loaded position.
Please refer to Rahul Capri`s post 503.
#511 Posted by shishapa on March 8, 2005 10:06:56 am
Re: # 506
Manto,
So Mr. Jinnah changed colour after 1937 and he wanted to change colour back
after August 1947! Not only him, he wanted and expected all his followers who were
following him because they liked his colour to change colour as well.
How was that possible?
Me as a lay person can see that would not be possible. How could a person
of Mr. Jinnah caliber and stature not see and know?
Manto,
So Mr. Jinnah changed colour after 1937 and he wanted to change colour back
after August 1947! Not only him, he wanted and expected all his followers who were
following him because they liked his colour to change colour as well.
How was that possible?
Me as a lay person can see that would not be possible. How could a person
of Mr. Jinnah caliber and stature not see and know?
#523 Posted by MantoLives on March 9, 2005 4:45:27 am
Re: # 511
Dear Shishpa..
If you were to read H M Seervai`s book (Partition of India, Legend and Reality) you would see that Jinnah never changed his colors.
Dear Shishpa..
If you were to read H M Seervai`s book (Partition of India, Legend and Reality) you would see that Jinnah never changed his colors.
#529 Posted by shishapa on March 9, 2005 12:25:24 pm
Re: # 523
Re: # 517
Manto,
I will try to get hold of that book here in US, not sure how I can obtain it,
but meanwhile had a question if you would consider to answer...
If what you say is that Mr. Jinnah was seeking parity at the center (for Muslims I guess
since after 1937 he became spokesman for Muslims only),
and suppose that Pakistan would have come into existence without partition of Punjab
and Bengal thus inheriting large percentage of minorities (mainly Hindus and Sikhs),
was/would_have Mr. Jinnah promising/promised parity at the center for them?
If not, why? Because if he was asking for it, he should be willing to give it also, for the same reasons!
Or would he then have expected such people who did not trust him and
Muslim Leage thereby asking for parity at the center to leave Pakistan for India?
What was Muslim League proclaiming or offering them in the new nation that would have
made them not seek parity at the center?
Re: # 517
Manto,
I will try to get hold of that book here in US, not sure how I can obtain it,
but meanwhile had a question if you would consider to answer...
If what you say is that Mr. Jinnah was seeking parity at the center (for Muslims I guess
since after 1937 he became spokesman for Muslims only),
and suppose that Pakistan would have come into existence without partition of Punjab
and Bengal thus inheriting large percentage of minorities (mainly Hindus and Sikhs),
was/would_have Mr. Jinnah promising/promised parity at the center for them?
If not, why? Because if he was asking for it, he should be willing to give it also, for the same reasons!
Or would he then have expected such people who did not trust him and
Muslim Leage thereby asking for parity at the center to leave Pakistan for India?
What was Muslim League proclaiming or offering them in the new nation that would have
made them not seek parity at the center?
#533 Posted by MantoLives on March 10, 2005 1:17:12 am
Re: # 529
Your conclusion is based on a defective premise...
Jinnah and the League had actually offered a confederal sikh unit to the Sikh leaders within Pakistan.
Master Tara Singh was under influence of Nehru...
Your conclusion is based on a defective premise...
Jinnah and the League had actually offered a confederal sikh unit to the Sikh leaders within Pakistan.
Master Tara Singh was under influence of Nehru...
#507 Posted by MantoLives on March 8, 2005 7:47:48 am
Re: # 506
Also I feel you didn`t even bother reading the post in question in its entirety.
Also I feel you didn`t even bother reading the post in question in its entirety.