Jaswant’s Jinnah demonizes Nehru

After Lal Krishna Advani, we now have Jaswant Singh eulogizing Jinnah. I had agreed with Advani that the man who founded Pakistan was by choice a secularist whose politics turned communal. But I have problems coming to terms with Jaswant’s perspective released in the form of a full-fledged book. I wonder whether his project is aimed at denigrating Pandit Nehru or giving Jinnah his rightful place as a secularist who (for whatever reasons) went haywire to recognize — after the Partition — the limitations of the divisive philosophy that created Pakistan.

The issue isn’t coming under discussion for the first time. American historian Stanley Wolpert’s analysis of Jinnah’s secular pitch in his August 11, 1947 speech makes a lot more sense. In his book Jinnah of Pakistan, he found the speech rooted in the realization that while a country can be secured on the philosophy of hate, it cannot be run on the philosophy of hate.

Wolpert sounds credible also because Jinnah’s life can be divided into chapters some of which (including the 1916 Lucknow Pact between the Muslim League and the Congress that made Sarojini Naidu call him the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity) were at variance with the way it climaxed. One can safely argue that Jinnah had a modern mind that wasn’t communal by instinct. Advani therefore was right when he reminded his Pakistani hosts during a visit to that country that today’s Pakistan was antithetical to the vision of their Quaid-e-Azam.

In comparison, Singh, an influential BJP leader who lacks Advani’s stature, has ventured to present the anatomy of the sub-continent’s bloody partition. He argues that Nehru opposed a federal India (that had Gandhi and Jinnah’s support) until 1947 when it became a partitioned India.

In a democracy, there is space for individuals to air views that could be unpalatable to others. But should Singh have demonized Nehru to give Jinnah a belated image makeover? I’ve always held that Indians and Pakistanis need to revisit each other’s national heroes for a more informed view of their role in the freedom movement. But I am not sure whether Singh’s Jinnah will be acceptable to a wider Indian audience especially when he makes him look fairer by painting Nehru black.

The book may even be dismissed as a pamphlet authored by a member of a political parivar that made a living out of berating Jinnah and and alienating Indian Muslims in their own country.

(7 votes, average: 3.71 out of 5)

Loading ...

Posted by Vinod Sharma on Monday, August 17, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Filed under World · Tagged Hindu-Muslim unity, Jaswant Singh, Jaswant Singh's new book, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Jinnah, Lucknow Pact

· Comment (RSS) · Trackback

http://www.indiaandbharat.blogspot.com Shah Alam Khan

Dear Mr.Sharma,
Read your blog with pleasure. It made interesting reading indeed. It appears that once again the legacy of Jinnah is up for grabs in the BJP. In my opinion a communalist like Jinnah can only be condemned. The “ism” of hate, whether as an intrinsic trait or adopted as a means of attaining power can only be shuned. In fact it is more dangerous when a born secularist (if I can put it this was) puts on a facade of bigotry to achieve narrow political gains. We have many such examples in the Indian polity. I am surprised that Jaswant Singh goes at length to give credibility to a leader who is well known for his divisive imagination and that too at the cost of demonising an established symbol of secular India. As for Prof. Stanley Wolpert’s work, I hope you have read his Nehru- A Tryst with Destiny. It falls short of calling India’s first Prime Minister a gay.
History judges people well. Jinnah’s product of divisive politics stands at the verge of annihiliation, vindicating the very thought process which was the reason of its birth. As for Nehru’s pluralism, surely communalists within the Parivar feel threatened by its overwhelming acceptance in modern India. Nehru’s ideology, it seems is too dangerous for them to flirt with.
Truly,
Dr.Shah Alam Khan
AIIMS, New Delhi
Read my blog: http://www.indiaandbharat.blogspot.com

[Reply]
Atul Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Dear Dr. Khan:

I agree with you that Nehru can never be accused of being bigoted. A lot of what India is today, is because of his foresight and vision. However, a lot of what India could have been has also in a fairly large part due to his myopia and authoritarianism. Unlike Jinnah, who was a commoner who rose to the top, Nehru was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and was prone to getting things his way; he did have a sense of Noblesse Oblige.

I disagree with you that Jinnah was a communalist. I believe that he truly wanted to be an Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, but events overtook him. This, to me, is a sign of weakness that indicates that even though he was intelligent, he wasn’t really a great man, or a statesman. While Gandhi too wanted amity among communities, his campaign for Independence was laced with Hindu symbolism, like Ram Rajya.

In a sense, like Mr. Bose earlier, Jinnah was ignored by the INC because his ideology was not parallel to other prominent interests in the party. While I would not lay the blame solely on Nehru for disregarding Jinnah, as other powerful lobbies in Congress were supporting Nehru, he was an influential voice.

In the decade leading to Independence, Nehru indicated that he would hear nothing other than the centrally-controlled state he had envisioned. The attorney in Jinnah, in my opinion, took over. I am certain that he was shaken by the final outcome his ‘victory’ produced, but he fought the case for Indian Muslims like a smart, devoted and ambitious lawyer – detached, unemotional and having the opinion of his client (the Muslim political parties) override his own ideology.

Reflecting back, this was an event that was avoidable. Interestingly, Mr. M.J.Akbar has opined that the overriding reason for Partition was not really religion, as is widely believed, but was promoted by the fear of Punjabi landlords who dreaded losing their holdings and status in the liberal-socialist state Nehru and Gandhi were promoting.

[Reply]
Shah Alam Khan Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Dear Atul,
I presume you have put it beautifully, “the attorney in Jinnah took over”. Couldn’t agree more with you, but there lies the problem. On a lighter note, nations are not and should not take birth through the heart and mind of attorneys. Honestly I cannot understand the real issue. Is it that Jinnah was a communalist (which you and Mr Singh presume he wasn’t, and I think he was) or is the product of a communal philosphy of Jinnah the real problem. Its like arguing what came first, the chick or the egg. Well we are defending someone who scarred the subcontinent forever, knowing very well that he had less than six months to live. Based on what he achieved through pure communal rhetoric (at least for the whole of decade preceeding independence), I cannot give him any leash of secular credentials no matter what his philosphy was.
Truly,
Dr.Shah Alam Khan
AIIMS, New Delhi

[Reply]
Atul Reply:
August 21st, 2009 at 7:54 am
Dear Dr. Khan:

I agree with you that “…there lies the problem”. Unfortunately, because any nation-state is to be bound by laws, attorneys are a “necessary evil” we have to have.

