Signs of a fascist society

[Bigboii]

It's also weird to see people criticizing Gandhi for racism

While the Hindutava guy was supporting nazi ideology

 

[CricketCartoons]

What are you saying?
He said semitic races should be purged as was done by Germany (he made this comment when Hitler was already at his peak) and India can learn a lesson from Germany's example. Where is two nation theory in this? Did Germany break itself up in two for the Jews? Golwalkar was obviously speaking about exterminating the semitic races. Supporting the Nazi views in itself is pathetic and should be banned everywhere in the world. And here we have Indian govt celebrating it.

No, he did not say that jews should be purged. You are mixing separate statements.

‘Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.’

This is where he says that germany has shown that assimilation doesn't work, and it is a good lesson for indians so they don't hold hopes about assimilation. The lesson is this: assimilation doesn't work.

Show me the line where he says jews should be exterminated?

In fact he had praised the jews in his books, and called hitler an oppressor, a continuing tradition of anti semitism.

 

[CricketCartoons]

It's also weird to see people criticizing Gandhi for racism

While the Hindutava guy was supporting nazi ideology

Saying that majority and minority cannot be assimilated is supporting nazi ideology? No, it is just two nation theory, that majority and minority don't mix and are separate.

 

[street cricketer]

The thing is that Sir Syed did not want Hindus to assimilate into the Muslim culture.

otherwise he would not say things like this "As a matter of fact Hindus and Muslims are the two eyes of the beautiful bride that is Hindustan. Weakness of any one of them will spoil the beauty of the bride"

However it was only after he (like Jinnah & Iqbal) realized that Hindus and Muslims cant share power, did he say they cant co-exist as equals.

On the other hand you have people like "Veer" Savarkar and "Veer" Golwalkar who did expect that Muslims assimilate into Hindu culture, or else be put in their place. Neither of them wanted Muslims to have even one inch of subcontinent land. So it was assimilate or else.

And it was not just them, majority of Congress at that time was soft Hindutva. The only difference is they would not discriminate against Muslims. But they like the RW they did not really see that Muslims also have a culture.

Liberals Hindus really couldn't share power with Muslims in 1947, not because of any malice or hated but because they like the RW Hindus believe that you can be Muslim, but your ancestors are Hindus.

You're generally a good poster but you're misinformed on this. Firstly everyone knows that India was under muslim rule for large periods of time before the British conquest of India (I know the Marathas and Sikhs took power from the Mughals before British take over but India was under muslim rule for much larger periods of time). During the muslim rule, the muslim rulers of India had allowed the hindus to retain their law in civil matters. But, they abrogated the Hindu Criminal Law and made the Muslim Criminal Law the law of the State, applicable to all hindus as well as muslims. There were certain judges called "qazis" who used to exercise their powers in judicial cases concerning both hindus and muslims according to the Shariat law. The official language of the court was Persian and clearly the muslims were the ruling class despite being a minority. What the hindu nationalists like Savarkar and Golwalkar wanted was to flip the situation during muslim rule, but with the hindus being the ruling class because they were the majority and supposedly the "sons of soil" according to them (for what its worth, my personal opinion is that it's **).

The "power sharing" proposition of the Muslim League broke down not because the Congress saw the muslims being devoid of culture. This is a poor understanding of history and quite often, when people talk about this notion of "power sharing", they don't have a knowledge on the nuances of events that happened during that era and water it down to simplistic sentences like the hindus did not want to share power with the muslims and so Pakistan happened.

The concept of "power sharing" fell through primarily because of two reasons:

1. The Muslim League wanted "separate electorates" for the muslims, both in areas where they were minorities in hindu majority provinces and in provinces were they were in majority with a minority hindu population, at both provincial and central level.

2. The Muslim League wanted a guaranteed statutory majority of seats reserved for the muslims in areas where they were in majority and a weighted proportion in areas where they were in minority, plus a constitutional safeguard that the representation of majority can never be reduced to a minority or even equality.

