Actually, the partition line was drawn up before Mountbatten was appointed as Viceroy by Atlee's labour government. This was, I believe done clandestinely under the direction of Churchill just after 1936/37 or perhaps during WW2. The appointment of Cyril Radcliffe by Mountbatten tasked to draw the line based on some old census data showing where Muslims & Non Muslims lived was a ruse. In the short time and given the complexity of the task, data and technology of the time no human, however competent could have done the job to any level of accuracy or satisfaction. Radcliffe simply pulled out the map which already had the line drawn demarcating the land areas of interest to the imperial powers that would enable them to keep a watchful eye on USSR and China and ensure sea routes to warm waters for trade.
I liked his speech!..But there are 3 points which I feel he seems ignorant about 1. Kashmir: Blaming Nehru and Gandhi for this is just absurd!..The Maharaja of Kashmir would have joined Pakistan if the Pak elite and Jinnah would have handled the Kasmir issue with patience....Invading Kashmir with tribal forces (not even the official Pak army) was a huge gamble.They spent more time raping and killing innocents instead of completing the job...The only logical step for the Kashmir King was to seek for Indian military help... 2. Partition: It was absolutely clear that post-independence India was going to have land reforms and try to end the ruling elite controlling all the land...Jinnah and the Muslim league did not want this...The fact that Pakistan never got their land reforms is a clear example of this... 3. Modi: Though I personally despise the 2001 Hindu muslim riots of Gujrat...(I am not from Guj but from Mumbai). Modi won the 2014 general elections only on the promise of Indian Economic Development...We can argue about how much Modi has actually helped India grow but there were no religious sentiments in play during that election.... (Also there are more than 10 masterminds of the Guj riots serving life sentences....) Also there at the rate India is growing...there will be a time when Indian Muslim per capita income and health will be the best in the Muslim world...I hope this happens soon, it will be a great middle finger to all of Pakistan It is very sad to see Tariq Ali spewing out ignorance ..
Very rarely i see someone point out these things as clear as you just did. 1. Whether Modi was involved in the riots/not , his name was cleared by the courts of India , which is more than anything you can expect not just in pakistan but in countries like America. And frankly i feel like he got elected purely because people did not think Rahul was an option. 2. I see very little proof that suggest that muslim minorities suffer in India right now, they lead vibrant life when compared to many other muslim countries around the world.
Basically , because of Partition of India on the basis of 2 Nation Theory, the Politics of Hindu Right Wing gained a foothold in India with Majoritarian strain and aggression towards Minorities.But there is still great resistance to this politics and we'll indeed overcome this challenge to our Secular and Constitutional Democracy committed to equality and Rule of Law.
Best explanation I can recall hearing about the partition. Much like the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Sykes-Picot, Balfour 64 words to solve the Jewish problem...
An Interesting commentary by historian Shri P R Sarkar in his essay, " To the Patriots", on Jan 1st 1960 The Partition of India When the British decided to quit India under economic and political pressure, undivided India was the demand of the Hindu leaders, while the Muslim leaders demanded a Muslim homeland. There was no scope for an amicable settlement between these two demands. Therefore the British had to divide India. It mattered little whether India liked it or not. Under such circumstances, was there any way for the leaders to avoid the partition of India? Yes, there was. Had they started a movement for economic independence instead of accepting the partition of India, it would have been possible to form a united and independent India. But neither the Hindu nor the Muslim leaders did so, for reasons best known to them. The economic struggle could not have remained confined to British exploitation only, but would have extended to the Indian exploiters (social, economic, psychological). When the British would have realized that their exploitation was not going to continue, they would have been compelled to grant political independence to India, and with political independence exploitation by the local people would have come to an end also. But the Hindu and Muslim leaders came from the bourgeois class and so they did not like this idea. They wanted liberty keeping capitalism (social, economic, psychological, etc.) alive. For this reason they accepted the political independence of divided India. There are two more reasons why they did not want economic independence. One of these reasons was that those who were leaders in the struggle for political independence might not prove to be suitable leaders in the struggle for economic independence. Especially, the struggle for economic independence might lead to mass revolution and bloodshed at any time. And there was every possibility of young leaders appearing among the revolutionaries. The leaders did not want this. They tried to check the sanguinary revolution by preaching the theory of non-violence. The leaders had one more weakness in this matter. Most of the leaders, both Hindu and Muslim, had grown old in the course of the political struggle. Possibly they thought that if they started a fresh fight for economic independence, and if the fight lasted a long time, the chance of controlling the government would not come to them. Perhaps with this idea in mind they gave their consent to a heinous crime such as the partition of India. Where did the mistake lie? The factors which made Europe a country of many nations are applicable to India also. Rather, the differences which exist in India between one provincial nation and another are greater than those existing in Europe. The provincial nations have their own languages, manners, customs, mode of living, race, intonation, history and traditions. Some of them have their own scripts, almanac, dress and code of law of inheritance. The differences among the European nations are not as great. Still, in the struggle for independence, the English language and the anti-British sentiment had made India one nation. With the departure of the British there is no anti-British sentiment, and so the Indian nation has died. Today there are only a few persons who regard themselves as Indians; some look upon themselves as Punjabis, some as Andhrites, some as Bengalees, some as Bhumihars, some as Rajputs, etc. None of them are Indians. The only connecting link which exists today is the weak tie of the English language. Those who are guided by a false sense of patriotism are trying even to do away with this language today. It is crystal-clear that with the banishment of the English language, the funeral ceremony of an Indian nation will be complete. With the departure of the British from India - that is, with the death of the anti-British sentiment - a new sentiment should have been created, but the Indian leaders failed to do so. The Pakistani leaders did so to some extent. In the beginning they utilized anti-Hindu sentiment in place of anti-British sentiment, and later anti-Indian sentiment was created on the question of the Kashmir issue. These sentiments helped the people of Pakistan to some extent, but in India there is no sentiment at all. Like Pakistan, India had ample opportunity to utilize several sentiments, but the leaders did not use them. They roamed in the realm of imagination. Shrii P R Sarkar Source: To the Patriots
Trolling is a form of violence. Are you Israeli HASBARA? GCHQ and the 2000 British soliders taken off-duty to Disinform by Troll Warfare? Are you NSA spying for Corporate America Thugs?
I'm just answering these really wild claims? They are not realistic, are they? And the man is very reasonable on the video plus there is so much evidence to the contrary. Even the guilt of the Brits in the 1980s produced a soul searching stunning dramatic series for Channel 4 'The Jewel in the Crown' which paints a dark and darker and eccentric self-denial British Raj and the catastrophe that they brought on the place. One line I like from that drama is, "If these white women went back to England they wouldn't be memsahibs, they would be nothing, just boring housewives, when they come here they are treated like Queens"
How would Jinnah spend winter vacation in Mumbai after calling Direct Action Day....? How naive he is...! He has done impardonnable crime. When he didn't follow Islam himself. Then how would he think that there will not be no massacre.
Gunnar Myrdal recognized the lack of necessity of partition in his Asian Drama study, and that was all the way back in the late 60s. Crazy how nothing has changed all these decades later.
I can believe that in some areas it must have been impossible for Muslims to live in India during the riots. It was the same for Hindus and Sikhs too in Pakistan. Not only many Low cast Hindus in high positions in East Pakistan who choose to remain in Pakistan left Pakistan but even some Muslims like Sahir Ludhinavi fled Pakistan and came to India.
There are some unanswered questions about Jinnah, or they have not been addressed. Deestablisation and eventual dismissal of the elected Unionist Muslim League's Govt in united Punjab and mass agitation, which he, unlike Gandhi, had no means to control his agitators against Congress in Direct Action. Why he chose to defend Ilam Din, who had openly confessed killing Rajpal. This was in the late 20s, before he has claimed to have been disenchanted with Congress. I am astonished that Tariq Ali seems to be unaware or discounts the above episodes. He wanted parity, far in excess of proportional representation that is the norm in democracies.
I had heard about Tariq Ali and thought that he was a liberal and free thinker. Now I am watching Tariq Ali, a hardcore anti Indian muslim in the guise of a liberal. He is lying about Kashmir and Hyderabad(anyone can open wikipedia and know the facts). He has no first hand knowledge of present India (and also of Pakistan). He is praising Jinnah but due to Jinnah's call of 'Direct Action Day' thousands of persons in Calcutta were killed in a riot initiated by Muslim league. About 5000 Hindus were killed in Noakhali(now in Bangladesh) and thousands were raped and converted to Islam. It is a biased speech though he pretends to be a liberal. Pakistani like Hasan Nisar, Tarek Fateh have more knowledge about present India and Pakistan. Three Muslims were Presidents of India at different times. President of India is the supreme commander of Army, Navy and Air Force. Late Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam was chosen as President of India during the rule of BJP government. He is respected by all and was entrusted with the development of missile system of India. During Bangladesh war a Parsee, Sam Manekshaw was Chief of the Army Staff in India. Parsees are less than 0.05% of Indian population. A Calcutta based Jew, Major General Jacob commanded the Indian Army in Bangladesh in 1971 war. A Sikh, Dr. Manmohan Singh was Prime Minister of India for ten years. Sikhs are less than 2% of Indian population. In India merit counts. At the present time, given a chance to be citizens of Pakistan and migration to Pakistan very few Muslims will leave India as they are living a better life here. He is speaking about caste system. PM Modi doesn't belong to a higher caste. The present President of India is a Dalit. Tariq Ali is trying to establish by distorting facts that India is a failed democracy. But India is the largest democracy in the world and going to be an economic superpower in coming years. Probably it is hurting this Jinnah lover former Pakistani.
Tariq Ali was supposed to be rational and liberal but hearing him blaming Gandhi for Kashmir occupation ,who died in January'1948 is not only ridiculous but shows Tariq Ali rabid Islamist.
This guy is half mad. He's giving out only 1/2 the info. In 1947 post-partition Pakistan had ~15% Hindu population; now it's less than 2%. In India post-partition Muslims were ~12-15% and the % remains the same today. NEVER EVER take lessons on secularism from a Pakistani.
You complete idiot, let me give you a lesson in history. The 15% hindu population was under BOTH east & west Pakistan. After Bangladesh's independence, West Pakistan had a 1.8% HIndu population which remains today. So wake up & read more.
@@mr1rec83 hindus are systematically harrassed & hounded Slowly converted into Islam in Pakistan & india have 2 lakhs Hindus refugees from Pakistan. Teenage Hindus girls are forcefully abducted converted into islam, Pakistan state completely failed to prevent it. There are 5 million bengali Hindus came to India as refugees due to actions of Pakistan army in 1971.
A typical Pakistani style scholar who just can't speak the truth & put historical facts authentically. Kashmir wasn't occupied by Indian forces but freed from Pakistan backed terrorists who couldn't accept the accession into India legally signed by its Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hair Singh. Tariq also lies about India's great secular constitution where all ppl are equal under the law & Muslims enjoy extra personal laws under freedom of religion. Pakistan was islamic & founded on religious basis so there's no equality under the law for non Muslim & Hindus specially are treated & massacred brutally even today. Shame on such scholars who twist history just to paint the story in their own biased light.