I am very interested in reading history and following current affairs, and I get a sense that singular people may only influence events to some extent, but aren’t entirely responsible. Even Gandhi, in part, was the visible face of many a rich and powerful interests who housed him and funded his activities. Hitler could not have been able to do what he did if he did not have a powerful machinery behind him. And look at Obama, who promised to bring change and have no influence of the lobbyists has only one thing achieved in the healthcare ‘reform’ so far: a deal with Big Pharma to reduce some drug prices for the elderly.

What I’m trying to say is that no man is an island. Jinnah could not have succeeded in his call for a separate land for Muslims had he not had the backing of some powerful interests. I find gravity in MJ Akbar’s thesis that there was a powerful lobby of rich Punjabi landlords. At the final meeting where the resolution of the division of Punjab was passed, Mahatma Gandhi and Abdul Kalam Azad, who were against this, were absent. Sardar Patel told Gandhi later that he only came to know about his opposition to the division from a newspaper!

I certainly agree that Partition was wrong, avoidable and manufactured. However, to say that only one person, Jinnah, was responsible is not true. Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and a lot of other lesser known people should also share the blame, both of omission and commission. We tend to make myths and over-simplify things that tend to give us comfort, since it would take a lot of intellectual load to always be logical. As Napoleon said, “History is an agreed upon fable”.

Sincerely,
Atul

moughal Reply:
August 21st, 2009 at 10:05 am
hey rajeev ,

Agreed people like bukhari and john dayal are not the true representation of their communities same as RSS is not the true face of real tolerent Hindu majority . so next time when you list do put them on there too because they are also in minority here.

regards

Rajeev Reply:
August 21st, 2009 at 8:47 pm
You are right. The RSS is also stuck in middle ages.

You control your dogs and I’ll control mine.

Shah Alam Khan Reply:
August 21st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Dear Atul,
Yes I agree, partition was the result of a number of factors. But what Mr Singh is arguing (although I haven’t read the book as yet) is whether Jinaah was LESS responsible than others. This to me, is a little unpalatable. Jinnah was the “cornerstone”of partition. Probably the nucleus of all that supported him and his malign cause. As for powerful lobbies go, we are on the same page. Honestly, did I as an optimist (that I suppose I am ) expected “change”from Obama. Not really. Read what the likes of Chomsky has to say for the President even before he took office this January. Obama is the porduct of the system which runs the administrative machinery of America. The system which decides who is the villain and who the hero. The system which funds wars, which kills people globally and unfortunately which disturbs peace even in the subcontinent. To expect a “change”from Obama was lke expecting meat in a lion’s den. He just happens to be a shade darker than those who had occupied that white office before him. Well, once an optimist, always an optimist. I can only hope for a metamorphosis.
By the way its great to get in discourse with you and that too on Mr Sharma’s website, where majority of mails denounce him as a traitor and spit venom on someone who really thinks of peace. Keep writing.
truly,
Dr.Shah Alam Khan
AIMS, New Delhi

Atul Barry Reply:
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Dr. Khan:

Having a discussion with you is my pleasure as well. I have added the last name to my handle as there was another ‘Atul’ writing on this site.

I have come across an Editorial in The Hindu, written at the time of Jinnah’s death. It pretty much says what I, and you, are saying.

http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article6489.ece?homepage=true

Regards,

Atul

Shah Alam Khan Reply:
August 22nd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Dear Atul,
Thanks for passing on the Hindu article. It did make very interesting reading. You are right it prety much says what both of us are trying to argue with. Jinah was a great politician but the wisdom of his judgement in forming Pakistan is questionable. I have this strange and funny feeling. What if a great leader from a freedom struggle goes on to become the head of that country? Some of the examples are horrific. We all know Nelson Madela as the champion of Anti-Apartherid struggle but do we even remember him for any of his actions when he was heading South Africa for a decade? I am not sure if great leaders make good administrators. I presume its better to die as a leader than to struggle as an administrator. This can’t be more true than in Jinnah’s case. In fact the only exception to this rule is Jawaharlal Nehru. He was a great leader and an equally efficient administrator (although my friends from the corporate sector raise an eyebrow on his commitment to socialism, which to me was an absolute essentiality of the times).
Great to be in touch with you. Do read my blog (address given above).
Truly,
Dr.Shah Alam Khan
AIIMS, New Delhi

Atul Barry Reply:
August 24th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Dr. Khan:

I have read your blog; it’s great. I have tried to blog as well, but have been rather lazy at updating it. Hopefully I will start doing so soon. It is: http://atulbarry.wordpress.com/

I do agree with you that there is always a risk for freedom fighters to become politicians. Gandhi would have made a terrible Prime Minister.

I believe that there is certainly some ‘luck’ that plays part in a country’s history. George Washington, the first president of the US, had all avenues open to him to become a ‘king’, but he chose not to. India was blessed that people like Nehru and Patel who, despite all their faults, were able to nurture a nascent democracy.

It was unfortunate that Jinnah died so soon after the creation of Pakistan, and i am certain that it was have been a very different ball of wax had he lived longer. India was also fortunate to have inherited the whole administrative structure of the British, which the Pakistanis did only in part. Further, the then GOI dragged its feet to release proportional funds to the new state, and did so only after Gandhi’s fasting.

Although Nehru took part in the freedom struggle, he was more of an intellectual and politician. He could not have led the masses like the populist Mahatma did. He had more of an Oxbridge character than that of a common Indian. Even Gandhi was advised to take a tour of India before starting a drive for freedom. It is to his greatness that he shed his ‘Eton’ attire to become the ‘naked fakir’ to represent the masses.

What wonders me is that another British educated, whiskey drinking, ham eating, ‘Muslim’ lawyer would find himself heading a mass movement, something he was himself uncomfortable with initially. In addition, the religious Muslim parties were against Partition. I am at a loss to understand why he succeeded, other than the force of his will and his willingness to adapt to the changing circumstances, like his call for a ‘Direct Action Day’. It is true that this event on 16 August 1946 was helped by people like Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, whose government provided support to Muslim League mobs who attacked Hindus en masse to press their demand for Pakistan.