What the second point really means is that there will always be a statutory majority in the seats for the community in majority and so just for an example, pre partition Punjab had a muslim majority of 54% and a non muslim minority of 46%. Similarly pre partition Bengal had a muslim majority of 56% and a hindu minority of 44%. The statutory majority guaranteed a majority seats for the muslims in those provinces like say 6 seats for muslims to 4 seats for hindus out of say 10 seats available.

Even though guaranteeing a statutory majority for any community is controversial, the real issue was not that. The real point of contention was the idea of separate electorates. What the term "separate electorates" really mean is that only muslims will be given the right to vote to elect those 6 muslim leaders and the hindu minority would have no power to influence those elections, who would go on to rule them. To understand why this is controversial, as an example in the current Indian political scenario, a separate electorate for muslims and hindus would mean that say if the muslims for some reason feel they would get a better deal under Congress than under the BJP in their state elections, they would have no power to influence those elections and elect a leader that's more sympathetic to their cause, even on a theoretical level.

The bottom line is that both the Congress and the Muslim League had widely contrasting ideas of self rule and they were not compatible with each other. Contrary to the popular belief in India, the Muslim League were well within their rights to ask a separate country for the muslims to rule themselves, and contrary to the popular perception in Pakistan, the idea of a unified India fell through not because the hindus couldn't share power with the muslims. It's because the concept of power sharing as put forward by the Muslim League would not be viable and practical in any democracy in the future and would have inevitably led to the partition of the two autonomous states with widely differing administrations that they might as well have been separate states from the very beginning instead of being bound together in a forced union.

A lot of Indians and Pakistanis (mainly Indians of the liberal type) wax lyrical about what would have been if India and Pakistan had stayed united. Well, it would have been utter chaos had that happened. I've always believed the Partition was the single greatest outcome that happened to the subcontinent, obviously not in the manner it happened as it led to unnecessary loss of lives on both sides of the border, but it was certainly the best possible outcome given the huge mess subcontinent was in pre partition. The hindus and muslims clearly hate each other and are always suspicious of each other, so the best possible outcome was to separate each other into two different states and leave themselves to their own paths. Partition led to two underdeveloped and slowly developing states in India and Pakistan, but a unified India and Pakistan would have just been a failed state like Sudan/South Sudan, but only at a more gigantic scale. The Partition was certainly not the most pleasant outcome that happened to the subcontinent, but it was definitely the most pragmatic one.

 

[Madplayer]

No, he did not say that jews should be purged. You are mixing separate statements.

‘Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.’

This is where he says that germany has shown that assimilation doesn't work, and it is a good lesson for indians so they don't hold hopes about assimilation. The lesson is this: assimilation doesn't work.

Show me the line where he says jews should be exterminated?

In fact he had praised the jews in his books, and called hitler an oppressor, a continuing tradition of anti semitism.

He literally mentions both the things in one paragraph and you are calling them separate statements.

What does purging of semitic races mean? Couple this with his belief that assimilation doesnt work and that Hitler had no intention of two nation theory. Dont beat around the bush this time please.

Taking his general ideology into consideration, he called Hitler an oppressor of jews as a praise, not an insult. This is supplemented by the fact that he called purging of semitic races a great example.

 

[CricketCartoons]

He literally mentions both the things in one paragraph and you are calling them separate statements.

What does purging of semitic races mean? Couple this with his belief that assimilation doesnt work and that Hitler had no intention of two nation theory. Dont beat around the bush this time please.

Taking his general ideology into consideration, he called Hitler an oppressor of jews as a praise, not an insult. This is supplemented by the fact that he called purging of semitic races a great example.

I don't need to teach you the difference between paragraph and statement. He also said that Germany has shocked the world in the previous statement. In the next statement he said it is a lesson that assimilation of majority and minority doesn't work (this is two nation theory).

Purge can mean many things, from removal to killing. I can purge my company of poor performers. Obviously you will take the meaning that suits you, but even then it is immaterial. He wrote this in 1938, and holocaust started in 1941, so it is a FACT that he wasnt talking about holocaust. Another FACT is that if you state something doesn't mean you support it. Yet another FACT is that purge can mean different things.

You can continue believing what you want, but Golkwarkar's statements don't support it.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

You're generally a good poster but you're misinformed on this. Firstly everyone knows that India was under muslim rule for large periods of time before the British conquest of India (I know the Marathas and Sikhs took power from the Mughals before British take over but India was under muslim rule for much larger periods of time). During the muslim rule, the muslim rulers of India had allowed the hindus to retain their law in civil matters. But, they abrogated the Hindu Criminal Law and made the Muslim Criminal Law the law of the State, applicable to all hindus as well as muslims. There were certain judges called "qazis" who used to exercise their powers in judicial cases concerning both hindus and muslims according to the Shariat law. The official language of the court was Persian and clearly the muslims were the ruling class despite being a minority. What the hindu nationalists like Savarkar and Golwalkar wanted was to flip the situation during muslim rule, but with the hindus being the ruling class because they were the majority and supposedly the "sons of soil" according to them (for what its worth, my personal opinion is that it's **).

Muslims were the ruling class, but there was also a Hindu elite, who the Muslim elite inter married with. And majority people whether Muslim or Hindu were not part of the upper crusts of society. Neither Hindu or Muslim Kings were the “yaar” of the regular Muslim or Hindu. And yes it was better to be a Muslim under a Muslim King, but it was also better to be an upper caste Hindu when their was a Hindu King. If their was discrimination against non Muslims in a Muslim empire, their was also discrimination against Muslims in a non Muslim empire like Dogras and Sikhs.

Also the language of the court was initially Persian, and so was the culture but as a result of intermarriage with the Hindu elite, the culture eventually became Indo-Persian. From the cuisine, to clothing, architecture, to the Urdu language, all of it was a fusion of two separate cultures becoming one.

The "power sharing" proposition of the Muslim League broke down not because the Congress saw the muslims being devoid of culture. This is a poor understanding of history and quite often, when people talk about this notion of "power sharing", they don't have a knowledge on the nuances of events that happened during that era and water it down to simplistic sentences like the hindus did not want to share power with the muslims and so Pakistan happened.

You have to ask yourself why did they want separate electorates in the first place. Jinnah was not a practicing Muslim, and most of the really religious Muslims, especially the Deobandis, opposed partition. If the state was going to be secular why exactly did liberal Muslims support Pakistan?

Besides from the guaranteed political power, this is where the cultural differences come into place. Muslims and Hindus draw inspiration from different parts of subcontinent history. Congress chose symbols of the state from the pre-islamic heritage of the subcontinent. Muslim League wanted it from the Muslim era. Could they ever agree on a common set of symbols? Almost every if not every symbol Congress chose for India after independence reflected the pre-Islamic history. Nothing wrong with that, but also nothing wrong with Muslims wanting the symbols from their own culture.

Could they understand what Sanskrit is for Hindus, thats what Persian and Arabic was for Muslims? That muslims view the Mughal empire and sultanate period in the same way Hindus view the Mauryan Empire and Gupta, etc.

The bottom line is that both the Congress and the Muslim League had widely contrasting ideas of self rule and they were not compatible with each other. Contrary to the popular belief in India, the Muslim League were well within their rights to ask a separate country for the muslims to rule themselves, and contrary to the popular perception in Pakistan, the idea of a unified India fell through not because the hindus couldn't share power with the muslims. It's because the concept of power sharing as put forward by the Muslim League would not be viable and practical in any democracy in the future and would have inevitably led to the partition of the two autonomous states with widely differing administrations that they might as well have been separate states from the very beginning instead of being bound together in a forced union.

I would say the maximum that Congress could offer the Muslim League was less than the miniumum the Muslim League could accept. And therefore partition was better, as each side would get some political power.

In a united India Muslims would be culturally the "Robin" to the Hindus "Batman". The sidekick. They wanted a situation where it was "Batman" and "Superman". As in equals.

A lot of Indians and Pakistanis (mainly Indians of the liberal type) wax lyrical about what would have been if India and Pakistan had stayed united. Well, it would have been utter chaos had that happened. I've always believed the Partition was the single greatest outcome that happened to the subcontinent, obviously not in the manner it happened as it led to unnecessary loss of lives on both sides of the border, but it was certainly the best possible outcome given the huge mess subcontinent was in pre partition. The hindus and muslims clearly hate each other and are always suspicious of each other, so the best possible outcome was to separate each other into two different states and leave themselves to their own paths.

