Hey..
The title is a combination of 3 mutually exclusive words.
The Sangh parivar just cannot keep itself out of controversy. Not that the others successfully do, but the saffron junta always seems to be in the sensational news. The latest drama in the Hindutva community went on stage for most of last week when the former deputy PM of India, Mr. Advani went to Paksitan and proclaimed that Jinnah was secular.
It is only surprising that of all people Advani can choose to make such a statement. It is a universal truth that History is doctored everywhere and the Indian History taught in schools and colleges are no different. They are adulterated with pages and pages of stories written by Congress and rewritten by the Saffron party wherever they could. But all the stories of final years Indian Independence authored by anyone, have always pointed out that it was Jinnah who wanted to protect the interests of Muslims and wanted a separate Pakistan.
Jinnah probably didnt anticipate the partition riots would be to this extent. Maybe he didnt think that our nations will be fighting like this for next 6 decades or more to come. Maybe he wanted a separate country under a noble thought. He wanted a Muslim state - of, by and for the muslims. He was a nice man, a tough leader, stood by his principles, provided focus to the otherwise aimless Muslim league, vocal & championed for the muslims.. - All that is fine, but secular ?? - that is still debatable.
It will be tough to argue the merit of Pakistan-plan that was advocated by Jinnah. It will also not be fair to blame partition struggles and countless death only over Jinnah's head. India and the Congress wanted freedom from British. Jinnah wanted freedom from the Congress. Unlike Subash Bose who also didnt share the Congress vision and means to get to the end, Jinnah had a powerful trump card to play - religion. And he coined it well with the Biritsh who were running their divide and conquer game anyway.
It was of course true that Jinnah was called the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity efforts - ironically by few congressmen of that era. And according to history, Jinnah himself was not a religious man. In his initial speeches as Governor general of Pakistan, he called for equal rights to Hindus and Muslims in Pakistan and he hoped that over the years Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims and they will all be united as citizens of the state.
But these few speeches can hardly be used to conclude that the man is secular. The truth is out there on the World map. He wanted a religious state. Religion was the spine and lifegiver of his political presence. He championed, fought, campaigned and stuggled for a nation that was created with religion as the demarcator.
Funny enough, Advani, who by no means is secular himself, calls Jinnah secular and lands in a controversy. Well, we live in a crazy era where god-men go to jails on murder cases, priests are tried in court for homosexual abuses, massacres happen in the name of religion every few years, political parties thrive on faith, religious leaders instigate bomb blasts..... and so there is no harm done when one religious radical calls the other as secular, particulary leaders of strongly opposing sects.
Secularism means to tolerate or show indifference toward religion and believe that religion should not play a role in civil affairs. Such an attitude may be realised only in theory.. None of us is secular. It is a long way to go. So LK Advani, please stop delivering dramatic dialogues in the name of diplomacy and candidness. Because all that this drama has brought is a bad reputation for everyone involved. But again, if the need is mainly publicity and media attention, then well, yeah....... ... .. .
Chao..
The title is a combination of 3 mutually exclusive words.
The Sangh parivar just cannot keep itself out of controversy. Not that the others successfully do, but the saffron junta always seems to be in the sensational news. The latest drama in the Hindutva community went on stage for most of last week when the former deputy PM of India, Mr. Advani went to Paksitan and proclaimed that Jinnah was secular.
It is only surprising that of all people Advani can choose to make such a statement. It is a universal truth that History is doctored everywhere and the Indian History taught in schools and colleges are no different. They are adulterated with pages and pages of stories written by Congress and rewritten by the Saffron party wherever they could. But all the stories of final years Indian Independence authored by anyone, have always pointed out that it was Jinnah who wanted to protect the interests of Muslims and wanted a separate Pakistan.