Even though I prefer free-enterprise over socialism, I still think that Nehru did the right thing by insisting on local manufacture only, because it raised the awareness and pride of ‘Indianness’. Yes, he may have gone too far, but with the Raj draining all resources from its colony, it would have been very hazardous to introduce a capitalistic model in that setting. I think the Indian psyche is still against multi-nationals, for East India Company WAS an MNC, after all!

With regards,

Atul

Sam Reply:
August 26th, 2009 at 7:06 am
I think Jinnah is just a British agent and a paid politician.

This is my hypothesis and belief.

==============================================================
How come Jinnah did not go to the jail for even a SINGLE day ?
When Gandhi and Nehru were repeatedly jailed and spent jail time many many years.

It could have only happened with Jinnah making a secret deal with Britishers to take the role of a mole and spoiler.

Jinnah is just a sold out guy built up by Britishers, just to prolong India’s suffering at Britishers hands.

He is another Mir Jaffar of Epic proportion.

He only fights with Congress, while conniving with Britishers.
========================================================================

Atul Barry Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Sam, you do have a point. This could be a bigger mystery than who killed JFK.

Jinnah may have been a coward; he did not agitate like Nehru and Gandhi.

BTW, you can either have a belief or an hypothesis, but not both.
Anil

See our history book too is spiked . Till today I was under impression that in 1936/37 election Muslism league was asking for share in the corridors of power despite losing the election. jaswant Singh put the fact on record which was despite Congress and Muslim league fightign election as an alliance congress after seeing that they have enough seats of their own chose to break the alliance post election.

if this si true Muslim League and Jinnah had every reaosn to be feel wronged.

it’s another matetr I am against the very idea of Muslims league comign into shape . Muslim league’s religion based scare-mongering basically polarised our polity. What was the need for Bengals’s division.

Jinnah’s 14 point could nto have bene accepted by any sane person.> even today i ask Pakistanis just replace Pakistan with baluchistan and India with pakistan in documnt and see whether you reconcile with acceptign those 14 points apropos baluchistan and you will knwo why India refused to accept those 14 points.. But if the choise was between division and acceptign those 14 points I would have accepted those 14 points.. jaswant Singh is right in this regard that blame should be arrogated to both Jinnah/Nehru for partition.

Now if you take the world view Muslim people take to sepratisim at drop of hat fear-mongering by invokign Islam-is-in-danger for soem reason everywheer in the muslim world finds gullible audience.. Look around from Thailand to chechnya to China everywhere muslim minority is busy with call of separatism. Grievance differ but end result always is separate land..
Some research needs to be done viz a viz propensity of muslims to the amenability of call of separatism.

[Reply]
Atul Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Nikhil:

That’s good: the Bharatiya Jinnah Party!

I agree that controversy sells; I’m eagerly waiting to get myself a copy. However, this is also because a few things that I’ve heard about the book do jibe with my opinion about Jinnah and Nehru (please see my reply to Dr. Khan, above).

Jaswant Singh and Advani are prominent and long-standing Jan Sanghis. For them to hold a favorable view about Jinnah secularity while belonging to a rabid anti-muslim organization is rather illuminating. It indicates that all politicians have the asset to bury their belief to support a different ideology that may clash with their own worldview. I have often wondered how Mr. Naqvi sleeps at night after a ‘chintan-baithak’ where Muslims are abased.

[Reply]
Atul Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 6:35 am
Vinod:

This is the first time I’ve read your blog and found it truly insightful. I do believe that the Partition was an avoidable, created tragedy. I feel our worldview is pretty parallel (see my replies, above), though I’m not a prominent journalist. I’ve bookmarked your blog and will be reading it regularly now.

Warm regards,

Atul

[Reply]
vinod Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Thanks Atul that you found my views worth a thought.

Nikhil Reply:
August 19th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Atul:

I enjoyed reading your comments on Jinnah and Nehru. Jaswant’s book may kick a storm within BJP – hasn’t it already? – but I find it refreshing to read his views even if they are unpalatable for some.

I’d like to see unbiased research being published on other Indian leaders; many of them are needlessly turned in to icons for gaining political mileage. The blind worshipping of our leaders in some quarters explains that. Keeping partisan politics out, the BJP in my view deserves appreciation.

[Reply]
Atul Reply:
August 21st, 2009 at 8:00 am
Nikhil:

Thanks. I don’t know why books are banned in India, which calls itself a vibrant democracy (and it is), for any reason, including political or religious.

Sadly, India is in a bind; it has to choose between ‘Dynasty’ (Congress) or ‘Nasty’ (BJP).

Atul

Atul Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 6:08 am
Anil:

True, the history books ARE spiked. They would have been further altered if Murlimanohar Joshi had his way during the last NDA government to revise these textbooks.

It is a well known fact that it was Savarkar who propounded the notion that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together peacefully, well before Jinnah made this his rallying cry. And while Muslim League cannot escape blame, it was he who penned the work describing Hindutva, openly espousing Hindu nationalism while he was jailed by the Brits. Savarkar even agreed with Jinnah, after the Lahore Resolution in 1940, that Hindus and Muslims were a separate nation; only that he was against Partition and wanted Muslims to go ‘back’ to the Middle East. The party he joined in the 1920s, the Hindu Mahasabha, worked like the Hindu League.

I also agree with you that there should have been no Muslim League; there should be a separation of religion and politics. For this reason I’m unhappy about the Hindu Mahasabha being formed, and the ‘cultural organization’ (so they claim) of RSS meddling in politics first as the Jan Sangh and now as the BJP.

[Reply]
Raju Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Jinnah was not above Muslim League. He did not create Muslim League. He was articulate expression of Muslim League.
And the Muslim League was expression Muslims in India.
If Muslims believed that they are separate from Hindus in a political sense, the demand for separate nation was bound to come. If Jinnah hadn’t voiced it, some else would have.
Let us not over analyse Jinnah. Jinnah was no more than voice of Muslim mentality.
It is more important to understand Muslim mentality.

