<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->but you are 100% correct in that he is clueless. . Inany eevent just because we hold the Brits respnsible for Partiiton does not mwean that the Muslims were blameless in th matter.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kaushal ji,
I am not sure what you meant by 'we' here, but as far as the Sangh's opinion on this matter is concerned, which is what Elst has criticised, their time-settled opinion by now, evident from all their literature -- case in point being a dedicated book on the subject, written in the 80s by Sri H V Sheshadri, called 'Tragic Story of Partition', to the recent opinion pieces in wake of Jaswant Singh's book etc -- is that the creation of Pakistan was a neatly drawn up "British Design" which caused the partition, and not the inherent separatism that comes as a part and parcel of Islam, British or No-British.
Last weekend I was invited to meet with and attend a talk of Shri Indresh Kumar, senior pracharak, and a member of the RSS national executive, and a scholar on matters related to Islam. I also purchased an urdU-in-nAgarI book by him titled "hubbal-vatanI wa paigAm-i-aman" published by Muslim Rashtriya Manch, an RSS Body which he mentors. Both in his talk and in this book, Shri Indresh Kumar peddles the same theory that it was the British, in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end, who are the root cause of the Partition -- and against what you said above -- rather openly absolved Moslems and their integral separatism largely for the event of partition!
Elst may be "clueless" in Mudy's and your eyes, which does not surprise me, but I am not sure you can say the same for Sita Ram Goel. In 1987, indeed as a reaction and in criticism of RSS Leader Sheshadri's book "Tragic Story of Partition", Sita Ram Goel wrote a marvelous research on Partition, titled "Muslim Separatism: Causes and Consequences", where he demolished the common RSS Secularist strawman that Partition was a creation of the British in which Moslems played the 'yes-sir' foot soldiers and Jinnah played a puppet. Goel argues that the whole and soul of partition of India was ISLAM, and at one place rhetorically asks, if British were behind the Partition of 47, who was behind the ealier partition when Afghanistan was separated from India centuries before any single British had set his foot in the sub-continent!
You people may not see the truth in what Elst or Goel say, but this is the truth of the matter. ISLAM, and MOSLEMS, quite independent of any British design which actually might have been at play too, were very capable of creating partition. And credit of Partition goes to them alone. RSS scholars raising the Hue and Cry about British British British in all matters -- is both the cause and effect of the real culprit being absolved of the crime.
If British were so shrewd, cunning and articulate about 47, what explains the fact that they too fell a victim themselves of Islamism? If they were so smart to be able to manipulate Islam and affect the havoc of an artificial (i.e. manipulated) Partition on India, where was all their smartness gone when they allowed Pakis to freely settle in Londonistan? This alone might be proof enogh that our British enemy too was not altogether right in his judgement of the strength of Islam.
It would be better for the Elst-dviTa-s if they will learn to overcome their impulses, and spend some thought before spewing senseless venom against Elst of the vareity that Mudy did on this thread, since, I think it is not Elst but the Hindus who are growingly becoming "clueless"! vinAshakAle viparIta buddhi.
Kaushal ji,
I am not sure what you meant by 'we' here, but as far as the Sangh's opinion on this matter is concerned, which is what Elst has criticised, their time-settled opinion by now, evident from all their literature -- case in point being a dedicated book on the subject, written in the 80s by Sri H V Sheshadri, called 'Tragic Story of Partition', to the recent opinion pieces in wake of Jaswant Singh's book etc -- is that the creation of Pakistan was a neatly drawn up "British Design" which caused the partition, and not the inherent separatism that comes as a part and parcel of Islam, British or No-British.
Last weekend I was invited to meet with and attend a talk of Shri Indresh Kumar, senior pracharak, and a member of the RSS national executive, and a scholar on matters related to Islam. I also purchased an urdU-in-nAgarI book by him titled "hubbal-vatanI wa paigAm-i-aman" published by Muslim Rashtriya Manch, an RSS Body which he mentors. Both in his talk and in this book, Shri Indresh Kumar peddles the same theory that it was the British, in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end, who are the root cause of the Partition -- and against what you said above -- rather openly absolved Moslems and their integral separatism largely for the event of partition!
Elst may be "clueless" in Mudy's and your eyes, which does not surprise me, but I am not sure you can say the same for Sita Ram Goel. In 1987, indeed as a reaction and in criticism of RSS Leader Sheshadri's book "Tragic Story of Partition", Sita Ram Goel wrote a marvelous research on Partition, titled "Muslim Separatism: Causes and Consequences", where he demolished the common RSS Secularist strawman that Partition was a creation of the British in which Moslems played the 'yes-sir' foot soldiers and Jinnah played a puppet. Goel argues that the whole and soul of partition of India was ISLAM, and at one place rhetorically asks, if British were behind the Partition of 47, who was behind the ealier partition when Afghanistan was separated from India centuries before any single British had set his foot in the sub-continent!
You people may not see the truth in what Elst or Goel say, but this is the truth of the matter. ISLAM, and MOSLEMS, quite independent of any British design which actually might have been at play too, were very capable of creating partition. And credit of Partition goes to them alone. RSS scholars raising the Hue and Cry about British British British in all matters -- is both the cause and effect of the real culprit being absolved of the crime.
If British were so shrewd, cunning and articulate about 47, what explains the fact that they too fell a victim themselves of Islamism? If they were so smart to be able to manipulate Islam and affect the havoc of an artificial (i.e. manipulated) Partition on India, where was all their smartness gone when they allowed Pakis to freely settle in Londonistan? This alone might be proof enogh that our British enemy too was not altogether right in his judgement of the strength of Islam.
It would be better for the Elst-dviTa-s if they will learn to overcome their impulses, and spend some thought before spewing senseless venom against Elst of the vareity that Mudy did on this thread, since, I think it is not Elst but the Hindus who are growingly becoming "clueless"! vinAshakAle viparIta buddhi.