Tariq saab i understand ur concerns wrt the present hindu nationalist government, although i dont understand what does that have to do with the situation during the 1940’s. It is also interesting to note that u r not criticising the muslim league sufficiently for its hand in the partition and the bloodshed tht followed. Certainly the muslim league was more at fault than the congress at that time. I think the word is paranoia. The Muslim league was paranoid.
Sir, 1. Jinnah gave call for Direct Action which led to killing of thousands in Calcutta and then there was no return. 2. In Punjab first riots were caused by Muslims in Rawalpindi in March 1947. The British had strengthened Jinnah because he supported their war efforts and the demands of Jinnah had become unrealistic.
Yourt first point is a red herring. Jinnah called for a peaceful protest where Muslims expressed their solidarity against the British as well as Congress. The outcome was both unsolicited and unfortunate.
His understanding of the who the actual political leaders were in India/Pakistan at the time of independence needs an update to reality. Gandii had ceased to be relevant on political matters at and post independence other than being an elder figure revered by most if not all. His name included as being part of the Kashmir issue is patently incorrect. It was Jinnah's local Pakistani men led army & tribal mercenary militia that embarked on the illegal adventure of trying to take Kashmir state by force although a 'standstill agreement' was in place. The then maharaja of Kashmir asked India for military assistance and protection. This was given after he signed papers for accession to the India union upon which Mountbatten and Nehru air lifted troops to protect the Kingdom and the maharaja. Nehru, without his cabinet's consent or agreement unilaterally took the case to the UN leading to the UN resolution on holding a plebiscite in Kashmir subject to Pakistan withdrawing all its troops and personnel from its occupied areas to facilitate the plebiscite. This never happened then and has not happened since to date. Pakistan breached the UN resolution's condition. Also, the resolution has effectively lapsed and several other accords and agreements between the two states supersede the UN rest,lution. Moreover Pakistan, in order to keep China sweet as counter weight to India in the region gave away large tracts, several hundred square miles, of north eastern Kashmir as a gift to China which they had no legal or moral right to do. Incidentally the invasion of Kashmir by Pakistani regulars and tribals were carried out clandestinely and deviously without the knowledge of the the Briton who was the n the general of the Pakistan army. Since then Pakistan has tried to wrest the Indian side of Kashmir by waging 3 wars directly and many proxy wars via jihadists and terrorists, local and imported. Tariq Ali should get his facts right.
I disagree with you on many points. The situation of Kashmir/ Hyderabad was largely manupulated to make India the enemy. I know rightnow the far right BJP is doing damage to indian secularism but that has not been the case since 70 years. Here almost 50% seat are reserved in all government institution for minorities and you are baffoning facts and are mascarading your dillusion about India as the prima facie. You are intellectual so if i have an opportunity i will write a detailed answer with all the correct facts you just manupulated in this video. I will end by saying of course current situation is not good but it's not as worst as you are portraying.
An excellent historical analysis. The seeds for religious fundamentalism was sown by the political class who were in bed with the British Imperialism. All the three countries are unstable.
Edward the famous book Midnight's children trying to understand why the English did the partition. . Also I'm not sure if the two different groups can do some problems wanted it partition.
I really respect you Tariq Ali sir but Indian Muslims are our brothers and sisters, and the enjoy equal and seperate religious rights under our constitution... Yes there are riots and killings occasionally but there are insignificant in view of more than a billion people. I don't disagree with the message of caution but just the strong wording, since they often stir up feelings. Afterall which siblings don't fight :)
He seems to be very rationale person but after 20-21 min. he showed us the real face.....very sad, i thought he gonna end this on a positive note, unfortunately he didn't......Following are the facts which he very smartly ignored. (i) It was decided to give sole authority to the KINGS of different princely states of undivided India and not the population (right or wrong that's another issue). Kings were given a choice either accede to secular indian state or islamic pakistani state but Mr. Ali ignore this very basic agreement. (ii) Forcefully occupation is not in DNA of Indians infact, it was the pakistani army supported by radical islamist tribals called lashkars who attacked kashmir just after the 3 months of independence reacting to this, then King of Kashmir Maharaja Hari Singh decided to sign "treaty of annexation" with India. It is very shameful to manipulate facts.....Institution like UN declares pakistan as "Aggressor". (iii) He intentionally portrays our legendary leaders as 'immoral' ignoring the fact that, it was the very same legendary leader Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru who took the kashmir issue into the UNITED NATIONS, accepted the ceasfire and even agreed to the unpopular demand of #plebiscite through UN resolution. Again Pakistan couldn't fulfill the pre-requisites to it.
Indian Army went to J&K when Maharaj Hari Singh,the ruler requested the Government of India to protect his from tribal raiders along with Pakistan army to conquer Kashmir.Hari Singh signed the accession treaty with Government of India and then Indian troops went in to stop the rape and pillage done by Pakistan backed tribal lashkars
i listened to tariq to learn something of the India - Pakistan relationship and their history and then I read some of the comments and I am left wondering what to believe. I only know that 2 plus 2 equals 4!
He is wrong on several fronts : 1. Kashmir acceded to India when the ruler signed the instrument of accession, just like Pakistan had balochistan accede to it, at the point of a gun. Anyway the whole state of j and k is not muslim majority: jammu and ladakh are not muslim majority anyways. So let Pakistan let Balochistan be independent, then tariq ali can talk about kashmir; selective memory is not done. 2. Isolated incidents of lynching, which are not acceptable, however don't amount to an entire nation of 1300 million people becoming "intolerant". It betrays a complete lack of perspective to say something like that. In no other country are muslims as safe as in india.
We ( myself Victoria Miroshnik and Dipak Basu) have analyzed this issue in our book, India as an organization, published by Palgrave-Macmillan. The thesis of Ayesha Jalal was wrong. Jinnah was recruited by the British in 1934 to create a new state where the British Army could stay to protect the Middle East from the Soviet Union and the sea route between the Suez Canal and Australia. NS Sarila, who was the ADC for the last three Vice-Roys of India, wrote that in his book. There are two others who were recruited by the British: Gandhi in 1915 and Ambedkar in 1930. British supported the Muslim League wholeheartedly from the beginning in 1906. In every riot, British police took the position to support the Muslims. That was obvious in August 1946 in Calcutta, then in Noakhali, and Chittagong in East Bengal. Pakistan was created by the British and Jinnah, Gandhi, Ambedkar were the British agents. Gandhi planned Pakistan in 1943. He sent his plan to Jinnah through Rajagopalachari, but Jinnah wanted a corridor through India which Gandhi could not agree with.
Sir your analysis got proved in 2019 when India under BJP illegally annexed Kashmir and passed CAB and NRC. The Indian Muslim is in very bad condition ever since partition. Secular India has been buried by BJP and M.A Jinah is being praised now a days in India for getting Pakistan from Britain.
Tariq Ali, you first visit India before calling it's democratic Government a Sham. This is the problem with table-top intellectual s! They have no idea of Ground Realties.
India being such a huge democracy is capable of committing crimes of subordinating it's smaller neighbours and indeed has perpetrated them. But the picture you present about the Muslims in India is over critical. India has been unfair to minorities and things have deteriorated in recent years. The partition did leave it's mark as you mention. But to compare India's secularism with Pakistan is stretching the criticism into the territory of bias. It was 'impossible' for Muslims in India and surprisingly we have more Muslims in India; this strong statement comes without any mention of the status and conditions of minorities in Pakistan. Indian intellectuals since independence have always stood by the minorities. There is a serious concern and activism(which includes militant activism) in India among certain groups pushing for equality and rights of minorities. Muslims in India have done well in almost all spheres sports, arts, science, cinema, music, politics(left, right, centre). There's no question that this participation is enough, but in no way it's impossible as you mention. India is a developing country. It has it's own challenges, but it has definitely done better than it's neighbours in protecting the rights of minorities. This unbalanced criticism of the two countries in conflict is what presents an incorrect image of your intellect.
A very shallow description of events which everyone knows about. On top of that it belittles India's achievements and Gandhi's legacy of pluralism and democracy
Most of facts quote by Tariq Ali are wrong. Muslim league was helben on Partition as in democratic estate Muslim elites would have parished- fact so well established by facts by what happened to current Pakistan post 1947 , it is now a failed state exceling in global terroism and a menance. India despite it flaws is best democracy in world with equality of citizens including muslim. Tariq Ali also forgets it was muslims in a Tiny mojority of muslims funded by Pakistan which carried of et5hinic cleansing of significant minority hindus in Kashmir vcalley and Fact is except of minority in kashmir valley no one wants to be a part of Pakistan infact Muslim in POK YERN TO BE A PART of India having seen vast devolopment in iNDIAN kASHMIR INSPITE OF it being a big drain on Indian Tax payer. About Hyderaqbad Tariq Ali is talking absolute rubbish it was not ever muslim Majority and when genocide was carried out by Nizam's Razakars rebellion happened by local citzens to force Nizam to acc3ede to India that Indian goverment intervened . In hindsight Partition was good for current India and Bangladesh as it pushed scum of sub continental citzenry to current Pakistan run by feudal and tribal rules of its elite and establishmen5t which still has to go thru its further Balkanization to achieve its stablization
In general, a fair assessment; every single person from the subcontinent will find points where they (strongly) disagree with Tariq Ali. There are some serious incorrect statements. (1) That no person in the subcontinent foresaw the bloodbath that would follow partition. Many local (British) authorities in both the Punjab and Bengal warned the British Govt. IN WRITING, that terrible riots and killings would almost certainly follow partition, REGARDLESS of where exactly the boundaries were drawn by the Radcliffe Commission. (2) Zulfikar Bhutto was not assassinated; he was hanged by the powers that be in West Pakistan, at the behest of Zia-Ul-Haq. (3) TA creates the impression that the BJP has been in power for a large chunk of independent India's history; rather they came to power in 2014. That leaves 67 years of independent India's history when the central government did not take a strong anti Muslim stance.
Sir you lost me the moment you started painting Pak and India with the same brush.. please stop doing biased analysis for your birth country's sake at least if not for other reasons..
I don't know what has to be said about partition, as it was too horrible to explain and to disgust to convey its message. Because the more you talk about separation, the more you will be separated
Sorry to say lot of holes in his speech ( which people have mentioned below). I respected the man until I hear him speak on the history of partition. I guess people get lost in their bias thoughts. Yes his true colors did come out very boldly.
Tariq should read the un charter , about Kashmir Indian army never invaded , it was Pakistani invaded Kashmir Check it out , tariq leaves in London and can criticise Indian politic but can not mention bad generals of Pakistan He is afraid of
India is an European word.The Europeans referred to the natives peoples of todays USA as Indians(Red Indians/Red skins.The Dutch referred to todays Indonesia as Dutch East India/East Indias.The islands in South Atlantic as West Indians.Before the British,today's India was ruled by Kings,Maharajas,Rajas, Sultans,etc all separate states The British made all that huge mass & called it India.To this day indigenous peoples of USA called Red Indians..The Mughal Rulers,I understand referred to the areas they ruled as Hindustan..Today's Indian Rulers has changed Secular India to Hindutvaistan The tragedy had the Indian Muslims/Christians not changed name to that of their new faith but kept their old names but practiced their new faith, no one would be none the wiser.Tamils,irrespective of religion their mother tongue is Tamil.. Utter madness to kill, to discriminate peoples based on Colour, Religion,Caste,.