Are you saying majority of Hindus and Muslims in India hate each other? And if that's the case when Indians regardless of religion visit Pakistan why would they usually get a good reception. In fact i would say an Indian Hindu visitor would be treated better in Pakistan than in any other country.

Arabs and Israelis hate each other, but I don’t think that level of animosity will ever happen between Muslims and Hindus in the subcontinent. If anything there is a love hate relationship. North Indians and Pakistanis have too much in common for that to ever happen.

I agree with you that partition was necessary, but their can be a middle ground between the liberal aman ki asha brigade, and the right wing haters.

I will end with Urdu shahyri

Dushmani jam kar karo lekin ye gunjāish rahe

jab kabhi ham dost ho jaaeñ to sharminda na hon

 

[Madplayer]

I don't need to teach you the difference between paragraph and statement. He also said that Germany has shocked the world in the previous statement. In the next statement he said it is a lesson that assimilation of majority and minority doesn't work (this is two nation theory).

Purge can mean many things, from removal to killing. I can purge my company of poor performers. Obviously you will take the meaning that suits you, but even then it is immaterial. He wrote this in 1938, and holocaust started in 1941, so it is a FACT that he wasnt talking about holocaust. Another FACT is that if you state something doesn't mean you support it. Yet another FACT is that purge can mean different things.

You can continue believing what you want, but Golkwarkar's statements don't support it.

You are beating around the bush again. The statement's context is the other statements made in the same paragraph. That is how we read and comprehend something. You are creating your own rules of comrehension just to justify Golwalkar's appalling views.

In Golwalkar's case there is enough contextual evidence to suggest that the term purge is used as extermination. By 1938 Hitler was already at his peak. I need not remind you what Jews were going through in 1938. 1941 was only a manifestation of what had already begun. Golwalkar subscribes to exactly same model. In his views muslims should be subordinate to hindus and should claim nothing in India. If you overlook this scathing context, i refuse to join you in beating around the bush.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You are beating around the bush again. The statement's context is the other statements made in the same paragraph. That is how we read and comprehend something. You are creating your own rules of comrehension just to justify Golwalkar's appalling views.

In Golwalkar's case there is enough contextual evidence to suggest that the term purge is used as extermination. By 1938 Hitler was already at his peak. I need not remind you what Jews were going through in 1938. 1941 was only a manifestation of what had already begun. Golwalkar subscribes to exactly same model. In his views muslims should be subordinate to hindus and should claim nothing in India. If you overlook this scathing context, i refuse to join you in beating around the bush.

You can believe whatever. I am not here to convince you. Just telling you that I don't buy your convoluted reasoning where you are seeing things out of context. When germany was winning, hitler was being admired. That doesn't make anyone nazi. True crimes of hitler came to light much later. You can read his other book which he wrote post WW2, to see what he thought of hitler ( only if you dont mind your notions to be challenged). It proves that he did not admire hitler.

That muslims would be subordinate to majority hindus was acceptable norm then (it is even now, just that most people don't like to say openly). It was the norm everywhere in the free world. An enslaved country on the verge of independence will naturally look at the free world to emulate and base itself on. Minority was subordinate to majority in the free world.

You are acting like islamophobes who quote something out of context to say it is anti semitic.

 

[CricketCartoons]

In Golwalkar's case there is enough contextual evidence to suggest that the term purge is used as extermination. By 1938 Hitler was already at his peak. I need not remind you what Jews were going through in 1938. 1941 was only a manifestation of what had already begun. Golwalkar subscribes to exactly same model. In his views muslims should be subordinate to hindus and should claim nothing in India. If you overlook this scathing context, i refuse to join you in beating around the bush.

You can check literature on jews and holocaust and check what happened in 1938. eg, https://www.ushmm.org/ says that many laws were enacted in 1938 which made things difficult for jews, like higher taxes, tax evasion notice, registering their wealth, cut in allowances etc. This is the purging. Not extermination like you believe.

