Something like life

Relationship advice

2009-11-09T12:00:00.001+05:30

Guys don’t love for sake of love, love because you love.

Aphorism: World

2009-11-06T20:16:00.001+05:30

This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a bureaucracy.

Freedom

2009-11-04T15:58:00.001+05:30

Freedom comes from barrel of gun.

Nepal Maoists admit links with Indian Naxals

2009-11-03T19:49:00.000+05:30

I am shocked, shocked! This is inconceivable. What next, Pakistan is trying to destroy India !

Our democracy stinks ...

2009-11-03T13:19:00.001+05:30

Because we litter our roads. This should have been a chapter of superfreakonomics.

Also global warming is hoax*.

*Not really, I am just trying to rile up Respected Ma’am.

People

2009-11-03T13:12:00.001+05:30

Please don’t try to strike up conversation when one is trying to relieve himself, especially conversations about designs or implementations. In fact, try, as far as possible, not to even glance in one’s direction. It is very discomfiting and just stops the flow.

Violence

2009-10-27T09:00:00.000+05:30

Violence is the last refuge of incompetent. *

Isaac Asimov

Communism ....

2009-10-27T08:57:00.002+05:30

Is acne of rich people.

Pat Buchanan Of The Cartel

2009-10-27T08:52:00.000+05:30

Apparently Desi John Galt has gone full retard (bit.ly link).

Thought of the day.

2009-10-27T08:49:00.000+05:30

Success is the best revenge. So, Hindu fascists shall rise again.

Please

2009-10-20T15:45:00.001+05:30

be so good as to send me invite for Google wave. I am kind of curious.

2009-10-19T09:45:00.000+05:30

श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम श्री राम

Alright

2009-10-14T12:01:00.001+05:30

I see Prasannaji has compared me to Sagarika Ghose, which can not be a good thing, so here is the explanation for my silence.

I can not access blogger or twitter for the simple reason that I don’t have internet at home (stupid stupid Reliance), and sys admin in my new company has blocked gmail , reader, blogger infact anything which requires https request (for example login requests). The only reason I could resume blogging recently was that I remembered that blogger support posting by email. So until I am able to get a new connection at home, I am afraid this will continue. On a related note to reply to someone’s query, I don’t hate anyone in particular, I am just mildly contemptuous of humanity in general.

QOTD

2009-10-14T10:31:00.001+05:30

Narratives, like flowers, don’t spring up overnight; they have to be carefully nurtured until they bloom *

Peace through better nuclear arsenal

2009-10-12T18:42:00.000+05:30

A very convincing article in support of nuclear weapons.

2009-10-09T20:00:00.001+05:30

SC rules, Thou shall not build monuments for anyone except for the state approved pantheon.

Obama gets Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T15:52:00.001+05:30

Let’s be clear. This is not jumping the shark. This is like jumping shark while nuking the fridge.

More Ideas

2009-09-16T22:44:00.000+05:30

Some more ideas for movies

# Epic based on battle of the ten kings

# Comics based on Ashwathama titled Immortals. Guest appearance by Bhagwan Hanuman.

# Historical fiction based on the only Yadava warrior to survive destruction of Dwarka, who fights in Trojan War.

Yes, I have nothing to write about.

Watching the watchmen

2009-09-02T20:27:00.000+05:30

Spoilers

Having watched Watchmen some time ago, the review I criticized in an earlier post seems even more misplaced now than it seemed at that time. Anyway I don't like the movie, which means less than nothing considering I didn't like Godfather or 2001: A Space Odyssey for that matter. I have some standard to maintain after all. Now it has something to do with the fact that I haven't read Watchmen the graphic novel by Alan Moore, which is held by many comics aficionados to be a ground breaking work of its genre.However it is generally understood that any adaptation has to strike a balance between appealing to the following of original work by staying true to it and bringing in audience not introduced with the work. While Zack Snyder is faithfully to the novel he fails to hold the attention of larger audience, which in my view irrevocably dooms this thinking man's superhero movie.

