Jaswant Singh Book on Jinnah

[Guest]

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_book-...-museum_1287590

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (SVP) National Memorial in Shahibaug area of the city has become the unwitting beneficiary of the furore over Jaswant Singh's book, 'Jinnah - India, Partition, Independence'. While the book itself has been banned in Gujarat for its alleged remarks against Sardar Patel, its author has been expelled from the BJP allegedly for praising Pakistan founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

Caretakers of the SVP memorial are amused that the controversy over the book has renewed public interest in Sardar Patel's role in the freedom movement. Earlier, the memorial used to have around 10 visitors every day. But in the fortnight since Singh's book was published, not a day has gone by without teams of students from city schools coming to the memorial for a better understanding of Sardar's contributions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

http://www.littleabout.com/news/32517,radi...ook-jinnah.html

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> The expelled Bharatiya Janata Party leader Jaswant Singh has got a new fan in Punjabi Durbar programme of Radio Pakistan.

In its latest edition, the Punjabi Durbar programme has described all political parties of India be it Bharatiya Janata Party, Congress or Shiv Sena being anti-Pakistan for voicing objection to Jaswant Singhs book JinnahIndia, Partition, Independence.

In its recent Punjabi Durbar Programme, Radio Pakistan said that Jaswant Singh has paid a huge price for his biography of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Sep 4 2009, 09:03 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Sep 4 2009, 09:03 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mudyji, why do you think its cool that the ban has been lifted ? freedom of expression  ?
[right][snapback]101008[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think the ban smacks of fascism. The ban has also given unnecessary importance to the book.

I know of lot of 'defenders' of partition in this very forum on 'practical' grounds.

[Guest]

Savithriji

Words like "fascism" should be used carefully. People tend not to take your stmts seriously.

========

Situation in Gujarat is Sardar is beyond criticism - for perfectly valid reasons. Any govt from any party with any CM will ban such things in a heartbeat. What courts decide dont matter. The act of banning itself was enough. A link was posted earlier that talked about Mr Dinsha Patel from INC wanting to ban the book all over the country. Mr Dinsha Patel is THE most respected leader from INC in Gujarat today. INC cannot and will not disown Sardar ever.

[Guest]

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/index.php?opt...1&sectionid=114

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Gujarat high court ruling today setting aside the August 19 Gujarat Government notification banning Jashwant Singh's controversial book glorifying Mohammed Ali Jinnah and blaming Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel for India's partition is certainly a blow to the Narendra Modi Government but it doesn't affect its public standing on that account in a State where Sardar Patel is like a God.

The fact that the Gujarat Congress had supported the ban in contravention of its natioinal stand on the book and one of the top Congress leaders, Union Minister Dinsha Patel, had in fact called for a countrywide ban on the book more than proves the point that the HC ruling is largely against the public view held in Gujarat and therefore doesn't affect Modi Government's public image at ground level. The Sangh Parivar cadres in fact view the HC ruling as being against the spirit of the people of Gujarat and the ruling might have brought the cadres closer to the Government which had been facing problems while dealing with them, thanks to pressures of Governance.  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Sep 5 2009, 02:44 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Sep 5 2009, 02:44 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Savithriji

Words like "fascism" should be used carefully. People tend not to take your stmts seriously.

========

Situation in Gujarat is Sardar is beyond criticism - for perfectly valid reasons. Any govt from any party with any CM will ban such things in a heartbeat. What courts decide dont matter. The act of banning itself was enough. A link was posted earlier that talked about Mr Dinsha Patel from INC wanting to ban the book all over the country. Mr Dinsha Patel is THE most respected leader from INC in Gujarat today. INC cannot and will not disown Sardar ever.
[right][snapback]101043[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I am really sorry for the over-reaction just as Mody seems to have done. Perhaps it is the politics of convenience for him as you say. However in the rest of India the media is lending greater importance to Jaswant because of this.

Anyway, thanks to YSR the focus is turning!

