Pandit Nehru was in harmonious agreement with my view on the need for H-M (and other groups like Sikhs, etc.) synthesis in India

Kayalvizhi wrote:Rashmun,
Here is soime synthesis for you. Author is not even a Tamil.

India: South is South and North is North (by Lalitha Krishnan Nair),
http://www.tamiltribune.com/01/1102.html

Rashmun wrote:

Kayalvizhi wrote:Rashmun,
Here is soime synthesis for you. Author is not even a Tamil.

India: South is South and North is North (by Lalitha Krishnan Nair),
http://www.tamiltribune.com/01/1102.html

tut tut. funeral rites for both a north indian and a south indian hindu are carried out in the sanskrit language.

Rashmun wrote:From the book 'Jawaharlal Nehru on Communalism':

Personally i am convinced that nationalism can only come out of the ideological fusion of Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and other groups in India.

When Nehru says: "but it does mean a common national outlook, to which other matters, are subordinated" what he means also is that the identity of 'i am a a Tamil' or 'I am a Telugu' or 'I am a UPite' or 'I am a hindu' or 'I am a muslim', etc. must necessarily be subordinated to the identity of 'I am an Indian' for the emergence of a common national outlook.

Rashmun wrote:From the book 'Jawaharlal Nehru on Communalism':

Personally i am convinced that nationalism can only come out of the ideological fusion of Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and other groups in India. That does not and need not mean the extinction of any real culture of any group, but it does mean a common national outlook, to which other matters, are subordinated. I do not think that Hindu-Muslim or other unity will come merely by reciting it like a mantra. That it will come, i have no doubt, but it will come from below, not above, for many of those above...hope to preserve their special privileges through it. Social and economic forces will inevitably bring other problems to the front. They will create cleavages along different lines, but the communal cleavage will go.

When Nehru says: "but it does mean a common national outlook, to which other matters, are subordinated" what he means also is that the identity of 'i am a a Tamil' or 'I am a Telugu' or 'I am a UPite' or 'I am a hindu' or 'I am a muslim', etc. must necessarily be subordinated to the identity of 'I am an Indian' for the emergence of a common national outlook.

rawemotions wrote:

Rashmun wrote:From the book 'Jawaharlal Nehru on Communalism':

Personally i am convinced that nationalism can only come out of the ideological fusion of Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and other groups in India. That does not and need not mean the extinction of any real culture of any group, but it does mean a common national outlook, to which other matters, are subordinated. I do not think that Hindu-Muslim or other unity will come merely by reciting it like a mantra. That it will come, i have no doubt, but it will come from below, not above, for many of those above...hope to preserve their special privileges through it. Social and economic forces will inevitably bring other problems to the front. They will create cleavages along different lines, but the communal cleavage will go.

When Nehru says: "but it does mean a common national outlook, to which other matters, are subordinated" what he means also is that the identity of 'i am a a Tamil' or 'I am a Telugu' or 'I am a UPite' or 'I am a hindu' or 'I am a muslim', etc. must necessarily be subordinated to the identity of 'I am an Indian' for the emergence of a common national outlook.

Nehru should have instead asked this question? Why minorities like Parsis, Buddhists, Jain , Sikhs and co-exist Harmoniously with Hindus and why only Islam alone is created problems, ethnically cleansed Non-Muslims for 100's of years.

If he had done that, OR educated himself by talking to stalwarts like Sardar Patel, the answer would have been clear. Political Islamic Ideology and Doctrine that is inherently against secularism is the chief cause of the biggest law and order troubles in last 500 years of India. 

If he had done that, he would have spent all his time  devising syllabi that educates the Indian Muslims who opted to stay in India, of their Hindu roots, the true meaning of secularism and/or learn it from the Non-Muslims in India. 

If he had done that, many of his idiotic decisions like the one made in J&K would have been  avoided and India would be a truly secular country, and you wouldn't have to fart here about H-M Synthesis which exists only on paper, with the active provocateurs and silent supporters of Anti-secular Political Islamic Doctrine going on a rampage, unchallenged. 

As I said in previous posts, the forum to write is Siyasat. Why don't you go and write there? Go and talk to Owaisis and educate them about secularism. India's indigenous religions hasn't had a need to be educated about secularism. The country practiced it for 1000's of years in letter and spirit. Ask the Parsis or Jews! In modern India, they were asked by the government whether they needed a  representative in parliament like the Anglo-Indians. Allegedly, they said Hindus have been looking after them for a 1000  years, so they do not need a representative in the Parliament of modern India.