First of movie's short coming is Snyder slavish adherence to the text while failing to capture of the essence of the novel. Reminiscent of his earlier adaptation of Frank Miller's 300, he copies almost the novel panel by panel. However in doing that he fails to effectively capture the dystopian theme of the novel, the story of watchmen being secondary and in effect enforcing this narrative. Instead the movie is slow and feels dragging on forever. Even the visuals disappoint, failing to impart a gritty, noirish feel, done admirably in dark knight for instance.

However for me the main shortcoming is the novel itself. The novel written during the tense period of cold war is itself outdated having US as the clear winner. This is however least of its problems.

The novel for most part is nothing but a parade of American liberal cliches and bogeymen. The novels depicts Nixon as President having abrogated the term limits, and it is implied, subverted the institutions, effectively dictator of US.

Now it is not my case that Nixon was a honorable man, for he was not, but as cynical as it may sound, his greatest crime was not Watergate but hostility to media, resulting from fear psychosis. Watergate while not exactly something which will commend Nixon to posterity, was hardly a deviation as far as political skulduggery is concerned, similar practices being regularly employed from Johnson administration going as far as back to FDR.

Similarly Nixon didn't harbor any ambition of abrogating term limits and anointed Caesar, that dishonor ironically belongs to liberal Messiah predating the current Messiah, FDR, ironically it was only due to his breaking the convention of two terms that term limits were introduced.

To add to this, it is implied that JFK's assassination was a government's conspiracy, the right wing elements within the government being the perpeterators. Of course the inconvenient truth is that JFK was felled, as Jackie Kennedy frustratingly remarked, by a silly little communist.

Most infuriating however is the moral ambivalence. US for all its flaws has been a force for good in contrast to Communist regimes which have perpetrated immeasurable misery and death. It is clear for all its self righteousness, left uses liberty in much the same sense as it uses fascism.

Tying loose ends

2009-09-01T16:18:00.002+05:30

Minor update at the end.

While writing the post on partition, I forgot to include some relevant info which I am including in this post.
But first I will like to summarize the post, as I think it is very much likely that the length of the post might have obscured the theme, which is the conventional view of moderate Muslims as Pro-India and fundamentalist Muslims as pro-Partition is not necessarily borne out by the historical facts.

One such inconvenient fact is the role, respectively of Barelvis and Deobandis with respect to partition. Deobandis are usually considered to be orthodox Islamic school with emphasis on Islamic jurisprudence such as Shariah and Hadith. In contrast Barelvis are considered relatively unorthodox with a significant incorporation of Islamic experience in India, specifically Sufi traditions. Historically Deobandis have been considered more of conservative/traditionalist and Barelvis reformist/modernists. Yet their role during partition were diametrically opposite to what conventional view would dictate, while Deobandis sided with Congress and opposed partition, Barelvis were in general agreement with Muslim League *

Then there is something I want to address. Rohit, in one of our conversations, remarked that my hypothesis can not explain the fact why Muslims in such a large number chose to stay behind in India. Actually I think one need not even my hypothesis to explain the fact.

Simply put, for League leaders demand for Pakistan was just a bargaining chip to extract maximum concession from Congress. They had hoped, that by raising by communal passion for Pakistan, they could corner Congress leaders into conceding their demands for an ill conceived arrangement superficially resembling federalism. This gambit backfired, and Muslim League ended up with what Jinnah termed as a moth eaten Pakistan. For most of the League leaders Pakistan should have included Hyderabad, Lucknow and Delhi, traditional centers of Indo-Islamic culture and power. However for most of the Muslims residing in what is currently Republic of India, leaving their home for Pakistan was never a real option.

That said, it should be noted making sense of Identity is always perplexing with different intrepreations according to different vantage points. Specifically and reiterating what I wrote in the previous posts, different individuals have diverse influences on the identity. A plebeian unless he is in sync with others of same class has minimal effect on identity, whereas a social elite, either because of his wealth or because of his intellect, has disproportionately larger influence over the identity. Why is that? Maslow's hierarchy of needs is the answer.

