Don’t forget British zeal to divide India, Debate, NewAgeIslam.com

Debate

Don’t forget British zeal to divide India

By P.C. Alexander

Sept.09, 2009

After the revolt of 1857, the British government had appointed a commission to examine what exactly went wrong in their assessment of the situation in India and what should be done to tighten their hold over the country. Lord Elphinstone, governor of Bombay in a note dated May 14, 1858, to the Governor-General had unabashedly advocated the policy of "divide and rule". He stated: "Divide et impera was the old Roman motto and it should be ours". Sir John Wood, another ardent colonialist, in a letter to Governor-General Elgin had said in plain words, "We have maintained our power by playing off one party against the other and we must continue to do so".

The division of Bengal in 1905 and the creation of a new province with a Muslim majority was one of the first measures taken in pursuance of the divide and rule policy. The grant of separate electorates for Muslims and the incorporation of this right in the Indian Councils Act of 1909 were indeed important landmarks in Britain’s efforts at isolating the Muslim community from the Hindus. From then on the course of Hindu-Muslim unity took an altogether new course of confrontation and alienation. By the time the Labour government expressed its support for the idea of Independence for a united India, the mischief had already been done and Jinnah found the field quite congenial to press his demand for Pakistan. If the British government had not openly resorted to its policy of divide and rule, Muslims would not have felt encouraged to make such a demand.

http://newageislam.com/don%E2%80%99t-forget-british-zeal-to-divide-india/debate/d/1764

Obama “Shakes” the Jewish Consciousness in Cairo, Islam and the West, NewAgeIslam.com

Islam and the West

Obama “Shakes” the Jewish Consciousness in Cairo

By Shaul Magid

June 9, 2009

While not repeated with Rush’s bravado, the “equation,” as it were, has been mentioned by many in the American Jewish community. Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, was quoted in the New York Times Friday June 5, saying “’I understand Palestinian suffering, it is terrible… But it is not on the other hand to the Holocaust” It is to this other hand that I would like to draw our attention.

To begin with, what if Rush is right? What if he is right precisely where he is wrong? “On the one hand/on the other hand” could surely be a phrase introducing moral equivalency—though it could just as easily recognize two unequal realities, both of which must be taken into account when trying to understand a complex situation. Moral equivalency needs more evidence than “on the other hand,” which is why David Frum discounted it when it could have served his purpose.

But there is more. What I want to argue is that Rush saw an equivalency that is, by its unstoppable allusion in Cairo, signalling a seismic shift in the United States’ attitude toward Jews, the Holocaust, Israel, and the Middle East crisis. And here I think he is right. Obama made three comments about the Holocaust worth rehearsing: First, Holocaust denial is unacceptable. Second, that the United States has “cultural and historical ties” to Israel that make the bond with it “unbreakable.” Third, that the Jews have a right to a Jewish homeland in part because of the Holocaust.

http://newageislam.com/obama-%E2%80%9Cshakes%E2%80%9D-the-jewish-consciousness-in-cairo--/islam-and-the-west/d/1462