“Hindus who blame the British for Partition show that they are afraid of the truth and afraid of Islam. It is far easier to accuse the British, who have safely departed, than to lay the blame at the door of Islam. Blaming Islam opens a can of worms, it is difficult to deal with this religion. It is a challenge to one’s courage, but it is mainly a challenge to one’s intelligence. If you are deficient in these departments, then go ahead and blame the British.” – Dr. Koenraad Elst
The easiest way before an Indian audience to get hands clapping, is to accuse the British of the Partition of India. Try it for yourself and say out loud: “Partition was engineered by the wily Britishers in their nefarious design of ‘divide and rule’”, success assured. And the applause is sure to follow no matter whether the audience, whose sensibilities you may not know, is Gandhian, Nehruvian-secularist or Hindu nationalist. Yes, Hindu nationalist too.
“Jinnah was brainwashed into dividing India”, I read in RSS mouthpiece Organiser. Well, if it is that easy, why doesn’t the RSS brainwash the Indian Muslims into becoming India-loving Hindus? Incidentally, how is it done, this “brainwashing”? In reality, the Hindu nationalists are taking a cheap shot at the British in order to mask their fear of pinpointing Muslim guilt.
One would have expected at least Mahatma murderer Nathuram Godse to have criticized Islam, apart from laying as much of the blame as possible at Gandhi’s feet. But Godse says very little about the guilt for Partition. He accuses the British of a “divide and rule” policy, alright, but doesn’t make this the cause of the Pakistan movement. He accuses Gandhi of not countering the Muslim League’s demand of Partition with his trademark means of action, viz. the fast unto death; but he does not go into the question of why the Muslim League made this demand in the first place. So, even among Godse’s fans you won’t find many articulate opponents of the British conspiracy thesis.
In this article, I will argue that the British had nothing to do with Partition, and that this was a purely Muslim operation necessitated by the present democratic age’s belief in numbers. In the medieval period, the Muslims constituted far less than the 24% of the Indian population which they were in the 1940s, yet they ruled. Mohammed Ali Jinnah thought that this was no longer possible in modern times, so if they wanted to be in power, they needed a smaller country where they would constitute the majority. So, the Two-Nation Theory espoused by the Muslim League necessitated two separate states, one of which would have a Muslim majority.
To be sure, the British were guilty of many things, and the fixation of Hindu nationalists on them is understandable. Principally, they caused several very serious famines, they dismantled the technology and economic structure of India, and they imposed a foreign ideology that harmed the natives’ self-respect. This did not make British rule “the biggest crime in history”, as L.K. Advani claims on his blog (15 July 2012), but it was pretty bad. However, none of that made them guilty of Partition. Nor did their policy of “divide and rule” cause the pre-colonial or post-colonial (and generally not even the colonial) hostility between Hindus and Muslims. It was a tactic used at the negotiation table, not meant for the streets (where riots would only upset economic life), much less for a final Partition of the Indian Empire.
Viceroys Lord Victor Linlithgow and Lord Archibald Wavell told Jinnah to his face that they would not countenance the division of their nice and neat Indian Empire, not even in the event of decolonization. Their successor, Lord Louis Mountbatten, only accepted Partition because the Muslim League threatened and started violence. Congress leaders did the same, including even Mahatma Gandhi in June 1947. All his so-called fasts unto death, his promise that “India will only be divided over my dead body”, proved hollow in the face of the real chance that these opponents would not give in, so that his fast would only be concluded with his death.
It is only the fledgling Cold War that made the British and also the Americans see a silver lining in the Partition, viz. that one of the parties would join the Western camp and provide it an outpost to monitor the Soviet threat. This was apparently also what made Lord Mountbatten more pliable. But it was only in 1945 that the Soviet ally became an enemy, five years after the Muslim League adopted the Pakistan resolution, and more than ten years after the idea of Pakistan was first mooted.
In reality, the ideology of Partition was rooted in Islam. According to Islam, Muslims must always be in power. Thus, Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women but non-Muslim men are not allowed to marry Muslim women because wives are deemed to be at the husbands’ command. In the Middle Ages, Muslim minorities had seemed to subdue the Hindus by military means, and Muslim leaders with a medieval mindset concluded logically that numbers were unimportant to decide who will dominate whom. Thus, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (who had given an emigration fatwa during the Khilafat movement) is mis-termed a Nationalist Muslim but aimed in fact at the Islamic domination of the whole of India. However, Jinnah had internalized the modern value of democracy and didn’t dare to ask for more than a country in which Muslims would form the majority.
