Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Digvijay Singh blames Savarkar for 2-nation idea

Discussion in 'National Politics' started by DaRk KnIght, Jan 28, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DaRk KnIght

    DaRk KnIght Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    NEW DELHI: Congress leader Digvijay Singh has kicked up yet another controversy by claiming that the real father of the two-nation theory leading to the country's partition was Veer Savarkar and not Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

    Speaking at a programme here on Wednesday, Singh sought to elaborate the point that ideologies of exclusion and extremism were unable to hold a nation together.

    Asked about his speech later, he told reporters at the Congress headquarters that in his view political intolerance caused irreparable rift within society.

    "Savarkar had the original idea of the two-nation theory which was later adopted by Jinnah," he said. "Extremist ideologies create division, it's not healthy for society."

    Singh had recently created a stir with his remarks about a `hostile campaign' by the Hindutva forces on Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare prior to his death in the 26/11 terror attack on Mumbai.

    The senior party leader sought to differentiate between extreme political theories based on religion and religious piety. "Any good Hindu or Muslim -- those who believe in their religion in the true sense -- cannot subscribe to extreme viewpoints," he said.

    Singh argued that presumably Savarkar had been an atheist while there were questions about Jinnah's adherence to the ways of a pious Muslim. He sought to suggest that had the two been true followers of their respective faiths neither would have tread such an extreme path.

    Giving the issue an immediate context, he said that the BJP had invariably preferred a contentious spot either to hoist the tricolour or build a temple. His hint was clearly at the opposition party's attempt at unfurling the national flag at Lal Chowk in Srinagar.

    Singh's remarks immediately sparked a controversy with the BJP wondering whether he had the mandate from his party to propound such views. BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad wanted to know if Singh was speaking on the subject on behalf of his party.

    Congress spokesman Shakil Ahmed, however, backed Singh by stressing that the former Madhya Pradesh chief minister was a senior party leader putting across his views with responsibility.


    The Times of India: Latest News India, World & Business News, Cricket & Sports, Bollywood
     
  2. DaRk KnIght

    DaRk KnIght Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    Let me guess...next claim from secular government will be...

    Mahatma Gandhi wanted a separate nation for Hindus and we got separated from pakistan :lol:
     
  3. DaRk KnIght

    DaRk KnIght Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    Anyone interested in replying to this thread :azn:
     
  4. tariqkhan18

    tariqkhan18 Major Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,449
    Likes Received:
    715
    Country Flag:
    India
    Its not about who had the idea, its about who implemented it.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. RoYaN

    RoYaN Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    917
    Also on whose decedents(Ideological if not Genetical) intend to implement it again.......
     
  6. Hashu

    Hashu Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    145
    i am glad that we are not 1 nation! image the tiliban in india! :O SCARY!!
     
  7. DaRk KnIght

    DaRk KnIght Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    Imagine a fanatic population ready to eat grass so that it can destroy other nation.
     
  8. AmitAgrawal

    AmitAgrawal FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    17
    Look how is asking................... A person who can even ready to go Terrorist home to take sympathy of Muslims
     
  9. RoYaN

    RoYaN Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    917
    The Taliban would not have existed If we were one nation.............
     
  10. Coltsfan

    Coltsfan <b>SENIOR MEMBER</b> SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,040
    Likes Received:
    502
    Someone should shoot Diggy and put him out of his misery!!
     
  11. rcscwc

    rcscwc Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    593
    Yes, right. Muslims would have been about 40% in India, and we would be on the verge of becoming an islamic republic.
     
  12. RoYaN

    RoYaN Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    917
    NO We would have been a leader among world Nations besides Nations like Turkey which have more 95% Muslim is secular.......
     
  13. rcscwc

    rcscwc Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    593
    Oh no. Gandhi was prepared to hand over power to Muslim Leaugue led by Jinnah, but the latter was adamant. Had Gandhi's plan fructified there would a muslim condiminium over India, with Hindus having next to no rights. But it was unworkable.
     
