Suchergebnisse

"At the time of Partition and the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, it was widely expected that India would be "secular," home to members of different religious traditions and communities, whereas Pakistan would be a homeland for Muslims, and an Islamic state. Seventy-five years later, India is on the precipice of declaring itself a Hindu Rashtra, a Hindu state, whereas Pakistan has drawn increasingly narrow interpretations of what it means to be an Islamic state. Pakistan's once-eastern wing, now the independent nation-state of Bangladesh, has oscillated between professions of secularism and an Islamic ideology. Neeti Nair reveals how the various ideologies of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh that were first debated in their constituent assemblies, evolved to support the claims of "hurt sentiments" of majoritarian communities - Hindus in India, and Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh"--

An insightful history of censorship, hate speech, and majoritarianism in post-partition South Asia.At the time of the India-Pakistan partition in 1947, it was widely expected that India would be secular, home to members of different religious traditions and communities, whereas Pakistan would be a homeland for Muslims and an Islamic state. Seventy-five years later, India is on the precipice of declaring itself a Hindu state, and Pakistan has drawn ever narrower interpretations of what it means to be an Islamic republic. Bangladesh, the former eastern wing of Pakistan, has swung between professing secularism and Islam.Neeti Nair assesses landmark debates since partition—debates over the constitutional status of religious minorities and the meanings of secularism and Islam that have evolved to meet the demands of populist electoral majorities. She crosses political and territorial boundaries to bring together cases of censorship in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, each involving claims of "hurt sentiments" on the part of individuals and religious communities. Such cases, while debated in the subcontinent's courts and parliaments, are increasingly decided on its streets in acts of vigilantism.Hurt Sentiments offers historical context to illuminate how claims of hurt religious sentiments have been weaponized by majorities. Disputes over hate speech and censorship, Nair argues, have materially influenced questions of minority representation and belonging that partition was supposed to have resolved. Meanwhile, growing legal recognition and political solicitation of religious sentiments have fueled a secular resistance

Changing Homelands offers a startling new perspective on what was and was not politically possible in late colonial India. In this highly readable account of the partition in the Punjab, Neeti Nair rejects the idea that essential differences between the Hindu and Muslim communities made political settlement impossible. Far from being an inevitable solution, the idea of partition was a very late, stunning surprise to the majority of Hindus in the region. In tracing the political and social history of the Punjab from the early years of the twentieth century, Nair overturns the entrenched view that Muslims were responsible for the partition of India. Some powerful Punjabi Hindus also preferred partition and contributed to its adoption. Almost no one, however, foresaw the deaths and devastation that would follow in its wake. Though much has been written on the politics of the Muslim and Sikh communities in the Punjab, Nair is the first historian to focus on the Hindu minority, both before and long after the divide of 1947. She engages with politics in post-Partition India by drawing from oral histories that reveal the complex relationship between memory and history--a relationship that continues to inform politics between India and Pakistan.

Whether in India, Pakistan, or Myanmar, governments have failed to protect minorities, and too often politicians have pandered to agitators stirring up sectarian hatred.

Whether in India, Pakistan, or Myanmar, governments have failed to protect minorities, and too often politicians have pandered to agitators stirring up sectarian hatred.

A new volume of essays edited by Wendy Doniger and Martha C. Nussbaum examines the Hindu right's influence throughout Indian society—a trend perhaps abetted by liberal taboos.

Late nineteenth–early twentieth century Punjab has been commonly regarded as a space for 'competitive communalism' whereby each of the province's major religious communities participated in activities that increased hostilities between the communities. Such an assertion has been substantiated with reference to an increasing number of publications that were quickly deemed offensive to one or the other religious community of the Punjab and then banned. This article examines the controversies following the publication of one such pamphlet 'Rangila Rasul'. These ultimately necessitated the addition of section 295A to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a section that would punish those who, 'with deliberate and malicious intention,' insulted or attempted to insult 'religious beliefs' of any class of His Majesty's subjects. Reading contemporary newspaper commentaries alongside debates in the legislative assembly, I show that legislators were able to rise above the interests of their religious communities (as Hindu or Muslim publicists) to speak for a larger putative 'Indian' community, collective, or nation. Far from being a textbook example of communalism, the debates bring into sharp relief an alternate moment in the making of an 'Indian' nation.

AbstractAmong anti-colonial nationalists, Bhagat Singh and M.K. Gandhi are seen to exemplify absolutely contrasting strategies of resistance. Bhagat Singh is regarded as a violent revolutionary whereas Gandhi is the embodiment of non-violence. This paper argues that Bhagat Singh and his comrades became national heroes not after their murder of a police inspector in Lahore or after throwing bombs in the Legislative Assembly in New Delhi but during their practice of hunger strikes and non-violent civil disobedience within the walls of Lahore's prisons in 1929–30. In fact there was plenty in common in the strategies of resistance employed by both Gandhi and Bhagat Singh. By labelling these revolutionaries 'murderers' and 'terrorists', the British sought to dismiss their non-violent demands for rights as 'political prisoners'. The same labels were adopted by Gandhi and his followers. However, the quality of anti-colonial nationalism represented by Bhagat Singh was central to the resolution of many of the divisions that racked pre-partition Punjab.