Islam is against multiculturalism unless it is treated with utmost respect and has at least the perspective of becoming dominant. By contrast, the Hindu nationalists including Nathuram Godse were prepared to give the Muslims far-reaching concessions in order to keep India united. They were not guilty, Congress was not guilty when it proved insufficiently accommodating to the League, and the British rulers were not guilty. If a section of the Muslims had not desired Partition, then Partition would never have happened.
Hindus who blame the British for Partition, show that they are afraid of the truth, and afraid of Islam. It is far easier to accuse the British, who have safely departed, than to lay the blame at the door of Islam. Blaming Islam opens a can of worms, it is difficult to deal with this religion. It is a challenge to one’s courage, but it is mainly a challenge to one’s intelligence. If you are deficient in these departments, then go ahead and blame the British.
On the other hand, if you have courage and intelligence, it should be easy to face the fact of Muslim causation of the Partition of India. Today, it takes a moderate dose of courage to criticize Islam: you risk the ire of the institutions (and your job if you are a scholar in the Humanities), the violence of some indignant Muslim, and if you are a Hindu, also the displeasure of your fellow Hindus. But these risks are manageable, and as I will explain on some future occasion, I do not buy the myth of Hindu lack of bravery. Criticizing Islam also requires a large amount on intelligence, viz. the power to discriminate between causes (the doctrine of Islam) and symptoms (the behaviour of Muslims, only partly caused by this doctrine), and the balancing act between uncompromising criticism of the doctrine and sympathy at the human level. Even you could have been born and brought up as a Muslim and developed an attachment for Islam’s irrational beliefs. If you believe in reincarnation, you should realize that you even could have been a Muslim, perhaps several times over. So, responsibly criticizing Islam and its role in the Partition of India requires intelligence.
It is here that I have more reason to worry. Though Hindus have shown great intelligence in the literature of the past and ICT initiatives of the present, they have mostly failed to apply their intelligence to the Islam problem, though this is staring them in the face every day.
But I am confident that now Hindus will do something about it. – Koenraad Elst Blog, 23 July 2012
» Dr. Koenraad Elst distinguished himself early on as eager to learn and eager to dissent. He studied at the Catholic University of Leuven, obtaining MA degrees in Sinology, Indology and Philosophy. After a research stay at Benares Hindu University he did original fieldwork for a doctorate on Hindu nationalism, for which he obtained magna cum laude in 1998. As an independent researcher he has earned laurels and ostracism with his findings on hot items like Islam, multiculturalism and the secular state.
Filed under: india, pakistan | Tagged: archibald wavell, british empire, british in india, british india, communalism, hindu, hindu nationalists, hindutva, history, imperialism, indian independence movement, indian national congress, islam in india, l. k. advani, louis mountbatten, m.k. gandhi, maulana abul kalam azad, muslim league, nathuram godse, nationalism, pakistan, partition of india, politics, religion, RSS, RSS, victor hope linlithgow |
BHARATA BHARATI 
Reblogged this on Hindu Persecution by Christianity and Islam.
LikeLike
Dear editor
This is Imran from Spain, An ex muslim and the owner of the blog (www.mundosinislam.com). How are you sir? Today I am sending you something very special and very close to my heart. It is a song in Spanish language written and sung by me against the Islamic terrorism. For the convenience of your readers I have added the English subtitles.
My song is dedicated to all those who have become the victims of Islam and those who are alive but suffering in someway because of Islam. The Islam and it´s terrorism have destroyed the peace of our lives. Let´s fight against it together. I would be very happy if you can publish this song on your site in order to encourage more people for fighting against the cruel Islamic terrorism. Here is the link of video uploaded on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFduQe8a_iE&feature=youtu.be
Thank you very much sir. your sincerely IMRAN FIRASAT (SPAIN)
http://www.mundosinislam.com (World without Islam)
LikeLike
Hinduism could not remould Christianity either. Christians use more sophisticated tactics to attack Hindus but their object is the same as Muslims. In fact both Abrahamists join hands in India to attack Hindus. They will fight each other after they have defeated the Hindus.