  14. Osiris

    Osiris Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    742
    now he is defending jinnah ...this congress will do anything to appease minority votes
     
  15. RoYaN

    RoYaN Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    917
    Atheist fundamentalists


    It is ironical that the two biggest architects of the two-nation theory, Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, were staunch atheists.

    It is one of the deep ironies of South Asian history that the two figures crucial to the ideology of religious nationalism in the subcontinent - Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar - were themselves non-believers, and militantly so. Savarkar arguably first peddled the two-nation theory some years before the idea of Pakistan was mooted and then put into action by Jinnah and the Muslim League. In his seminal text 'Hindutva', published in 1923, Savarkar gave a territorial and racial spin to the word Hindu.

    "Dharma of a Hindu being so completely identified with the land of the Hindus, this land to him is not only a Pitribhu but a Punyabhu, not only a fatherland but a holyland," he famously wrote. The essentials of Hindutva, in Savarakar's mind, had nothing to do with religion per se but were predicated on a common nation (rashtra), a common race (jati) and a common civilisation (sanskriti).

    This was of a piece with Savarkar's personal life, in which he was fiercely atheist. He had publicly said there was nothing sacred about cows and advised Hindus to give up vegetarianism. Savarkar's biographer, Dhananjay Keer, points out that when his wife died, despite entreaties by his followers he refused to allow any Hindu rituals. Political psychologist Ashis Nandy, who has shed light on Savarkar's paradoxical relationship with religion, writes, "Savarkar's atheism was not the philosophical atheism associated with Buddhism and Vedanta, but the anti-clerical, hard atheism of fin-de-siecle scientism, increasingly popular among sections of the European middle class and, through cultural osmosis, in parts of modern India."

    Jinnah's tryst with religion had similarities to Savarkar's. In 1940, Jinnah told 100, 000 cheering Muslim League followers in Lahore: "The Musalmans are not a minority (but) a nation. The problem in India is not of an intercommunal but manifestly of an international character, and it must be treated as such." Savarkar was not in disagreement, and a few years later had this to say: "I have no quarrel with Mr Jinnah's two-nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations."

    However, in an earlier avatar, Jinnah - the chainsmoking, nattily-dressed, London-educated barrister - had impeccable liberal credentials. Gopal Krishna Gokhale had once hailed Jinnah as the "best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity". Historian Ayesha Jalal writes that in the wake of the Khilafat movement in 1920, Jinnah "derided the false and dangerous religious frenzy which had confused Indian politics, and the zealots, both Hindu and Muslim, who were harming the national cause". But that did not stop him from using religion to advocate Muslim separatism. As Nandy points out, "Jinnah kept the ulema at a distance throughout his life, but was perfectly willing to use them to advance the cause of a separate homeland for South Asian Muslims. Exactly as Savarkar, despite all his anti-Muslim rhetoric and passion for united India, not only established coalitions in Sindh and Bengal with the Muslim League, fighting for Pakistan, but was proud of these alliances."

    The contradiction between Jinnah's personal beliefs and his political use of religion became apparent in his later years. Thus, in 1946, Jinnah had no qualms about asking Muslims to launch 'Direct Action' which led to widespread rioting and bloodshed in the name of religion. But a year later, in his famous speech in the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 where he spoke of a secular and inclusive Pakistan, Jinnah tried to put the religious genie back in the bottle. However, the damage had already been done.

    Savarkar had no such second thoughts. Though he was receptive to the idea that Muslims should have their own nation, his hostility towards them remained undimmed. Even at the age of 82, he wrote during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war, "Pakistan's barbaric acts such as kidnapping and raping Indian women would not be stopped unless Pakistan was given tit for tat." Apposite words, perhaps, from someone who used religion only for instrumental purposes.


    Read more: Atheist fundamentalists - The Times of India Atheist fundamentalists - The Times of India
     
    1 person likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page