Is "Azad" Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan not occupied by Pakistan forces!!??? You seem to be biased in favour of Pakistan!! One thing about the referendum in Jammu Kashmir, kindly go through the UN Security Council resolution for Jammu Kashmir. FYI - It asks the Pakistani occupying forces from present day "Azad" Kashmir & Gilgit-Baltistan, India was allowed to keep some forces in Srinagar and then there would have been a referendum. Its a shame you never mention this.... I hoped to hear a more rational narrative from your end!! Hope you do a better research, especially on India before any future programs you make!!... As you mentioned - India is huge and complicated country in 2018 to make a simplified comment. Finally, just to let you know, the constitution still prevails, so whosoever us ruling can't be fascist as you mentioned.... We are by and large a way more peaceful country unlike you mentioned in your commentary!!
Well Tariq Ali sir, that was a very insightful speech you made about undivided India and the partition. However I feel that you missed several points 1- Jinnah who said that all "citizens are equal" was the same person who called for Direction Action Day that resulted in killing and counter killing and also his subsequent statements about Islam being the religion of the state and Allah being the guiding beacon of Pakistan do confirm that he had the scantest regard about secularism. From his own personal life, he married a girl possibly 1/2 or 1/3 of his age belonging to another faith where as he disowned his own daughter when she married another person of different faith. 2- You spoke of Muslims being victims, graveyards etc..., most Hindus and Sikhs get cremated. So there was not even account, it was simply ashes. 3- It was Jinnah who wanted partition of India. Then he should be the one also thinking about population exchange. Or was he simply thinking that muslims in today's India would stay wherever they were, but non-muslims in Pakistan would move to India? Why did he not think of Turkish-Greek model of total population exchange before rushing to get his own fiefdom. 4- Today many in Pakistan lament what happened to Gandhian and Nehruvian India under Modi. Were not those guys exactly who opposed to Gandhian and Nehruvian ideas of India then? 5- You compared BJP to extreme rightwing etc... What about every political party in Pakistan that swears by Islam openly? So all those parties of Pakistan(even by the relative definition) are far worse than any extremist rightwing party in India. 6- I don't know why people keep accusing Modi on Godhra. Apex court in India acquitted him. So does that mean Pakistan does not believe in Indian system and still wants to go ahead and attack India with concepts like Gazwa-e-Hind, racial superiority of 1 muslim equal to 10 or 100 Hindus? So either world believes in Indian constitution or it does not. It is a simple matter. 7- Your former PM Imran Khan keeps accusing there is a muslim genocide happening in India. Why has been there no reverse migration to Pakistan/Islamic nations in such case? Why are Rohingya muslims trying to be in India? I am sure if there is an iota of truth in genocide, the embassies in Delhi or your border would be teeming with muslims pleading to admit them. Why does not Pakistan make its own CAA version to save all those muslims who perceive that they are under threat under the Hindu extremist India? Maybe Pakistan will score a few brownie points here definitely among the OIC nations, but who knows among the wider world. Why not do it as at least as a PR exercise and see how many muslims of India will migrate to Pakistan, given a chance? 8- Regarding rightwing politicos raise in India, I do admit there is a raise in rightwing nationalism in India that I DESPISE. But it is a reaction to age old suppression of the feeling of Hindus and minority appeasement. Despite being a majority, Hindus had always been at the wrong end of the stick under Congress rule. I don't blame Nehru for all the faults of India. He did what he could the best under the hostile circumstances then prevailing poverty, linguistic, geographical, caste, Hindu problems etc.. . I still think Nehru and Indira Gandhi were the best among the Congress Clan. I don't subscribe to any rightwing politics. I believe people should have their personal food choices. But then there is always a media that portrays personal grief into religious issue by attributing a communal color. India and Pakistan are nations of MC and BCs. Someones mother/sister is slut to someone else that too so easily deliberately or accidentally. So beef eating/Pork eating etc.. it is just a personal choice. Personally I hate to see any animal getting killed in front of me, though I am a meat eater. Hypocrite, you may say. I am fine. 9- Jinnah thrusted an alien language that was neither language of the west Pakistan nor the east Pakistan. How do you see that? Humanity survives not on body language, but on how we communicate. 10- Last but not least, Hinduism is probably the last surviving umbrella native/aboriginal faith( Greeks gone, Roman gone, Sumerian gone, Mesopotamian gone, Egyptian gone, Chinese gone to cultural revolution, I am sure about Aztec and Inka gone for catholicism) Hinduism, has its own deficits, caveats, limitations, caste based discrimination etc... But the the good thing about it is , there are people who can call spade a spade and be ok instead of feeling an existential threat. So why kill the last strand of native faiths? Islam preaches equality n brotherhood provided you are muslim and stretches to the extent of having a fellow Abrahamic faith wife, but not the other way around. But is clear about pagans and killing them. Why should not a non-abrahamic faith guy in this case be not aggressive, a simple Newtonic law that often gets ascribed as Islamic phobia? Why are we fighting for an unproven concept of God?
As Tariq Ali is describing treatment of Muslim in India, there would be a mass exodus of muslims to neighbouring countries. Situation is different, minorities of Bangladesh and Pakistan are pouring into India due to their persecution on religious grounds.
Muslim rulers of India very imperious in attitude twards Hindus & that attitude still persists among the Muslims in India & Pakistan even today. Mr Modi & the BJP Leadership ,the Congress leadership & the other political speed up the desecularisation of India & declare " India as a Theocratic Hindu State".
Then, How did Mughals ruled over Hindu India? They respected the sentiments. There was Cow slaughter ban in Hindu Majority Areas and Pig slaughter ban in Muslim majority areas. This cohesion was maintained by the rulers. The Hindu rulers had Muslim soldiers and Muslim rulers had Hindu soldiers.
No Gandhi could never come to terms with Partition. He always believed in harmony of life with all religions. But he was a political failure as his ideas are highly elated ( so he was called mahatma, the great soul) and ordinary people in any religion cannot follow that because we are bound by hatred, racism, jealousy, corruption, greed for power etc. If you have to be a political winner you have to have pragmatic views. gandhi was an utterly sad person after independence, as whatever he stood for never happened. instead partition, blood shed and misery. By the time of partition, every body in Indian national congress was busy getting to the cabinet of the new state and Gandhi's words and wish had no precendence. Jinnah never wanted a partition and several times with the British and congress pleaded for a minimum number of ministers from muslims in the Indian cabinet which were not granted. So british went ahead with the partition.
Tariq doesn't acknowledge the violent entrance of Islam into India....the hatred still exists by Sihks and Hindus of Muslim atrocities carried out in India. The BJP is still stoking this vehemence and that's why they are in power.
I can smell sort of Hindu hatred in his speech . Ya , some incident happen on Muslims bt you can't judge 130 coror by 1-2 incident . India is secular ND remain secular . Secularism is in our gene.
hehe.... we all knew... what is happening in Indian now with minority specially with Muslims, Sikhs, Christians with Hindu Taliban (RSS).... you can hide things from your side... but now social media is become so common and things are spreading very fast.... so keep your shining india with you.....
This man, who usually maintains a progressive facade, here shows his real communal fangs. I shouldn't say he is grossly ignorant of facts, for he is communally motivated. I feel disgusted with such a rogue.
Between 7:30 to 7:50, Tariq Ali can not be further away from truth. There was no peace between Hindus and Muslims. The whole point of Hindus to turn to Sikh Gurus was to fight against Islamic persecution. It is an easy way for Muslims and their sympathisers to blame everything on British. Yeah, British were bad but Islamic invasion of India was much worse. Just consider this, the whole Hindu civilisation has been wiped of current day Afghanistan, Pakistan and most of Bangladesh which were mostly Hindu lands. I am yet to hear stories of peaceful inquisition of these lands.
Tariq Ali either displays his ignorance or he is partisan in his comment about referendum in Kashmir. He conveniently forgets violence perpetrated on Kashmiris by Pakistani army supported terrorist groups. He also conveniently forgets that Kashmir was not subject to partition plan and repeated attacks launched by Pakistan army in their attempt to wrest Kashmir.
