Hitchens on Gandhi

capt_mahajan · Jul 17th, 2007, 09:53

For partition true (narrated) stories, "The Other Side of Silence-Voices from the Partition of India" is a good book
http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Sil.../dp/0822324946
(pls read the editorial review at the bottom of that page for a flavour)

Midnight's children, though otherwise good, does not even come close in this regard.

Sama · Jul 17th, 2007, 10:02

sounds like people either vehemently love or hate the book!

capt, thank you for your bit of history, and mach, I DO have his autobiography. I bought it at the Gandhi Museum in Madurai and it in fact started the conversation with my compartment mate on the train from Rameswaram to Chennai....

capt_mahajan · Jul 17th, 2007, 10:06

Nah. It is a very well written book.

Just not on partition. Remember, Rushdie wasn't even a thousand miles from the war zone, had a rich-ish middle class existence, probably didn't know many people who went through the horror.

His later books trying to solve the Kashmir issue indicate a similar naivete'.

machadinha · Jul 17th, 2007, 10:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by YogaGal

mach, I DO have his autobiography. I bought it at the Gandhi Museum in Madurai

Yes, you can pick it up for a handful of Rupees at his memorial at Delhi's Raj Ghat I think. I figured you wouldn't pass by there though...

Those narratives look like a horrifyingly good tip Capt. Will keep in mind.

capt_mahajan · Jul 17th, 2007, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by machadinha

Those narratives look like a horrifyingly good tip

Some customer reviews there say the book/narratives are repetitive.

Maybe so. But do you want variety in your atrocities?

machadinha · Jul 17th, 2007, 10:31

Um yes, with around a million dead and 14 million displaced depending on whose estimates you'd expect some repetition eh

It's not like first-hand Holocaust narratives make for varied or uplifting reading. I'm sure that wasn't the first thing on the narrators' minds either.

Those stories I've read of trains arriving at both sides of the border dripping with blood are repetitive enough to me to sound convincing in any case. Ah, what man will do to man eh.

dzibead · Jul 17th, 2007, 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by capt_mahajan

Actually, and without getting into details, in the North, it was often Muslim vs Sikh.

The is one of the main narrative threads in Vikram Chandra's best seller Sacred Games. And Dalrymple also talks about it in The City of Djinn's, discussing how Delhi changed, post-Partition, because of the influx of Punjabis, both Hindu and Sikh.

machadinha · Jul 17th, 2007, 10:50

So can we get this out in the open without having it turn into a fight? What was the particular Sikh angle here? And why was the Bengal situation altogether more contained?

capt_mahajan · Jul 17th, 2007, 10:51

cross posted with mach, was in response to dzibead's post.

I often go to an area called Bhogal in Delhi (near Jangpura and not far from Lajpat Nagar) where quite a few of these folk are still concentrated. I have the trust of some elderly Sikhs there, because, again without details, I was there in 1984.

Over a chai or two, you sometimes hear some stories. Curdles your blood, it does.

Delhi was one of the cities the resettlement programme was active in. There are/were many such areas in the North. The character of Delhi must have changed, like that of Lahore and Karachi.

PeakXV · Jul 17th, 2007, 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzibead

And Dalrymple also talks about it in The City of Djinn's, discussing how Delhi changed, post-Partition, because of the influx of Punjabis, both Hindu and Sikh.

I'm reminded of their affluent presence .... everytime I pay those horse-choking hotel bills.

invidious · Jul 17th, 2007, 11:06

Well, the fact of the matter is that Gandhi did use religion as a binding force to make the freedom movement a mass movement, which was earlier restricted to the intellectual elite of Bombay and Calcutta. It was a master stroke. But it alienated a lot of Muslims - the talk of Ram Rajya - literally mean the Rule of Ram. Gandhi obviously meant a utopian, peaceful society but many muslims misconstrued it as a hindu society. Even his songs like "Eshwar, Allah tero naam" - would appeal to Hindus while it might be considered blasphemous by Muslims. Jinnah merely exploited that fear and alienation. For Jinnah, I think the Congress refusal to share power in the United Provinces was the last straw.