[Reply]
moughal Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Well i am not sure what all Mr. Jaswant Singh has written in his book about Jinnah and Nehru but let me tell you, Jinnaah was not the one and only leader of muslims at the time of partition, so the Comment in Mr. Anil’s response can’t be true. There were millions of Indian Muslims who had the means and scope of migration to Pakistan , but they opted to stay back , because of the love for their ‘Motherland’ although that does not means they are any superior Indian then the rest but my friend its was a good and intelligent choice, based on ground realities and faith in the constitutional leadership of india.
Let me remind you again that Many people like Dr. Zakir Hussain, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, etc were resourceful too.

Jinnah was and will be a issue in India and Pakistan till we seperate fanaticism from the fact.
Good that the right wing is generating this debate . they might identify some of their mistakes with Jinnah’s mistakes and tone down their communal doctrine.

regards

[Reply]
Keval Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
More than anyone else, time itself has proved that Nehru was right and had greater foresight. BJP leaders appears to follow JInna as a role model to unambiguously Secular India with Secular India of HIndus. It appears ridiculously insane, an oxymoron- a secular India for HIndus- but that is exactly what ‘master’ logician of Jaswant, JInna set out to create. Indians need to learn from JInna and Pakistan that slope from secularism to a theocratic state is very slippery and steep and Nehru was right in not yielding any space to political aspirations based on religious affiliations. He had faith in secular democracy and Indian people that with a decent constitution we should be able to live together in peace while appreciating our differences, and he wished these values not only for India but for the whole world. It is good that he did not accept JInna/Gandhi’s idea of creating some exclusive Hindu- Muslim states within India. God knows what would have happened in that case if something akin to Raj Thakrey-North Indian episode or water conflicts have occurred in that case. What is not there always look attractive. One can never prove that such federation would not have resulted in much more pain and bloodshed and ethnic cleansing. At least we have the satisfaction of choosing the right values over a larger land mass with perverted values.
A mature politician and avowed secularist and nationalist will never compromise these values, but will relentlessly work to find some other ways of restoring the injustices being done. And how can a secular person choose to selectively look for the interests solely of a religious group and not of the nation as a whole. How can a secular person forsake his faith that person of different religions can live together in peace, and work to realize this goal. If anyone give up on this faith and resort to easy was of separatism out, then such a person is not worthy of being called a great leader.
Similarly for Jaswant’s argument about JInna’s greatness because of his poor background, one can also argue for Nehru that, even though he was born in affluence and could have lived with great luxury and pursued other interests in which he was passionately involved in, still he choose to struggle and go to prison for the sake of India’s freedom.

Atul Reply:
August 21st, 2009 at 8:19 am
Keval:

You have made some very good points. Nobody can argue that Nehru did not have a vision that has proved to be beneficial for India in the long run. India’s stature in the world today is in large part due to his foresight, and that it has remained an uninterrupted (almost, save for the Emergency) democracy for 62 years is due to his efforts to nurture democratic institutions.

However, it cannot be said that whatever he said or did was always right, or whatever Jinnah said or did was always wrong. When the division of states in India at Independence was structured on linguistic lines, there was fear that there would be unrest and eventual breakup of the country. Nothing of that sort has happened.

A centrally controlled state may be satisfactory for a smaller countries like Britain – where a MP goes door to door at election time, or Switzerland – where resolutions are often passed by a show of hands, but in bigger and diverse nations, it makes more sense to have a de-centralized federal structure. I doubt that problems of Kashmir and Khalistan would have arisen if states had more autonomy, like they do in the United States. And Mr. Thakrey would have had little currency for his call for ‘Bhaias’ to leave Maharasthra.

Indian Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Atul,

The muslim league and the call for separatism (in different forms), such as separate electorates etc., the support for khilafat movement, came in before savarkar’s penned down his thoughts. Please do not alter the sequence of events. The parivar came in to existence “after” the muslim league and not before.

Also, you make it sound as if RSS has nothing but only politics in mind. Perhaps you should see the work they do. You will be surprised.

Third – Do you know what murli manohar was trying to do? I thought his focus was more on recorrecting the horrible distortion done by the marxists and not what you are suggesting.

Thanks!

[Reply]
Anil

One thign about Indian Muslims and their support for Pakistan. Fact is support of muslim when jinnah gave the call fro Pakistan was total.> COngress could nto win even a single muslim constituency( yes in those days we had religion based constituency). So even those muslims who were left behidn in India whole-hurtedly supported Jinnah on pakistan..

try to keep this in mind when mulim leaders today erroneously claim otherwise sayign how they chose to stay back hence they were supporter of united India.. Sorry my freind election result of 1946 exposes the vacuuousness of this assertion.. I am nto saying they should be treated as Pakistani today but withotu accepting the truth and reconcilign with it we can;t creat bright future. So it’s my request to historians and columnist to stop lying about the support for Jinha among muslims who got left behind in India.. I am using the term left behidn because I do not buy the assertion that people chose to stay out of love for India . It was more of a case of lack of means for migration after all why would anyone stay back after whole-heartedly votign for creatio of new state carved out of India.

[Reply]
Atul Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Anil:

What you say about the lack of means of migration is true. People who were rich and intelligent moved to Pakistan leaving behind the poor and less or uneducated behind. This is what is so sad.

In India, we have the ‘left-overs’ living mostly in ghettos and anything that is done by the state to lift them out of their misery is termed “appeasement”. While the Parivar is not shy to call itself anti-muslim, even prominent Congressis, like Indira Gandhi, supported the Imams over the common Muslim to use them like a vote-bank.

The émigrés to Pakistan are not unscathed. They are looked upon as ‘outsiders’ and therefore less trustworthy, especially since Mr. Zia led that country down towards the abyss.

[Reply]
Nikhil

The old man – Jaswant Singh – has done it again. Like that in the past, Jaswant Singh has kicked another controversy for his book; like sex, controversy sells. BJP is on its way to be the Bharatiya Jinnah Party. I’ll have to read the book when it comes out.

Jaswant Singh’s remarks on Nehru will certainly create plenty of chatter in the blogosphere in Pakistan. More reasons for them to pass the blame on to the Indians; a.k.a. hindus, as Indians are fondly refered across the border.

[Reply]
Rakesh Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Dear Nikhil

As you admit in your remark that you are yet to read the book…and you are already criticising Jaswant & BJP. Do you think it is right?? I do understand your your political affiliation (the way you picked Abhisek’s phrase) and hope you will be fair in criticism.