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Sep 4 2009, 10:58 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Sep 4 2009, 10:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Sep 4 2009, 09:03 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Sep 4 2009, 09:03 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mudyji, why do you think its cool that the ban has been lifted ? freedom of expression  ?
[right][snapback]101008[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the ban smacks of fascism. The ban has also given unnecessary importance to the book.
I know of lot of 'defenders' of partition in this very forum on 'practical' grounds.
[right][snapback]101020[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is first book came out, which truthfully states, British educated India born Elites e.g Nehru were power hungry. Which is very honest assessment. After getting power, what Nehru did, he placed all his extended family in Ambassadorship or top notch position and left over went to other Elites. These elites never dared to fight election from Metro infact they opted for remote part of India. Nehru from Phallupur in UP.
Without Modi ban, congress would have started riots on this book.
Sardar Patel thinking is no different then Modi. banning this book creates interest in book and life of Sardar Patel and expose elitist of India.

[Bodhi]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->K Elst Comments on:
> Abandoned By Tarun Vijay
> Monday September 07, 2009, Times of India
>
>
> TV Wrote:
> >From a bird’s 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 Jinnah’s 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-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->. 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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
KE was not present in India during British oppressive rule, he is clueless and always ready to protect his race. Britisher used to support, appease and give special preference to Muslims in pre Independence India. Hindus status was on bottom rug (excluding british elite Hindus).
For KE, it is always his race and religion can never oppress any one. When it came to CA text issue, he supported his race and religion, But when he was sick, need money, his begging bowl was in front of gullible Hindus. After receiving money he cursed same Hindus.

[ramana]

Book Review in Telegragh, 9/11/09

Not yet Over

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->NOT YET OVER
- Invoking a mystic Indian identity 


Nehru and Jinnah during the transfer of power, 1947 
JINNAH: India — Partition — Independence
By Jaswant Singh, Rupa, Rs 695

If Mohammad Ali Jinnah was the first Paki and Lord Mountbatten the first Paki-basher (as an old joke went), Calcutta’s Direct Action Day was the first Jehad. Jaswant Singh records that a leaflet warning the “Kafer” of “the general massacre” on August 16, 1946 also reminded Muslims they had once worn the crown and ruled this country but “had become slaves of Hindus and the British”. Displaying Jinnah’s picture, the leaflet spoke of “a Jehad in this very month of Ramzan”.

This is worth repeating because inspired gossip accuses the author of glorifying Jinnah as the apostle of Indian unity and of blaming Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel for demonizing him. Neither charge can be sustained, confirming that the contrived furore over the book reflects the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s dislike of the author and a demoralized Bharatiya Janata Party’s internal power struggles. The ambitions of the egregious Narendra Modi, who cannot have read this massive volume of 669 pages and probably would not have understood it if he had, obviously helped to whip up hysteria.

Modi’s understanding must not be faulted too much, however, for in his anxiety to be fair to all sides, Jaswant Singh often seems to contradict what appears to be his thesis.<b> He would like us to believe that a déraciné Nehru, his head muddled with libertarian Western notions that had little relevance to Indian reality, and avid for power, rejected the chance of maintaining India’s unity.</b> Yet, Nehru’s moving confessionals to the Nawab of Bhopal and to European writers like Leonard Mosley which the author quotes, do not bear out this picture of crassness. <b>Nehru’s own words paint him as a tired but sensitive man believing in high ideals, who fought for as long as he could and was sadly conscious that he had been forced at the end to settle for second best.</b> Patel is not accorded a lead role at all, so all this gnashing of teeth over insulting a son of Gujarat is nonsense. Two other sons of Gujarat loom large in a book that is an account of the times rather than Jinnah’s political biography.

It illustrates the author’s perceptive view that <b>the past in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh “has in reality never gone into the past, it continues to reinvent itself, constantly becoming our present, thus preventing us from escaping the imprisonment of memories”. Seemingly regretting a captivity in which he wallows nostalgically, Singh says, “To this we have to find an answer, who else can or will?”</b> It would certainly help to loosen those chains if the leaders of opinion and events look forward to shaping the future instead of expending so much effort and time — five years in this case — in regurgitating our painful yesterdays. <b>Let historians dissect dusty events in academic tomes, let those events not poison current life.</b>

There is no point, therefore, in discussing the book in terms of whether Partition was a good or bad thing, whether Jinnah was the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim amity or the sole spokesman of Muslims, or at which juncture of history our leaders took the wrong turn… if, indeed, they did. <b>Adapting the hallowed newspaper aphorism, facts are sacred, but each writer and reader is entitled to his opinion. It is the height of presumptuousness to superimpose one subjective interpretation on another and pretend that the latter is thereby demolished.</b> As for missed opportunities, “If Cleopatra’s nose had been shorter the whole history of the world would have been different.”