But Hindus can only suffer defeat from traitors within the Hindu Samaj rather than directly from Muslims or Christians. There are today any number of Hindus in high positions willing to sell out for money and prestige. Many of them even claim to be nationalists.
It can be said that Hindus are already defeated in that they never attained independence in 1947.
LikeLike
With regard to “a debate that should have been held on March 28, 1940,” we suggest seriously that it should be held NOW.
The CLASH is-
“Koran vs. Geeta”.
The CLASH is “Momin vs. Kafir”.
The CLASH is “Believer vs. Infidel”.
The CLASH is “Aggressive Alien vs Submissive Native”.
The CLASH is the spirit of JEHAD vs TOLERANCE.
The CLASH is Revenge vs Forgiveness.
The CLASH is conqueror vs defeated.
The CLASH is Fundamentalism vs Secularism.
The CLASH is Separatism vs Integration.
The CLASH is Indoctrination & Fanaticism vs Liberalism.
The CLASH is Compulsion to Convert vs Acceptance.
The CLASH is Stoning women to death, “Cutting off hands and feet” vs Civil Law (civilisation).
The CLASH is till death. It has existed since 712 AD. It is perennial. It is constant. It is abrasive. It is corrosive.
Hinduism could tolerate, integrate, reform and remould every other belief and view, but not Islam.
Pakistan (now Pakistan and Bangladesh) is the most vocal living proof of that. They will rather starve, beg and even fight among themselves to death, but never consider joining Bharat that gave them birth and nourished them. All the leaders and founding fathers of Pakistan were BORN IN INDIA.
Being rude, crude and self-righteous none ever said, “Sorry,” to the victims. None ever felt remorse for the slaughters and massacres they perpetrated. On the contrary they call Jinnah a great patriot. Ajmal Kasab cannot be hanged since they all support him and sympathise with him (even with Osama Bin Laden), and will create mayhem if he is hanged to death.
Therefore, it’s never too late to attend to the problem that is not only consuming the nation but destroying it.
The situation today, in 2012, is the same as in 1942 (pre Noakhali and pre Partition) and we know what happened five years later.
We need not be as complacent as the generation of 1942 and see the whole country engulfed in flames while then it was only five unfortunate States that were to lose their freedom, secularism and civilisation in order to form Pakistan.
LikeLike
The very basic issue why partition was demanded should have been discussed brutally. If Muslims cannot live with Hindus in Muslim majority areas, how can they live in Muslim minority areas? Or you keep on giving parcels as and when Muslim population increases in certain areas? Why do these areas have to contiguous to Pakistan or Bangladesh? What about parts of Kerala, UP or Bihar? If Muslims could not coexist as a minority in the whole of India as it was before partition, how could they live in partitioned India? What was so difficult to figure out?
It is about time to have an open debate — a debate that should have been held on March 28, 1940.
LikeLike
Indians have had 64 years of independence. Still they require a white lady to rule them. That is real the question to be answered. Why are Indians (read Hindus) not able to rule themselves?
LikeLike
Britishers were cunning peoples. They are hating hindus. They have developed education system & history of the country in such a way,that hindus will always feel ashame for it. It is true that hindus & muslims were already seperated and clever British peoples had taken the advantage of it. Britishers also separated sikhs,buddhists,Jains from hindus and trated them as minority. The myth of Aryan invasion theory was developed by them only. Post world war II the britishers were weakened and taken a decision to leave India because of their own problems. While leaving India they kept missioneries in India and also their profit making companies were still in India. Britishers want a safe land in India where they can established militery base to counter Russia. Congress opposes the idea but Mr Jinah supported the idea and ready to leave a land for british for this purpose. Also Pakistan movement was secretely funded by British Government. British Government feels that independent hindu India will counter western countries and America so it will be better if India remains weak so they have supported Pakistan movement started by muslims.Also see the difference in the treatment given by British to Jinah, Savarkar,Gandhi.The hindu leaders & revoltutionry like Tilak,Savarkar,Subhash Chandra Bose were ill treated. While Nehru,Gandhi who were working agents of British were rewarded. Also Jinah useful for British were offered Pakistan. I am not saying that British are the only responsible for creation of Pakistan. Even Mr.Savarkar says that the root of the Pakistan is in Koran. But there were some role of British Government in the creation of Pakistan which could not be denied. Now Britain is paying for their sins done in their colonial rule. Muslims in UK are creating more and more problems to UK. Within 20 years muslim population will become majority than British population.