For elites not concerned with fulfillment of basic are naturally more inclined towards identity. Which is why "common man doesn't care about X", although superficially appealing is nonsensical as far as human psychology is concerned.

"But wait", Some might say, "If common man is not concerned with identity, then your point doesn't stand". This is a misreading of what I am trying to convey. Common man doesn't influence the identity to a great extent, but he is influenced by the identity which he shares with the elite.

This is what happened in case of Partition. For a common Muslim, identity was not a major issue, but for an elite a united India meant sub-ordination of Islamic identity to Hindu identity which was a reversal from history where Islamic identity ruled over Hindu identity and thus a matter of distress and insecurity.

This is why the movement for Partition started not in Muslim majority provinces but Gangetic Plains including Bengal, over which Muslims, even though in minority, had ruled for so many centuries.

Initially Muslim League had limited success with masses, even though Khilafat movement was preparing ground for eventual communal polarization. One dirty secret of Congress, in order to undercut Jinnah who was Shia, it actively fueled Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict, foreshadowing Sikh terrorism. Also it is interesting to note that Maulana Azad was much more orthodox in his religious outlook than Jinnah. This explains the drubbing Muslim League received in 1937. However within a decade the situation was reversed, much of it due to the Ulema.

After this, only the matter of Mahatma Gandhi's politics remains, which I will touch in another post.

Update: In fact I am confident that this hypothesis can be applied to global Islamic terrorism as well.

Righteous Fusillades

2009-08-31T21:34:00.000+05:30

I believe that Arun Shourie has erred in launching a frontal attack on central leadership. I understand that people in general may not share my belief, appalled as they are by Rajnath Singh and Co. I admit, I have nothing by contempt for the way Rajnath Singh has acted both prior to elections and after it.

My problem is that this party destructive behavior is not limited to Rajnath Singh, every prominent BJP leader whether Murali Manohar Joshi, Jaitley, or even Advani have consistently promoted self interest over party interest. Now this may make some people yearn for wholesale purge of the leadership. Unfortunately that scenario will be even more disastrous than current squabbling. Some people may object to this and, like Arun Shourie, argue for greater RSS role in BJP.

I differ with this. I believe that RSS is the part of the problem, not the solution. At minimum it was RSS which appointed Rajnath Singh as the chief to undermine Advani not to mention the fact that secretaries loaned from RSS have consistently undermined BJP, flaming the factional feuds and arm twisting other leaders.
I will go so far as to say BJP sympathisizers are displaying such visceral hatred for Rajnath Singh, Jaitley, Advani, Jaswant Singh, or even Arun Shourie, is because they are shocked by the defeat and want a villain to hang for it.

Yet all the witch hunting in the world is of no use, for it doesn't even begin to address the specific problem.
At risk of repeating myself there are two problems. First one is the structure of BJP organisation is outdated with respect to its current position in politics. It is easy to be a cadre based party controlled from center, basically model followed by RSS, when it is a marginal player (or in case of Congress, a family enterprise).

However when the party grows to occupy principal opposition space, becoming a pole in effect, the organization must have the flexibility to include a wide range of opinions as well as the diverse regional priorities. Which is why it is required organization is more democratic, open and bottom to top.
Ultimately I will prefer that national parties in India reflect a US like organization structure.

But there is a second and, in my opinion, more severe problem, which is BJP lacks anything resembling a coherent political platform, and consequently any strategy for electoral marketing. For a political party power is just means with to implement its agenda. But in absence of any agenda, and with power as the end goal, the party instead of standing united for a common cause, becomes a house divided against itself, with lust for power leads to distrust and betrayal.

For BJP the choice is simple. If it wants to remain relevant to politics, it must decide what it stands for. This is why, ideology, even if directly not relevant to electoral fortune, is crucial for the political relevance.

Faithful, besieged

2009-08-29T01:51:00.000+05:30

So this is post I promised about, supposedly a brief examination of historical causes behind partition. As usual it is going to be long and incoherent, and people are better off not reading it. You have been forewarned.

I think it should come as no surprise I am no fan of Harry Potter. To be sure, the series had promise in the beginning, but as it progressed it became a casualty of its own hype. That and I really don't need "snogging" mentioned in literature.Even then I found Lord Voldemort and his death eaters interesting. Lord Voldemort and death eaters are of course allusion to Hitler and Nazi. Hitler like Voldemort was obsessed with blood purity and just like Voldemort was a half-blood, Hitler was rumored to be part Jewish.

Now this is fictional, but there is a psychological basis for their seemingly contradictory.
Consider an ambitious young man who more than anything craves social status and peer approval. As it happens the only way available to him to achieve his desire is by belonging to a particular group identity.
Unfortunately for him, his association with the group is not strong sufficiently for his liking. Then, if our young man is neurotic enough, it is possible that he will become a zealot for enforcing the group exclusivity.

Coming to Partition, the villains, as is insinuated by minders of secularism, were fanatics of Muslim league led by Jinnah on one side, and Hindu Mahasabha on the other side. This is, to put it mildly, hogwash. Notwithstanding its politcs, Hindu Mahasabha was always a fringe player and as such not a priority for Muslim league. No, their bile and venom was reserved for wily Hindu Bania aka Mahatma Gandhi and Congress under him. So far from Hindu Mahasabha, it was Congress which was the culprit or at the least protagonist during partition.

Moving to other side, while it is true that Muslim league is guilty of preticipating partition, it was far from a party of wide eyed Mullahs. In fact, in a way it reflected Congress in that it was a coalition of landlords, middle class professionals and intellectuals. But what is even more remarkable about the movement for separate Muslim homeland is its leading lights.

First Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. He was a reformer and modernist. His commitment to western and liberals ideals was such that not only he freely consumed alcohol and pork he also advocated same for Muslims so that they can emulate the British. He also contributed significantly towards establishing modern educational institutions for Indian Muslims (Aligarh Muslim University being foremost) and at one time he was a strong advocate of Hindu Muslim unity. Yet later in his life he became one of the prominent proponents for a distinct Muslim political identity, a position which were to directly lead to formation of Muslim league.

Next comes Aga Khan, Imam of Ismailis, a moderate sect within Shia Islam. He in addition to to religious education, also received modern European education in best of British universities. Later on, he made significant contribution towards establishment of social and economic development. And yet, he was one of the founders of Muslim league.

Following him is Allama Iqbal a descendant of Sapru Kashmiri Brahmins, who like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Aga Khan, received western education in European institutions, and besides being a renowned lawyer was an accomplished philosopher and poet. Like others he too began as a patriot who not only stood for an undivided India but also prided himself on Indian heritage (Remember he was the man who gave us Saare Jahan Se Accha). Yet he was to make a turn around in a very short time, and set off on a course which ended up where he is acclaimed as spiritual founder and thinker of Pakistan.

The last exhibit is of course Jinnah. For sake of completion, let's recapitulate. Jinnah, belonging to Khoja Ismaili sect (we will come back to this later) educated in England, possessing a sharp intellect, a western outlook, a man who enjoyed his whiskey and pork, and not his Islam, a man who had no use for religion in public life, a man who was hailed as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, a man who doggedly opposed Muslim league and proclaimed respect for Ten incarnations of Vishnu. And yet the same man turned into a demagogue pouring incessant vitriol on Hindus, provoking passion, and setting India ablaze.

Of course this is not an exhaustive list of the leaders of Pakistan movement, but I am sure by now you must have noticed something curious. In all the cases we have Indian Muslims, of considerable intellect and education, moderate in their world view, belonging either to more moderate sects or of recent Hindu ancestry, all initially patriots, paving the way for Pakistan.

