A pertinent question in todays India would be; “Are we really free from imperial legacy in the twenty-first century? Is the current Indian politics more true and sympathetic to its own people than the British Raj?”
The answer would be a big, NO. We are living under the specifically created disillusion by the political leaders of India and a cynical world that justifies the means of achieving their strategic interests.
After 63 years of India's independence, it is important to analyze the historical aspects of divide-and-rule policy within the Indian subcontinent and how it has been extended to India’s current votebank politics.
Divide and Rule in Religion
“...there dwell in India seventy millions of Moslem's... While the Hindu elaborates his argument, the Moslem sharpens his sword. Between these two races and creeds...there is no intermarriage…. If you took the antagonisms of France and Germany, and the antagonisms of Catholics and Protestants, and compounded them and multiplied them ten-fold, you would not equal the division which separates these two races….” Winston Churchill (Prime Minister of UK, 1940-45, 1951-55), March 18, 1931, London.
Exploitation and expansion of existing religious divides by the British to rule India is well known. But what is not known is that these divides were eventually deepened by careless and unmindful decisions of the Indian National Congress, leader of the Indian independence movement.
After the first united uprising of 1857 against the British, divide and rule became the foundation of future governance, which avoided further unified resistance. Initially the British policies were pro-Hindu, as most areas were under Muslim rule. The Indian National Congress (INC) was created in 1885, which fielded pro-British, moderate Hindu elites. But by late 19th century growing nationalist sentiments among the Hindus led the British to switch their favoritism towards the Muslims. Muslim loyalty was rewarded by - Bengal partition on communal lines (1905), creation of Muslim League representing Muslim elite (1906), Morley-Minto Reform (1909) which provided separate electorate for the Muslims and extra seats in Provisional Council compared to population.
Over-riding concerns for communal unity and an extreme desire to encourage the nationalist movement, led the INC to sign ‘The Lucknow Pact’ in 1915 with the Muslim league. The pact was like a self-created fissure by Indians, as it for the first time gave acceptance to communal representation and separate electorates. Similarly, INC support was extended to the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924) which was launched to demand British protection of the Ottoman Empire. This further alienated the Indian Muslims from the cause of Indian nationalism. Events like this encouraged separatism that eventually divided India into two states as India and Pakistan, on the basis of religion
After independence, India chose to remain secular, but as it turned out, dangerous ways of playing communal politics were continued for generations by the INC, which enjoyed the exclusive fortune of ruling India for a half century. Religion was heavily engaged with the politics to gain votes in elections. “...the Congress party came to favor the conservative sections of the Muslim community. Before elections, Congress bosses asked heads of mosques to issue fatwas to their flock to vote for the party; after elections, the party increased government grants to religious schools and colleges…” Ramchandra Guha said in an article in the Wall Street Journal (December 6-7, 2008) written in the wake of terrorist attacks in Mumbai. He added that Congress patronage was a “blow to Muslim Liberalism” and that it “consolidated the claims to leadership of priests and theologians.” This patronage of the Muslims is no longer an INC practice. Communists and regional parties have taken a lead on that front. To keep their votebank intact, these parties want the Muslims demagogues in charge of Muslims and Muslims voters ignorant and oblivious. Do you think that these people want the UP or Bihar Muslims to know how prosperous their Gujarati brethren are under Bhai Narendra Modi’s rule?
The answer would be a big, NO. We are living under the specifically created disillusion by the political leaders of India and a cynical world that justifies the means of achieving their strategic interests.
After 63 years of India's independence, it is important to analyze the historical aspects of divide-and-rule policy within the Indian subcontinent and how it has been extended to India’s current votebank politics.
Divide and Rule in Religion
“...there dwell in India seventy millions of Moslem's... While the Hindu elaborates his argument, the Moslem sharpens his sword. Between these two races and creeds...there is no intermarriage…. If you took the antagonisms of France and Germany, and the antagonisms of Catholics and Protestants, and compounded them and multiplied them ten-fold, you would not equal the division which separates these two races….” Winston Churchill (Prime Minister of UK, 1940-45, 1951-55), March 18, 1931, London.
Exploitation and expansion of existing religious divides by the British to rule India is well known. But what is not known is that these divides were eventually deepened by careless and unmindful decisions of the Indian National Congress, leader of the Indian independence movement.
After the first united uprising of 1857 against the British, divide and rule became the foundation of future governance, which avoided further unified resistance. Initially the British policies were pro-Hindu, as most areas were under Muslim rule. The Indian National Congress (INC) was created in 1885, which fielded pro-British, moderate Hindu elites. But by late 19th century growing nationalist sentiments among the Hindus led the British to switch their favoritism towards the Muslims. Muslim loyalty was rewarded by - Bengal partition on communal lines (1905), creation of Muslim League representing Muslim elite (1906), Morley-Minto Reform (1909) which provided separate electorate for the Muslims and extra seats in Provisional Council compared to population.
Over-riding concerns for communal unity and an extreme desire to encourage the nationalist movement, led the INC to sign ‘The Lucknow Pact’ in 1915 with the Muslim league. The pact was like a self-created fissure by Indians, as it for the first time gave acceptance to communal representation and separate electorates. Similarly, INC support was extended to the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924) which was launched to demand British protection of the Ottoman Empire. This further alienated the Indian Muslims from the cause of Indian nationalism. Events like this encouraged separatism that eventually divided India into two states as India and Pakistan, on the basis of religion
After independence, India chose to remain secular, but as it turned out, dangerous ways of playing communal politics were continued for generations by the INC, which enjoyed the exclusive fortune of ruling India for a half century. Religion was heavily engaged with the politics to gain votes in elections. “...the Congress party came to favor the conservative sections of the Muslim community. Before elections, Congress bosses asked heads of mosques to issue fatwas to their flock to vote for the party; after elections, the party increased government grants to religious schools and colleges…” Ramchandra Guha said in an article in the Wall Street Journal (December 6-7, 2008) written in the wake of terrorist attacks in Mumbai. He added that Congress patronage was a “blow to Muslim Liberalism” and that it “consolidated the claims to leadership of priests and theologians.” This patronage of the Muslims is no longer an INC practice. Communists and regional parties have taken a lead on that front. To keep their votebank intact, these parties want the Muslims demagogues in charge of Muslims and Muslims voters ignorant and oblivious. Do you think that these people want the UP or Bihar Muslims to know how prosperous their Gujarati brethren are under Bhai Narendra Modi’s rule?
No comments:
Post a Comment