I have not read the book in question. But I can say that Gandhi did a lot for India, and he did it with the best of intentions. External factors can't be controlled.

capt_mahajan · Jul 17th, 2007, 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by machadinha

So can we get this out in the open without having it turn into a fight? What was the particular Sikh angle here? And why was the Bengal situation altogether more contained?

Again, long story. And I will delete this post and others if this turns into a fight.

In Punjab, there was a close linkage between Hindu's and Sikhs. Sikhs were the warriors, traditionally. It was quite common to have a Hindu family 'making' one son a Sikh.. this was common even after Partition, and only reduced in the wake of the mistrust between Hindus and Sikhs during the Khalistan years.

Backdrop: The Sikhs have/had old seated wounds and animosity towards Muslim rulers .. the chief one being that their Guru, Teg Bahadur was tortured and beheaded by Aurangzeb, and so were many Sikhs before his eyes, terribly. Being a warrier class they had many other run ins with the Muslim rulers around that time, with terrible consequences if they lost.

The atrocities against Hindus by rulers such as Aurangzeb are also well documented, the least of which were economic ones like extra taxation. (jaziya). This mistrust was allowed to fester during the British Raj.

As for partition, there is confusion about who started the inhuman atrocities in trains and kafilas (literally, caravans on the road) during Partition. Both were attacked, often entire trainloads arrived on either side with nobody living on board. Both sides blamed each other, but the Sikhs in Punjab were at the forefront in many cases, either as protectors or instigators, as were similarly minded Muslims on the other side. Entire villages, parts of cities like Lahore etc were razed to the ground.

Btw, I have tremendous regard for the Sikhs, not because of what they did or did not do during Partition, but because of the kind of people they generally are... large hearted, and excellent friends. 1984 was a national shame on par with Gujarat.

There is a lot more which I cannot put down in an open forum because of fear of misinterpretation, or because it will degenerate into a fight out here.

For the Bengal situation,
http://www.mkgandhi.org/bio5000/martyrdom.htm

says it quite nicely. It also gives an indication of why some Hindus would have got upset.

invidious · Jul 17th, 2007, 11:16

Sikh Angle? See, during the Mughal times - despite being a minority a major part of India was controlled by the Muslims. What was true for Muslims in India, was also true for Sikhs in Punjab. They had been the rulers of Punjab for quite a while before the Brits. I don't know who drew first blood, but the clashes between the Sikhs and Muslims were quite bloody....Sikhs thought they should have all of Punjab as a right, just as Muslims thought they should at least have all of Punjab and Bengal. Talk to some Pakistanis today and they still say that Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh should be part of Pakistan.

machadinha · Jul 17th, 2007, 11:18

<cross-posting>

Appreciated Capt. Thanks.

This eulogy on Gandhi's behalf by Nehru seems as moving today:

Quote:

"The light has gone out of our lives and there is darkness everywhere and I do not quite know what to tell you and how to say it. Our beloved leader, Bapu as we call him, the father of our nation, is no more... The light has gone out, I said, and yet I was wrong. For the light that shone in this country was no ordinary light. The light that has illumined this country for these many years, and the world will see it and it will give solace to innumerable hearts. For that light represented the living truth, and the eternal man was with us with his eternal truth reminding us of the right path, drawing us from error, taking this ancient country to freedom..."

invidious · Jul 17th, 2007, 11:24

Nehru had the gift of writing well. Most of his other gifts were limited. I personally feel he was probably the most naive PM we had.

Jul 17th, 2007, 09:53	#31
capt_mahajan (in charge of navel affairs) Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: India Posts: 9,035	For partition true (narrated) stories, "The Other Side of Silence-Voices from the Partition of India" is a good book http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Sil.../dp/0822324946 (pls read the editorial review at the bottom of that page for a flavour) Midnight's children, though otherwise good, does not even come close in this regard. __________________ . Humpty Dumpty was pushed. Indiamike moderating team ..ich bin ein oneliner

Jul 17th, 2007, 10:02	#32
Sama a pain in the asana Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the India inside my heart Posts: 5,047	sounds like people either vehemently love or hate the book! capt, thank you for your bit of history, and mach, I DO have his autobiography. I bought it at the Gandhi Museum in Madurai and it in fact started the conversation with my compartment mate on the train from Rameswaram to Chennai.... __________________ *My India, 2005-2008*

Jul 17th, 2007, 11:16	#43
invidious Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Bombay Posts: 121	Sikh Angle? See, during the Mughal times - despite being a minority a major part of India was controlled by the Muslims. What was true for Muslims in India, was also true for Sikhs in Punjab. They had been the rulers of Punjab for quite a while before the Brits. I don't know who drew first blood, but the clashes between the Sikhs and Muslims were quite bloody....Sikhs thought they should have all of Punjab as a right, just as Muslims thought they should at least have all of Punjab and Bengal. Talk to some Pakistanis today and they still say that Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh should be part of Pakistan. Last edited by capt_mahajan : Jul 17th, 2007 at 11:42. Reason: corrected spelling of pakistan :)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Gandhi	nadreg	Books, Music, and Movies	10	May 26th, 2006 08:45
Gandhi dynasty	knight22	Chai and Chat	4	Oct 12th, 2004 08:27
Gandhi Film	Bryan	Books, Music, and Movies	9	Aug 30th, 2003 12:59
Did Gandhi fail ?	steven_ber	Chai and Chat	3	May 27th, 2003 03:19

Jul 17th, 2007, 10:06	#33
capt_mahajan (in charge of navel affairs) Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: India Posts: 9,035	Nah. It is a very well written book. Just not on partition. Remember, Rushdie wasn't even a thousand miles from the war zone, had a rich-ish middle class existence, probably didn't know many people who went through the horror. His later books trying to solve the Kashmir issue indicate a similar naivete'.

Jul 17th, 2007, 10:31	#36
machadinha Not Your Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: yörp Posts: 9,432	Um yes, with around a million dead and 14 million displaced depending on whose estimates you'd expect some repetition eh It's not like first-hand Holocaust narratives make for varied or uplifting reading. I'm sure that wasn't the first thing on the narrators' minds either. Those stories I've read of trains arriving at both sides of the border dripping with blood are repetitive enough to me to sound convincing in any case. Ah, what man will do to man eh.

Jul 17th, 2007, 10:50	#38
machadinha Not Your Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: yörp Posts: 9,432	So can we get this out in the open without having it turn into a fight? What was the particular Sikh angle here? And why was the Bengal situation altogether more contained?

Jul 17th, 2007, 10:51	#39
capt_mahajan (in charge of navel affairs) Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: India Posts: 9,035	cross posted with mach, was in response to dzibead's post. I often go to an area called Bhogal in Delhi (near Jangpura and not far from Lajpat Nagar) where quite a few of these folk are still concentrated. I have the trust of some elderly Sikhs there, because, again without details, I was there in 1984. Over a chai or two, you sometimes hear some stories. Curdles your blood, it does. Delhi was one of the cities the resettlement programme was active in. There are/were many such areas in the North. The character of Delhi must have changed, like that of Lahore and Karachi.

Jul 17th, 2007, 11:06	#41
invidious Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Bombay Posts: 121	Well, the fact of the matter is that Gandhi did use religion as a binding force to make the freedom movement a mass movement, which was earlier restricted to the intellectual elite of Bombay and Calcutta. It was a master stroke. But it alienated a lot of Muslims - the talk of Ram Rajya - literally mean the Rule of Ram. Gandhi obviously meant a utopian, peaceful society but many muslims misconstrued it as a hindu society. Even his songs like "Eshwar, Allah tero naam" - would appeal to Hindus while it might be considered blasphemous by Muslims. Jinnah merely exploited that fear and alienation. For Jinnah, I think the Congress refusal to share power in the United Provinces was the last straw. I have not read the book in question. But I can say that Gandhi did a lot for India, and he did it with the best of intentions. External factors can't be controlled.

Jul 17th, 2007, 11:24	#45
invidious Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Bombay Posts: 121	Nehru had the gift of writing well. Most of his other gifts were limited. I personally feel he was probably the most naive PM we had.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password