But some of Jaswant Singh’s broader ideas do bear examination. He is horrified at the idea of an exchange of Hindus and Muslims because, like Nehru with his Western liberal secularism, he, too, sees India as an inclusive society. Yet, while readily acknowledging the enormous practical obstacles involved, population exchange is undeniably the logical corollary to Partition. Greece and Turkey formalized such an exchange under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne; it is the de facto order in many other places. Ethnic cleansing is the alternative to an agreed exchange.

<b>As for why and when Muslims came to be regarded as a minority, we need only think of apartheid South Africa. Whites were in a numerical minority but not thought of as such because they were the ruling elite, as were Muslims in India for many centuries.</b> Undivided Ireland’s majority Catholics were disadvantaged to benefit Protestants who were tellingly called the Ascendancy, never the minority. The position was reversed in Northern Ireland where Catholics were not only a numerical minority but also suffered from the disabilities associated with that status. <b>A minority implies a majority, and even without sangh parivar rampaging, the majoritarian Indian State unconsciously but inevitably reflects many of the majority community’s cultural characteristics.</b>

<b>That is what also puts paid to Jaswant Singh’s novel idea that a Pakistan, or half-a-dozen Pakistans, could be tucked away without discomfort in the vastness and variety of an India whose linguistic states, fierce regional loyalties and divisions of caste and community give it a patchwork quality. It follows that he does not share L.K. Advani’s pet thesis that all Indians are by definition Hindu.</b> But if Congress and Muslim League leaders bickered constantly even in the interim government, there was no reason for them not to do so on a grand scale once they governed adjoining territories as equals.

<b>This is the work of someone who is even more a romantic than Nehru ever was. That explains the idealistic theories and flashes of impassioned rhetoric invoking a mystic Indian identity.</b> But pages of pedestrian and often repetitive prose also recount well known facts over and over again, the endnotes spinning out even trivial points at great length. The idiosyncratic treatment of proper nouns suggests a disdain for consistency, and infelicities like “upto” and “the White Hall” further indicate the publisher’s ignorance and neglect. Rupa has not served Jaswant Singh well but that is not perhaps surprising in a land where the publishing industry is still so sadly lacking in professionalism.

SUNANDA K. DATTA-RAY
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The reviewer has his own pet biases which detract from the review. Faulting him for grammar is the least of the problems. The author is closet separtor. Despite hismodernity he wants to keep the Muslims out. look at his prescription for population exchange. No wonder he is Hindu Fake Liberal.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Sep 11 2009, 08:32 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 11 2009, 08:32 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->. 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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
KE was not present in India during British oppressive rule, he is clueless and always ready to protect his race. Britisher used to support, appease and give special preference to Muslims in pre Independence India. Hindus status was on bottom rug (excluding british elite Hindus).
For KE, it is always his race and religion can never oppress any one. When it came to CA text issue, he supported his race and religion, But when he was sick, need money, his begging bowl was in front of gullible Hindus. After receiving money he cursed same Hindus.
[right][snapback]101233[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mudy ji, i dont know the context of these remarks , but you are 100% correct in that he is clueless. . In any event just because we hold the Brits respnsible for Partiiton does not mean that the Muslims were blameless in the matter. But at the end of the day it i s a fair statement to say that the Brits never had the intention of leaving without the parting gift of a poison pill

[Bodhi]

<!--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.

[Husky]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Sep 12 2009, 08:54 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Sep 12 2009, 08:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.[right][snapback]101243[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(No comment on Elst matters.)

1. Christianism often shoots itself in the foot with islamism. Vatican sponsors christian help in islamism in ME (against Israel). Western christianism - not just American but also some European centres - sponsored islamism in Yugoslavia. Yet Yugoslavia is the islamic backdoor into Europe, and also Yugoslavia's Albanian islamoterrorists have tried to orchestrate attacks in America (news sometime back). In the overall picture as well: Greeks and Russians (Orthodox christians) find that islamism was used - some believe it was designed - by western christianism to use as a weapon against Orthodoxy. The data they give on their forum for Roman Christianist use of islamism against earlier Eastern Orthodoxy is hard to gainsay. Down to continued islamic Turkish occupation of Greek land Anatolia: Greece was promised liberation of the land from Turks after the war, but were betrayed by the "allies". IIRC Manhattan shows that even this was not outside of Vatican's guided "wishes".

