As the summary expulsion of Jaswant Singh from the bjp began to burn news wires, his stock in Pakistan soared even higher from the enviable perch he had come to occupy ever since the controversy over his book on Jinnah broke out. It was evident on the day following his expulsion—newspapers ran stories on his fall (or rise) with colour photos, and eminent personalities showered accolades on him.
The secretary-general of the Pakistan Muslim League (Qaid), Mushahid Hussain Syed, told Outlook, “Expelling Singh from the BJP has exposed the true face of Indian democracy, which appears to be worse than dictatorship. His book should be published in Pakistan; the civil society here is surprised over this expulsion.” The consensus here is: his expulsion has uncovered the BJP’s obscurantist, fascist visage. It has also whetted the hunger for Singh’s book. As columnist Sarah Humayun wrote in Daily Times, “I must be among countless readers waiting to get hold of it. Not so much, though, to learn the truth about Jinnah.”
True, few in Pakistan believe Jaswant’s book will reveal facts about Jinnah not known before. But what people here consider exemplary is that Singh, in defiance of the BJP, has chosen to correct the fallacious arguments about the Qaid-e-Azam that have always held sway in India. Even the launch of the book made it to front pages, inspired editorials and elicited letters from readers. Applauds leading historian Dushka Syed, “Jaswant has shown tremendous intellectual honesty and also academic integrity in stating the facts in his book. Since 1947, the Congress has demonised the Qaid as well as the Muslim League. While the actual historical facts are that the Mission Plan of 1946 advocating a confederation was accepted by the Qaid and even the Congress, it was Nehru who rejected it. This was the last opportunity to retain a united India.” From at least newspaper reports, it seems Jaswant has endorsed Dushka’s arguments in his book.
The controversy has prompted many newspaper readers to write in and participate in the debate. One of them, Ehsan Mehmood, writes, “In reality, Indo-Pak relations suffer from the pitfall of historical memories of Partition and, more so, by the conjured description of the events by pseudo-historians, intellectuals and self-seeking politicians....” Jaswant’s book seemingly seeks to set right these conjured images. Pakistan’s leading English daily, The News, wrote in its editorial, “Any fresh look at history and the characters who played a part in its making is always welcome. This is specially true in the case of Jinnah. Jaswant Singh’s book will, undoubtedly, create some balance. This offers an opportunity to break free of uniformity and reach conclusions after examining various possibilities. For this reason the book is a significant addition to material on Partition.”
Official Pakistan has kept away from the controversy. A senior official, though, told Outlook, “No doubt the Qaid was a great leader. It’s good that the Indian elite are being realistic about it.”
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT