Like Shri P. Sainathji's book titled 'Everybody loves a draught' nowadays many intellectuals,politicians are loving Gandhiji. Why?
Leftist spend their lives in criticizing Gandhiji when he was alive. Even as a child while reading or hearing I have this common sense question in my mind...that Gandhiji was Hindu , so he knew prayers in his religion where the question of Gandhiji being partisan arises? If he were belonging to other religion by birth he would have said prayers of that religion. It is as natural when somebody belongs to other religion. What is leftist and communist's problem with Hindu practices. And don't tell me that opium theory? When Jews were persecuted in communist states where these people hiding their faces?Why they didn't questioned.. oh...they could see that communist ruler had become dictator ...better be silent!
As for alienation of Muslims in pre-independent India started with Queen's declaration and policy of divide & rule followed then. Then from Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to Jinnah everybody chose to ignore all the good things offered by majority leadership and selectively disproportionately played on the fears of Muslims (And this is paraphrase of original statement of Pakistani Historian). But contrary to the picture National leaders always conceded to Muslim demands so that Muslim populace would feel involved ...be it Lucknow Pact...Khilafat Movement and so many minor incidents as well. But that only increased further alienation. Although partition was not inevitable if number of people to Muslim league's meeting were counted.And concession by National leaders resulted in increasing communalisation in Muslims and they taken some things for granted. As it was within, it only needed some call for violence and we saw eruption.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkarji have quarreled with Gandhiji for separate electorate for Dalits. But rightly Gandhiji prevailed that he didn't want division. But when somebody referred Gandhiji - Saint. Ambedkarji rebuked that he( Gandhiji) was very seasoned politician. Couldn't he see that separate electorate to Muslims and Sikhs alienating them , he didn't raise questions on that? And point to be noted despite such concession ( also Gandhiji's call for Khilafat) did not generate any belief to expected level in Muslim masses when it mattered ( 1946-47). Even when from 1939-1945 Maulana Azad had been president of Indian National Congress. Similarly in late 1980s Congress with it's now defamed version of secularism conceded to Muslims and there was violence in Jammu and Kashmir. Basic thing is religion written in Arabic , how many know it? And it's radical interpretation by clergy , specially about 'Kufr' that have created problems. So called secularists I always heard saying what's the problem if all Indians get converted to other religion they will be still human beings? Are bhai abhi nahi he kya? Why not say if all become Hindu they will still be humans :-) And technically all the people of sub-continent are Hindu ( around and towards east of Sindhu river also known by name Indus river).So when BJP government came in power in Jammu and Kashmir and legislations about bringing back of Kashmiri Pandit introduced and then passed. That is thought as a problem. But why that is problem?Is it not test of secularism? Or only Hindu majority states in genral and Hindus in particular are expected to be secular? Especially when we are yet to touch the subject of covert activities from West Asia( flow of funds for radicalization & wahhabism). Basically I feel academic & intellectual jargon makes Hindu masses unmindful of problems . And some of these things are blamed to be Brahmin's designations exploiting this existing faultline where due to historical reason Brahmins are better placed in society( Did anyone remember any book....especially 26/11 ). But this is not so these are not Brahmin's machinations , you cannot stretch everything unsuitable to your narrative under this one title. These are real security questions. As religion is spreading some of the masses have secret sympathies despite knowing it is wrong. But still especially in rural area we can see thousands of examples of religious harmony and bonhomie which media is least interested to highlight.
Hindus visit Dargah and Muslims celebrate equally Hindu yatras even at some places , original Hindu population migrated to other places owing to occupation or other reasons, Muslims have inherited and celebrated those traditions. Such examples are abundunt in local newspapers. But ghettoisation, alienation is more in urban Muslims. Also there are number of initiatives for minority by government. But in Kashmir due to corruption politicians have become rich, they sent their children to safe havens and instigate youth here to pelt stones. Of course there are other complex aspects of Kashmir issue involved.
But why everybody loves Gandhiji nowadays ? We will see in next part :)
Leftist spend their lives in criticizing Gandhiji when he was alive. Even as a child while reading or hearing I have this common sense question in my mind...that Gandhiji was Hindu , so he knew prayers in his religion where the question of Gandhiji being partisan arises? If he were belonging to other religion by birth he would have said prayers of that religion. It is as natural when somebody belongs to other religion. What is leftist and communist's problem with Hindu practices. And don't tell me that opium theory? When Jews were persecuted in communist states where these people hiding their faces?Why they didn't questioned.. oh...they could see that communist ruler had become dictator ...better be silent!
As for alienation of Muslims in pre-independent India started with Queen's declaration and policy of divide & rule followed then. Then from Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to Jinnah everybody chose to ignore all the good things offered by majority leadership and selectively disproportionately played on the fears of Muslims (And this is paraphrase of original statement of Pakistani Historian). But contrary to the picture National leaders always conceded to Muslim demands so that Muslim populace would feel involved ...be it Lucknow Pact...Khilafat Movement and so many minor incidents as well. But that only increased further alienation. Although partition was not inevitable if number of people to Muslim league's meeting were counted.And concession by National leaders resulted in increasing communalisation in Muslims and they taken some things for granted. As it was within, it only needed some call for violence and we saw eruption.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkarji have quarreled with Gandhiji for separate electorate for Dalits. But rightly Gandhiji prevailed that he didn't want division. But when somebody referred Gandhiji - Saint. Ambedkarji rebuked that he( Gandhiji) was very seasoned politician. Couldn't he see that separate electorate to Muslims and Sikhs alienating them , he didn't raise questions on that? And point to be noted despite such concession ( also Gandhiji's call for Khilafat) did not generate any belief to expected level in Muslim masses when it mattered ( 1946-47). Even when from 1939-1945 Maulana Azad had been president of Indian National Congress. Similarly in late 1980s Congress with it's now defamed version of secularism conceded to Muslims and there was violence in Jammu and Kashmir. Basic thing is religion written in Arabic , how many know it? And it's radical interpretation by clergy , specially about 'Kufr' that have created problems. So called secularists I always heard saying what's the problem if all Indians get converted to other religion they will be still human beings? Are bhai abhi nahi he kya? Why not say if all become Hindu they will still be humans :-) And technically all the people of sub-continent are Hindu ( around and towards east of Sindhu river also known by name Indus river).So when BJP government came in power in Jammu and Kashmir and legislations about bringing back of Kashmiri Pandit introduced and then passed. That is thought as a problem. But why that is problem?Is it not test of secularism? Or only Hindu majority states in genral and Hindus in particular are expected to be secular? Especially when we are yet to touch the subject of covert activities from West Asia( flow of funds for radicalization & wahhabism). Basically I feel academic & intellectual jargon makes Hindu masses unmindful of problems . And some of these things are blamed to be Brahmin's designations exploiting this existing faultline where due to historical reason Brahmins are better placed in society( Did anyone remember any book....especially 26/11 ). But this is not so these are not Brahmin's machinations , you cannot stretch everything unsuitable to your narrative under this one title. These are real security questions. As religion is spreading some of the masses have secret sympathies despite knowing it is wrong. But still especially in rural area we can see thousands of examples of religious harmony and bonhomie which media is least interested to highlight.
Hindus visit Dargah and Muslims celebrate equally Hindu yatras even at some places , original Hindu population migrated to other places owing to occupation or other reasons, Muslims have inherited and celebrated those traditions. Such examples are abundunt in local newspapers. But ghettoisation, alienation is more in urban Muslims. Also there are number of initiatives for minority by government. But in Kashmir due to corruption politicians have become rich, they sent their children to safe havens and instigate youth here to pelt stones. Of course there are other complex aspects of Kashmir issue involved.
But why everybody loves Gandhiji nowadays ? We will see in next part :)
Comments
Post a Comment