Christianism sponsors islamism in India - like in Kerala. Knowing full-well what a powder keg it is. And now there are christomaniacs dying from islamania as well.

East Timor.
Taliban.
There are other examples, but I forget.


Christianism always sees islamism as a temporary ally. It is willing to sell the future - since the future can be made negotiable with crusades - for gains in the present against heathenism. Western christianism will use islamism against orthodoxy. The heathens and heretics must be put down by the secular arm of external "brute forces out of our control". Islamism can be crusaded later.

Part of this laxity that western christianism has towards islamism - like it's some rogue agent semi under their control, or whose self-detonate button they know of - does bring up all kinds of questions to one's mind.
Else why their repeated mistakes vis-a-vis islamism when you think they would know better?


2. "where was all their smartness gone when they allowed Pakis to freely settle in Londonistan"
a. Britain is a shattered ex-empire, but it still has a sting and the ability to revive itself out of vindictiveness - if only for a shortlived purpose of creating further trainwreck.
b. Londoniston is a direct consequence of several factors. Including Europe's Pendulum action: swinging from left (ultra-liberalism "pluralism") to right (fascism). Also, to be seen as objective vis-a-vis islamic "issues" (terrorisms, militancy, separatism) in the world, they must harbour some islamics of their own to which they can point to for argument.



None of the above is to say that islamism did not want Partition or did not move towards it or could not come up with it on its own, in time. Islamism's jihad against Dharmic/Natural Traditions is innate, and its Dar-ul-harb/Dar-ul-islam dichotomy (plus drive to Dar-ul-islamise) is islamic tenet too.

But that there is a significant British element to the timing, the success and arrangement of forces (the converging of national islamic sentiment at the same time and for the same sharp purpose) in Partition is true as well.
The British vampire - I mean empire - acted as conscious catalyst and enabler, not merely a well-wisher.

Christianism in India and without continues to aid islamism in the Indian subcontinent in this manner: creating *better* opportunities (more chance of success) against the Hindu body. Islamism is very willing to hurl itself, christianism just plans for optimising factors so that it will count.

[Bharatvarsh]

I agree with Bodhi, blaming the Brits is a nice ploy to make out the Muslims as innocent lambs who were manipulated by the wily British, all nonsense. It feels good because then you don't have to deal with the uncomfortable facts about Islam and Muslims in India.

[edited - stick to posts/comments by commentators here on this forum.]

I suppose the Brits are to blame for the latest round of rioting in Maharashtra, oh yes i am sure we will hear certain worthies repeat the worn out cliche of how the vast majority of sullas are very "patriotic" and other such nonsense to deflect from whats happening in Maharashtra.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, when he was sick, he took contribution from Hindus like me and during one of email exchange with him, basically he said that it was foolish of you guys who paid for my treatment. No Thanks. And nasties towards Indian Hindus was no surprise.
I lost his emails otherwise I would have been posting those nasty emails on front page of this forum. But some member of this forum and other people in India have read those exchange, and they know who is Elst.

I can only say Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me - Indian still have tendency to get verification from Gora man. Ask your own elders what was their experience during those day.

[Guest]

I blame Muslims for partition. Muslims always had dream to recapture India. Whatever, it was best thing happened to India. But partition was half fullfilled, again Muslim used Gandhi and stayed back in India. Elite UP Muslims kept there agenda, some left for Pakistan but manipulated lower rug of Muslim population to stay back in India. Breed and dig bigger hole in India.

[Guest]

Mudy, Bodhji etc.. no point discussing Elst as this is not a thread on Elst nor is Elst here to speak for himself. So let's stick to Jinnah and Jaswant here, rest can be done via personal emails or blogs.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>I was not in favour of Jaswant's expulsion: Advani</b>
pioneer.com
PTI | New Delhi
Senior BJP leader L K Advani on Monday said that he was not in favour of Jaswant Singh's expulsion, contradicting the party's assertion that he was part of the decision.

<b>"These reports are correct that I was not in agreement with the decision to expel Jaswant Singh,"</b> he told PTI-Bhasha about the decision of the party's Parliamentary Board on August 19 in Shimla in which he was present.

He, however, refused to elaborate saying, "I am not interested in any further controversy."

