The writer is research professor at Centre for South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
Rajmohan Gandhi writes: Prime Minister Narendra Modi has blamed Partition on Nehru. Assigning sole or main responsibility for that painful event to Nehru lacks any historical basis. It should be recognised, moreover, that if Partition had not occurred, all the residents of today’s Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been free to move to any corner of today’s India.
To imply that Gandhi wanted the Hindu minorities of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan to migrate to India, or that a CAA enabling such a migration fulfils Gandhi’s wishes, is to turn history on its head. Gandhi wanted India too to protect its minorities
Some have tried to justify the discrimination by citing the circumstances of the 1947 Partition. Can circumstances 72 years ago justify inequality today? Moreover, those circumstances should be honestly recalled.
It’s time for the calm Hindu to speak up, reclaim the Hindu platform, and restore sanity to it. For centuries, the serene confidence of everyday Hindus, as also of exceptional Hindu figures, sprang not from how they were treated by others, whether non-Hindu or Hindu, but from their own peace of mind, and their own creativity.
Gandhi thought India’s independence would mean little unless it also meant the independence of every Indian.
Betrayals may be inevitable in our fallen world. Taking people for granted, however, and doing with them whatever we want without their consent, is going too far.
Actions intended to change the state’s status and demographics will intensify alienation
Even if someone then believed that Rajiv had tolerated corruption, would they say to his son 28 years later that “your father ended his life as India’s most corrupt man”?
He was unconvinced by RSS chief after 1947 meeting, stood against majoritarianism
Indira Gandhi’s audacity, which few foresaw, split the Congress in the 1969 summer and the state of Pakistan in the 1971-72 winter. In March 1971, well before the liberation of Bangladesh, that daring had fetched Indira’s Congress 352 seats out of 545 in a mid-term poll.
What Ayodhya needs now is healing, not compromise.
Ayodhya’s disputing sides can come together. The Supreme Court can direct them to do so.
'Age of terror' may be an inadequate term for our times. Ours is an age where suspicion and loathing infiltrate police stations, courtrooms, newspapers, TV, and dance wildly on social media.
On the 31st of this month, when his mammoth statue is unveiled, India will see the Sardar raised to the sky. Here’s a slice of history.
Can we get to know, today in our 21st century, a heart that began its life in the 19th century and expired in the middle of the 20th? Researching the Sardar in the late 1980s, I was staggered by his self-sacrifice.
History reveals that popularity of authoritarian leaders and majoritarian agendas is a transitory phenomenon
Dalai Lama has won many hearts, including in China. India’s decision to shun him reflects poorly on Delhi.
Lambasting the British is easy. India needs to examine its own inability to nurture debate.
The Jignesh-Hardik-Alpesh (JHA) trio have previously clashed with one another. Their understanding with Rahul and the Congress is fresh. Win or lose, their biggest test will be over their mutual partnership after December 18.
History is replete with the horrors of us-vs-them narratives.
All the shows which have returned to the small screen during lockdown