There are actual leftists and other folks who donโt regurgitate PakMil propaganda โ of this Iโm aware. But even amongst those, illiteracy on India is rife. I laugh with bemusement at the number of times self-appointed Pakistani intellechawals sagely nod their heads and compare Zia-Era Pakistan to present-day Hindootva. I โgetโ that such comparisons soothes Pakistani insecurities vis-a-vis its larger, democratic neighbor, but it really destroys their credibility.
Kabir removed three of Daveโs comments, and while I felt it was over-moderation, Iโve kept my promise not to interfere unnecessarily in his threads.
The excerpt above, though, is interesting โ the comparison between Ziaโs Pakistan and Modiโs India. Whatโs striking about both is the twin emphasis on capitalism and cultural conservatism: the promise of economic growth wrapped in moral revival. It raises a deeper question โ whether right-wing politics are, paradoxically, the only antidote societies find to extreme inequality.
Class, even more than caste or creed, is the fundamental distinction in any society. The bottom half ultimately has more in common with each other than with the top half. Yet society endures only when that bottom half is so compromised that it cannot mount effective resistance. When the Establishment promise uplift but depend on the passivity of the lower half, then the “distribution of prosperity”, twinned with ideology, itself becomes the subtlest form of control.
I think the comparison between General Zia and “Hindu Hriday Samrat” actually holds. Daves is of course free to disagree. This comparison makes a lot of Indians defensive. General Zia’s Islamization drive can definitely be compared to Modi’s Hindutva. Both leaders have also done a number on their societies. Pakistan is still dealing with Zia’s legacy (almost 4 decades after his death). Similarly, even if the BJP is no longer India’s ruling party (as will surely happen at some point), there’s no going back to the norms of Nehruvian secularism. Islamophobia has been normalized to the point that that genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
An important difference though is that nobody elected General Zia. He was a military dictator who removed Zulfikar Bhutto–the legitimate Prime Minister of Pakistan. The Indian people have however elected Modi to power three times now. This is despite the fact that he was CM during the worst anti-Muslim pogroms in decades. This really says a lot about India’s pretensions to secularism.
India can absolutely choose to become a “Hindu Pakistan” if it wishes. But then it no longer has any moral high ground over the Islamic Republic to its west.
Finally, I’m not so bothered by Daves’ substantive points (as long as he doesn’t use the word “Nazi” in relation to Pakistan). His substantive points are standard right-wing Indian points which I’ve heard many many times in my life. I simply don’t tolerate rudeness.
yes as I promised I will not unnecessarily interfere in your threads and you have a right to moderate as u see fit.. ur thread is own and it provides unnecessary escalation
Dave could have posted the substantive nature of his point (Ziastan versus Modia) as it is an interesting topic. I’m increasing the volume of posts rather than comments
everyone has a right to their opinions.. and the substantive nature of the discussion.
Yes, I have no issues with people making whatever arguments they want to make. They just have to be made respectfully.
+1
I had a follow-up to my comment excerpt above, that has been removed from this thread. I am confident there was nothing in that comment that could be even misinterpreted as ‘disrespectful’.
For further discussion, I’d try to unpack the following:
These are indeed often included in hindu nationalist talking points, however, they would also not be uncommonly asked among centrists congress types too. and i think this addresses why some of the others and kabir often “talk past” each other. there is some questioning around the framing of exactly what it means to be a muslim in Modi’s India. Several muslims i know were apprehensive when Modi assumed office in 2014. Interestingly, the mood i sense among the muslim community now is actually one of , not just a bit of indifference, but even mild amusement. In 2014, there was fear, assuming the worst intentions of the new government, that majoritarian violence could come pressing down hard. after more than a decade the realization is that, even a hugely popular PM can only impact local politics so much. The street level realities haven’t changed.
The trend towards polarization might be a macro , globalization trend, where regional hindus are forming pan-indian identities, and muslims are undergoing “dubai-fication”. Ganga-Jamuna tehzeeb is unravelling not because of electoral politics, but because that region and culture are no longer authoritative.