The statement goes contrary to the assertion by BJP that Advani was party to the decision to expel the Darjeeling MP for eulogising Pakistan founder M A Jinnah and denigrating Sardar Patel.

Senior BJP leader Sushma Swaraj, while briefing reporters on the deliberations of BJP's 'Chintan Baithak' in Shimla, had said on August 21 that Advani had described the decision to expel Jaswant as "painful but necessary".

"It is mentally painful to expel somebody who has been with you for the past 30 years but what he wrote was against the basic ideology of the party," Swaraj, considered close to Advani, had quoted him as telling the BJP meet.

BJP President Rajnath Singh, while announcing the Parliamentary Board's decision to expel Jaswant, had said: "I had issued a statement yesterday (August 18) that the party fully dissociates itself from the contents of the book. Today I put up the matter before the Parliamentary Board which decided to end his primary membership."

Recently, former vice-president Bhairon Singh Shekhawat had criticised BJP for expelling Jaswant without reading the book.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I was not in favour of Jaswant's expulsion: Advani<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's high time Advani stops BSing around. If he as leader of BJP was not in favor of Jaswant's expulsion but JS still go expelled what it does it speak about Advani?
Advani's trying to have his cake and it it too - not first time and unfortunately won't be last. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[acharya]

Muslims have been treated like second class citizen in India: Jaswant Singh
Submitted by admin2 on 2 November 2009 - 9:19pm.
Indian Muslim
Twocircles.net newsdesk,
http://twocircles.net/2009nov02/muslims_ha...want_singh.html

Patna: Expelled BJP leader Jaswant Singh while speaking in a function to unveil Urdu translation of his book 'Jinnah-India, Partition, Independence’ questioned the partition, calling partition as division of heart rather than land. We are looking for new freedom for all as freedom of 1947 has divided heart. He called people to join this new movement.


He also lambasted current political scenario in which Muslims have been reduced to second class citizens. Jaswant Singh said politics needs to be changed. He promised to work towards achieving this goal with the help of people.

Earlier Urdu translation of Jaswant Singh book "Jinna- ittehad se taqseem tak” was released by noted journalist Prabhash Joshi. Function was organized by Dr. Ejaz Ali, Rajya Sabha MP and National president of All India United Muslim Morcha. The programme organized at Sri Krishna Memorial Hall of Patna was packed to the capacity with many watching the proceedings on screens setup outside the hall.

Prabhash Joshi, senior journalist suggested that this book is an eye opener for many and now Muslim should demand new deal. They should also use able leadership of Jaswant Singh to get new deal.


Dr. Ejaz Ali recalled freedom movement had started under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi from Bihar. He asserted second freedom struggle against poverty, unemployment, illiteracy and politics of division has started again from Bihar under the leadership of Jaswant Singh.

Noted journalist M J Akbar hailed this booking saying “This book has smashed the myth that Muslims are responsible for the partition.” He mentioned, Jinnah has been incorrectly projected as symbol of guilt for Muslims.


“We got freedom at midnight but Muslims are still in darkness and yet to see the sunrise,” he added. He pointed out Muslims have joined politics but they are yet to share power. Muslim voting percentage has seen a rise but surprisingly, number of their MPs have decline steadily. Parties know that Muslims votes out of fear and not for their welfare so they give them fear.

Digvijay Singh, MP and former Union Minister, lauded Jaswant Singh effort as very honest effort to clear doubts about partition. He appreciated Jaswant Singh, as one of very few who choose to write against the popular perception. He also pointed out that there is shortage of honest people but sycophants in abundance.

Teesta Setalvad, leading human right activist pointed out the partition has been reason for many riots in India after independence. She also criticized government for beating war drum beat. She said” Government instead of talking about peace and development is busy in warmongering with Pakistan, China and Naxals. This is an effort to divert attention of the people from real issues”


Arif Mohammad Khan, former union minister termed partition as human tragedy. He added that this partition not only resulted in division of land but it divided millions of hearts. He pointed out that Indian Muslims have been biggest sufferer of this partition. They are suffering in all three countries India, Pakistan and Bangladesh due to partition.

He also reminded people about importance of history by reciting Urdu couplet:

Jo qaum bhula deti apne twariq ko,

Us qaum ka geogrphia bhi baqi nahin rahta.

Veteran Gandhian Dr. Razi Ahmad and Lohiaite Ram Jeevan Singh also spoke on the occasion.