As Goldfinger remarked, Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action

Now then, if there is a pattern, what is the reason behind it. I have come to believe that the reason is anxiety. To be specific anxiety of identity.

Of the many infractions against reason that Dr Amartaya Sen has committed to this date, none is more flagrant than his characterization of identity as a buffet from which individual can pick any one at his will. Now this may be true of certain western nations at present but it is not true everywhere, what is more important that historically it has hardly ever been the case.

To be sure, left to himself, a common man of the street whether a Hindu, or a Muslim, will like go on with his life. He has not much use for identity. This is what our enlightened masters mean when they claim, Muslims and Hindus, or Pakistanis and Indians are not much different. Therein lies the problem. Common man, whatever his creed, is never left alone, rather his interactions in the larger social setting are determined by his group association which is acceptable to the society for that particular setting.This holds true even if his interaction is not a part of larger group effort.

The question then arises, what is that mechanism whereby group associations form, reinforce and wither away. What follows is not a not particularly well formed explanation. Group identity are self-enforcing phenomenon, which roughly means group association determines social privileges, obligations and hierarchies, which subsequently  define the cultural assumptions and social norms governing the dynamics of the social interactions. It is the result of these interactions with respect to evolutionary fitness which acts as a feedback to reinforce the group association.

Next we come to the role of individuals. It is my belief that the common man as such doesn't influence the workings of group identity, instead as I wrote earlier, historically speaking his action is dictated by the group identity to a large extent. However, if we make the assumption that the response of common man to factors is not random or arbitrary but limited by some basic rules of human psychology, in that case the masses acting in sync do impact the society, as evidenced by popular movements.On the other hand uncommon men also known as thinkers, philosophers, intellectuals etc, have ability to influence group identity at individual level.

But men, both common as well as uncommon, are guided by a much stronger force, of history. For much of, well history, humanity has flow in its silent yet inexorable currents, and though the thinkers pretend otherwise, even they are not unaffected by it. As George Orwell famously remarked, Those who control the past, control the future. A corollary of this for present context is those who control the identity, control the present/

So where am I going with this. Well the whole digression about identity was to introduce what was in my view the real reason about partition. Which is the historically there has been conflict between Islamic and Indian identities. Now before I proceed, let me do away with some possible objections, I do not think it is accurate to say that everyday co-existence of average Hindus and Muslim is marked with strife and violence, either now or historically (Though I will add that historically even the relations between common Hindus and Muslims have not been entirely peaceful. Hindu-Muslim riots, after all are not something which started after demolition of Babri Masjid). Neither I am implying that Muslims are un-Indian. My intention rather is, that Indian Muslims are claimed by both Indian identity as well as Islamic identity. This is different from other such cases because other linguistic or cultural identities are subset of Indian identity, whereas Islamic identity has an existence and history independent of Indian identity, and as I will attempt to show,by discussing about Islamic experience in India, at conflict with Indian identity.

For Secular class anxious to whitewash the history, Islamic experience in India is mostly a fable about swirling Dervishes and qawwali singing Sufis. That and Akbar the great. In my view a single word more accurately captures the experience of Islam in sub-continent. That word is Urdu. Urdu, derived from Turkic language, means encampment.

Islam was mainly introduced to India, as a consequence of invasions spanning centuries by Muslim invaders, initially from Arab and later on from Central Asia. Now India has been invaded since time memorial by barbarians and nomads from beyond Sindhu. However Islamic invasions were different. Surely the series of Islamic like previous invasions were meant for both loot as well as conquest, but in addition to that, the invaders this time carried the word of Allah as revealed to Prophet Muhammad, seal of Prophets, and zealously guarded by Ulema. They were united in communion with every Muslim of the world in Ummah as bearers of the truth, and foreshadowing the annihilation of Incas and Aztecs by conquistadors, obligated by religious injunction to bring the kaffirs to righteous path.