Finally, no analysis of the status of the muslim minority is meaningful without a solid backgrounding of an ethnography of both muslims *and* hindus and others. India is a multi-cornered contest. Hyper-focusing on hindu-muslim is a kind of narcissism. Thats also kind of frustrating from an on-the-ground perspective. From a southern perspective, what muslims don’t have in “ritual” privilege, they have in language privilege. Even a pakistani can walk the streets of delhi with more cultural belonging that many of us. An elite hindu family may reconcile with a marriage alliance with an elite, cosmopolitan Bohri muslim family, but not with a backward Hindu one.
wow lovely comment – very high signal
Any group that is a small percentage of the national population (15% in the case of Indian Muslims) can definitely be considered a minority. In the same way, Hindus, Sikhs and Christians are minorities in Pakistan. Neither country has racial minorities in the way that African-Americans are a racial minority in the US for example.
I will concede that Hindus are not culturally and religiously uniform, but it is certainly the mission of the ruling party to consolidate a kind of Hindu identity in an “ethnic nationalism” sense and “otherize” Muslims.
On Islamophobia: my view (and the view of many left-leaning Indians) is that Islamophobia comes specifically from the supporters of the ruling party. There is the notion of “love jihad” for example. This is where things like beef lynchings and the grand celebrations of a temple constructed over the ruins of a destroyed mosque fall–at least in my opinion.
I am not aware of Jains, Sikhs and Christians employing anti-Muslim rhetoric to the same extent (not saying it doesn’t happen).
The larger point (and why many Pakistanis feel the comparison of Modi and Zia is tenable) is that Modi is destroying the secular character of the Indian nation. Congress (in theory if not always in practice) believed in India as a country for all its citizens. Today’s BJP acts as if India is a country for Hindus where others can live on sufferance and only if they are loyal. This is exactly how Pakistan operates when it comes to non-Muslims. The difference is that Pakistan doesn’t claim to be secular. It openly calls itself an Islamic Republic.
As Nassim Taleb calls it – tyranny of the intolerant minority, abundantly on display, not just in India, but on this very thread.
15% of population is not a small number and muslim’s minority status is being questioned. after all minority status gives these communities certain privileges to run their educational institutions, without govt. interference. normally such institutions if providing secular education needs to have a majority of students belonging to that community. now, our hindu politicians have even waived off this requirement, so now many of these institutions have hardly any minority students, but have become agencies to take huge donations from hindus!!.minority status for muslims might go away, as many such concessions were given to avoid partition. the then muslim elite were descendants of mughals and were ruling class. this also adds to the resentment of the gangetic hindu towards muslims.common sikh is as anti muslim as anybody else. a thin, vocal jat sikh diaspora supports muslims. indian christians have nothing to do with muslims. most jains align with bjp.india is not a secular state as in the classical european definition and practice (eg.france). the ‘ church and state ‘ are not separate.here all are supposed to be tolerant of others. the onus of secularism has fallen on shoulders of hindus. the muslim prayer call ‘azan’ itself if repeated in the indian languages will lead to riots. the freedom movement was a struggle lead by the english educated hindu elite. muslim participation was negligible. nehru, a deracinated hindu, deprived the hindus of this victory and made the nation ‘secular’.this is one of the reasons why rss has grown so much and bjp has become so powerful. the type of diatribe against rss and bjp being made by today’s muslims is similar to what the pre partition muslims said about congress. congress was then seen as a hindu party. muslims sought nehru’s protection after partition,and hence have been voting for them. when congress failed in recent years to protect them, the muslims sought protection by yadavs in the gangetic states. this is called as secularism in india!!!.
this was in the trash; did anyone trash this?
Let me argue the point about whether muslims are a typical minority for a bit. consider the following.
I’d also like to remark that you understandably tend to rely on the authority of prestige media like Scroll or Caravan ect. for validating ground realities. This is where we and others may disagree with you. Its in the nature of the modern left-liberal to be a “conscience-keeper”, as such the writers on those platforms tend to treat it as duty to project anxieties about political trends. Its a conundrum, but looking back on the last 11 years here, the muslim situation is a dichotomy of never-been-worse and never-been-better. the worse part is really the degradation of public discourse and normalization of online hate speech towards outgroups. the never-been-better is perhaps the genuine modernization of the muslim community that is accommodating more internal dissent, and I eventually believe will be better suited to advocate for itself as a public stakeholder.
Fantastic reconceptualisation; are you an academic by any chance?
Why shouldnโt Hindus consolidate into a majority identity?
I don’t really have issues with Hindus consolidating into a majority identity. But the way the BJP is trying to go about it is problematic. In many ways, they are trying to turn Hindus into an ethnicity rather than a religion– just as the pre-Partition Muslim League tried to turn Muslims into an ethnicity rather than a religion. Scholars have described the Hindu Right’s vision for India as ethnonationalist.
