<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Aug 27 2009, 03:16 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Aug 27 2009, 03:16 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->..
Contrary to what Congress secularists and Hindu nationalists claim, the British did not engineer nor even favour partition. India's numerous white-supremacists, of both the secular and the Hindutva variety, refuse to concede agency to mere natives and insist that anything of consequence must have a white hand behind it, i.c. British machinations behind the Partition. But in reality, Jinnah was very much his own man, pursuing the non-white agenda of Islam, not at all a British stooge. Viceroys Linlithgow and Wavell told Jinnah they would never countenance the division of their neat and well-integrated empire, and Mountbatten only gave in under Jinnah's forceful pressure, which made Partition seem inevitable. Additionnally, the changing world situation after WW2 with the incipient Cold War made the British government see emerging opportunities in a partitioned India (viz. to enlist Pak in the Western alliance), so they reconciled themselves to it. But all through, the initiative for Partition was with Jinnah.
..
KE
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apart form using 'Hindutva' as a term of abuse, Elst is wrong here in his appraisal of the British role. The British purposefully nurtured the Muslim element and indeed resuscitated Islam in India as a ruling lever, just as Sikh, Maratha, and the Bhakti Saints were poised to eliminate it from the national consciousness. They also promoted the most radical communist Nehru as their successor in the subcontinent. It is no coincidence that Mao was promoted in China (by the Americans) at the same time. Western origin Secularism (an Enlightenment product) blunts hindu perception of big bad wolf Islam. This was never the case in the medieval period, when hindu antipathy to Islam was a general rule.
Contrary to what Congress secularists and Hindu nationalists claim, the British did not engineer nor even favour partition. India's numerous white-supremacists, of both the secular and the Hindutva variety, refuse to concede agency to mere natives and insist that anything of consequence must have a white hand behind it, i.c. British machinations behind the Partition. But in reality, Jinnah was very much his own man, pursuing the non-white agenda of Islam, not at all a British stooge. Viceroys Linlithgow and Wavell told Jinnah they would never countenance the division of their neat and well-integrated empire, and Mountbatten only gave in under Jinnah's forceful pressure, which made Partition seem inevitable. Additionnally, the changing world situation after WW2 with the incipient Cold War made the British government see emerging opportunities in a partitioned India (viz. to enlist Pak in the Western alliance), so they reconciled themselves to it. But all through, the initiative for Partition was with Jinnah.
..
KE
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apart form using 'Hindutva' as a term of abuse, Elst is wrong here in his appraisal of the British role. The British purposefully nurtured the Muslim element and indeed resuscitated Islam in India as a ruling lever, just as Sikh, Maratha, and the Bhakti Saints were poised to eliminate it from the national consciousness. They also promoted the most radical communist Nehru as their successor in the subcontinent. It is no coincidence that Mao was promoted in China (by the Americans) at the same time. Western origin Secularism (an Enlightenment product) blunts hindu perception of big bad wolf Islam. This was never the case in the medieval period, when hindu antipathy to Islam was a general rule.