Mr. Tariq Ali is abusing his own fair name as a distinguished writer, biographer, and historian by distorting a large part of India's partition narrative in a very partisan manner misrepresenting the primary role in that disaster played by Jinnah and his devil cohort in the Muslim League of those days. The Pakistani leaders are always teaching their new generations of citizens such falsified accounts of the Indian leaders of independence, particularly about Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. The partition of India on a religious basis that entailed uprooting of more than ten million innocent people of both Hindu and Muslim citizens and brutal killing of over a million people was a devastating experience for all Indians, and its excruciating pain still lingers in the memory of each survivor and their families. Who raised and pursued that evil treasonous demand at any cost to India and its people? Was it not Jinnah and his followers? Mr. Ali's sentiments are understandable, but can be hardly shared by countless Indians who suffered from the creation of Pakistan through the most horrible carnage against unarmed helpless people of India, including brutal murders, torture, butchery, violation and decapitation of women and children, with plundering and burning of homes, - all possible forms of beastly depravity initiated, implemented, and conducted by the power-hungry, narcissist, lunatic wretched thug Jinnah and his savage cohort in 1946-'47. Of course, as it happens under such circumstances, there followed a violent retaliation. Even after partition, the newly formed Pakistan continued with this mayhem and Hindu genocide in both East and West Pakistan by the 'Jinnah gangs'. India, overwhelmed by the influx of millions of hapless refugees, suffered the most through many decades following independence. And Mr. Ali calls Jinnah a model of "Secularism". There can't be a better example of an oxymoron. That traitor Jinnah called for the open riot starting on August 16, 1946, and his devil followers, e.g., Surahwardy, Nazim-ud-din, Fazlul Huq, etc., who were holding the Bengal government, - planned, designed, and conducted the widespread slaughtering, rapes, and burning of Hindus in Calcutta and Eastern Bengal, while inactivating the police force which they controlled. The Bengal PM, that wretched Surahwardy, personally incited, conducted, and directed the murderous Muslim mobs from the police headquarters. The fundamental sense of humanity was totally crushed by their horrifying carnage that rendered the state into a blazing inferno. - And then followed retaliatory killings and plundering of the poor helpless Muslim citizens by the non-Muslim goons on the field in the pretext of protecting Hindus. The fire and venom then spread throughout northern India, in Bihar, Delhi, and Punjab in particular, and also in Uttar Pradesh to Bombay and Gujarat states. Almost half of India turned into an abysmal perdition.Gangsters do not have, and cannot claim any religious faith. They are waiting always for a call or opportunity. It was important to point out those who were actively instigating them. It is well known that the Khadi-clad idealist followers of Gandhiji committed to nonviolence and self-sacrifice for mother India's freedom were never the culprits, while the so-called educated wealthy Muslim League leaders were directly involved in the most grisly operations. If Jinnah were an honest man with integrity, he and only he could have stopped the carnage in just one call. He did nothing but watching and relishing the entire drama, and at the end went careening to occupy the blood-soaked throne of Pakistan. Mahatma Gandhi had the courage and integrity in his unshakable faith in nonviolence; so he instantly withdrew his non-cooperation movement in 1921 when the movement turned riotous in Chauri-Chaura. Jinnah, originally a Congress leader bloating with his personal vanity and ambition, wanted nothing but being a new "Badshah" ( Mughal King) and to achieve that by hook or by crook. He was not really the sole representative of all Musalmans of India that he proclaimed himself to be. He used the convenient catchwords like 'secularism' without understanding it, and grasped the "two-nation" propaganda slogan as the low-hanging fruit, the handy tool to win his goal, - just as power-hungry corrupt politicians always do anywhere. In his extremely selfish and narcissistic dream he wanted to break India asunder into many smaller Pakistan units by making every Muslim-majority province free from the constitutionally formed state of India. The Congress leaders, as well as Gandhiji who struggled all their lives for a whole and free India, rejected that diabolical scheme. If that were to happen, India would be in the grip of continued Hindu genocide all over those Muslim-dominated states. The Muslim League generated a belief among peace-loving Hindus, I hope wrongly, that Musalmans can't be trusted, and the pro-Pakistan Muslims are the most treacherous and perfidious people. Through the last 70+ years Pakistan has strengthened and perpetuated that belief in India while proving itself a failed and rogue state, a purgatory of demons. Its only achievement has been perfidy, aggression, and terrorism against their own root, the Indian nation. Mr. Ali is falsifying the story of Kashmir. Kashmir has been an integral part of Bharat or Hindustan, be it by any name including India, geographically, historically, culturally, and by the Vedic Hindu traditions and literature. In the scenario of partition, when feudal states were given the choice, Kashmir rulers including the Hindu Maharaja and his Muslim Prime Minister methodically joined the new Indian Union. It was Jinnah's bandits who invaded that province running that same ruthless and most brutal carnage and occupied a large portion of that province. The same 'Muslim'- brand method of the medieval invaders, e.g., Mohammed Ghori, Ibrahim Lodi, Jalaluddin Khilji, Taimur Long, Babur, and Nadir Shah. Even today, the Pakistani greed for the entire state continues through barbaric attacks and terrorism across the border. When Kashmir's Maharaja implored Mr. Nehru for help, it was the duty of the Indian government to send troops to defend that part of the country. Because of Nehru's penchant for peace and nonviolence he sought help from the then-fledgling (1948) international peace-making organization, the UNO. A ceasefire was installed, but Kashmir was never wagered for a bargain with Pakistan. The UNO had no right to mandate division of a country's land. Gandhiji had no role or authority in the governmental affairs or the military. Yet, Ali and his people in Pakistan believe that Gandhiji should have embraced the bandits with kisses, holding the land of Kashmir on the platter as a gift to those vile scoundrels? Oh, Mr. Ali, you are partaking in the continuing vulgarity and crimes of the Pakistani leaders and their mayhem against the Indian nation by presenting a totally distorted view of the ongoing nightmarish drama there and making childish demand that the Indian leaders should have given away anything that the Quaid demanded. Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by a group of Hindu fanatics for their warped view that Gandhi was soft toward the Muslims was the most heinous crime in human history. By analyzing the assassins’ motive, however, one thing becomes clear: Mahatma Gandhi was their subject of anger and disgust, but not the prime target of hatred. Rather, he was the proxy-target for the hated Muslim League that had truncated their motherland. Such extreme animosity in that section of the people was a by-product of the crater of venom created by Jinnah and his cohort. Jinnah should be credited for not only breaking India into three parts, but for deeply soaking the minds of its denizens through several generations with the poison of hatred. His memory is sickening indeed. In India of today, the rise of a virulent Hindu radicalism in a few population-pockets is indeed a tragic turn of events. We have heard much blame for Narendra Modi in association with the abominable anti-Muslim riots in the state of Gujarat during his Chief Ministership there in 2001. However, one cannot be sure about his real share of the blame other than his inability or lack of will to control the riots and protect the minorities in a timely manner. He did not murder anybody nor did he direct the riots. There might have been several forces limiting his ability to control, including some elements in his political alliance. That is certainly culpable. But that does not render India's secular principle and policies invalid. The proper meaning of a state's secularism is keeping religious or theological considerations apart from governance. It does not mean a restriction or abhorrence of the practice of religion or pursuing a faith by the citizens. India has shown through the last seventy+ years that any minority group and any Dalit [Gandhiji's "Harijan"] ( or Scheduled caste) person has equal rights and access to any government position, from the President, Chief Ministers, Governors, Chief Justice, military and police chiefs, etc..through his or her skills and abilities. Nobody today spends a moment asking whether a dignitary is a Muslim, a Hindu, Brahman or Shudra, Sikh or Bauddhya, or Jain, or Christian, etc.. Mr. Ali must face and speak the truth. Crafty misrepresentation of a gloomy history can only perpetuate the intensity of hatred in both communities. May the new generations in Pakistan and Bangladesh realize the truth, repent the orgy of misdeeds of their foregone leaders, and seek ways to amend the wrongs at least partly, to march ahead toward building a glorious Indian subcontinent.
Sakti Mukherjee you have so eloquently and respectfully stated your points and motion. i agree with you wholeheartedly. I hope he reads and get out of his dillusion. I was watching his harry k interview and he seemed like a learned scholar but by watching this video and how craftfully he manupulated facts and hid key evidences and only presented baked historical accounts shows he is just another dillusional Pakistani who lives in a facade.
@Bikash Nandi I have found such line-crossings on many instances. But those are produced by the computer. If you do a bit editing, such as paragraphing and punctuation in a different way, those lines disappear.
It’s difficult to accept the views of erudite Tarik Ali because they contain few lies and coloured opinions. I heard this video, 5 years after it was released. I will give few verifiable examples. India is a federation of states. Recently in my home state, Karnataka, state assembly elections were held and the ruling BJP was defeated by congress. The incumbent congress government, reversed many of the central government’s policies. Would a’facist’ leader, Narendra Modi allow such transition and reform? No chance! What is the reason? Hindu dharma, better called as Sanatana dharma, meaning, that which exists eternally is itself democratic. There is no single prophet There is no single holy book. One can be an atheist and still remain as Hindu!! Ali is correct when he says there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. Though Hindus are in majority, there is no uniform civil code. Muslims are still governed by their personal laws. They can be polygamous but if a Hindu does the same, he will in jail. All the minorities, including Muslims and Christians, enjoy constitutional protections and privileges. They run their cultural and educational institutions and are funded by the government. The idea of a secular state has not failed in India. After partition, whlle the population of minorities , especially of Muslims increased manifold, in Pakistan, it has dwindled. Some figures give 8 % of Hindus their presently from 24% at the time of partition. Kashmir was not taken by military force. It’s then king, Raja Hari Singh, like 500 other rulers across India decided to remain with India after due deliberation. When Pakistan tried to take it forcibly, Indian military intervened. Brahmins were and are in minuscule minority. By nature they are seekers of eternal truth and a vast majority of them are advaithis, meaning they don’t differentiate between not just humans, but all forms of life! When this is their mindset and when they don’t have majority, how can they force exclusion of‘lower caste? In fact Dr Ambedkar, father of Indian constitution, the foremost Dalit leader and who remains a respected icon for all, had a Brahmin wife!! I am giving these few verifiable facts so that the citizens of Latin America do not get the wrong picture. But all said and done, I am an admirer of Tarik Ali.
The one thing on which most of the self proclalimed liberals are experts is generalization of a whole situation i.e. one person in minority attacked means the whole is attacked. If the scriptor of this speech has an iota of belief in, atleast, the highest court of judicial system, the Naredra Modi was actually not found guilty. The BJP which he , in a bisaed way, is proving guilty actually comes by participating in worlds largest electoral festival in world's largest democracy. The Kashmiri Muslims situation was perfectly explained but only with an eye of muslims there. He forgot to mention the capture of Kashmir by Pakistani Jihandis in 1947 and obviously PoK. He forgot to mention the Ethnic cleansing and rape of Kashmiri Pandits by the muslim fanatics that led to the heavy army influx into the area obviously not to forget the heart-sinking slogans they made. Bollywood used to shoot movie scences there in pre 1980s era but after that stopped permanantly and made europe their new venture. Even by the facts, minority population have actually increased in India - Muslims from 9% to 14 % and christians too are 6% unlike prohesized in this video. The main reason for sad state of indian muslims especially in financial terms is ghettoization.
Tariq saheb is maticulously impartial in putting the realities of India & Pakistan,my salute to him
You are wrong. He is very bias and untruthful.
Actually, the partition line was drawn up before Mountbatten was appointed as Viceroy by Atlee's labour government. This was, I believe done clandestinely under the direction of Churchill just after 1936/37 or perhaps during WW2. The appointment of Cyril Radcliffe by Mountbatten tasked to draw the line based on some old census data showing where Muslims & Non Muslims lived was a ruse. In the short time and given the complexity of the task, data and technology of the time no human, however competent could have done the job to any level of accuracy or satisfaction. Radcliffe simply pulled out the map which already had the line drawn demarcating the land areas of interest to the imperial powers that would enable them to keep a watchful eye on USSR and China and ensure sea routes to warm waters for trade.
Yes of course it was Churchill everything in the whole world that isnt great was down to Churchill. Even the Covid outbreak, 100% Churchills fault.
I liked his speech!..But there are 3 points which I feel he seems ignorant about
1. Kashmir: Blaming Nehru and Gandhi for this is just absurd!..The Maharaja of Kashmir would have joined Pakistan if the Pak elite and Jinnah would have handled the Kasmir issue with patience....Invading Kashmir with tribal forces (not even the official Pak army) was a huge gamble.They spent more time raping and killing innocents instead of completing the job...The only logical step for the Kashmir King was to seek for Indian military help...
2. Partition: It was absolutely clear that post-independence India was going to have land reforms and try to end the ruling elite controlling all the land...Jinnah and the Muslim league did not want this...The fact that Pakistan never got their land reforms is a clear example of this...
3. Modi: Though I personally despise the 2001 Hindu muslim riots of Gujrat...(I am not from Guj but from Mumbai). Modi won the 2014 general elections only on the promise of Indian Economic Development...We can argue about how much Modi has actually helped India grow but there were no religious sentiments in play during that election....
(Also there are more than 10 masterminds of the Guj riots serving life sentences....)
Also there at the rate India is growing...there will be a time when Indian Muslim per capita income and health will be the best in the Muslim world...I hope this happens soon, it will be a great middle finger to all of Pakistan
It is very sad to see Tariq Ali spewing out ignorance ..
Well said. I'm not a fan of Modi or of Congress but you enumerated and explained your points perfectly.
Very rarely i see someone point out these things as clear as you just did.
1. Whether Modi was involved in the riots/not , his name was cleared by the courts of India , which is more than anything you can expect not just in pakistan but in countries like America. And frankly i feel like he got elected purely because people did not think Rahul was an option.