If majority consolidation comes at the expense of “Otherizing” 15% of your population it will lead to the degradation of the secular state.
True but I think the secular state is somewhat overrated.
I only think Dharmic holidays should be Federal Holidays; Abrahamic holidays should be state Holidays.
There have been too many concessions by Nehru.
Pandit Nehru was India’s tallest leader and founding father. He wanted a country that was a state for all its citizens. There is much to admire in the vision of the INC as opposed to both those visions of the ML and the RSS/Mahasabha.
India can of course declare itself a “Hindu Rashtra” but that will take a constitutional amendment. Also, if it does so it will have absolutely no moral high ground over the Islamic Republic next door.
I have mixed thoughts on Nehru tbh
Its fashionable these days to malign Jawahar. Sure he had his warts, but overall the man gets way too much flak these days.
He is a disputed Founding Father
The self-serving delusion that the hindus are overly ‘ethno-nationalist’, Islamophobic even – is the sauce that the feudal elites sold to the muslim masses to achieve Direct Action and Partition. The results are there for history and all to see. And Judge.
Perpetuating this fiction continues to serve the elites in Pakistan quite well. It allows feeding the mirage that Pakistan isn’t the utter socio-economic disaster and basket-case it is. Allows the elites to sell the chooran – see? Thank God for Pakistan, or you would be lynched for eating beef. “Hey, look at those hindus, we’re better than them” Or at worst, they are not better than us.
These incentives drive such pseudo intellectual drivel. Its disingenuous to ignore this aspect.
Of course, you would deny that the BJP has an ethnonationalist vision for India. Typical Indian right-wing view.
Scholars in the Western world consider the Hindu Right to be ethnonationalist. This is not only a Pakistani view .
Pakistan may be a “basket case” but at least we are a country where Muslims are in the majority. I would much rather be part of a majority than a beleaguered minority.
Admitttedly you are the elite
If you were to ask the average Pakistani whether they would rather be a part of a Muslim majority country or live as a beleaguered minority in a Hindu majority country, most of them would probably tell you that they are extremely thankful Pakistan exists.
I really don’t get why this is so controversial on BP. Most people the world over want to live in countries where they are part of the ethnic or religious majority. It’s really not that fun being a minority–especially not in South Asia.
People immigrate to countries like the US because (theoretically) those countries believe in individual rights and allow people to rise through hard work. However, as we see under the current administration, non-Whites also suffer discrimination in the US.
>If you were to ask the average Pakistani whether they would rather be a part of a Muslim majority country or live as a beleaguered minority in a Hindu majority country, most of them would probably tell you that they are extremely thankful Pakistan exists.
And that’s the point. Pakistani elites need to see muslims in India as “beleaguered”. Any evidence to the contrary is to be dismissed no matter how rational.
Again, this is not to pretend that everything in India is kumbayah and utopian.
Given the textbooks, and PakMil brainwashing that’s been percolating for close to 80 years, its unlikely that Pakistanis are going to want to start emigrating to India, like Bangladeshis do. But given another decade, and the continuation of present-day socio-economic trends? I wouldn’t be surprised at all. Again, I’m not taking about the generational “landed gentry” here. I am talking about the average citizen.
I agree with Kabir – unless you are elite Muslim in India, itโs better off in Pakistan.
However there is a serious law and order situation in Karachi and infrastructural issues in the rest of the country.
I think the Indian Subcontinent is sandwiched between the Persian Gulf & ASEAN, which are now magnets for immigration in light of the closing doors of the West.
I think the three of us (u, me & Kabir) speak with โstrong passport privilege.โ
>unless you are elite Muslim in India, itโs better off in Pakistan.
Yeah, naah; I’m going to disagree. And the socio-economic numbers are becoming increasingly beyond dispute as we speak.
Are you saying the average middle-class urban muslim in India – I am talking about folks with college education here – doesn’t have better economic outcomes and opportunities in India? I am skeptical here.
The outcomes for those on the lower rung of the spectrum – from a class, income or education perspective – maybe so. But even there, I would argue that the social safety net – access to education, etc, offers a better potential future. This might be …debatable in the near-past, or maybe even the present. But the trendlines are unmistakable.