[Reply]
Sujata Anandan Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Have to share a story with you, Vinod — got it from one of my parents’ freedom fighter friends.

Apparently when Muslim migrants from india who were not being treated properly in Pakistan approached hin with a complaint this is how the convsersation went:

The migrants: “Look at India. How well their government is treating their refugees. They have set up camps, they are being allotted land, they are being given jobs and all their needs are being taken care of.

And look at us — we are responsible for the creation of Pakistan and yet we have been left to languish and rot with no food, clothes or shelter!”

Jinnah’s reply: “Only three things are responsible for the creation of Pakistan — I, my typist and his typewriter!”

[Reply]
vinod Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Dear Sujata,
There is another similar sounding stories related in an essay by Iben Insha. He said one day one angry Pakistani walked upto him to complain: “In our country, people identify themselves as Sindhis, Balochis, Pakhtoons and Punjabis. If that’s so then where was the need to create Pakistan?” To that, Insha said: Maaf kijeyaga, galti ho gaye, aage se nahin banayenge.

Mohd Asim Khan Reply:
August 18th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Sir,
I read your blog off and on. (Not regularly because I do not find anything ‘hat ke’ in your stand on Pakistan. We all know that history is the luxury of the powerful. It can be moulded, interpreted differently to suit our ends, and again re-interpreted. The partition of India is one such incident in modern history. We have been (perhaps unnecessarily) trying to fix blames, creating villains and justifying one stand or the other. Everyone has his anecdotes to tell to suit his stand. My plea is: Can’t we just get over it and embrace the present day realities? How long are we going to get rid of the hallucinations of several “mini Pakistans” within India? Just how long?

Rajeev Reply:
August 19th, 2009 at 12:21 am
I find it very funny when BJP turns secular and Congress turns nationalist at the very mention of name ‘Jinnah’.
I think BJP leaders are playing politics to get muslim votes by praising Jinnah and slamming Nehru.

Jinnah may have been secular in his personal life but his politics was based on communalism and to deny this will be greatest folly. The proof of his communal politics was his ‘Direct Action Day’ call when he asked muslims all over India to go crazy and instill fear in hearts of hindus. He never regretted violence by muslims on that day. Infact he went ahead and blackmailed congress with CIVIL WAR. Obviously hindus had no spine or stomach for violence, congress gave in to Jinnah’s demands.

You must know Jinnah was one of the seniormost leader of congress after Tilak died however he was sidelined for more charismatic Gandhi. Jinnah was disheartened and bid politics adieu and settled in England. It was Iqbal who presented vision of pakistan to Jinnah and persuaded him lead pakistan movement. This was beginning of Communal politics of Jinnah inspired by ULTRA-COMMUNAL Allama Iqbal. Jinnah like anyone else was ambitious who wasnted to be supreme leader. The muslims of India gave him that position which was parallel to Gandhi.
The other reason for creation of pakistan was fear of north-western landlords of losing their land holdings because congress was very clear about abolishing Zamindari.
So why did Pakistan get created-
1. Muslim ingrained genes of separatism
2. Iqbal’s coomunal vision of muslim nation (pakistan)
3. Jinnah’s and Nehru’s personal ambitions
4. Jinnah’s threat of CIVIL WAR
5. Cowardice of Hindu leadership

However we can not absolve Nehru for his role in formenting muslim separatism. His report (I don’t the name but it is often quoted by pakistanis), was the start of excuse to create Pakistan. Nehru was a leader with two missions. First to be PM of India for the longest possible time (followed by his decendents) and secondly a mission to see India as developed SOCIALIST (oxymoron) country. He succeeded in his first mission but failed badly in second one.

It is time BJP gave up this stupid idea and move on with time. BJP should understand very clearly that muslims who may or may not have soft corner for Jinnah, will never vote for it simply because it is TOO HINDU for their taste.

Rajeev Reply:
August 19th, 2009 at 2:30 am
What Jaswant singh said about Sardar Patel is totally unacceptable. Sardar was the tallest leader after Gandhi who could have forced Nehru out of PM race but he was a leader in Gandhi mould.

BJP should apologise for denigrating Sardar.

Why is self-proclaimed modern Sardar patel (Advani) silent on this?

Sardar Patel has been reduced to non-entity by Nehru-Gandhi owned Congress (Islam) Pvt. Ltd. but why is BJP insulting the true leader?

sohail Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I saw the movie SARDAR a few days ago which is about Sardar Patel and is made in India.I don’t see any difference in that movie’s version of events leading to the partition or Jaswant Singh’s version.I think most of the people in India have not seen that movie because it is not a masala bollywood film.If you see this film you will have better understanding of what Jaswant Singh is saying.

Nikhil Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Sohail,

Many, including me, have seen the movie Sardar. It’s one of my favorites. Many Indians know that partition of India in 1947 was a result of serious disagreement between the Muslim league and the Congress leadership of the day. Jaswant’s book has not come as a surprise to many. But, the politics of today makes Jaswant and his book an easy target.

Atul Reply:
August 21st, 2009 at 8:23 am
Asim:

Very true. I believe it is in the blood of South Asians to just dwell on the past.

Atul

Atul Barry Reply:
August 21st, 2009 at 8:34 am
I just thought I’d use my full name as there is another Atul in this column.

I must say that I’m flabbergasted by comments of one, or maybe two, respondents who seem to jump on every post that is written by a Muslim name.

Geez Luis!

Nikhil Reply:
August 19th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Rakesh:

Jaswant Singh’s views underline the fact that neither Jinnah nor Nehru, despite their accomplishments, were spotless. I do not want to make it a partisan argument but in some ways, Jaswant shares Jinnah’s frustration; in a sense both found it difficult to overpower the Congress party which symbolizes dynastic politics but – for better or for worse – continues to have significant appeal with the Indian electorate.

[Reply]
Ankit

It is quite understandable that the establishment, which has been brought up on the “Nehru is the greatest Indian ever” diet, is quite upset at a less than charitable view of Nehru that has been taken by Mr. Jaswant Singh. History is written by the winners, and Nehru was the ultimate winner of the post independence power dynamics; the two other stalwarts Gandhi and Patel died shortly afterwards giving Nehru the whole field to himself. No wonder then that we have more things named after Nehru than all other freedom fighters combined

[Reply]
Akhilesh Reply:
August 19th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Rajeev,
I agree with your sentiments. But Jaswant Singh’s view are not that of the BJP. He has been expelled today.

