How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?

[Ruzaan]

Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?

@Dronacharya

Ruz,

It is obvious from the fact that you have referenced from Panikar who is a card carrying member of Marxist historiography that in your view the Marxist narrative of history is “authentic” and “without distortions”. IMHO I believe that historiography can’t exist without distortions. Each ideology tries to distort history to suit its own ends. In Pakistan the Pan-Islamist Hinduphobic narrative won a long time back and we can find ample evidence of this fact even on this relatively moderate and tolerant board. In India the struggle between of opposing Marxist narrative of jholawallas and RSS narrative of chaddiwallas is still going on( with Marxists being far ahead). Personally I find both the narrative equally despicable.

You referred to the “vilification of Muslim leaders”. Are you referring to Mr. Jinnah ? While I can understand the rise of “Muslim leaders” , “Caste leaders”,etc . I find the phenomenon of Identity based politics obnoxious and hope (naively) that it withers away in future. Identity politics has been India’s bane.

Dronachaarya, I will ask you not to make assumptions about which narrative I subscribe to. I have had the benefit of both a domestic and a foreign education- often on the same subjects - and have been exposed to both analogous and antithetical worldviews.
As for Mr. Pannikar, whatever his ideological leanings, he has played an important role in furthering issues of secularism, democracy and human rights- which are pivotal as founding principles of the Indian Constitution. Besides, it would be a facile ascription to attempt to attribute my conclusion of a religious-based nationalist revival in Indian history to a book. They are based on my experiences.
As well, I think it would be unfair to attirbute the Marxist vs RSS cheddiwala dialectic to all Indian history teaching. History education in Maharashtra, prior to the BJP’s taking over, was secular, without the Marxist overtones.

No, I am not referring to Jinnah in my “vilification of Muslim leaders”. I am referring to those, that would ordinarily be considered India’s “own”. Old folks like Akbar for example, who arguably shaped the course of Indian history, over whom the focus skimmed and realigned itself to what his father or son did, often with agitated or immolated undertones. Or even modern stalwarts like Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari, a denizen of the Freeom Movement, who was vilified for his Gandhian leanings. Or Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, who ironically, was chastised for letting his province cede to Pakistan, when he was all in favour of a referendum and subsequent independence.

Shiv Sena presumably doesn’t get any votes from Muslims. So what electoral compulsions force it to continue to not vilify Muslims? After all that would appease the evil fascist Hindus fundamentalists who constitute the core of its electoral base. Wouldn’t it ?

I don’t know how much you know of Marathi politics, but the Shiv Sena have several Muslim MLA’s. No political party can afford to alienate the Muslim votebank in the bastis, the trading community or the middle class and hope to survive. The Muslims hold the key to how the secular vote si divided, and often in ensuring the victory of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance. Especially, since they tend to be concentrated in pockets and are the dominant motif in several constituences, particularly in south Mumbai and rural Maharashtra.And are even more important in places like Satara and Aurangabad.