Advaani Jeeeni turns ghost.

A debate at last. It has almost cost career of a tall leader to initiate discussion about the violent history of Indian partition and the parties responsible for it. Word Secularism often stretched to suit ones ideology is perhaps the -----of the understanding the religion and state. The secular idea of Gandhi was not secular to Nehru, his left friends, and Jinnah. So what is secularism and the role of religion in the society and the state. Secular state perhaps gave less space for religious discussions and interactions. When was the last time we in India had a discussion on various religious issues. In pre independent India religions flourished, fought against, learned and enriched each other. Best reformers were religious, drew inspirations from the words of Krishna and Christ. Ironically the secular India has only fought. So one need not be so proud of our secularism, we didn’t learn to accept other faiths after reading constitution, it doesn’t exist in our memory, it is for the most the creation of intellectuals who wanted to culture the primitive people with colonial band. Now about the jinnah, an atheist who took up the cause on religious basis which he perhaps thought was a legitimate demand for muslims. Perhaps he genuinely believed muslims might not find -----under the kingdom of Ram. It doesn’t matter whether he his claim was right, people who call him a separatist or communal, would not dare call Dr Ambedkar, or Annadurai one, because it is politically incorrect. Jinnah found a strong ally in Ambedkar for his cause. Both thought Hinduism of Gandhi would suppress their people. Direct action and deliverance day are collateral to the grand design of political right. Well jinnah is not a great man perhaps not to the parallel of the greats of Gandhi and may be Ambedkar (the legitimacy of Ambedkar’s fight stems from the undisputed historical injustice and means he sought to fight), but one cannot dismiss his claim as his personal ambition to rule a state, he didn’t live long to see his country falling in to the theocrats. One can be sure if he had lived he would not have personally presided over this transformation.


Today we don’t have Gandhi amidst us he is at best in our vocabulary to compare and condemn religious nationalism that we don’t appreciate. So no point talking bout him, for a simple reason we are not one, neither we want to be. Our cry for nonviolence is fear of death. Religion and caste are the fundamental identity for us, even if you are dalits it is, the fight is for equal rights not social isolation. If Pakistan was created on religious basis what about India, how did the political india emerged when it never existed before. Was it not Hinduism the rallying point of freedom movement? Can we forget the contribution made by vivekananda and Arya samaj towards freedom movement? What do we have common with other Indians, why do we fight for Kashmir and northeast? What common history do we share, never we were under one kingdom, if at all we have something in common in our heritage and it is vedic and non vedic heritages emerged in India enriched by the Brahmins of vedic and nonvedic culture. Some or many may not be part of this some may disown by citing our differences, all we have is just this then what is the glue that binds us. If dalits are different so are the Brahmins, Tamil iyers and other Brahmins don’t share gods and customs. If dalits are not hindus so are the Brahmins. We are trying to find answers to our limited understanding of questions. We are uncomfortable talking about violence during muslim rule, but never loose a chance to remind our self about our violent caste system. We need not judge 5000 year old civilization on one dimension. If people are capable of being slaves for 5000 years then it is not worth talking about them.


If Jinnah created bloody partition so did Indira Gandhi, jinnahs secular democratic state failed because Islam was not ready, when is islam is not ready, muslims cannot be ready. and viceversa. For the success of our democracy we should thank our people not the constitution writers, we have a tradition of religious tolerance if not social tolerance. Buddhas and veeras didn’t have to shed blood and fight wars. Of course there were sporadic murders but not like the one during the time of muslim rule or rather muslim foreign rulers. Murders are different from holocaust if I were to use this liberal word.

Let us give the religions its due share, India is not vedic nation today, but it is also not irreligious. May be our history is not so glorious but we need not be ashamed and hyper critical, others have bathed in blood.

Advani Jeeeni turns ghost.
June 2005

A debate at last. It has almost cost career of a tall leader to initiate discussion about the violent history of Indian partition and the parties responsible for it. Word Secularism often stretched to suit ones ideology is perhaps the -----of the understanding the religion and state. The secular idea of Gandhi was not secular to Nehru, his left friends, and Jinnah. So what is secularism and the role of religion in the society and the state. Secular state perhaps gave less space for religious discussions and interactions. When was the last time we in India had a discussion on various religious issues. In pre independent India religions flourished, fought against, learned and enriched each other. Best reformers were religious, drew inspirations from the words of Krishna and Christ. Ironically the secular India has only fought. So one need not be so proud of our secularism, we didn’t learn to accept other faiths after reading constitution, it doesn’t exist in our memory, it is for the most the creation of intellectuals who wanted to culture the primitive people with colonial band. Now about the jinnah, an atheist who took up the cause on religious basis which he perhaps thought was a legitimate demand for muslims. Perhaps he genuinely believed muslims might not find -----under the kingdom of Ram. It doesn’t matter whether he his claim was right, people who call him a separatist or communal, would not dare call Dr Ambedkar, or Annadurai one, because it is politically incorrect. Jinnah found a strong ally in Ambedkar for his cause. Both thought Hinduism of Gandhi would suppress their people. Direct action and deliverance day are collateral to the grand design of political right. Well jinnah is not a great man perhaps not to the parallel of the greats of Gandhi and may be Ambedkar (the legitimacy of Ambedkar’s fight stems from the undisputed historical injustice and means he sought to fight), but one cannot dismiss his claim as his personal ambition to rule a state, he didn’t live long to see his country falling in to the theocrats. One can be sure if he had lived he would not have personally presided over this transformation.

Today we don’t have Gandhi amidst us he is at best in our vocabulary to compare and condemn religious nationalism that we don’t appreciate. So no point talking bout him, for a simple reason we are not one, neither we want to be. Our cry for nonviolence is fear of death. Religion and caste are the fundamental identity for us, even if you are dalits it is, the fight is for equal rights not social isolation. If Pakistan was created on religious basis what about India, how did the political india emerged when it never existed before. Was it not Hinduism the rallying point of freedom movement? Can we forget the contribution made by vivekananda and Arya samaj towards freedom movement? What do we have common with other Indians, why do we fight for Kashmir and northeast? What common history do we share, never we were under one kingdom, if at all we have something in common in our heritage and it is vedic and non vedic heritages emerged in India enriched by the Brahmins of vedic and nonvedic culture. Some or many may not be part of this some may disown by citing our differences, all we have is just this then what is the glue that binds us. If dalits are different so are the Brahmins, Tamil iyers and other Brahmins don’t share gods and customs. If dalits are not hindus so are the Brahmins. We are trying to find answers to our limited understanding of questions. We are uncomfortable talking about violence during muslim rule, but never loose a chance to remind our self about our violent caste system. We need not judge 5000 year old civilization on one dimension. If people are capable of being slaves for 5000 years then it is not worth talking about them.

If Jinnah created bloody partition so did Indira Gandhi, jinnahs secular democratic state failed because Islam was not ready, when is islam is not ready, muslims cannot be ready. and viceversa. For the success of our democracy we should thank our people not the constitution writers, we have a tradition of religious tolerance if not social tolerance. Buddhas and veeras didn’t have to shed blood and fight wars. Of course there were sporadic murders but not like the one during the time of muslim rule or rather muslim foreign rulers. Murders are different from holocaust if I were to use this liberal word.

Let us give the religions its due share, India is not vedic nation today, but it is also not irreligious. May be our history is not so glorious but we need not be ashamed and hyper critical, others have bathed in blood.