But the drift of Jaswant’s arguments, that Jinnah was not the only villian of the drama needs to be considered. Since all history writing till now has been filtered through Congress sympathisers, we need to know the real hisory so that we may learn from it and not repeat the mistake.

Cheers !!

[Reply]
Rajeev Reply:
August 19th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Akhilesh,
Advani has not yet clarified his remarks on Jinnah’s secularism. He should also be expelled or sidelined till he clears up his viewpoint.
As far as my understanding is concerned, Advani was jut polite in Pakistan (hosts) and did the right thing by reminding ISLAMIC pakistan that their own leader Jinnah wanted a secular pakistan (however Jinnah never denied primacy of Islam in pakistan). Advani kind of subtly insulted current pakistan for not being pakistan of Jinnah. But Advani has failed to convey this to India.

Lastly even the most naive person can make out that BJP has finally realised than it can never get consolidated vote bank from divided hindus and is looking elsewhere (muslims & others) for expanding its support base. However all this foolishness is making BJP loose its base.

BJP should get back to basic minus rabid hindutva (mild hinduta/moderate hindutva is OK) and concentrate on ideas that will help India develop its social sectors, Infrastructure, defence, law and order, education etc. The BJP has duty towards nationalist to unite the nation that has been divided on every fault like by Congress and its lackeys.
India is divided on-
Religion – Courtesy congress populist policies for muslims
Language – Courtesy Raj Thackrey lackey of Congress-NCP
Poverty – Courtesy UPA, rising prices and pro-corporate outlook
Gender – Men being harrassed using 498A and DV act courtesy UPA
Foreign policy – liberals and conservatives divided courtesy MMS.

We can not allow congress to destroy India once more and it is time BJP take UPA and congress friendly media head on in WAR MODE. It is important to neutralise congress’s PR (Indian media) first, then followed by divisive policies of Congress (Islamic) i.e. modern muslim league of India

[Reply]
Rajeev Reply:
August 19th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Everyone in India knows that it was ambition of Nehru and Jinnah that led to partition.
I strongly object to Jaswant Singh’s attempt to absolve Jinnah and put all blame on Gandhi-Patel-Netru for partition.

I consider Nehru to be unrealistic leader but you can not call him pro-hindu. He was everything but pro-hindu and same goes for Gandhi.

However Sardar Patel and Ambedkar being realistic leaders have clear cut views on partition free from ideological baggage. They wanted forced repatriation of muslims to Pakistan and hindus from pakistan. They wanted total partition. If that had happened we would not have seen mayhem on daily basis by muslim terrorists and dons.

Gandhi-Nehru wanted muslims (who voted in large number for creation of pakistan) to stay back in India only because they wanted to use them as permanent vote bank for future and block the rise of HINDU RIGHT (RSS etc.) in Indian political landscape.

I was very sure about congress win in 2009 elections because I could see minorities (muslims 7-10% india-wide and total christian 3% support) standing behind congress for its pro-minority and anti-majority mindset. The congress had 10% lead over BJP in last elections and that is what BJP should worry about. The BJP can never come back to power till it finds counter-balancing vote among non-muslims, non-christians to counter Congress excess 10% vote (courtesy communal muslims and xtians).

[Reply]
moughal Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Interesting analysis Mr. Rajeev, but for your information Minorities constitute roughly 20% of indias population, so kindly i think no hope for you and your BJP’s comeback .
PLEASE DON’T TRY TO BE A POLITICAL COMMENTATOR ,WITHOUT HAVING ANY UNDERSTANDING OF THE THE POLITICS.(read BJP’s lost election due to lack of capturing the real issues of the masses and hard core hatred politics. and not because of its media management. and lemme tell you for your kind knowledge BJP manages media better than congress , check all the large media groups like TOI and aajtak etc….)”ignorance is bliss”.
Although i know you won’t pay any heed to my advice , still i think it might challenge you to look at things in a new light.

regards

Rajeev Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 3:47 am
Your choice of name speaks volumes about you.

I know being from minority community it is hard for you to support anything remotely hindu,

You won’t pay any heed to my advice cause your religion has taught you hatred and nothing.

My religion gives me ways to see new light but you have no chance of ever getting that chance.

Keep Indian bleeding for your communal hatred.

Atul Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Dear Rajeev, Anil, Akhilesh, Sanjeev, and others,

You are all obviously fine analytical minds, with a certain passion in your beliefs.

And that is refreshing for erstwhile radicals like me, as it is comforting for me that with folks like you, India has more than a fighting chance to make its mark in all fields. And I mean this from the bottom of my heart.

I have read your posts here, in Sujata’s and Pankaj’s columns as well.

You do need to be sensitive to the difference between a critique and criticism. It is not for us to sit judgement on what others opine. It is for us to agree or disagree, and put forth arguments in support of what we think.

Passions are understandable, accusations can be avoided, as they lead to retribution.

All of us appreciate this freedom of expression. Lets keep it that way, but with decorum, please.

Would that be asking for too much?

Thanks

(Non journalist) Atul

[Reply]
Akhilesh Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Atul,
I cannot endorse more your point about decorum and sensitivity. Infact I have tried to consciously maintain that, as you might have read in the long reply above to Vinod Shrama. Thus you might notice that while Vinod ji dismisses me with contempt, I merely disagree with him.

However, if you still think that it lacks decorum, then it is surley a deficiency in my language skills and not in my intention.

If your objection or indeed of Vinod Sharma himself is to the use of the word Chamcha then let me point out that as a serious reader of political writings, maybe you would have noticed that it is increasingly becoming a part of accepted lexicon. Many writers, including the likes of Vir Sanghvi regularly use such words and others like crooks, scoundrels etc for politicians very freely these days. And that too in writings in print, where there is greater sensitivity to words as compared to a blog on the net. It would be astounding if one dishes out such words regularly for the politiciand but takes umbrage when the same is thrown back towards them and in this case only towards the deserving ones.