The invading zealots sought to spread the true faith by the terror of sword. Templed were desecrated, Murtis were destroyed, Kaffirs were compelled to embrace Islam on the pain of a torment and death. However as the conquerors set to rule the conquered land, the compulsions of the geopolitics and the governance tempered their zeal to multiply the believers. Sure, they wanted the glory of Islam to spread, but they also had to maintain the alliances with Hindu Kings and they could not oppress their subjects too much lest they start rebelling. So instead of sword they took recourse to coercive taxes and laws for the dhimmis. Slowly Islam in India came to an uneasy arrangement, the rulers didn't try too hard to convert the idolaters, and Islam occupied the seat of power. However this arrangement was an extremely fragile, as this was considered deviation from the righteous path by Ulemas and the more fervent of the ruling class. The result was this arrangement was breached by the zealots who launched frequents campaigns to show the infidels error of their ways and the inevitable rebellion by the oppressed subjects.

Here it should be noted that this was no different from what happened with the Zorastrianism or Buddhism when Muslims invaded Iran or Afghanistan. However one crucial difference between Hinduism and the two religions was that both the religions depended heavily on priests and monks as opposed to Hinduism which was more folk based. Which is why even when its institutions were annihilated (you can count North Indian Temples belonging to pre-Islamic era on your fingers) it managed to survive.

This went on for well over a millennium, and as the sword and the jiziya slowly converted heathens, Islamic identity that formed was that of a superior creed by virtue of power as well as faith. It was this identity which the Muslim elites as well as clergy with. However since Hindus were always the majority, and Islamic identity couldn't reconcile with this, it retreated behind wall of powers. Thus Islamic identity also assumed characterstics of encampment. Urdu, in other words.

This arrangement began to unravel in the 18th century first with the decline of Mughal dynasty and arrival of British. Hindus, so far reduced to secondary citizens, began to take advantage of the western education to re-occupy position in the government, in addition to even further securing the advantage in trade. With education there also emerged a class of middle class professionals with interest in sciences and renewed curiosity about their Hindu identity. This combined with the freedom for expression of religion available to them after deprivation of several centuries saw a new vigor in the religion and giving rise to Hindu revival movements of 19th century.

In contrast was Muslim experience, they didn't take advantage of the opportunities available to them, owing to hubris of being ruler as well as certain of superiority of faith. The loss of power, the advance of the formerly inferior Hindus over their former superiors, and even more important resurgence of Hindu religion  had a severe effect on the psyche of Muslim elite. To the former rulers it felt as if Allah had abandoned his believers by failing to safeguard their honor from suffering the indignity of  jostling with the inferior kaffirs for living. It was this crisis which caused a crack in the foundation, which was assumption of superiority over kaffirs, of the Islamic identity.

Islamic identity could never recover from this. This crisis was made more severe by the breach of the wall of power which separated Islamic identity from the majority identity. For the first time in history Muslim elites felt threat to Islamic identity on account of its being subsumed into the Indian identity, especially since Hinduism is much more encompassing, inclusive, adaptive and tolerant than Islam, or for that matter any other Abrahamic creed. Camp was no longer secure for the Islamic identity anymore.

Since Muslim elites could no longer count on assumption of superiority afforded to them by power nor were able to reconcile with a resurgent Hinduism, and further since they felt besieged by Hinduism enveloping them in the society, they increasingly assumed  an adversarial role to define themselves. As a result gradually Islamic identity transformed into a negationitist one in the sense it was defined by negation and rejection of Hindu identity rather than by a positive statement relating to historical or cultural context.

This is what I believe was more fundamental reason for Hindu-Muslim tensions and ultimately partition.
And once Pakistan was formed on basis of Islamic identity, its tragic destiny was also decided. For in defining their identity in negation to Hindu identity, Muslim elites had made themselves dependent on their adversary. When the partition eliminated the adversary, the Pakistan intellectuals sought to define themselves either by associating even more strongly with Ummah in a Voldemortian fashion, and at the same time taking a strong adversarial position to India. This is the reason I don't think any reconcilation between India and Pakistan is possible.