2. I see very little proof that suggest that muslim minorities suffer in India right now, they lead vibrant life when compared to many other muslim countries around the world.
Basically , because of Partition of India on the basis of 2 Nation Theory, the Politics of Hindu Right Wing gained a foothold in India with Majoritarian strain and aggression towards Minorities.But there is still great resistance to this politics and we'll indeed overcome this challenge to our Secular and Constitutional Democracy committed to equality and Rule of Law.
Kashmir is integral part of India
🇮🇳
Best explanation I can recall hearing about the partition. Much like the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Sykes-Picot, Balfour 64 words to solve the Jewish problem...
RSS was the reason for all the mess. Ambedkar was right.
You said nothing on minorities in Pakistan where non muslims being persecuted by Islamic republic and non state actors
great description of imperialism .Similar statagies happened in Ireland .
I'd love to know more...
You have the Kashmir story totally wrong
An Interesting commentary by historian Shri P R Sarkar in his essay, " To the Patriots", on Jan 1st 1960
The Partition of India
When the British decided to quit India under economic and political pressure, undivided India was the demand of the Hindu leaders, while the Muslim leaders demanded a Muslim homeland. There was no scope for an amicable settlement between these two demands. Therefore the British had to divide India. It mattered little whether India liked it or not.
Under such circumstances, was there any way for the leaders to avoid the partition of India? Yes, there was. Had they started a movement for economic independence instead of accepting the partition of India, it would have been possible to form a united and independent India. But neither the Hindu nor the Muslim leaders did so, for reasons best known to them. The economic struggle could not have remained confined to British exploitation only, but would have extended to the Indian exploiters (social, economic, psychological). When the British would have realized that their exploitation was not going to continue, they would have been compelled to grant political independence to India, and with political independence exploitation by the local people would have come to an end also. But the Hindu and Muslim leaders came from the bourgeois class and so they did not like this idea. They wanted liberty keeping capitalism (social, economic, psychological, etc.) alive. For this reason they accepted the political independence of divided India.
There are two more reasons why they did not want economic independence. One of these reasons was that those who were leaders in the struggle for political independence might not prove to be suitable leaders in the struggle for economic independence. Especially, the struggle for economic independence might lead to mass revolution and bloodshed at any time. And there was every possibility of young leaders appearing among the revolutionaries. The leaders did not want this. They tried to check the sanguinary revolution by preaching the theory of non-violence.
The leaders had one more weakness in this matter. Most of the leaders, both Hindu and Muslim, had grown old in the course of the political struggle. Possibly they thought that if they started a fresh fight for economic independence, and if the fight lasted a long time, the chance of controlling the government would not come to them. Perhaps with this idea in mind they gave their consent to a heinous crime such as the partition of India.
Where did the mistake lie? The factors which made Europe a country of many nations are applicable to India also. Rather, the differences which exist in India between one provincial nation and another are greater than those existing in Europe. The provincial nations have their own languages, manners, customs, mode of living, race, intonation, history and traditions. Some of them have their own scripts, almanac, dress and code of law of inheritance. The differences among the European nations are not as great. Still, in the struggle for independence, the English language and the anti-British sentiment had made India one nation. With the departure of the British there is no anti-British sentiment, and so the Indian nation has died.
Today there are only a few persons who regard themselves as Indians; some look upon themselves as Punjabis, some as Andhrites, some as Bengalees, some as Bhumihars, some as Rajputs, etc. None of them are Indians. The only connecting link which exists today is the weak tie of the English language. Those who are guided by a false sense of patriotism are trying even to do away with this language today. It is crystal-clear that with the banishment of the English language, the funeral ceremony of an Indian nation will be complete.
With the departure of the British from India - that is, with the death of the anti-British sentiment - a new sentiment should have been created, but the Indian leaders failed to do so. The Pakistani leaders did so to some extent. In the beginning they utilized anti-Hindu sentiment in place of anti-British sentiment, and later anti-Indian sentiment was created on the question of the Kashmir issue. These sentiments helped the people of Pakistan to some extent, but in India there is no sentiment at all. Like Pakistan, India had ample opportunity to utilize several sentiments, but the leaders did not use them. They roamed in the realm of imagination.
Shrii P R Sarkar
Source: To the Patriots
This is horrible. These colonized/occupied borders really fucked up humans socially. Split our families and countries apart.
You suck Muslim
Trolling is a form of violence. Are you Israeli HASBARA? GCHQ and the 2000 British soliders taken off-duty to Disinform by Troll Warfare? Are you NSA spying for Corporate America Thugs?
_For: Khaartoum talking about trolling, you're doing well yourself. Look at you go, boy!_
I'm just answering these really wild claims? They are not realistic, are they? And the man is very reasonable on the video plus there is so much evidence to the contrary. Even the guilt of the Brits in the 1980s produced a soul searching stunning dramatic series for Channel 4 'The Jewel in the Crown' which paints a dark and darker and eccentric self-denial British Raj and the catastrophe that they brought on the place. One line I like from that drama is, "If these white women went back to England they wouldn't be memsahibs, they would be nothing, just boring housewives, when they come here they are treated like Queens"
They also put together a bunch of people who were formerly not part of the same nation. India is the biggest example of that.
How would Jinnah spend winter vacation in Mumbai after calling Direct Action Day....? How naive he is...! He has done impardonnable crime. When he didn't follow Islam himself. Then how would he think that there will not be no massacre.
You are naive to think Jinnah would trade Pakistan with spending winters in Bombay, when Karachi offered the same mild climate in winter.
@@umerrashid4940No it doesn’t. Karachi is NOT tropical.
Gunnar Myrdal recognized the lack of necessity of partition in his Asian Drama study, and that was all the way back in the late 60s. Crazy how nothing has changed all these decades later.
Listening to the stories from people who experienced all of it firsthand is an asset only internet facilitated.
I can believe that in some areas it must have been impossible for Muslims to live in India during the riots. It was the same for Hindus and Sikhs too in Pakistan. Not only many Low cast Hindus in high positions in East Pakistan who choose to remain in Pakistan left Pakistan but even some Muslims like Sahir Ludhinavi fled Pakistan and came to India.
There are some unanswered questions about Jinnah, or they have not been addressed. Deestablisation and eventual dismissal of the elected Unionist Muslim League's Govt in united Punjab and mass agitation, which he, unlike Gandhi, had no means to control his agitators against Congress in Direct Action.
Why he chose to defend Ilam Din, who had openly confessed killing Rajpal. This was in the late 20s, before he has claimed to have been disenchanted with Congress.
I am astonished that Tariq Ali seems to be unaware or discounts the above episodes.
He wanted parity, far in excess of proportional representation that is the norm in democracies.
I had heard about Tariq Ali and thought that he was a liberal and free thinker. Now I am watching Tariq Ali, a hardcore anti Indian muslim in the guise of a liberal. He is lying about Kashmir and Hyderabad(anyone can open wikipedia and know the facts). He has no first hand knowledge of present India (and also of Pakistan). He is praising Jinnah but due to Jinnah's call of 'Direct Action Day' thousands of persons in Calcutta were killed in a riot initiated by Muslim league. About 5000 Hindus were killed in Noakhali(now in Bangladesh) and thousands were raped and converted to Islam. It is a biased speech though he pretends to be a liberal. Pakistani like Hasan Nisar, Tarek Fateh have more knowledge about present India and Pakistan. Three Muslims were Presidents of India at different times. President of India is the supreme commander of Army, Navy and Air Force. Late Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam was chosen as President of India during the rule of BJP government. He is respected by all and was entrusted with the development of missile system of India. During Bangladesh war a Parsee, Sam Manekshaw was Chief of the Army Staff in India. Parsees are less than 0.05% of Indian population. A Calcutta based Jew, Major General Jacob commanded the Indian Army in Bangladesh in 1971 war. A Sikh, Dr. Manmohan Singh was Prime Minister of India for ten years. Sikhs are less than 2% of Indian population. In India merit counts. At the present time, given a chance to be citizens of Pakistan and migration to Pakistan very few Muslims will leave India as they are living a better life here. He is speaking about caste system. PM Modi doesn't belong to a higher caste. The present President of India is a Dalit. Tariq Ali is trying to establish by distorting facts that India is a failed democracy. But India is the largest democracy in the world and going to be an economic superpower in coming years. Probably it is hurting this Jinnah lover former Pakistani.
i liked well spoken but lied in th end.........Pakistan sent forces to JK First unilaterally Indian Forces were Called Later by JK.
Tariq Ali was supposed to be rational and liberal but hearing him blaming Gandhi for Kashmir occupation ,who died in January'1948 is not only ridiculous but shows Tariq Ali rabid Islamist.
Wherever the British were they left a mess and used partition as a sticking plaster and it has never worked
India is a Hindu nation , but everyone can live
Very honest analysis,
This guy is half mad. He's giving out only 1/2 the info. In 1947 post-partition Pakistan had ~15% Hindu population; now it's less than 2%. In India post-partition Muslims were ~12-15% and the % remains the same today. NEVER EVER take lessons on secularism from a Pakistani.
You complete idiot, let me give you a lesson in history. The 15% hindu population was under BOTH east & west Pakistan. After Bangladesh's independence, West Pakistan had a 1.8% HIndu population which remains today. So wake up & read more.
@@mr1rec83 hindus are systematically harrassed & hounded Slowly converted into Islam in Pakistan & india have 2 lakhs Hindus refugees from Pakistan. Teenage Hindus girls are forcefully abducted converted into islam, Pakistan state completely failed to prevent it.
There are 5 million bengali Hindus came to India as refugees due to actions of Pakistan army in 1971.
Muslims celebrated creation of Pakistan
Indians ( both Muslims and Hindus) celebrated in the creation of India..
This is the difference..
I would love to see a dialogue between tariq ali, pervez hoodbhoy, hasan nisar, moeed pirzada and hussain haqqani
After patition Hindus were hounded out of Pakistan and Bangladesh unlike in India where Muslims refused to move to these Islamic states.
Idea of india is secularism but it is always challanged by muslims
A typical Pakistani style scholar who just can't speak the truth & put historical facts authentically. Kashmir wasn't occupied by Indian forces but freed from Pakistan backed terrorists who couldn't accept the accession into India legally signed by its Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hair Singh.
Tariq also lies about India's great secular constitution where all ppl are equal under the law & Muslims enjoy extra personal laws under freedom of religion. Pakistan was islamic & founded on religious basis so there's no equality under the law for non Muslim & Hindus specially are treated & massacred brutally even today.
Shame on such scholars who twist history just to paint the story in their own biased light.
Tariq saab i understand ur concerns wrt the present hindu nationalist government, although i dont understand what does that have to do with the situation during the 1940’s. It is also interesting to note that u r not criticising the muslim league sufficiently for its hand in the partition and the bloodshed tht followed. Certainly the muslim league was more at fault than the congress at that time. I think the word is paranoia. The Muslim league was paranoid.
Es posible ver este programa con subtitulos en español?
Sir, 1. Jinnah gave call for Direct Action which led to killing of thousands in Calcutta and then there was no return. 2. In Punjab first riots were caused by Muslims in Rawalpindi in March 1947. The British had strengthened Jinnah because he supported their war efforts and the demands of Jinnah had become unrealistic.
Yourt first point is a red herring. Jinnah called for a peaceful protest where Muslims expressed their solidarity against the British as well as Congress. The outcome was both unsolicited and unfortunate.
Very nicely explained
Mashalla very nice God bless you
His understanding of the who the actual political leaders were in India/Pakistan at the time of independence needs an update to reality. Gandii had ceased to be relevant on political matters at and post independence other than being an elder figure revered by most if not all. His name included as being part of the Kashmir issue is patently incorrect. It was Jinnah's local Pakistani men led army & tribal mercenary militia that embarked on the illegal adventure of trying to take Kashmir state by force although a 'standstill agreement' was in place. The then maharaja of Kashmir asked India for military assistance and protection. This was given after he signed papers for accession to the India union upon which Mountbatten and Nehru air lifted troops to protect the Kingdom and the maharaja. Nehru, without his cabinet's consent or agreement unilaterally took the case to the UN leading to the UN resolution on holding a plebiscite in Kashmir subject to Pakistan withdrawing all its troops and personnel from its occupied areas to facilitate the plebiscite. This never happened then and has not happened since to date. Pakistan breached the UN resolution's condition. Also, the resolution has effectively lapsed and several other accords and agreements between the two states supersede the UN rest,lution. Moreover Pakistan, in order to keep China sweet as counter weight to India in the region gave away large tracts, several hundred square miles, of north eastern Kashmir as a gift to China which they had no legal or moral right to do. Incidentally the invasion of Kashmir by Pakistani regulars and tribals were carried out clandestinely and deviously without the knowledge of the the Briton who was the n the general of the Pakistan army. Since then Pakistan has tried to wrest the Indian side of Kashmir by waging 3 wars directly and many proxy wars via jihadists and terrorists, local and imported. Tariq Ali should get his facts right.
I disagree with you on many points. The situation of Kashmir/ Hyderabad was largely manupulated to make India the enemy. I know rightnow the far right BJP is doing damage to indian secularism but that has not been the case since 70 years. Here almost 50% seat are reserved in all government institution for minorities and you are baffoning facts and are mascarading your dillusion about India as the prima facie. You are intellectual so if i have an opportunity i will write a detailed answer with all the correct facts you just manupulated in this video. I will end by saying of course current situation is not good but it's not as worst as you are portraying.
a very realists analysis
He is a Pakistani spokesperson in a historian garb.
We are slaves. We are incapable of thinking as free men
An excellent historical analysis. The seeds for religious fundamentalism was sown by the political class who were in bed with the British Imperialism. All the three countries are unstable.
Edward the famous book Midnight's children trying to understand why the English did the partition. . Also I'm not sure if the two different groups can do some problems wanted it partition.
I really respect you Tariq Ali sir but Indian Muslims are our brothers and sisters, and the enjoy equal and seperate religious rights under our constitution... Yes there are riots and killings occasionally but there are insignificant in view of more than a billion people.
I don't disagree with the message of caution but just the strong wording, since they often stir up feelings.
Afterall which siblings don't fight :)
On a lighter note, anyone (including Hindus) opposing the government is asked to go to Pakistan.
U r anti Hindu bias shows out so well.
As far as India muslims concerned
BJP targeting muslim
Also true
He seems to be very rationale person but after 20-21 min. he showed us the real face.....very sad, i thought he gonna end this on a positive note, unfortunately he didn't......Following are the facts which he very smartly ignored.
(i) It was decided to give sole authority to the KINGS of different princely states of undivided India and not the population (right or wrong that's another issue). Kings were given a choice either accede to secular indian state or islamic pakistani state but Mr. Ali ignore this very basic agreement.
(ii) Forcefully occupation is not in DNA of Indians infact, it was the pakistani army supported by radical islamist tribals called lashkars who attacked kashmir just after the 3 months of independence reacting to this, then King of Kashmir Maharaja Hari Singh decided to sign "treaty of annexation" with India. It is very shameful to manipulate facts.....Institution like UN declares pakistan as "Aggressor".
(iii) He intentionally portrays our legendary leaders as 'immoral' ignoring the fact that, it was the very same legendary leader Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru who took the kashmir issue into the UNITED NATIONS, accepted the ceasfire and even agreed to the unpopular demand of #plebiscite through UN resolution. Again Pakistan couldn't fulfill the pre-requisites to it.
Jinnah's Pakistan died with Jinnah himself.
Indian Army went to J&K when Maharaj Hari Singh,the ruler requested the Government of India to protect his from tribal raiders along with Pakistan army to conquer Kashmir.Hari Singh signed the accession treaty with Government of India and then Indian troops went in to stop the rape and pillage done by Pakistan backed tribal lashkars
i listened to tariq to learn something of the India - Pakistan relationship and their history and then I read some of the comments and I am left wondering what to believe. I only know that 2 plus 2 equals 4!
He is wrong on several fronts : 1. Kashmir acceded to India when the ruler signed the instrument of accession, just like Pakistan had balochistan accede to it, at the point of a gun. Anyway the whole state of j and k is not muslim majority: jammu and ladakh are not muslim majority anyways. So let Pakistan let Balochistan be independent, then tariq ali can talk about kashmir; selective memory is not done. 2. Isolated incidents of lynching, which are not acceptable, however don't amount to an entire nation of 1300 million people becoming "intolerant". It betrays a complete lack of perspective to say something like that. In no other country are muslims as safe as in india.
11:00 to 14:45 and on to 16:30 till 20:13
6:00
23:00
We ( myself Victoria Miroshnik and Dipak Basu) have analyzed this issue in our book, India as an organization, published by Palgrave-Macmillan. The thesis of Ayesha Jalal was wrong. Jinnah was recruited by the British in 1934 to create a new state where the British Army could stay to protect the Middle East from the Soviet Union and the sea route between the Suez Canal and Australia. NS Sarila, who was the ADC for the last three Vice-Roys of India, wrote that in his book. There are two others who were recruited by the British: Gandhi in 1915 and Ambedkar in 1930.
British supported the Muslim League wholeheartedly from the beginning in 1906. In every riot, British police took the position to support the Muslims. That was obvious in August 1946 in Calcutta, then in Noakhali, and Chittagong in East Bengal. Pakistan was created by the British and Jinnah, Gandhi, Ambedkar were the British agents.
Gandhi planned Pakistan in 1943. He sent his plan to Jinnah through Rajagopalachari, but Jinnah wanted a corridor through India which Gandhi could not agree with.
These Pakistanis forget the direct action day.
جو کچھ اب نریندر مودی🇮🇳 کر رہا ہے جو پٹیل نے نے پچھتر برسوں پہلے شروع کیا تھا
ان برای کی جڑ ولبھ بہای پٹیل ہے جو بھارت 🇮🇳 کو برباد کر دے گا
He did not explain what happened to minority Hindus and ahmidies in Pakistan .
How an educated man believes that religion should be yard stick of a country?
He is educated as a sycophant of the white man
Sir your analysis got proved in 2019 when India under BJP illegally annexed Kashmir and passed CAB and NRC. The Indian Muslim is in very bad condition ever since partition. Secular India has been buried by BJP and M.A Jinah is being praised now a days in India for getting Pakistan from Britain.
Tariq Ali, you first visit India before calling it's democratic Government a Sham. This is the problem with table-top intellectual s! They have no idea of Ground Realties.
India being such a huge democracy is capable of committing crimes of subordinating it's smaller neighbours and indeed has perpetrated them. But the picture you present about the Muslims in India is over critical.
India has been unfair to minorities and things have deteriorated in recent years. The partition did leave it's mark as you mention. But to compare India's secularism with Pakistan is stretching the criticism into the territory of bias. It was 'impossible' for Muslims in India and surprisingly we have more Muslims in India; this strong statement comes without any mention of the status and conditions of minorities in Pakistan. Indian intellectuals since independence have always stood by the minorities. There is a serious concern and activism(which includes militant activism) in India among certain groups pushing for equality and rights of minorities.
Muslims in India have done well in almost all spheres sports, arts, science, cinema, music, politics(left, right, centre).
There's no question that this participation is enough, but in no way it's impossible as you mention. India is a developing country. It has it's own challenges, but it has definitely done better than it's neighbours in protecting the rights of minorities.
This unbalanced criticism of the two countries in conflict is what presents an incorrect image of your intellect.
P
nice
A very shallow description of events which everyone knows about. On top of that it belittles India's achievements and Gandhi's legacy of pluralism and democracy
Beautiful, Excellent Presentation!! :-) :-)
Mark Rice though its incorrect.
Most of facts quote by Tariq Ali are wrong. Muslim league was helben on Partition as in democratic estate Muslim elites would have parished- fact so well established by facts by what happened to current Pakistan post 1947 , it is now a failed state exceling in global terroism and a menance. India despite it flaws is best democracy in world with equality of citizens including muslim. Tariq Ali also forgets it was muslims in a Tiny mojority of muslims funded by Pakistan which carried of et5hinic cleansing of significant minority hindus in Kashmir vcalley and Fact is except of minority in kashmir valley no one wants to be a part of Pakistan infact Muslim in POK YERN TO BE A PART of India having seen vast devolopment in iNDIAN kASHMIR INSPITE OF it being a big drain on Indian Tax payer. About Hyderaqbad Tariq Ali is talking absolute rubbish it was not ever muslim Majority and when genocide was carried out by Nizam's Razakars rebellion happened by local citzens to force Nizam to acc3ede to India that Indian goverment intervened . In hindsight Partition was good for current India and Bangladesh as it pushed scum of sub continental citzenry to current Pakistan run by feudal and tribal rules of its elite and establishmen5t which still has to go thru its further Balkanization to achieve its stablization
Please read my comment.
In general, a fair assessment; every single person from the subcontinent will find points where they (strongly) disagree with Tariq Ali. There are some serious incorrect statements. (1) That no person in the subcontinent foresaw the bloodbath that would follow partition. Many local (British) authorities in both the Punjab and Bengal warned the British Govt. IN WRITING, that terrible riots and killings would almost certainly follow partition, REGARDLESS of where exactly the boundaries were drawn by the Radcliffe Commission. (2) Zulfikar Bhutto was not assassinated; he was hanged by the powers that be in West Pakistan, at the behest of Zia-Ul-Haq. (3) TA creates the impression that the BJP has been in power for a large chunk of independent India's history; rather they came to power in 2014. That leaves 67 years of independent India's history when the central government did not take a strong anti Muslim stance.
Sir you lost me the moment you started painting Pak and India with the same brush.. please stop doing biased analysis for your birth country's sake at least if not for other reasons..
I don't know what has to be said about partition, as it was too horrible to explain and to disgust to convey its message. Because the more you talk about separation, the more you will be separated
Sorry to say lot of holes in his speech ( which people have mentioned below). I respected the man until I hear him speak on the history of partition. I guess people get lost in their bias thoughts. Yes his true colors did come out very boldly.
tariq triggers so many here in the comment section, so he must be telling the truth.