LikeLike
Dr. Elst has never given the British a clean chit. That is an exaggeration. In other articles he has exposed them in detail for their wrongdoing. He is talking about a specific issue here and has limited his reference.
Obviously you are offended by his pointing to the fact that the viceroys did not agree to Partition because it counters your own dearly held opinion that the British were to blame for Partition. But the facts are the facts. Perhaps you should change your opinion.
Nobody agreed to Partition. It was forced on the everybody including Gandhi by the threat of violence by the Muslim League. The Muslim League was made up of Muslims. Therefore it was Muslims who forced the Partition of India on everybody else.
There is a whole mythology surrounding the British and their intentions in India. For example a supposed statement of Macaulay circulates among Hindu nationalists on the Internet that is entirely spurious (see image below). Dr Michel Danino exposed it long ago but that does not affect its popularity among Hindus.
There is also the popular belief that Gandhi got independence for India by forcing the British to leave. It is not true. The British left because they were exhausted by the Second World War and realised they could not hold their prized colony by force any longer after the mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy in Bombay. Indian troops were also restive, so they got out as quickly as they could to save face.
Look what has just happened in Assam. The Bodos finally got fed up with the illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh (who are sponsored by our crooked politicians) and took action. A time will come when Hindus will have to take action too if they want to survive in their own homeland.
Muslims only know two positions in relationship to non-Muslims: Either they stand on your head or you stand on their head. They are not able to live as equals with people who do not subscribe to their bigoted and violent superstitions.
Click this link to see the enlarged image https://bharatabharati.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/macaulay-forgery.jpg?w=714
This statement attributed to Macaulay is a forgery. It appeared somewhere in Tamil Nadu after Independence. It is very popular with Hindu nationalists who don’t do their homework. As for Macaulay’s supposed wish the break India’s very backbone, it is simply not true. India was the source of England’s prosperity and a broken India would never have served the British interest. The British did want a subservient, christianised India of brown sahibs educated at St. Xavier’s, but not a broken India.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As far as Muslim ideology and their temperament is concerned, I am well awair of the role of Jinnah and Sheikh Abdullah. It is correct that Jinnah aka Muslims gave the call that they cannot live with Hindus. I may not be as thorough on history as Elst but knowing is one thing while its interpretation is another.
Lot of the papers relating to partition would never be available but whatever are available, I am affraid, giving British a clean chit may be as naive as solely blaming Muslims alone when there were multiples of vested interest at play. That includes our beloved Chachaa+Mahatma.
I am not a sympathiser of Islam at any rate, I am sure you will agree on it. I have already observed in my above comment, a Muslim is Muslim first. Of course there are exceptions to the rule but in this case these exceptions are dwarfed against the aggresion exhibited by the few, who have wrongd the entire world.
LikeLike
I fully agree with your sentiment. I have now read the documents relating to Nathuram. His act was correct but the shot should have been directed to other side who ultimately ruined India. Gandhi was never interested in power but he proved a spoiler due to someone else. Hence the target became wrong. Now of course both are dead. Only thing that is in ventilator is the country they couldn’t carry with them. However there are moments in the history of every land when that become thirsty for blood. The blood was shed but the people were kept ignorant. Hence the red did touch the sentiments of masses. Had it been shed on the call of Netaji, the spirit of the current generation would have been different. Perhaps the world would have envied.
LikeLike
It is a good article but it was written more than a year ago. The ship hasn’t sunk yet and one of the UPA-II captains has become President of India.
LikeLike
Dr. Elst, whom I have met in 1992 in Sita Ram Goel’s house, is a rationalist humanist in the best European tradition. He is an atheist though he describes himself as being a cultural Catholic and supportive of some Catholic social programmes. He says he is a well-wisher of Hindus and India and I have never had any reason to doubt him. It is a different matter if you disagree with his interpretation of Indian history. Hindus who know the Koran and Hadith and are familiar with the Islamic ideology of dominance will probably agree with his interpretation of the cause of Partition as it is expressed here.