As far as Indian Muslims are concerned, I think they can still be reconciled to broader Indian identity, provided they recognize, and make peace with, the Hindu core of Indian identity and disregard Ummah and Ulema.

Jaswant Affairs - Partition Debate (Updated)

2009-08-26T04:06:00.001+05:30

Previous post

Politics aside, the book by Jaswant Singh besides getting him kicked out of BJP also provoked a spirited debate on Jinnah and the Partition itself. In this the occasion is eerily similar to the earlier one where a debate of similar nature was provoked by Advani's remarks during his Pakistan visit.

Now as someone who believes that history plays an extremely important in a nation's destiny and one who rues the neglect shown by Indians to their history, I can only welcome the debate.

Before stating my own views it is helpful to summarize various arguments in this debate, almost all of them implicitly assuming that partition was a unmitigated disaster in theory and also in implementation. Most widely held notion of them all is that Jinnah was the villain and architect of the partition. In addition to that extremist politics of Hindu organization (viz. Hindu Mahasabha and Sangh) are blamed for the communal polarization which led to partition.Yet another opinion holds ego clash between Nehru and Jinnah responsible for the partition.

There is some truth in all of these notions. Jinnah was the visible face of Muslim league since the 1930's and was responsible for its revival after the debacle post 1937. It was he who demanded partition. Similarly any attempt to arrive at compromise failed due to the the differences between Nehru and Jinnah. Yet it is my opinion that as visible and pronounced these reasons may seem, they are just proximate causes hiding a much more profound reality and one which pertains to Hindu-Muslim relations.

Coming to the subject of controversy, ie Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the reason there is so much consternation and confusion about his role is that by any assessment there seem to be two and diameterically opposite Jinnah. One is a secular, whiskey swilling, pork eating liberal with a western world view and minimal familiarity with Islam who wanted a undivided India. Other is a rabid demagogue, stoking communal passion by evoking before Muslim masses specter of living in a Hindu India. It is hard to reconcile these two attitudes, which is why some people (including Jaswant Singh) while admitting his culpability in partition, have taken recourse to explain it away as a result of his being outmaneuvered by the Congress and blinded by his own ego.

Now there is truth to this. It is true that early in his political carrier Jinnah was a Nationalist and later turned into a demagogue. It is also true to a certain extent this transformation can be attributed to Nehru. However a true patriot wouldn't have turned against his motherland just because of his ego.Which is why I don't think that Jinnah was ever in heart a true patriot, and judging by his methods even truly liberal.

Further as it turns out Nehru was hardly the main cause behind his transformation from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hide. The reason which transformed Jinnah was also the reason that transformed Indian freedom movement, Mahatma Gandhi.

Prior to arrival of Mahatma Gandhi at scene Indian freedom movement was primarily an elitist concern, comprising of either landed gentry, nouveau rich industrialist and middle class professionals. The prevailing consensus was that it was possible to secure independence working from within Colonial framework. It was believed that as Indians demonstrated capability to self govern in accordance with British interests, the British masters will gradually grant more and more autonomy to their subjects eventually setting them free. The main difference which existed between different factions was about the extent to which the demand for more autonomy should be pushed with one group not in favor of rocking the boat too much while the other group even though more aggressive in its demands, grudgingly accepted the existing framework .

Whatever their differences in politics, it is important to realize their wold view was informed by their elite background and in general it was disconnected from mass politics. Mohammed Ali Jinnah belonged to this school.

Arrival of Mahatma Gandhi changed all that. While he was a firm advocate of non violence, he engaged the masses on the scale that was hitherto not witnessed in Indian freedom movement. Mass of public, burdened with exploitative policies of the Raj, responded passionately to Mahatma's call of non violent agitations. This enthusiastic participation expanded the project of Indian freedom as never imagined possible earlier.

