If Muslims are unhappy in India there was a perfectly nice country created for India's Muslims. They are free to migrate there and live their life happily.
In speaking about Nehru and his ideologies ( non alignment, democracy, development, secularism, etc), Taylor Sherman seems to interpret non alignment as basically nothing more than choosing non involvement (of India) in the proxy wars of the Cold War era. But it’s more nuanced, in that Nehru’s non alignment was more about India (and the non aligned bloc) playing an active role in articulating the interests of post colonial ( developing) countries, referred to as the “global south” in current parlance. Which is why India “was poking its nose” in some issues, as Sherman pointed out. Indian foreign policy still continues on that foundation, but puts “India first” under the Modi government. Regarding Sherman’s example of Nehru’s inability to live by his principle of “secularism” in post colonial India, it’s baffling that she views history monochromatically/ unidimesionally, citing police action and the treatment of Muslims in the former princely state of Hyderabad. She seems to totally overlook the long history ( recounted by many native historians) of the harassment and persecution of the Hindu majority by the Nizam’s Muslim militia, the dreaded Razakars, that must have undoubtedly contributed to a simmering resentment felt by Hindus. In fact there are more examples of Nehru’s leanings against any government role/recognition of India’s Hindu heritage, perhaps influenced by his westernized social background. One such example is the post-independence reconstruction of the Somnath temple in Gujarat, (that was, historically, repeatedly pillaged by Islamic invaders), which was taken up by Sardar Vallabhai Patel. It was reported that Nehru not only refused any personal involvement in the project, but actively sought to discourage it. Perhaps the above also serves as an example of Taylor Sherman’s point about certain actions/policies taken by the Congress government under Nehru and continued by his successors, that may have contributed to the rise of a party that went against such ideologies and instead spoke to India’s organic, profound and deep-rooted Hindu culture, whose identity and aspirations were long suppressed. It’s more about the articulation (of this sentiment) by the BJP that resonates, rather than “setting the tone” as Sherman puts it. Also surprisingly, Taylor Sherman made no mention at all, of the happenings in Kashmir in 1947-48, when a tribal Pashtun militia pillaged areas of Kashmir, in which Hindus were the primary targets and came within close proximity of Srinagar. Sherman seems to overlook the highly questionable ( treasonous) role of a British army officer, William Brown, who was in charge of the Gilgit Agency in the North West Frontier Province, in organizing/instigating it. Certainly nothing secular there. For his role in engineering this invasion, William Brown was decorated in 1948 by the British government and also awarded the highest civilian honor by the government of Pakistan. Nehru’s role in handling Kashmir was too ponderous ( and too mindful of global opinion) instead of being decisive and pre emptive, against the tribal attack and the illegal Pakistani annexation of Gilgit-Baltistan. His reference of the issue to a plebiscite under the U.N. was another political blunder that internationalized the issue. His sop to Sheikh Abdullah, of partial autonomy for Kashmir and the addition of a “temporary” Article 370 showed a lack of political astuteness. In fact, Dr. Ambedhkar was believed to be vehemently against such a concession and would have nothing to do with it. Nehru also showed himself as a foolish idealist (and not a pragmatist) in reportedly recommending communist China, when India was offered membership into the UNSC. In the end, whatever his ideologies, Nehru was all about grand theatrics, including Hindi-Chini Bhai-bhai.” In contrast, Modi is far more politically astute with regard to India’s interests, even if as politically dominant as Nehru.
If Muslims are unhappy in India there was a perfectly nice country created for India's Muslims. They are free to migrate there and live their life happily.
USA can give them citizenship as well because USA care about human rights.
Why don't you give dravidians their own country.
In speaking about Nehru and his ideologies ( non alignment, democracy, development, secularism, etc), Taylor Sherman seems to interpret non alignment as basically nothing more than choosing non involvement (of India) in the proxy wars of the Cold War era. But it’s more nuanced, in that Nehru’s non alignment was more about India (and the non aligned bloc) playing an active role in articulating the interests of post colonial ( developing) countries, referred to as the “global south” in current parlance. Which is why India “was poking its nose” in some issues, as Sherman pointed out. Indian foreign policy still continues on that foundation, but puts “India first” under the Modi government.
Regarding Sherman’s example of Nehru’s inability to live by his principle of “secularism” in post colonial India, it’s baffling that she views history monochromatically/ unidimesionally, citing police action and the treatment of Muslims in the former princely state of Hyderabad. She seems to totally overlook the long history ( recounted by many native historians) of the harassment and persecution of the Hindu majority by the Nizam’s Muslim militia, the dreaded Razakars, that must have undoubtedly contributed to a simmering resentment felt by Hindus.
In fact there are more examples of Nehru’s leanings against any government role/recognition of India’s Hindu heritage, perhaps influenced by his westernized social background. One such example is the post-independence reconstruction of the Somnath temple in Gujarat, (that was, historically, repeatedly pillaged by Islamic invaders), which was taken up by Sardar Vallabhai Patel. It was reported that Nehru not only refused any personal involvement in the project, but actively sought to discourage it.
Perhaps the above also serves as an example of Taylor Sherman’s point about certain actions/policies taken by the Congress government under Nehru and continued by his successors, that may have contributed to the rise of a party that went against such ideologies and instead spoke to India’s organic, profound and deep-rooted Hindu culture, whose identity and aspirations were long suppressed. It’s more about the articulation (of this sentiment) by the BJP that resonates, rather than “setting the tone” as Sherman puts it.
Also surprisingly, Taylor Sherman made no mention at all, of the happenings in Kashmir in 1947-48, when a tribal Pashtun militia pillaged areas of Kashmir, in which Hindus were the primary targets and came within close proximity of Srinagar. Sherman seems to overlook the highly questionable ( treasonous) role of a British army officer, William Brown, who was in charge of the Gilgit Agency in the North West Frontier Province, in organizing/instigating it. Certainly nothing secular there.
For his role in engineering this invasion, William Brown was decorated in 1948 by the British government and also awarded the highest civilian honor by the government of Pakistan.
Nehru’s role in handling Kashmir was too ponderous ( and too mindful of global opinion) instead of being decisive and pre emptive, against the tribal attack and the illegal Pakistani annexation of Gilgit-Baltistan. His reference of the issue to a plebiscite under the U.N. was another political blunder that internationalized the issue. His sop to Sheikh Abdullah, of partial autonomy for Kashmir and the addition of a “temporary” Article 370 showed a lack of political astuteness. In fact, Dr. Ambedhkar was believed to be vehemently against such a concession and would have nothing to do with it. Nehru also showed himself as a foolish idealist (and not a pragmatist) in reportedly recommending communist China, when India was offered membership into the UNSC.
In the end, whatever his ideologies, Nehru was all about grand theatrics, including Hindi-Chini Bhai-bhai.” In contrast, Modi is far more politically astute with regard to India’s interests, even if as politically dominant as Nehru.
Beautiful podcast. Good job
Is there such a thing as an “un-lived reality”?
its was the uk decision to divide ofucre there is the demand but end of the day its was uk
Divide what?
The British created India.