<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->K Elst Comments on:
> Abandoned By Tarun Vijay
> Monday September 07, 2009, Times of India
>
>
> TV Wrote:
> >From a birdâs eye view, look how it has happened and ask yourself, why?
> >(...) It was a partition decided by the British Empire and conceded by
> >the Gandhis who feared more Jinnahâs direct action massacres if stood
> >firm on an undivided motherland.<
>
> KE Wrote:
>
> Hindus will continue to descend into extinction until they muster the
> courage and honesty to face facts. Case in point: they keep on lying to
> themselves about the Muslim guilt for Partition. Far from doing
> something about appeasement in the government's policies, they can't
> even stop appeasement in their very own discourse. Time and again, and
> recently at very high frequency in the Jaswant/Jinnah debate, we hear
> Hindus repeat the lie that Partition was the handiwork of the British,
> so as to absolve the Muslims.
>
> In reality, Partition was thought up and wrought by the so-called
> Aligarh faction in the Muslim community, the relatively modernistic
> counterpart of the orthodox Deoband school featuring Maulana Maudoodi
> and Maulana Azad, the falsely-named "nationalist Muslim" who wanted to
> keep India united but only as an incipient Islamic state. Both Muslim
> factions were determined to let Muslim interests prevail over Indian
> interests, but they differed on tactics. Jinnah tried to convince the
> British of the sensibility of his partition scheme. However, he was told
> very clearly by viceroys Linlithgow and Wavell that they were in no mind
> to let their craftily integrated Indian empire be cut into pieces. Even
> Mountbatten, who ended up giving in to Jinnah, started out as an
> opponent of Partition. Kuldip Nayar ("Scoop! Inside Stories from the
> Partition to the Present", HarperCollins 2006, p.28) reports:
> "Mountbatten made no secret that Lord Clement Attlee, the then British
> Prime Minister, wanted to keep India united. (...) 'I tried to preserve
> unity but Jinnah did not agree', Mountbatten assured Attlee."
>
> In another Hindutva write-up on the Jaswant/Jinnah affair, it was
> claimed that Jinnah, in his period out of politics (late 1920s), was
> "brainwashed by the British" into demanding Partition. This is a
> self-serving (well, Hindu-harming but appeaser-serving and
> Islam-serving) invention, a transparent lie. You will only get more
> partitions, more Kashmir expulsions, more Kandahar hijacks, more Godhra
> arson massacres, more Bangladesh rapes, more Malaysia temple attacks,
> more Sangli procession attacks, if you don't kick this evil habit of
> telling lies in order to spare your declared enemies.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> KE
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
> Abandoned By Tarun Vijay
> Monday September 07, 2009, Times of India
>
>
> TV Wrote:
> >From a birdâs eye view, look how it has happened and ask yourself, why?
> >(...) It was a partition decided by the British Empire and conceded by
> >the Gandhis who feared more Jinnahâs direct action massacres if stood
> >firm on an undivided motherland.<
>
> KE Wrote:
>
> Hindus will continue to descend into extinction until they muster the
> courage and honesty to face facts. Case in point: they keep on lying to
> themselves about the Muslim guilt for Partition. Far from doing
> something about appeasement in the government's policies, they can't
> even stop appeasement in their very own discourse. Time and again, and
> recently at very high frequency in the Jaswant/Jinnah debate, we hear
> Hindus repeat the lie that Partition was the handiwork of the British,
> so as to absolve the Muslims.
>
> In reality, Partition was thought up and wrought by the so-called
> Aligarh faction in the Muslim community, the relatively modernistic
> counterpart of the orthodox Deoband school featuring Maulana Maudoodi
> and Maulana Azad, the falsely-named "nationalist Muslim" who wanted to
> keep India united but only as an incipient Islamic state. Both Muslim
> factions were determined to let Muslim interests prevail over Indian
> interests, but they differed on tactics. Jinnah tried to convince the
> British of the sensibility of his partition scheme. However, he was told
> very clearly by viceroys Linlithgow and Wavell that they were in no mind
> to let their craftily integrated Indian empire be cut into pieces. Even
> Mountbatten, who ended up giving in to Jinnah, started out as an
> opponent of Partition. Kuldip Nayar ("Scoop! Inside Stories from the
> Partition to the Present", HarperCollins 2006, p.28) reports:
> "Mountbatten made no secret that Lord Clement Attlee, the then British
> Prime Minister, wanted to keep India united. (...) 'I tried to preserve
> unity but Jinnah did not agree', Mountbatten assured Attlee."
>
> In another Hindutva write-up on the Jaswant/Jinnah affair, it was
> claimed that Jinnah, in his period out of politics (late 1920s), was
> "brainwashed by the British" into demanding Partition. This is a
> self-serving (well, Hindu-harming but appeaser-serving and
> Islam-serving) invention, a transparent lie. You will only get more
> partitions, more Kashmir expulsions, more Kandahar hijacks, more Godhra
> arson massacres, more Bangladesh rapes, more Malaysia temple attacks,
> more Sangli procession attacks, if you don't kick this evil habit of
> telling lies in order to spare your declared enemies.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> KE
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->