However this expansion upset existing elite consensus. The modus operandi shifted from "freedom through petition" to "freedom through peaceful disobedience". Existing actors who were not accustomed to mass mobilization disapproved of the tenor of the movement and they responded in different way. Some like Rabindra Nath Tagore just went into background, others like Motilal Nehru accepted Mahatma's leadership. Jinnah was no different in his disapproval of mass politics.

However with him there was an additional factor. Jinnah was irked by the overt infusion of spiritual message by Mahatma Gandhi to (what Jinnah considered) a non-religious endeavor. Even more infuriating for him was the fact that spiritual message had a distinct Hindu hue. Now for Mahatma spiritual message was about fostering religious harmony. However Muslim intellectuals and to lesser extent Jinnah, always apprehensive about the metaphysical boa-constrictor form of Hinduism became paranoid by Mahatma'a approach. They took it as a conspiracy to assimilate Islam within the folds of Hinduism.

I believe it was this paranoia combined with his ego which wouldn't accept Mahatma's leadership which ultimately drove Jinnah to Pakistan.

Update: There are two issues that I will like to discuss in separate posts, one is the proximate causes vs historical causes as far as partition is concerned, second is the mobilization strategy of Mahatma.

Jaswant Affairs - Civil War

2009-08-23T14:06:00.000+05:30

Yeah I know, it has been very hard for you to live without reading my brilliant insights on life and something. I am grateful, however, that no one tried to commit suicide and with the possible exception of Sriram, even cried like a girl. To be frank, I didn't really want to blog on this, but When impressionable young men begin to esteem goat lover over Swapan Da, wise men must come forward and rescue aforementioned young men from their error of ways.

Now my thoughts about the expulsion are little complicated. At this point it is clear that the official reason for the expulsion is just a fig leaf to cover the real reason, which is that it is a fallout of chronic infighting between various factions with party.
After the expulsion Jaswant Singh has become a martyr for liberalism, but the truth is, he was as much responsible for these factional fights which were less about ideological differences and more about personal egos and power plays. It is true that Jaswant Singh with his quirky aristocracy blended liberalism was uncomfortable with Cultural Nationalism especially with its more assertive variants.

However he, like most of the clique crowding the high command, was preoccupied with usual self promotion, Type 7 Bungalow for himself in Lutyens Delhi, seats for himself and his son in Lok Sabha, influence within party without commanding any sort of popular support.

To this, add his habit of preening before media at crucial junctures in order to undermine his colleague which ended up causing embarrassment to Party, discrediting it in eyes of voters. Specifically it was he who brought Kandhar Episode back to headlines with his book. In brief he has been more of a liability than asset to Party.

Does it mean that his expulsion is justified ? Hardly. While Jaswant Singh was a participant in the Civil War, he was hardly the only one. Almost every one in central leadership is a enthusiastic practitioner of the political art of back stabbing and betrayal. It is this fratricide which has created (and rightfully so) an impression that BJP is not serious in engaging on matters of national importance thus turning large segment of urban voters away from BJP.

Who is to blame for this? It is tempting to find villains for this sorry state, and indeed every one must share the blame, however the reason for this is more basic and more general. The real reason is BJP is bereft of any ideological and political platform to sell itself to voters. This is not unique to BJP. Current Indian politics is noteworthy of absence of any substance. However this is mitigated to a large extent by narrow identity politics in case of smaller parties and a sycophant media in case of Congress, BJP which aspires to occupy nationalist space is crippled and staring at irrelevance.

As I have stated earlier, it is ideas and not personality which can restore BJP's credibility and ultimately save itself.

Which is why expelling someone for writing a book, even if it is merely hogwash, sets a dangerous precedent.
It suppresses expression of ideas, which may suit the powers that be in BJP, but digs even deeper hole for BJP.

I will be back, shortly.

2009-08-20T19:26:00.002+05:30