audiobook The Language of Secular Islam: Urdu Nationalism and Colonial India by Kavita Datla in History

Review

3 of 18 people found the following review helpful. Highly opinionated and does not conform to facts on the ground and the real history. Communal and racist too...By Thinker WriterIf the diversity of The Indian Nation was accepted India would not have been broken into three parts. Blaming one party for it is not right. The blame rests on some self centered individuals for invoking the Hindu identity instead of Indian identity. That resulted in the formation of The Muslim League and a person who was The Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity gets so scared that he fights for the rights of Muslims in the sub-continent. Gandhiji is also to blame for this. He worked only in Hindu interests while he should have focused on Indian interests regardless of who professed what religion. He was a man of character unlike Nehru who wasn't. However as late as 1946 he (Jinnah) is content with using "Pakistan" as a bargaining chip. It was only when Nehru reneges in the morning on The Cabinet Mission Plan having agreed a night earlier; that Pakistan becomes a reality. If the agreed Cabinet Mission Plan was accepted by people like Nehru; division would not have taken place. Period. I would like Ms Kavita to please set the record straight.August 15; 1947 becomes the day of division ie; the Date of Defeat. The defeat of Congress and we celebrate it as the Independence Day? If I was the head of Congress I would have never accepted that. How did this come about? Not by Muslims as the author coolly suggests at many places in the book. Wish the author had gone deeper into history a bit. She should have dwelt a bit on The East India Company who laid the foundations of The Disastrous Division by constantly talking in terms of Mohammedans and Hindus. Unfortunately some fell hook line and sinker for this bait. Divide and Rule worked for them but not us. But some did not understand this and see what happened.Prior to that (Brits.) tell me honestly if there was any communalism (racism) in the country? My research tells me - none. Hindus fought Hindus; Muslims fought Muslims (Babur fought Ibrahim Lodhi). Hindus served Muslims (Akbar's officials); you have hundreds of examples of this and similarly Muslims served Hindus like Hyder Khan was the head of Shivaji's armed forces and so many Muslim Officers and soldiers in his army. But this was all before the religious feelings aroused and falsely propagaged by The Pirates - The East India Company. Moreover Shivaji was never what he is projected as. He was a good king with whom Aurangzeb's sister was in love as history says (Shivaji by James W. Laine pg.93 last line). It was merely a power game never a game of religion. Never.Shivaji was hijacked by the narrow minded selfishly to serve their own power game. They used the image of Shivaji and gave it a communal (racist) color and the twist. Gradually with that mindset it came to a situation that the country was forced to be partitioned with millions dead and people still suffering the effects of it. Just count the number of pogroms after Aug. 15; 1947 and see who died; who was made jobless and who was driven out of the mainstream. They were all Indians regardless. If they professed a religion different from your own; were they not Indians? Shouldn't we protest calling it the day of independence? Look at the sufferings till today.The author talks about The Osmania University and Hyderabad etc. There are too many factual and historical errors hopefully and not deliberate distortions or reconstruction of history. She talks about Urdu. She must know that Urdu was an Indian language and did not belong to any one religion. It was born in India; grew up in India I only hope it does not die in India although the Government has left no stone un-turned to ensure it meets a logical death. It has been discarded from every walk of life. Osmania University was the only University in India that imparted education in an Indian language but after the invasion; capture and annexation of the state (against the wishes of people; the people's wishes were never ascertained by a referendum and all pleas for it were spurned) the Indian language was replaced by a foreign one. Why? Racism; poor policies of bad governance?The author should know before giving a communal touch that Urdu was the lingua franca of India and was most suited to be the University's medium of instruction as Hyderabad had three regional languages besides some tribal languages. It was only natural to have it in the lingua franca which was Urdu. Why was it changed? Was there communalims (racism) involved? Similarly the book is full of errors. How much can I go on? But I want the so called intellectuals to please see the issue as Indians not as Hindus and Muslims as the author has tried to do. Sorry.