tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12808776.post111811414273074232..comments2023-06-14T15:04:38.420+05:30Comments on Saara Aakash: Saagar manthan (Churning the ocean)Nikhil Prasad Ojhahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16038541283659597985noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12808776.post-1118343904940949382005-06-10T00:35:00.000+05:302005-06-10T00:35:00.000+05:30Ian Talbot offers a historiography on Jinnah, and ...Ian Talbot offers a historiography on Jinnah, and a necessarily bare-bones one at that. Jalal, Seervai, and Rajmohan Gandhi all come out in roughly the same place, offering comprehensive theories of their own that collectively provide the best explanation I have found for why Jinnah's views and tactics seemed to shift as much as they did over time. These three -- particularly Jalal and Seervai -- drew on a vast array of primary sources unavailable to prior scholars (including Stanley Wolpert), such as the 12 volumes of India Office records known collectively as The Transfer of Power, 1942-47, and released during 1970-82 (as the statutory seals came off). Seervai's argument also drew on a careful analysis of those parts of Maulana Azad's autobiography first released to the public in 1988.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12808776.post-1118289235142776202005-06-09T09:23:00.000+05:302005-06-09T09:23:00.000+05:30On Mr. Jinnah, see Ian Talbot's piece (So Many Jin...On Mr. Jinnah, see Ian Talbot's piece <A HREF="http://indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=71931" REL="nofollow">(So Many Jinnahs)</A> in today's Indian Express. It encompasses more than just Ms Jalal's characterization and makes the simple point that Mr. Jinnah went through many phases where his views changed (I don't fully subscribe to the charge that it was exclusively or mainly due to audience-focus) and that a number of attempts at appropriating Mr. Jinnah for contemporary causes have all glossed over these contradictions to suit their own interests.<BR/>Also, I have further commentary on the definition of secular in a new post <A HREF="http://npojha.blogspot.com/2005/06/many-denominations-of-secular.html" REL="nofollow">(The many denominations of secular)</A>.Nikhil Prasad Ojhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16038541283659597985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12808776.post-1118211154807552292005-06-08T11:42:00.000+05:302005-06-08T11:42:00.000+05:30Your sentiments are right on the money, though the...Your sentiments are right on the money, though the latest news of Advani’s resignation points to some of the potholes we can expect on the road to a true center-right party in India.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, Advani reads Jinnah more or less correctly. The best exposition on the subject is found in Ayesha Jalal’s <I>The Sole Spokesman</I>, laying out the once-radical but now academically accepted claim that Nehru’s Congress, not Jinnah’s Muslim League, architected partition.<BR/><BR/>However, I am inclined to disagree with your claim that “only a very few” know the “correct” definition of secularism. The standard you articulate—equal blindness rather than equal affirmation—is that of the First Amendment tradition in the United States. But secularism comes in various flavors. India has picked the doctrine of equal affirmation, while France has gone a third way: not blindness, but rather “establishment”—if there can be such a thing—of atheism itself, a strident, officially sanctioned <I>purging</I> of all religion from public life. Who’s to say which one of these is “secularism,” rightly understood? The concept must of necessity be adapted to the social and historical forces of each nation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com