It is just an objective fact that ever since Modi has come to power, Indian Muslims are increasingly beleaguered. We have all read about beef lynchings–even one beef lynching is one too many. We have heard about Muslims being made to chant “Bharat Mata ki Jai” and “Jai Shri Ram” despite the fact that Islam forbids us from believing in any kind of goddess named “Bharat Mata”. To believe in any entity other than Allah is forbidden.
I wouldn’t have made this argument before 2014. I am a Nehruvian Secularist. My father’s blog (The South Asian Idea) demonstrates that he is a Nehruvian Secularist. But obviously things have changed over the last decade.
And please remember that I was educated entirely in the United States of America. I am not a product of “Pakistan Studies” textbooks.
I have no desire to make this personal, not sure why you are talking about yourself again.
We were discussing the probability and prospect of Pakistanis potentially having better socio-economic outcomes in India, and a corresponding potential desire to emigrate. That’s where the cultural “assumptions” about dushman mulk and Pakistan studies comes into play.
Btw, calling yourself a Nehruvian ‘Secularist” is at odds with defending the “necessity” of partition. Or with asserting that Pakistan’s choices as an Islamic Republic are ‘constitutional’.
I am a Nehruvian Secularist. I don’t personally believe in the Two Nation Theory. However, I can understand why it was applied. I have never defended the “necessity” of Partition. My position has always been the historically correct one: that there were many opportunities for Congress and ML to come to a compromise. The last one was the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946. However, once they failed to come to a compromise, than Partition was the only option.
I have laid out my positions very clearly. You can read if you are actually interested in arguing in good faith:
https://kabiraltaf.substack.com/p/what-being-a-centre-left-pakistani
Once Pakistan existed as an independent nation, it was then the right of the elected representatives of the Pakistani people to decide on whatever form of constitution they want for the nation. They decided on the Islamic Republic, whether we like it or not.
Hope that clears it up for you.
The Cabinet Mission plan was DOA – it would have doomed India to a Yugoslavian or Lebanese fate. Thank god that nonsense didn’t go any further. And a “Nehruvian secularist” wouldn’t go anywhere near supporting religion based ‘separate electorates’ or even provinces. That by definition, violates secularism.
Present-day Pakistani Right-wingers love to wax eloquent about Nehru and Gandhi, when just a couple of decades ago, they were Hindu bigots from whom emancipation was necessary. Its a propaganda attack line. And deserves to be dismissed as such.
And if you’re going to bring up the ‘center left’ stuff again – sure you may identify as such in Pakistan. But with respect, what passes for “center left” in Pakistan, out here in the normal world, is hard right.
The point is that Pandit Nehru accepted the CMP only to then say that “we can re-negotiate it in ten years”. That was the last straw for Quaid-e-Azam. More generally, when two parties repeatedly fail to find a compromise, there is nothing wrong with them going their own way. There was nothing sacred about the borders of BRITISH India and no obligation on the Muslim minority to stay yoked to a Hindu majority that they did not trust to protect their rights. You seem to be wedded to the standard Indian nationalist view that Quaid-e-Azam was the villain that “vivisected” Bharat Mata. If this helps you sleep at night, that’s fine. However, it is not historically accurate in any way, shape or form as the scholarly consensus on Partition demonstrates.
I am Center-Left in an absolute sense. I am an American citizen. I have voted Democrat in every single election since I turned 18. I believe in gay rights, trans rights, “black lives matter”. I am basically a standard-issue Democrat.
I’m not going to re-litigate this constantly. This is XTM’s thread so you can say what you like. But on my threads, I will not tolerate rudeness or anti-Pakistan comments.
>You seem to be wedded to the standard Indian nationalist view that Quaid-e-Azam was the villain that โvivisectedโ Bharat Mata. If this helps you sleep at night, thatโs fine. However, it is not historically accurate in any way, shape or form as the scholarly consensus on Partition demonstrates.
I think history and outcomes are the objective judges of religious secessionism. The Confederacy happened to lose the civil war. The Muslim league happened to get the British to go along with them. It is what it is.
What is with the “Bharat Mata” stuff? Is it so that you can somehow pretend I’m a Hindooootva extremist and hence my perspective is somehow dismissable? Borders are borders. sacred or otherwise. If you feel that 2 parties can go ‘their own way’ if they fail to compriomise, do those feelings apply to the Durand line and the Pak-Afghan dispute the same way? Or the questionable seizure and annexation of Kalat?