Jinnah probably didnt anticipate the partition riots would be to this extent. Maybe he didnt think that our nations will be fighting like this for next 6 decades or more to come. Maybe he wanted a separate country under a noble thought. He wanted a Muslim state - of, by and for the muslims. He was a nice man, a tough leader, stood by his principles, provided focus to the otherwise aimless Muslim league, vocal & championed for the muslims.. - All that is fine, but secular ?? - that is still debatable.
It will be tough to argue the merit of Pakistan-plan that was advocated by Jinnah. It will also not be fair to blame partition struggles and countless death only over Jinnah's head. India and the Congress wanted freedom from British. Jinnah wanted freedom from the Congress. Unlike Subash Bose who also didnt share the Congress vision and means to get to the end, Jinnah had a powerful trump card to play - religion. And he coined it well with the Biritsh who were running their divide and conquer game anyway.
It was of course true that Jinnah was called the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity efforts - ironically by few congressmen of that era. And according to history, Jinnah himself was not a religious man. In his initial speeches as Governor general of Pakistan, he called for equal rights to Hindus and Muslims in Pakistan and he hoped that over the years Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims and they will all be united as citizens of the state.
But these few speeches can hardly be used to conclude that the man is secular. The truth is out there on the World map. He wanted a religious state. Religion was the spine and lifegiver of his political presence. He championed, fought, campaigned and stuggled for a nation that was created with religion as the demarcator.
Funny enough, Advani, who by no means is secular himself, calls Jinnah secular and lands in a controversy. Well, we live in a crazy era where god-men go to jails on murder cases, priests are tried in court for homosexual abuses, massacres happen in the name of religion every few years, political parties thrive on faith, religious leaders instigate bomb blasts..... and so there is no harm done when one religious radical calls the other as secular, particulary leaders of strongly opposing sects.
Secularism means to tolerate or show indifference toward religion and believe that religion should not play a role in civil affairs. Such an attitude may be realised only in theory.. None of us is secular. It is a long way to go. So LK Advani, please stop delivering dramatic dialogues in the name of diplomacy and candidness. Because all that this drama has brought is a bad reputation for everyone involved. But again, if the need is mainly publicity and media attention, then well, yeah....... ... .. .
Chao..
6 comments:
Dude, you have questioned Advani's judgement in calling Jinnah secular which you say is debatable. But at the sametime you dont seem to think twice before calling Advani communal which is also debatable !!
Anyways, calling Jinnah secular could lead to other complications. Like the blame all these years was on Jinnah's head for the partition based on religion. But now it could fall on the congress's head for being the real culprits behind partition. They being the real people who actually pushed the muslim league into asking for the partition.
Btw, do you instintively oppose anything the sangh parivar does !!??
Eswar -
I do not wish to call Advani communal. The opposite of secular is religious and not communal. Secularism and religious tolerance have a long long way to go and neither Advani nor many of the other political leaders from Congress or elsewhere can qualify to be called secular.
Absolutely right on the Congress-partition theory.
And I dont oppose anything that Sangh parivar does. Infact it was a nice gesture of Advani in a sense. We need changes in fundamental thoughts if we want to patch up with Pakistan.. But calling Jinnah secular was too far fetching. Moreover, this episode put all ibad light. For example, we all make fun of Sonia controlling the Congress. She is a elected President of Congress, atleast. But look here - RSS is controlling the BJP with a remote, this is worse and it sucks.
Shiva -
History shows that Jinnah may have been secular. Going by what we see in TamilNadu politics, secular most possibly implies, no belief in religion. And Jinnah - smoked, drunk and did other things which Islam decries.
The problem with Jinnah was that he wanted Pakistan first and then he wanted to make it secular Pakistan! By then, it was way beyond his powers of control.
Raman,
Jinnah was playing politics, plain and simple. Afterall, was he not formerly in the congress !!!
Eshwar,
He was a politician, so what else would you expect him to play?
And if you are a politician who wants power, then what else would you do?
Raman,
My comment was a dig at the congress, any other meaning infered is purely coincidental.
Post a Comment