 

[Madplayer]

You can believe whatever. I am not here to convince you. Just telling you that I don't buy your convoluted reasoning where you are seeing things out of context. When germany was winning, hitler was being admired. That doesn't make anyone nazi. True crimes of hitler came to light much later. You can read his other book which he wrote post WW2, to see what he thought of hitler ( only if you dont mind your notions to be challenged). It proves that he did not admire hitler.

That muslims would be subordinate to majority hindus was acceptable norm then (it is even now, just that most people don't like to say openly). It was the norm everywhere in the free world. An enslaved country on the verge of independence will naturally look at the free world to emulate and base itself on. Minority was subordinate to majority in the free world.

You are acting like islamophobes who quote something out of context to say it is anti semitic.

Unbelievable post with no head or tail. I have addressed all of it before as well so i am not going to repeat myself. In fact I am the one looking at the context while you are asking to look at each sentence separately. Now it has become just tu tu mai mai and some disturbing views and interpretations from your side. Even going by your interpretation and justification of golwalkar, is this the kind of person you want secular India to look up to? India might be a de facto hindutva nation today but it is still not openly declared as a hindutva nation. So if your rulers make such figures as your ideals, the world will still lambast you.

You can check literature on jews and holocaust and check what happened in 1938. eg, https://www.ushmm.org/ says that many laws were enacted in 1938 which made things difficult for jews, like higher taxes, tax evasion notice, registering their wealth, cut in allowances etc. This is the purging. Not extermination like you believe.

Wow and all this is good? Like i said, these are disturbing views from your side. Anyway, these policies are all aimed at extermination of those people in the long run (and it will almost always manifest itself in shape of genocide). It is not meant to help them flourish.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Wow and all this is good? Like i said, these are disturbing views from your side. Anyway, these policies are all aimed at extermination of those people in the long run (and it will almost always manifest itself in shape of genocide). It is not meant to help them flourish.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that it is good. It is what it is. This is not extermination. So at least now you agree that the purge he was talking about was about the stringent laws applied on jews which made things hard for them, and he wasn't talking of extermination. That whether he supported this purging is also doubtful, but one thing is clear, he wasn't talking about extermination as you believe.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Unbelievable post with no head or tail. I have addressed all of it before as well so i am not going to repeat myself. In fact I am the one looking at the context while you are asking to look at each sentence separately. Now it has become just tu tu mai mai and some disturbing views and interpretations from your side. Even going by your interpretation and justification of golwalkar, is this the kind of person you want secular India to look up to? India might be a de facto hindutva nation today but it is still not openly declared as a hindutva nation. So if your rulers make such figures as your ideals, the world will still lambast you.

Doesn't matter what kind of person I want india to look up to. I only want to people to be seen with context and as a product of what the world was like and what was happening around them. Kashmiris are under occupation, they wont have great views about indians and particularly hindus, and I understand that. Won't go calling them anti hindu bigots, because one has to put oneself in their shoes first. When you see your people oppressed, even getting killed and you feel the dignity of your community is hurt, the last thing on your mind will be secularism and being politically correct to satisfy the morals of some woke dude who will be judging your quotes out of context some century later.

 

[street cricketer]

You have to ask yourself why did they want separate electorates in the first place. Jinnah was not a practicing Muslim, and most of the really religious Muslims, especially the Deobandis, opposed partition. If the state was going to be secular why exactly did liberal Muslims support Pakistan?

Jinnah was not religious at all but was the leader of the Indian muslim mass which was certainly religious by any metric, and he understood that. Otherwise he would have made sure that the state of Pakistan was a secular state post independence devoid of any religious symbolism. Also, I do not know what you mean by the term "liberal muslim". Does it mean the muslims who aren't religious in nature, then from whatever history I know, only Jinnah fits into that category as Iqbal was fairly religious as well.

The Muslim League supported the cause of Pakistan as they wanted to rule their own destiny, simple as that. Muslims were concentrated as majorities in the areas that constitute the present day Pakistan and Bangladesh and scattered all across the region what constitutes the modern day India. Why would the muslim massses who were majority in the provinces of Punjab, KPK, Balochistan, Sindh and Bengal support secularism and want to live as a minority in a secular state, when they could live as the majority in an Islamic republic. If they wanted secularism, post independence Pakistan would have been a secular state.

Besides from the guaranteed political power, this is where the cultural differences come into place. Muslims and Hindus draw inspiration from different parts of subcontinent history. Congress chose symbols of the state from the pre-islamic heritage of the subcontinent. Muslim League wanted it from the Muslim era. Could they ever agree on a common set of symbols? Almost every if not every symbol Congress chose for India after independence reflected the pre-Islamic history. Nothing wrong with that, but also nothing wrong with Muslims wanting the symbols from their own culture.

Could they understand what Sanskrit is for Hindus, thats what Persian and Arabic was for Muslims? That muslims view the Mughal empire and sultanate period in the same way Hindus view the Mauryan Empire and Gupta, etc.

I do not understand the relevance of this part. I'm assuming you are talking about symbols like the Indian emblem or the Indian flag containing the Ashoka Chakra. None of these symbols are sacred to the hindus, you would have a point if the Indian flag contained the swastika or the om symbol both of which may be considered hindu symbols, but not those mentioned before. In any case, all these happened post independence and bears no relevance on why the Muslim League wanted Pakistan.

I would say the maximum that Congress could offer the Muslim League was less than the miniumum the Muslim League could accept. And therefore partition was better, as each side would get some political power.

In a united India Muslims would be culturally the "Robin" to the Hindus "Batman". The sidekick. They wanted a situation where it was "Batman" and "Superman". As in equals.

In that case, why the demand for separate electorates then and not joint electorates? The Muslim League demanded separate electorates because, like I said before, they wanted to rule their own destiny and select their own leaders without interference from the hindus. I've said this before, I can completely understand why the Muslim League wanted a separate country for muslims to live according to their own laws and customs, I just disagree with the part when people say Pakistan was created because the Congress left them no choice.

ML's proposition would have the modern state of India in its present form of governance plus the autonomous state of Pakistan as an islamic republic joined together as an artifical state. Czechoslovakia survived dismemberment by the Nazis and four decades under communist rule but broke up after just three years of democracy. A similar fate would have occurred to such an artificial state created with widely differing laws and governance.

Are you saying majority of Hindus and Muslims in India hate each other? And if that's the case when Indians regardless of religion visit Pakistan why would they usually get a good reception. In fact i would say an Indian Hindu visitor would be treated better in Pakistan than in any other country.

Arabs and Israelis hate each other, but I don’t think that level of animosity will ever happen between Muslims and Hindus in the subcontinent. If anything there is a love hate relationship. North Indians and Pakistanis have too much in common for that to ever happen.

I agree with you that partition was necessary, but their can be a middle ground between the liberal aman ki asha brigade, and the right wing haters.

The Pakistani cricket team got loud cheers whenever they played in the 2016 T20 WC in India too, all this doesn't mean anything. Hindus and muslims of India/Pakistan are probably the most polarised communities after Jews and Arabs, they'll sing Aman ki asha songs one day and be at each other's throats the next day. Why do you think India and Pakistan have armies blowing each others' heads off at the border even in the 21st century, we are so desensitised to this level of violence and animosity that we think this is normal but this hardly happens in the border of most civilized countries, or even between North and South Korea for that matter.

I know North Indians and Pakistanis have a lot in common but have you ever wondered why they also have the most animosity for each other. The greatest bloodshed during partition happened in Punjab and Bengal despite them having a lot in common. I know I'm painting a very grim picture but that's the reality of the matter. Indians and Pakistanis have a rivalry going purely because of their religions and probably the only way this enmity reduces is when both set of populations become less religious as it happened in Europe or east asia but there's fat chance of that happening in south asia.

I will end with Urdu shahyri

Dushmani jam kar karo lekin ye gunjāish rahe

jab kabhi ham dost ho jaaeñ to sharminda na hon

I'm so sorry but this went completely over my head as I understand neither hindi or urdu. Would love an english translation though.