History Making Them Jittery

Is it a coincidence that just a month back on May 1, 2005, V. N. Datta had written a review on "Jinnah’s Early Politics: Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity" by Ian Bryant and nearly a month afterwards L. K. Advani visits Islamabad and lays wreath on the mazar of Jinnah? Adavni further calls him a secular leader and man of history. The reviewer in there had raised some issues about the evaluation of the Indian history and the history of sub-continent. He has emphasized that somewhere we are just looking other side from what the history tries to tell us. It is raising some issues which requires understanding. If we are not able to tackle them and have the right perception, then we may put ourselves in embarrassing situation. Pakistan is a reality. There is not doubt about it. But history is also a reality. Somewhere, we have not been able to see our problems in right perspective. We are not able to understand that the divide was created in a particular situation and it is our shortcoming that we just do not see the truth. It is applicable both to India and Pakistan. We have to accept that the leaders has responded to "contingencies" and "vicissitudes of human offices" as the reviewer has remarked in the review of Arun Shourie book.




The Hurriyat Conference and JKLF are presenting their version of history which is being used as justification of their vision of the view of Kashmir. Are they watching all these things? Can they understand that what blunder they are committing by claiming separate identity to Kashmir. Why do they forget about Rani Didda and Varman Kings who were claimed to once have conquered north India? Zain-ul-Abadin, the Akbar of Kashmir was known to have Hindu officers. On what basis M. Y. Malik of JKLF refute the truths mentioned above. How can they deny that Kashmiri Pandits were there before the advent of Islam (or rather Sufism) in Kashmir? It is fascinating to read newspapers wherein there are reports of APHC visit on the top and below them appears the news that Kashmiris did not back Pakistan in 1965. The only thing which is being tried here is to convey to the rest of the people of this region to learn the actual cause of such contradictory views by the leaders.




The author of this blog never had had the hunch that his comment would be predicting something which would take place so soon. The comment has been made by the author of this blog which reads, "It is will be a matter of great curiosity to learn that how the present pseudo-nationalist would react at the phrases used in the title of the book. In the conclusion of the article also, though it is a review, but even then, a message is conveyed that Jinnah was a great nationalist."




Today again, giving a review of a different book, the eminent scholar has passed some observations. The author of this blog has again commented in the conclusion thus: "It is desired here to repeat that "History, by no means, is a cookbook to offer recipes". It is a rationality and logic which should always remain present at the foundation on which the answers to the "contingencies" and "the vicissitude of human offices" should be formulated and executed."




Let us hope that a message is conveyed and rationality be allowed to prevail.



This is an after thought and added later.

It is being felt that the Hindus have wrongly overreacted on the remarks of L. K. Advani. They are not doing the right thing to their leader. Personally I have not affiliation with BJP or RSS. However, this is a feeling of a student of history in the perspective of some answered questions on history of India. I may dilate much on it but I desire to present the following views very strongly.

L. K. Advani is a politician. He is the person who had given the doctrine of Pro-Active approach to commando mentality of Musharaf. The astute politician knew that when he was visiting the mazar of Qaidi Azam, the APHC was moving from Murshidabad to Islamabad. He knew that President of Pakistan, an equally articulate and astute general would not let occasion to go without making some gains for his establishment. What would have they done? General had declared, if it is right, before the visit of L. K. Advani to mazar that coming of the APHC without Indian passports had proved that the Kashmir issue was a disputed issue. They would have then gone to sanctify it by borrowing from the heritage of Qaidi Azam. L. K. Advani, who had just repeated what Qaidi Azam had said himself about the secular motives of Pakistan. The picture which had emerged afterwards was totally different what Qaidi Azam had envisaged for Pakistan from which L. K. Advani had quoted. Now by doing so, L. K. Advani had denied the chance to get leverage over their heritage. Is it not so?

We must learn to have faith in the credentials and commitments of our fellow nationals. L. K. Advani has played an astute politician who has the interest of his country at heart regardless of the manner in which he is being evaluated and rated by other political groups hues. If Laloo Parsad Yadav call all the migrants there as Bihari and the brothers, the nationalists do not treat it sacrilegious.

This Sindhi knows what he is doing. He is not simling just for nothing.