Tariq should read the un charter , about Kashmir Indian army never invaded , it was Pakistani invaded Kashmir
Check it out , tariq leaves in London and can criticise Indian politic but can not mention bad generals of Pakistan
He is afraid of
Modi isn’t what mr.tariq thinks
India is an European word.The
Europeans referred to the natives peoples of todays USA
as Indians(Red Indians/Red skins.The Dutch referred to todays Indonesia as Dutch East India/East Indias.The islands in South Atlantic as West Indians.Before the British,today's India was ruled by Kings,Maharajas,Rajas, Sultans,etc all separate states
The British made all that huge mass & called it India.To this day indigenous peoples of USA called Red Indians..The Mughal Rulers,I understand referred to the areas they ruled as Hindustan..Today's Indian Rulers has changed Secular India to Hindutvaistan
The tragedy had the Indian Muslims/Christians not changed name to that of their new faith but kept their old names but practiced their new faith, no one would be none the wiser.Tamils,irrespective of religion their mother tongue is Tamil..
Utter madness to kill, to discriminate peoples based on Colour, Religion,Caste,.
Quite rational talk of india Pakistan’s independence
Is "Azad" Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan not occupied by Pakistan forces!!??? You seem to be biased in favour of Pakistan!!
One thing about the referendum in Jammu Kashmir, kindly go through the UN Security Council resolution for Jammu Kashmir. FYI - It asks the Pakistani occupying forces from present day "Azad" Kashmir & Gilgit-Baltistan, India was allowed to keep some forces in Srinagar and then there would have been a referendum. Its a shame you never mention this.... I hoped to hear a more rational narrative from your end!!
Hope you do a better research, especially on India before any future programs you make!!... As you mentioned - India is huge and complicated country in 2018 to make a simplified comment.
Finally, just to let you know, the constitution still prevails, so whosoever us ruling can't be fascist as you mentioned.... We are by and large a way more peaceful country unlike you mentioned in your commentary!!
This man lies with the ease with which the rest of us breathe.
You lie,
And you sound like a Hindu fanatic.
You are an idiot
Racists fear the truth!
What exactly was not factual you believe?
Well Tariq Ali sir, that was a very insightful speech you made about undivided India and the partition. However I feel that you missed several points
1- Jinnah who said that all "citizens are equal" was the same person who called for Direction Action Day that resulted in killing and counter killing and also his subsequent statements about Islam being the religion of the state and Allah being the guiding beacon of Pakistan do confirm that he had the scantest regard about secularism. From his own personal life, he married a girl possibly 1/2 or 1/3 of his age belonging to another faith where as he disowned his own daughter when she married another person of different faith.
2- You spoke of Muslims being victims, graveyards etc..., most Hindus and Sikhs get cremated. So there was not even account, it was simply ashes.
3- It was Jinnah who wanted partition of India. Then he should be the one also thinking about population exchange. Or was he simply thinking that muslims in today's India would stay wherever they were, but non-muslims in Pakistan would move to India? Why did he not think of Turkish-Greek model of total population exchange before rushing to get his own fiefdom.
4- Today many in Pakistan lament what happened to Gandhian and Nehruvian India under Modi. Were not those guys exactly who opposed to Gandhian and Nehruvian ideas of India then?
5- You compared BJP to extreme rightwing etc... What about every political party in Pakistan that swears by Islam openly? So all those parties of Pakistan(even by the relative definition) are far worse than any extremist rightwing party in India.
6- I don't know why people keep accusing Modi on Godhra. Apex court in India acquitted him. So does that mean Pakistan does not believe in Indian system and still wants to go ahead and attack India with concepts like Gazwa-e-Hind, racial superiority of 1 muslim equal to 10 or 100 Hindus? So either world believes in Indian constitution or it does not. It is a simple matter.
7- Your former PM Imran Khan keeps accusing there is a muslim genocide happening in India. Why has been there no reverse migration to Pakistan/Islamic nations in such case? Why are Rohingya muslims trying to be in India? I am sure if there is an iota of truth in genocide, the embassies in Delhi or your border would be teeming with muslims pleading to admit them. Why does not Pakistan make its own CAA version to save all those muslims who perceive that they are under threat under the Hindu extremist India? Maybe Pakistan will score a few brownie points here definitely among the OIC nations, but who knows among the wider world. Why not do it as at least as a PR exercise and see how many muslims of India will migrate to Pakistan, given a chance?
8- Regarding rightwing politicos raise in India, I do admit there is a raise in rightwing nationalism in India that I DESPISE. But it is a reaction to age old suppression of the feeling of Hindus and minority appeasement. Despite being a majority, Hindus had always been at the wrong end of the stick under Congress rule. I don't blame Nehru for all the faults of India. He did what he could the best under the hostile circumstances then prevailing poverty, linguistic, geographical, caste, Hindu problems etc.. . I still think Nehru and Indira Gandhi were the best among the Congress Clan. I don't subscribe to any rightwing politics. I believe people should have their personal food choices. But then there is always a media that portrays personal grief into religious issue by attributing a communal color. India and Pakistan are nations of MC and BCs. Someones mother/sister is slut to someone else that too so easily deliberately or accidentally. So beef eating/Pork eating etc.. it is just a personal choice. Personally I hate to see any animal getting killed in front of me, though I am a meat eater. Hypocrite, you may say. I am fine.
9- Jinnah thrusted an alien language that was neither language of the west Pakistan nor the east Pakistan. How do you see that? Humanity survives not on body language, but on how we communicate.
10- Last but not least, Hinduism is probably the last surviving umbrella native/aboriginal faith( Greeks gone, Roman gone, Sumerian gone, Mesopotamian gone, Egyptian gone, Chinese gone to cultural revolution, I am sure about Aztec and Inka gone for catholicism) Hinduism, has its own deficits, caveats, limitations, caste based discrimination etc...
But the the good thing about it is , there are people who can call spade a spade and be ok instead of feeling an existential threat. So why kill the last strand of native faiths? Islam preaches equality n brotherhood provided you are muslim and stretches to the extent of having a fellow Abrahamic faith wife, but not the other way around.
But is clear about pagans and killing them. Why should not a non-abrahamic faith guy in this case be not aggressive, a simple Newtonic law that often gets ascribed as Islamic phobia? Why are we fighting for an unproven concept of God?
I smell propaganda.
the things is both side of media is portraying other side as a evil part.... but things are not exactly as they portrait…
As Tariq Ali is describing treatment of Muslim in India, there would be a mass exodus of muslims to neighbouring countries. Situation is different, minorities of Bangladesh and Pakistan are pouring into India due to their persecution on religious grounds.
the northern ireland of india
Muslim rulers of India very imperious in attitude twards Hindus & that attitude still persists among the Muslims in India & Pakistan even today. Mr Modi & the BJP Leadership ,the Congress leadership & the other political speed up the desecularisation of India & declare " India as a Theocratic Hindu State".
"The Hindu's worship the cow, but we eat it!"
Then, How did Mughals ruled over Hindu India? They respected the sentiments. There was Cow slaughter ban in Hindu Majority Areas and Pig slaughter ban in Muslim majority areas. This cohesion was maintained by the rulers. The Hindu rulers had Muslim soldiers and Muslim rulers had Hindu soldiers.
Didn`t Gandhi have something to do with the partition of India?
No Gandhi could never come to terms with Partition. He always believed in harmony of life with all religions. But he was a political failure as his ideas are highly elated ( so he was called mahatma, the great soul) and ordinary people in any religion cannot follow that because we are bound by hatred, racism, jealousy, corruption, greed for power etc.
If you have to be a political winner you have to have pragmatic views. gandhi was an utterly sad person after independence, as whatever he stood for never happened. instead partition, blood shed and misery.
By the time of partition, every body in Indian national congress was busy getting to the cabinet of the new state and Gandhi's words and wish had no precendence.
Jinnah never wanted a partition and several times with the British and congress pleaded for a minimum number of ministers from muslims in the Indian cabinet which were not granted. So british went ahead with the partition.
Tariq doesn't acknowledge the violent entrance of Islam into India....the hatred still exists by Sihks and Hindus of Muslim atrocities carried out in India. The BJP is still stoking this vehemence and that's why they are in power.
I can smell sort of Hindu hatred in his speech . Ya , some incident happen on Muslims bt you can't judge 130 coror by 1-2 incident . India is secular ND remain secular . Secularism is in our gene.
Why are u whispering tariq saab? Speak out loud.
Sometimes he is so wrong that everything he says seems like a nicely cooked story..
Jinnah belonged to a Gujarati Brahmin family
obc family not brahmin
bhai apna desh dekh na...
humare desh ke bare main bol mat...hum jaise hai khush hai...
nehru's debacles still hurting ud
Unite 🇮🇳 + 🇵🇰 + 🇧🇩
Lolz sorry but you dont know anything of current india. Its not as bad as you are portraying.
hehe.... we all knew... what is happening in Indian now with minority specially with Muslims, Sikhs, Christians with Hindu Taliban (RSS).... you can hide things from your side... but now social media is become so common and things are spreading very fast.... so keep your shining india with you.....
OK by the end, the man clearly came out to be a very biased person esp when it comes to India. He seems to share special love for Modi.
Gandhi was communal.
Jinnah was secular.
Sun rises from east.
Earth is rectangular.
This man, who usually maintains a progressive facade, here shows his real communal fangs. I shouldn't say he is grossly ignorant of facts, for he is communally motivated. I feel disgusted with such a rogue.
Between 7:30 to 7:50, Tariq Ali can not be further away from truth. There was no peace between Hindus and Muslims. The whole point of Hindus to turn to Sikh Gurus was to fight against Islamic persecution. It is an easy way for Muslims and their sympathisers to blame everything on British. Yeah, British were bad but Islamic invasion of India was much worse. Just consider this, the whole Hindu civilisation has been wiped of current day Afghanistan, Pakistan and most of Bangladesh which were mostly Hindu lands. I am yet to hear stories of peaceful inquisition of these lands.
Tariq Ali either displays his ignorance or he is partisan in his comment about referendum in Kashmir. He conveniently forgets violence perpetrated on Kashmiris by Pakistani army supported terrorist groups. He also conveniently forgets that Kashmir was not subject to partition plan and repeated attacks launched by Pakistan army in their attempt to wrest Kashmir.
His account has lots of flawed accounts.
Distorted information towards the end.
Mr. Tariq Ali is abusing his own fair name as a distinguished writer, biographer, and historian by distorting a large part of India's partition narrative in a very partisan manner misrepresenting the primary role in that disaster played by Jinnah and his devil cohort in the Muslim League of those days. The Pakistani leaders are always teaching their new generations of citizens such falsified accounts of the Indian leaders of independence, particularly about Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. The partition of India on a religious basis that entailed uprooting of more than ten million innocent people of both Hindu and Muslim citizens and brutal killing of over a million people was a devastating experience for all Indians, and its excruciating pain still lingers in the memory of each survivor and their families. Who raised and pursued that evil treasonous demand at any cost to India and its people? Was it not Jinnah and his followers?