Is it somehow “haram” to hold the perspective that religious apartheid is a regressive undesirable outcome and that nation-states ought to be free of religious supremacism? I would think that most ‘center left’ folks or “Nehruvian secularist” would find common ground with that stance.
“The Muslim League happened to get the British to go along with them”– You’re dismissing the failure of the Congress to compromise. I’m generally an admirer of Pandit Nehru but let’s not pretend his arrogance didn’t have a role in the outcome. The dismissal of the CMP was the last straw.
British India was a colony and not a nation. It was the British that created the borders of India that were “vivisected” in 1947. I know many right-wing Indians lose their minds over how part of Bharat Mata’s body was cut off by Muslims. Maybe you’re not one of them.
Pakistan and Afghanistan are two sovereign nations. The Durand Line was agreed between the Afghan king and the British. Pakistan inherited that border as the successor state of British India. Under International Law, the Durand Line is a border. It really doesn’t matter what Afghanistan thinks.
Two parties can break up either violently or non-violently. Czechoslovakia broke up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This happened completely non-violently. British India broke up into India and Pakistan. Unfortunately, this was accompanied by mass ethnic cleansing. But taking the position that the Muslim minority didn’t have the right to go their own way is a ridiculous one.
On Partition: You can read my review of Sam Dalrymple’s “Shattered Lands” . I am really not interested in relitigating this constantly. You’re entitled to your views even if they happen to be incorrect.
>It is just an objective fact that ever since Modi has come to power, Indian Muslims are increasingly beleaguered.
Based on what evidence. Someone, in these very comment threads, was quite fond of defining the difference between facts and opinions. ๐
I gave you the evidence. Beef lynchings, making Muslims chant “Jai Shree Ram”, the fact that a temple was built on the ruins of a destroyed mosque. Not to mention the fact that the proportion of Muslims elected to the Lok Sabha is the lowest it has ever been.
These are not opinions held only by Pakistanis but evidence used by the whole world to determine that the BJP’s vision for India is an ethnonationalist state that belongs only to the Hindu majority.
If you want to deny what the entire world knows is true, be my guest.
Would you say a black person is “better off” in South Africa where he’s in a majority instead of in the US? And cite anecdotal instances of racial crimes?
You are “all in” on pretending that present day India is “discriminating” against muslims, even though the legal and governmental basis for the Secular Indian Republic has stood as is.
Its up to you, I am not interested in getting you to “change your mind”. But I will of course choose to respond and call out questionable statements made on these pages. You can disagree, but can’t fabricate “facts” out of opinions.
I’m not “pretending” that the Muslim minority is suffering in India. There is an entire world of evidence out there. How about we start with the fact that a temple was built over the ruins of a destroyed mosque? I’m sorry but this doesn’t happen in a secular state.
You keep ignoring the fact that Muslim representation in the Lok Sabha is the lowest it has been in years. This is an objective fact that you will have to deal with–however inconvenient it is for your worldview.
If it were simply a matter of Pakistani opinion, you could reject it it out of hand.However, the Western world agrees that the BJP is an ethnonationalist party. It is the Indian equivalent of Likud in Israel. You’re arguing against reality.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s just ask an actual Indian Muslim.
I don’t need to “ask”, I know plenty of them personally. Rest assured, they would strongly disagree with your take.
I also know Indian Muslims personally. Some of them happen to be my blood relatives.
There are plenty of Indian Muslims who strongly agree that their rights are threatened under BJP rule.
You are welcome to defend the BJP all you like. Nothing you say is at all intellectually convincing.
Yes leftwing politics have struggled in Pak
not sure why you drew negative votes to this comment.
I wrote a meaningful comment yesterday *on this thread* and its not showing up more than 12 hours later. This sort of random deletion without cause is ridiculous.
Does this thread count as “Kabir” owned? I have now had 3 comments deleted here. All 3 of them had nothing to do with him personally. If this persists I will have to publicly call him out as an author.
no this is my thread.
Kabir u rn’t moderating my threads right?
I think you and Brown have Spam filter issues
I haven’t edited any comments on your threads.
ok thanks
Sikhs are anti-Muslim??
Really?
Kindly fish out my comment from your spam!
I did?
Please change your handle to like a less generic one; u and Dave have been caught in our spam filters constantly
I sent you & Dave an email btw about the spam thing..
just a heads up – no Editor or Author may moderate my threads except myself.