If your objection is why do I call many writers a chamcha, or compromised writers with definite biases, then that is a different debate for a different place. Suffice it to say that it is a very very accepted practice in India to ingratiate oneself with a political party or ideology, while still maintaining the facade of being an independent journalist. Infact its true not of journalism alone, but indeed of almost all other professions. How do you imagine does a retired CEC, a constitutional position holder, becomes a minister in a government. Or a buearecrat with a very coloured past becomes the present CEC.

My objection is not why journalists take positions or why do they even vent their biases. Take for example someone like Tarun Vijay. Its clear to one and all what is his ideology. Therfore, one can immediately put on a filter glass and then read his piece and decide for oneself.

My objection is with people like Pankaj Vohra and to a lesser extent with Vinod Sharma. These writers profess to be independent, sans ideology. They write in an arguably indepent newspaper and not mouthpices pf political party. Yet, they are no different from someone like Tarun Vijay and Paanchjanya. There each and every writing is carefully designed to adavnce the cause of Congress and deflate the BJP. But the average reader does not know this. And therefore, is being falsely informed. This is doing incalculable harm to the cause of India because there is no free dissemination of information but a very controlled and colured view is being presented.

I complimented Vinod Sharma because he had the conviction to at least let a crtical comment get published on his blog. But do you know what Pankaj Vohra has done. He has moderated out all my comments on his blog. Read all. And those were infact much milder in comparison to what I have written anywhere. Does that not show you his beleif in freeedom of expression and his thinly disguised chamcha act of the congress.

Finally, I am non-journalist too. Infact I have had never anything to do with jounalism. Indeed I work in the corporate world. And I agree with you that India will surely find her place under the sun.

Regards,

Atul Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Dear Akhilesh,

People like me enjoy debates. We just wince when it becomes personal.

We are all, without exception, humans with failings.

Just continue what you are doing and try not to get personally involved.

Thanks for replying.

It shows you care.

moughal Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I agree with your point of you Atul.
lets use this forum as a positive medium.

regards

Rajeev Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Atul,
It is hypocrisy of journalists who claim to neutral that makes people like me call spade a spade.
It is very important that journalist do a self evaluation periodically and find if they are getting biased or not.

I am of the opinion that current media is very pro-congress and to an extent media as become propaganda machine of ruling congress.

I use harsh words as last resort and out of frustration.

Lastly I hate the Indian thinking “Log kya kahenge”. We Indians are always worried what others will think of us. Who cares? You should worry about yourself. Why do we keep begging for approval from everyone? Is it because of 1000 years of slavery?

Atul Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Dear Rajiv,

Thanks for responding.

All I am suggesting is try not to get personalities involved. Personal attacks dilute debate.

Be as vitriolic as you like on an issue, and you have voiced some very valid points in your posts. Please dont stop your disagreements and analysis, as they are refreshing.

But instead of attacking, why not put the question to Vinod & Pankaj – “Are you pro Congress?” and hear them out.

Rajeev Reply:
August 21st, 2009 at 12:28 am
I think you have made a very nice suggestion. I’ll be more careful.

Rajeev Reply:
August 21st, 2009 at 12:29 am
Vinod,
I want to ask you humbly “Are you pro-congress?”.

Pl. provide link to the article/blogs where you have been critical of congress or dynasty and pro-opposition (even communists will do).

Rajeev Reply:
August 21st, 2009 at 12:32 am
Pl. don’t label us radicals.

I am very liberal as long as I see that person arguing with me has honesty in his thoughts and is not biased.
http://incorrectpolitically.wordpress.com Akhilesh

Vinod Ji,
The sum toto of all arguments of your types ( I mean journalists with political leanings that you share) is this :

Any version of the Congress is secular and correct. Any version of the BJP is communal and bigoted.

Fore example, when Congress says Jinnah was a villian with nothing worthwile about him then it is the true story. Period. If BJP tries to re-interpret that Jinnah may actually have been driven down the bigoted road by policies of the Congress itself then of course BJP itself is bigoted, pandering to extremes, etc etc.

But when BJP says that illegal immigrants from Bangladesh should be deported, then it is communal because Congress opposes it. Why does Congress oppose it? Because they form its core voters in Assam and increasingly in West Bengal. They day Congress also says we should stop Bangaldeshis from coming, this issue will no longer be communal. But only then.

Amazingly simple thought process you have. I admire you for it. Its not easy to be a chamcha and yet have some respectabilty. You have done it.

[Reply]
Rajeev Reply:
August 19th, 2009 at 2:37 am
Akhilesh,
It is quite evident that Congress is the problem party in India supported by pro-congress media but the issue here is unnecessary lionising of Jinnah who vivsected India on PAN-ISLAMISM.

BJP is doing futile excercise of appeasing muslims by praising Jinnah. This is going to put off hindus the core vote bank of BJP. Why is BJP hell bent of shrinking its base?

The people like Vinod should not be blamed for being pro-congress because they journalism was nurtured and developed by congress who has ruled India for 50 years now. The problem is with BJP who is yet to understand the need to develop friendly relations with media houses. They can start bribing like congress by giving out full page advertisements, throw up booze party and keep their ego massaged.

[Reply]
vinod Reply:
August 19th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Dear Akhilesh and Rajeev,
I really am deeply pained by your proclivity to sit in judgement and character assassinate people for their views. It smacks of intolerance and disrespect for other people’s freedom while exercising your own. I do not write in Roman script. I write in English and am really surprised how Srimant Akhilesh could draw the meaning he did from my post on Jaswant’s Jinnah. I’ve partly agreed with the BJP’s budding author Sir by accepting his description of Jinnah but objecting to his critique of Nehru.
As for your accusing fingers at the Indian media and my own self, I treat your lowly remarks with the contempt they deserve. Don’t need certificates from others my dears. In the courtroom of my conscience, I am pretty high in my own esteem.

[Reply]
Rajeev Reply:
August 19th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
You should prove your neutrality with your writing. These words mean nothing till they are put in action.
For any neutral observer you come across as mouthpiece of ruling Congress. I still don’t blame for you this because your journalistic career has never seen other than congress and I am pretty sure you have access to almost everyone in congress. You are comfortable with them because of your access and ideology whereas you find it very uncomfortable taking side of opposition.