Mr. Ali's sentiments are understandable, but can be hardly shared by countless Indians who suffered from the creation of Pakistan through the most horrible carnage against unarmed helpless people of India, including brutal murders, torture, butchery, violation and decapitation of women and children, with plundering and burning of homes, - all possible forms of beastly depravity initiated, implemented, and conducted by the power-hungry, narcissist, lunatic wretched thug Jinnah and his savage cohort in 1946-'47. Of course, as it happens under such circumstances, there followed a violent retaliation. Even after partition, the newly formed Pakistan continued with this mayhem and Hindu genocide in both East and West Pakistan by the 'Jinnah gangs'. India, overwhelmed by the influx of millions of hapless refugees, suffered the most through many decades following independence. And Mr. Ali calls Jinnah a model of "Secularism". There can't be a better example of an oxymoron. That traitor Jinnah called for the open riot starting on August 16, 1946, and his devil followers, e.g., Surahwardy, Nazim-ud-din, Fazlul Huq, etc., who were holding the Bengal government, - planned, designed, and conducted the widespread slaughtering, rapes, and burning of Hindus in Calcutta and Eastern Bengal, while inactivating the police force which they controlled. The Bengal PM, that wretched Surahwardy, personally incited, conducted, and directed the murderous Muslim mobs from the police headquarters. The fundamental sense of humanity was totally crushed by their horrifying carnage that rendered the state into a blazing inferno. - And then followed retaliatory killings and plundering of the poor helpless Muslim citizens by the non-Muslim goons on the field in the pretext of protecting Hindus. The fire and venom then spread throughout northern India, in Bihar, Delhi, and Punjab in particular, and also in Uttar Pradesh to Bombay and Gujarat states. Almost half of India turned into an abysmal perdition.Gangsters do not have, and cannot claim any religious faith. They are waiting always for a call or opportunity. It was important to point out those who were actively instigating them. It is well known that the Khadi-clad idealist followers of Gandhiji committed to nonviolence and self-sacrifice for mother India's freedom were never the culprits, while the so-called educated wealthy Muslim League leaders were directly involved in the most grisly operations. If Jinnah were an honest man with integrity, he and only he could have stopped the carnage in just one call. He did nothing but watching and relishing the entire drama, and at the end went careening to occupy the blood-soaked throne of Pakistan. Mahatma Gandhi had the courage and integrity in his unshakable faith in nonviolence; so he instantly withdrew his non-cooperation movement in 1921 when the movement turned riotous in Chauri-Chaura. Jinnah, originally a Congress leader bloating with his personal vanity and ambition, wanted nothing but being a new "Badshah" ( Mughal King) and to achieve that by hook or by crook. He was not really the sole representative of all Musalmans of India that he proclaimed himself to be. He used the convenient catchwords like 'secularism' without understanding it, and grasped the "two-nation" propaganda slogan as the low-hanging fruit, the handy tool to win his goal, - just as power-hungry corrupt politicians always do anywhere. In his extremely selfish and narcissistic dream he wanted to break India asunder into many smaller Pakistan units by making every Muslim-majority province free from the constitutionally formed state of India. The Congress leaders, as well as Gandhiji who struggled all their lives for a whole and free India, rejected that diabolical scheme. If that were to happen, India would be in the grip of continued Hindu genocide all over those Muslim-dominated states. The Muslim League generated a belief among peace-loving Hindus, I hope wrongly, that Musalmans can't be trusted, and the pro-Pakistan Muslims are the most treacherous and perfidious people. Through the last 70+ years Pakistan has strengthened and perpetuated that belief in India while proving itself a failed and rogue state, a purgatory of demons. Its only achievement has been perfidy, aggression, and terrorism against their own root, the Indian nation.
Mr. Ali is falsifying the story of Kashmir. Kashmir has been an integral part of Bharat or Hindustan, be it by any name including India, geographically, historically, culturally, and by the Vedic Hindu traditions and literature. In the scenario of partition, when feudal states were given the choice, Kashmir rulers including the Hindu Maharaja and his Muslim Prime Minister methodically joined the new Indian Union. It was Jinnah's bandits who invaded that province running that same ruthless and most brutal carnage and occupied a large portion of that province. The same 'Muslim'- brand method of the medieval invaders, e.g., Mohammed Ghori, Ibrahim Lodi, Jalaluddin Khilji, Taimur Long, Babur, and Nadir Shah. Even today, the Pakistani greed for the entire state continues through barbaric attacks and terrorism across the border. When Kashmir's Maharaja implored Mr. Nehru for help, it was the duty of the Indian government to send troops to defend that part of the country. Because of Nehru's penchant for peace and nonviolence he sought help from the then-fledgling (1948) international peace-making organization, the UNO. A ceasefire was installed, but Kashmir was never wagered for a bargain with Pakistan. The UNO had no right to mandate division of a country's land. Gandhiji had no role or authority in the governmental affairs or the military. Yet, Ali and his people in Pakistan believe that Gandhiji should have embraced the bandits with kisses, holding the land of Kashmir on the platter as a gift to those vile scoundrels? Oh, Mr. Ali, you are partaking in the continuing vulgarity and crimes of the Pakistani leaders and their mayhem against the Indian nation by presenting a totally distorted view of the ongoing nightmarish drama there and making childish demand that the Indian leaders should have given away anything that the Quaid demanded.
Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by a group of Hindu fanatics for their warped view that Gandhi was soft toward the Muslims was the most heinous crime in human history. By analyzing the assassins’ motive, however, one thing becomes clear: Mahatma Gandhi was their subject of anger and disgust, but not the prime target of hatred. Rather, he was the proxy-target for the hated Muslim League that had truncated their motherland. Such extreme animosity in that section of the people was a by-product of the crater of venom created by Jinnah and his cohort. Jinnah should be credited for not only breaking India into three parts, but for deeply soaking the minds of its denizens through several generations with the poison of hatred. His memory is sickening indeed.
In India of today, the rise of a virulent Hindu radicalism in a few population-pockets is indeed a tragic turn of events. We have heard much blame for Narendra Modi in association with the abominable anti-Muslim riots in the state of Gujarat during his Chief Ministership there in 2001. However, one cannot be sure about his real share of the blame other than his inability or lack of will to control the riots and protect the minorities in a timely manner. He did not murder anybody nor did he direct the riots. There might have been several forces limiting his ability to control, including some elements in his political alliance. That is certainly culpable. But that does not render India's secular principle and policies invalid. The proper meaning of a state's secularism is keeping religious or theological considerations apart from governance. It does not mean a restriction or abhorrence of the practice of religion or pursuing a faith by the citizens. India has shown through the last seventy+ years that any minority group and any Dalit [Gandhiji's "Harijan"] ( or Scheduled caste) person has equal rights and access to any government position, from the President, Chief Ministers, Governors, Chief Justice, military and police chiefs, etc..through his or her skills and abilities. Nobody today spends a moment asking whether a dignitary is a Muslim, a Hindu, Brahman or Shudra, Sikh or Bauddhya, or Jain, or Christian, etc..
Mr. Ali must face and speak the truth. Crafty misrepresentation of a gloomy history can only perpetuate the intensity of hatred in both communities. May the new generations in Pakistan and Bangladesh realize the truth, repent the orgy of misdeeds of their foregone leaders, and seek ways to amend the wrongs at least partly, to march ahead toward building a glorious Indian subcontinent.
Sakti Mukherjee you have so eloquently and respectfully stated your points and motion. i agree with you wholeheartedly. I hope he reads and get out of his dillusion. I was watching his harry k interview and he seemed like a learned scholar but by watching this video and how craftfully he manupulated facts and hid key evidences and only presented baked historical accounts shows he is just another dillusional Pakistani who lives in a facade.
Well said
Truthful! Great! Excellent! Splendid! Have no other words to appreciate you! May God bless you!
@Bikash Nandi I have found such line-crossings on many instances. But those are produced by the computer. If you do a bit editing, such as paragraphing and punctuation in a different way, those lines disappear.
@@geetaarth7142 Thank you for sharing my feelings.
It’s difficult to accept the views of erudite Tarik Ali because they contain few lies and coloured opinions. I heard this video, 5 years after it was released.
I will give few verifiable examples.
India is a federation of states. Recently in my home state, Karnataka, state assembly elections were held and the ruling BJP was defeated by congress. The incumbent congress government, reversed many of the central government’s policies. Would a’facist’ leader, Narendra Modi allow such transition and reform? No chance! What is the reason? Hindu dharma, better called as Sanatana dharma, meaning, that which exists eternally is itself democratic. There is no single prophet There is no single holy book. One can be an atheist and still remain as Hindu!!
Ali is correct when he says there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. Though Hindus are in majority, there is no uniform civil code. Muslims are still governed by their personal laws. They can be polygamous but if a Hindu does the same, he will in jail. All the minorities, including Muslims and Christians, enjoy constitutional protections and privileges. They run their cultural and educational institutions and are funded by the government. The idea of a secular state has not failed in India. After partition, whlle the population of minorities , especially of Muslims increased manifold, in Pakistan, it has dwindled. Some figures give 8 % of Hindus their presently from 24% at the time of partition.
Kashmir was not taken by military force. It’s then king, Raja Hari Singh, like 500 other rulers across India decided to remain with India after due deliberation. When Pakistan tried to take it forcibly, Indian military intervened.
Brahmins were and are in minuscule minority. By nature they are seekers of eternal truth and a vast majority of them are advaithis, meaning they don’t differentiate between not just humans, but all forms of life! When this is their mindset and when they don’t have majority, how can they force exclusion of‘lower caste? In fact Dr Ambedkar, father of Indian constitution, the foremost Dalit leader and who remains a respected icon for all, had a Brahmin wife!!
I am giving these few verifiable facts so that the citizens of Latin America do not get the wrong picture. But all said and done, I am an admirer of Tarik Ali.
The one thing on which most of the self proclalimed liberals are experts is generalization of a whole situation i.e. one person in minority attacked means the whole is attacked.
If the scriptor of this speech has an iota of belief in, atleast, the highest court of judicial system, the Naredra Modi was actually not found guilty. The BJP which he , in a bisaed way, is proving guilty actually comes by participating in worlds largest electoral festival in world's largest democracy.
The Kashmiri Muslims situation was perfectly explained but only with an eye of muslims there. He forgot to mention the capture of Kashmir by Pakistani Jihandis in 1947 and obviously PoK. He forgot to mention the Ethnic cleansing and rape of Kashmiri Pandits by the muslim fanatics that led to the heavy army influx into the area obviously not to forget the heart-sinking slogans they made. Bollywood used to shoot movie scences there in pre 1980s era but after that stopped permanantly and made europe their new venture.
Even by the facts, minority population have actually increased in India - Muslims from 9% to 14 % and christians too are 6% unlike prohesized in this video. The main reason for sad state of indian muslims especially in financial terms is ghettoization.
We need more political commentator like Tariq Ali who know history with as little biased views.
Aroop Dutta
This is surely a joke!
Sir , You are diluting history . Trying to give safe passege to Islam mindset .