There is also the matter of facts. Opinionated Hindu nationalists don’t pay very much attention to facts. They are satisfied with their opinions. But Dr. Elst can never be faulted on facts. How he interprets them is a different matter and open for discussion.
LikeLike
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/extraordinaryissue/entry/a-ship-about-to-sink
A ship about to sink by Pritish Nandy
“These are people who are destroying India from within. They are not just robbing you, me, and the exchequer. They are destroying institutions, subverting laws, vandalising our heritage and history, and trying to build a dazzling, amoral edifice of crime and corruption unprecedented in the nation’s history. It’s a scary scenario that could turn the land of the Mahatma into one gigantic Gotham City with a flyover to hell”
LikeLike
Nathuram Godse’s killing of Gandhi had a two-pronged effect. First, it made Gandhi a martyr which he never was. Anyone who has read Gandhi knows that he was a megalomaniac , arrogant coward who wanted to be looked upon as the messiah of Hindu-Muslim unity though such insanity of his has cost Hindus dearly as they had to concede the vivisection of their beloved motherland. Not only that, they have now become second class citizens in their own truncated homeland. Second, Gandhi’s murder gave that anti-Hindu Nehru a chance to ventilate his hatred against Hindus especially against organizations like the RSS and Hindu mahsabha. So, had Nathuram not killed Gandhi then it would have been better for Hindus. Yet my inner voice tells me that Gandhi never deserved to die a normal death. I salute Nathuram Godse who was a true patriot which Gandhi could never become.
LikeLike
I am sorry for my known dissent on some of the aspects dealt by KE and I hope to be allowed my own views with due respect. I must stress that I have to convince myself about his credentials. However it doesn’t mean that we should not differ on certain views that do not agree with our reasoned argument. You need not follow me but I am convinced that you are a devoutly concerned person for Hindu cause and that is where I expect to allow myself to viewed by you at the same time.
“But it was only in 1945 that the Soviet ally became an enemy, five years after the Muslim League adopted the Pakistan resolution, and more than ten years after the idea of Pakistan was first mooted.”
I have deliberately selected this quote because it has the essence hidden into it which is cleverly bypassed with a passing reference. One thing that I have earlier observed about KE is again proved correct. He is too sensitive to the criticism of Brits for reasons best known to him.
Jinnah was not hostile nor did he distance himself from Congress or the undivided India until 1930s or so. Something went wrong at this stage that sent Jinnah tiggy about Nehru and Congress. It is difficult to deduce the truth in the midst of such a diverse vested interests but both Jinnah and Sheikh Abdullah went adrift. No one can deny that a Muslim is a Muslim first than anything else; despite their varying denominations including the persecuted Ahmadias and Ismalis of Jinnah’s own clan. This is true even in Pakistan where some polls by western researchers have clearly shown that they are first Muslims than Pakistanis.
I hope IS you will permit my views to express here without any malice but this post does not confirm to the reality in full. KE may blame me as a fundamentalist RSS (wrongly) as I am not convinced of his apologism for his not being a Belgique Catholic, judging from the usual tone of his posts. He cannot see anything wrong in British and Pope/Vatican except for some passing references perhaps to save direct attacks to sugar coat the bitter pill otherwise.
I am not quite sure about his repeated direct and indirect criticisms for Hindus not being intelligent enough. Yes the average Indian that but also includes the Muslims and a good number of brown Christians, cannot get over their mental slavery of white skin masters even if they are thousans of miles away now physically. I have keenly observed it both at home as well as abroad during my long stay outside.
I am sorry IS but I am still to convince myself of the genuineness of KE about his sincerity on Hindus and the best interest of Indian subcontinent. I have no doubt that he is a good writer in English despite his Belgique origin. He is knowledgeable person. His stay in Benares has given him an added filip on Indian scriptures. But again I am not yet convinced of his deep knowledge of Sanskrit and the Vedic literatures that he often refers to. Perhaps his quotations may be like my knowledge, if I am not wrong, however I remain corrected again without any malice.
Till that time this again looks like a story well told.
LikeLike