11-14-2003, 08:10 AM
I know this is a sensitive subject given our current reality - but let us try and discuss this without rancour or abusivenes .
Here is what Praful Goradia wrote in the Pioneer :
Go 'home', Geelani & friends' (Nov 2), by Mr Chandan Mitra contains what many Indians strongly feel. However, their's is an after-thought. Qaid-e-Azam MA Jinnah and some of his Muslim League colleagues had considered the need for an exchange of populations. All the Muslims were to emigrate to Pakistan and the non-Muslims were to come to Hindustan. Their demands came out in Dawn which was then published from Delhi. A few relevant extracts from these reports were reproduced in a recently published book called the Muslim League's Unfinished Agenda. Dr BR Ambedkar had considered a transfer of population an absolute necessity way back in 1940. "The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous is to arrange for exchange of population,"according to Volume 8 of his Speeches and Writings.
The neglect of the question of population transfer by Hindu leaders in 1947 was yet another link in the chain of our civilisation's failure. The root of the failure could lie in the Hindu disinterest in history, political theory, strategic thinking and national or civilisational unity. Muhammad bin Qasim might not have conquered Sind in 712 AD if only the kings of India had realised the long-term danger that an Islamic invasion posed. Had they done so, they might have combined their strength to ensure Raja Dhir's survival. In many ways, history was repeated in 1192 when Prithviraj Chauhan was let down by Jaichand and his allies, duly defeated and killed by Muhammad Ghauri at the Second Battle of Terain.
The Slave Dynasty established by Qutbuddin Aibak was not permanent. It was succeeded by one dynasty after another, whether Khilji or Tughlak or Lodhi, eventually ending with the Mughal emperors. Many an opportunity must have arisen in the five centuries when the Hindus could have overturned the Muslim rulers. Yet nothing happened. It is estimated that during the greater part of this period the Muslim population did not exceed 10 per cent. Yet, 90 per cent took the foreign oppression lying down most of the time.
Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, spent a lifetime arriving at a theory which he called, "Challenge and Response". The thrust of his thesis was that a civilisation flourished only when it could rise and respond to a challenge. To carry Mr Toynbee to his logical conclusion might have been to fear the end of the Hindu civilisation. Had the British not intervened to defeat what was largely Muslim rule, the fate of the Hindu ethos could have been sad. It is not widely recognised that the service Lord Clive and his successors performed was to reduce the Muslims from rulers to subjects thus giving the Hindus a level-playing field.
The Hindu Renaissance beginning with Raja Ram Mohun Roy was unlikely to have taken place had the British not intervened. Contrast Indian history with what happened in Europe. Only a year before Qasim conquered Sind, the Moors had captured Spain. Although it took several centuries before the Europeans could extinguish Muslim rule, nevertheless western Europe was cleared.
In the second millennium the Ottoman Empire, which proved to be as powerful as the Mughal empire, was established. It left few stones unturned in order to conquer large tracts of Europe. They laid siege to Vienna twice: In 1523 and 1683. Yet, they could not break through. The only areas where the Muslim influence survived were Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania and Bulgaria. The way Europe could deal with Islam, Hindustan could also have done the same.
Here is what Praful Goradia wrote in the Pioneer :
Go 'home', Geelani & friends' (Nov 2), by Mr Chandan Mitra contains what many Indians strongly feel. However, their's is an after-thought. Qaid-e-Azam MA Jinnah and some of his Muslim League colleagues had considered the need for an exchange of populations. All the Muslims were to emigrate to Pakistan and the non-Muslims were to come to Hindustan. Their demands came out in Dawn which was then published from Delhi. A few relevant extracts from these reports were reproduced in a recently published book called the Muslim League's Unfinished Agenda. Dr BR Ambedkar had considered a transfer of population an absolute necessity way back in 1940. "The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous is to arrange for exchange of population,"according to Volume 8 of his Speeches and Writings.
The neglect of the question of population transfer by Hindu leaders in 1947 was yet another link in the chain of our civilisation's failure. The root of the failure could lie in the Hindu disinterest in history, political theory, strategic thinking and national or civilisational unity. Muhammad bin Qasim might not have conquered Sind in 712 AD if only the kings of India had realised the long-term danger that an Islamic invasion posed. Had they done so, they might have combined their strength to ensure Raja Dhir's survival. In many ways, history was repeated in 1192 when Prithviraj Chauhan was let down by Jaichand and his allies, duly defeated and killed by Muhammad Ghauri at the Second Battle of Terain.
The Slave Dynasty established by Qutbuddin Aibak was not permanent. It was succeeded by one dynasty after another, whether Khilji or Tughlak or Lodhi, eventually ending with the Mughal emperors. Many an opportunity must have arisen in the five centuries when the Hindus could have overturned the Muslim rulers. Yet nothing happened. It is estimated that during the greater part of this period the Muslim population did not exceed 10 per cent. Yet, 90 per cent took the foreign oppression lying down most of the time.
Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, spent a lifetime arriving at a theory which he called, "Challenge and Response". The thrust of his thesis was that a civilisation flourished only when it could rise and respond to a challenge. To carry Mr Toynbee to his logical conclusion might have been to fear the end of the Hindu civilisation. Had the British not intervened to defeat what was largely Muslim rule, the fate of the Hindu ethos could have been sad. It is not widely recognised that the service Lord Clive and his successors performed was to reduce the Muslims from rulers to subjects thus giving the Hindus a level-playing field.
The Hindu Renaissance beginning with Raja Ram Mohun Roy was unlikely to have taken place had the British not intervened. Contrast Indian history with what happened in Europe. Only a year before Qasim conquered Sind, the Moors had captured Spain. Although it took several centuries before the Europeans could extinguish Muslim rule, nevertheless western Europe was cleared.
In the second millennium the Ottoman Empire, which proved to be as powerful as the Mughal empire, was established. It left few stones unturned in order to conquer large tracts of Europe. They laid siege to Vienna twice: In 1523 and 1683. Yet, they could not break through. The only areas where the Muslim influence survived were Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania and Bulgaria. The way Europe could deal with Islam, Hindustan could also have done the same.