[Reply]
Ankit Reply:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:39 am
It is quite interesting that people like Mr. Vinod Sharma, who regularly sit in judgement inside television studios and character assassinate people, are unable to take a speck of criticism. The contempt that is being shown by Mr. Vinod Sharma towards the comments are only a reflection of the contempt with which most of the India media treats the public.

[Reply]
http://incorrectpolitically.wordpress.com/ Akhilesh

Dear Vinod Ji,
I must say that you deserve kudos for having my comment getting published on your blog. That at least shows to me, that you are a journalist first and other loyalities, which I am still convinced exist, come later. However same is not true for many of your collegaues in HT, who quitely moderate out critical comments from their blogs. So again, I must compliment you.

As regards the points raised by you, here are my comments:

Freedom of Expression: We obviously value your freedom of expression. Thats why we read your blog and do not demand that it be banned. Surely, we can disagree with you, as you yourself agree, but that does not mean we want to mute you. And the best proof of freedom is that we can be critical of each other in the same space. So I question the hidden motives behind your posts, while you dismiss me with deserved contempt ( as per you). All in civilised manner. Fair enough, would you not say?

Accusing fingers at media : Well you may not be answerable for his deeds, but you colleague Pankaj Vohra also writes a blog on this website. Just read the way he answers to comments on his post about Rajiv Gandhi. The lines start with…”these BJP types…”and end in uncouthed hostility to anythingg BJP. Therfore, its not entirely incorrect to blame media for bias, especially HT journos.

As about accusing you of bias, its just not a gleam from this blog. I am a very serious political follower. Thus I have read most of your articles ( as of indeed other writers), seen you in TV studios having your take on issues, etc. And my judgment is based on what I have read and seen over a long time.

Of course Rajeev hits the nail when he makes the point about media cultivation. Look at the way the Congress operates. It confers padma awards on unabashed chamchas of the party as well as some relatively indepndent journalists like Barkha Dutt and Shekhar Gupta. This is sophisticated as well as a very subtle strategy. BJP on the other hand is very rustic in such aspects and will never look beyond Chandan Mitra. Thats why BJP has no friends in the media to defend it, excpet the same face ever and ever again, whereas the Congress has a battery – from total Chamchas like Pankaj Vohra and Vinod Mehta to sutle friends like Vir Sanghvi and Vinod Sharma.

Lastly, you have always had a good sense of humour and thats why I could not stop myself from smiling at the “Srimant Akhilesh” bit that you used.

And finally – I don’t have either hostilty or contempt for the way you practise your journalism. I only have a sense of betrayl…that for some immediate selfish reasons…anything that the Congress does gets lionised by jornos like you ( like the prostration in Egypt by Manmohan Singh and your defense of it.)

[Reply]
Rajeev Reply:
August 19th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
I totally back your views on media.

I must confess that Vinod deserves our admiration for being tolerant of our views.
I also follow media very closely and I always try to see if the journalist is neutral. I am shocked to see kind of pro-congressism in media. The people like Vir Sanghvi sing praises of Rahul whose only acheivement has been eating in Dalits house (Rahul forgets that these dalits can afford simple meal like dal-chawal due to policies of govt. run by his mataji).
Then you have Pankaj Vohra who justifies massacre of 4000 sikhs by congressis saying that poor RajivJI was grieving. Can we also say that Modi was justified in allowing 100 muslims hacked because he was grieving for 59 innocent people barbequed by communal muslims?
Then you have Sujata Anandan, who behaves as if she is PR for congress.

The people like Rajdeep, Barkha, Vikram Chandra, Ashutosh etc. are destroying true spirit of journalism by being shamelessly pro-govt.

I still do not keep Vinod in the category of journalists that I have mentioned. Vinod is pro-congress and anti-BJP in a very sophisticated way. This is something he has to work on else he will end up like biased Kuldip Nayar in *** end of his career.

Did you know that Nehru treated Indian journalist with contempt but was very courteous with foreign journalists? This comes from veteran journalist Mr.Kamath.

[Reply]
Irfan Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Good article by Vinod Sharma but when i see the responses of the article,i have no words ,only ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

[Reply]
Rajeev Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I am pretty sure you didn’t understand a word just like you don’t understand a word in Quran (written in your master’s language Arabic).

Rajeev Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Did you understand a word?

Ankit Reply:
August 26th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
“Thats why BJP has no friends in the media to defend it, excpet the same face ever and ever again, whereas the Congress has a battery – from total Chamchas like Pankaj Vohra and Vinod Mehta to sutle friends like Vir Sanghvi and Vinod Sharma.”

You ARE a very close follower of politics my friend; you got the chamchas and the friends right on the mark! The fact is that the chamchas are not really taken seriously by the public, it is the ‘friends’ of establishment in the media who harm the country the most.

[Reply]
moughal

Hey Rajeev ,

seems i was right , you didn’t understood the real theme of my mail. Anyways you seem to be dead against minority community. i don’t have any problems with that .because there are many people like you and you must be having your own justifiable reason for that friend.
And by the way i am Proud Indian unlike you who seem to hate everything which makes this country beautiful (read its rich diversity in culture , language, and people), but as a true Indian i accept your point of view in the true spirit of difference of opinion.

regards

[Reply]
Rajeev Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
This pride with take you nowhere. Even after 62 years of independence, we are third world country with 40% of the population starving. This is all congress’s gift to our great nation.

I have nothing against minorities who are tolerant and open minded like sufi muslims.

I hate minorities like Bukhari or John Dayal.

[Reply]
Atul Barry

There is a great editorial of The Hindu written at the time of Jinnah’s death in 1948.

http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article6489.ece?homepage=true

[Reply]
Abu Ahmed

I think Mirza Ghalib would be more acceptable to all Indians as a national symbol – for his poetry is far more universal and humanitarian than any other poet – and Urdu is understood anywhere in India (though people tend to call it Hindustani for various reasons), which is not the case with Bengali.

[Reply]
Utsav

Watch Dogs of Cricket. if there is any theing which has changed the very idea of watching cricket is not the nature of the

[Reply]

Jaswant’s Jinnah demonizes Nehru

Recent Posts

Highest Rated

Popular Tags

Archives

All HT Blogs

Blogroll

Categories

Admin

Advertisement

More

HT Media Network: