Thread by @dikgaj

@Gourabsahasubho is absolutely right to be outraged. The quoted article carefully avoids the actual face of Islamist violence on Hindus from 1946 to date. But apart from that the author of the article is also making outrageous claims not supported by facts. Here follows a few:

https://twitter.com/Gourabsahasubho/status/1378945392151121924

(1) post-indep: the author is blatantly lying if he claims that the INC then was run by "extreme Hindutvavadi politics" - INC was absolutely under Nehru's boots who particularly relished distancing from anything visibly Hindu, cornered Congis who differed, HMS was a target,

Jana Sangh had little electoral support, in the 50's, its loose parliamentary collaboration with Swatantra party doesnt mean a "Hindutva extremist wave sweeping India" as Swatantra was painfully centrist - more a common opposition to Nehru and INC.

(2) Re: Muslims "losing their homes" to flee to a "ghetto" will be difficult to prove for WB: there were those who fled, but they primarily went to then Pakistan, E or W. The Muslim "majority" areas in WB have remained remarkably consistent from 40's in location/extent.

(3) The speculation of Hindu envy for "successful yuppie Muslims" is an insidious diversionary tactic: social "envy" will be very difficult to prove by data, unless following modern humanities tactic of managing interviews of few well selected and well-groomed "case studies"

But the speculation is in classic Thaparite style where a speculative question is raised that is then immediately pretended to be also the answer and therefore a "fact". There is a peculiar self-contradiction the author cdnt help suppress though:

while he claims "Hindus" had coopted "educated solvent" Muslims within their circles for co-existence, he also claims that the same Hindus can't tolerate and do envy the current crop of "educated solvent" Muslims. In his style, can we ask if there is another basis for "hatred"?

(4) What is most outrageous in the author and a sadomasochistic enjoyment of eviction, rape, murder of Hindus of E. Pakistan by Muslims, frm well before the Partition which he pretends he knew nothing of. But he must hv known abt if he talks of Hindu migration.

That Hindus in E. Pak were more "reluctant" to leave everything behind is proved by data: the rate of migration from east was much lower than on western frontier of India. They were "forced" out, by threats, riots, raids, abduction and rape of women, outright violence.

If as per author, only the "elite Hindus" fled because they cdnt tolerate prospect of muslim "dominance", why did the "poor non-elite Hindu" flee after Partition? This author is so careful in his selective amnesia that he forgot the initially pro-mullah Mondal's reports on this.

Apart frm Mondal, other apologists of mullah reality of E.Pak and Hindutva-basher "scholars" hv also struggled to explain the mass migration of "poor hindus" as it can't be made to fit the kind/pro-poor mullah image. One explicit "case study" anecdote gave "eviction" as reason.

If per author - all muslim activity in 1946 or various riots and "peacetimes" in between, was purely poor's economic grievance, why did anecdotes say the eviction of poor Hindu peasants/labourers was by Muslim landlords and their land being settled for Muslim peasantry?

(5) Finally the author makes a blunder in citing Bhasani an icon for Abbas. Bhasani rose in politics leading the campaign for Sylhet to join Pakistan in the referendum for it. He was an Islamist to begin with. There is nothing to show he cared for Sylheti Hindus at that stage.

So to sum up, maybe this is what "Hindus" are really worried abt in Abbas the Pirzada - remembering that the violent rape and genocide campaign in Noakhali in 1946 was led in person by a Pir - the scum scoundrel subhuman Ghulam Sarwar. Because the Hindu experience since '46 -

has shown no change at all, from '46/50/64-65/68/71/74-80/92/2000-2021 - even today in Hifazat, that once the Islamist gets legitimized in state power and politics, the jihadi core drive in the cult comes out in targeted obliteration of everything and anything deemed "Hindu"

that for an Islamist, the Muslim poor comes above the Hindu poor, the Muslim worker's rights come above Hindu worker's rights, Muslim desire or anger comes above Hindu right to life, dignity. Thats what Paktan, BD has shown with unshakeable consistency. Hence the Hindu reaction.