Khizr Khan's Challenges to Donald Trump

In one of the most remarkable and powerful speeches to a political convention I've ever seen and heard, Khizr Khan, a Muslim-American immigrant, and father of Humayun Khan, a U.S. Army officer killed in Iraq in 2004,* spoke to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Republican Donald Trump's earlier call for a ban on immigration from Muslim countries was met with opposition, even by some leaders of the Republican Party. Mr. Khan pointed out, that if Trump's policy had been in effect, his son would not have even been allowed into the United States. Mr. Khan told of how, as immigrants to the United States, they had come here with nothing, but that they had worked hard to improve their lives and to contribute to the country. He stated they felt "blessed" to raise their three sons here, a country where they were free to be themselves. Then came an absolutely devastating minute or so, as Mr. Khan, his wife Ghazala by his side, asked if Republican nominee Donald Trump had "even read the United States Constitution." Then, reaching into his jacket pocket, Mr. Khan pulled out a copy of the Constitution and offered it to Donald Trump. In it, Mr. Khan said, Mr. Trump would find the words "liberty" and "equal protection of law." He asked further if Donald Trump had ever been to Arlington National Cemetery, where he would see that the military personnel buried there came from all backgrounds. Then in a serious rebuke to billionaire Donald Trump, a man who has spent his life accumulating great wealth, Mr. Khan said, "You have sacrificed nothing ... and no one!"

It left me speechless, but there is nothing more to say, so I'll leave things right here.

* Humayun Khan held the rank of captain in a unit of the U.S. Army 1st Infantry Division. He was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. 

WORD HISTORY:
Ban-This word has both a noun and verb form from the same source. The verb goes back to Indo European "bhah," with the notion of "to say openly, to speak out." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "bannanan," with that same meaning, but also, "seemingly" from the notion of "speaking or calling out threats," "to put a curse on for some action;" thus also by extension, "to forbid." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "bannan," with the meaning, "to call out, to proclaim, to give an order or orders." This then became "bannen," before the modern verb form. Other Germanic forms: German "bannen" (to drive out, to banish), Dutch and Low German Saxon "bannen" (to drive out or drive off), West Frisian "banne" (to exile, to banish), Danish "bande" (to curse, to swear), Norwegian "banne" (to curse, to swear), Icelandic "banna" (to forbid, to prohibit, to ban) and Swedish "banna" (to scold). The meaning in English of, "to prohibit, to bar," seems to have come from Old Norse "banna," in the 1300s, part of the meaning of which was "to prohibit, to ban." Old Norse, an old form of North Germanic, was brought to parts of northern and eastern England by the "Danes;" actually a collective term for North Germanic speakers who settled, often by force, in parts of England; thus bringing a reinforcing shot of Germanic words to the Germanic base of English already established in England. The noun form goes back to the same Indo European origin and Old Germanic verb, which then gave Old English the noun "gebann" (later, just "bann"), which meant, "proclamation, edict." The later meaning of "prohibition, something forbidden," seems to come from that meaning added to the verb form by Old Norse. Further, the form "banns" meant, "a public proclamation of a wedding to be held." By the way, the French word "ban," meaning "fanfare, proclamation, summons by bugle," was borrowed from Frankish, a Germanic language. German has the noun "Bann," meaning "a curse or spell put onto someone," also in religion, "excommunication." The Nazis also revived the noun "Bann" for battalion sized units of their party paramilitary (later fully militarized) forces in the SS and SA (Sturmabteilung, better known to English speakers as "Stormtroopers"). This came from the notion from times past of "proclamation calling men to military service." Thus they also used "Bann" in compounds for certain SS and SA ranks.          

A Preemptive Strike by Trump

A day or so ago, Donald Trump stated at a rally that he feared the election would be "rigged." With this statement, he is setting up his followers for a loss, and like everything else disliked by Donald Trump, he will say it wasn't fair. Some of his supporters will then likely do anything up to, and including, outright rebellion. Just a guess, but it wouldn't surprise me if many of his followers believe in werewolves and vampires, and I'll bet a fair number still believe Obama is not a native born American, but rather that he is definitely a secret Muslim, born overseas, and since they likely also equate Muslims with terrorism, that Obama is rooting for terrorists. Trump cleverly cultivated the "birther issue," * just as Hitler and Germany's right wing cultivated the "November criminals" ** and used anti-Jewish sentiment to blame Germany's Jews for EVERYTHING!

Everything about Trump and his most fanatical stormtroopers.... I mean supporters, needs to be spelled out to the American public. Political consultants should never "assume" Americans "know" anything! Political junkies who follow events closely seem to fail to realize at times that many Americans are not glued to their televisions awaiting the next bit of political information. They MUST be led by the hand to valid information, or to information to give a perspective to information already out in the public. This is NOT a typical presidential election year! The deck isn't stacked, but the cards have been reshuffled!

An acquaintance says I see too many fascists in life. Well I don't, but I do know some werewolves. Ahhhoooooooooooooooo!

* For information on the use of "the November criminals," use this link: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/06/german-question-part-one-hundred-two.html 

** The "birther" issue was the belief by some Americans, mainly Republicans, that Barack Obama was not legally President of the United States, because he was not an American citizen by birth. What better way to discredit the election of the nation's first African-American president, and to say, "he's NOT one of "us?" This is how deep racism still runs in this country. While there were different aspects to this overall conspiracy, the main body of "Birthers" claimed Obama had been born in Kenya. Donald Trump latched onto the issue and became something of the main spokesman for the "Birthers," as they came to be called. He and others demanded to see the President's actual birth certificate, a confirmation of which had been provided by the State of Hawaii when Obama filed to run for the presidency. Eventually, Obama signed forms  permitting the release of his actual birth record by Hawaii, but that didn't stop some of the conspiracy mongers, some of whom seemed to indicate the birth record had been planted in Hawaiian records years ago. Like Donald Trump, when confronted by facts, they refused to believe anything, including the birth notices in Hawaiian newspapers. Of course, no evidence was ever provided by these "Birther" folks, who should be asked to provide the forms showing they were legally released from mental institutions. The whole thing was a gigantic waste of time about a bunch of absolute nonsense, led and used by one Donald Trump.   

WORD HISTORY:
-some-This is the suffix used on many words, like "awesome," "meddlesome," "twosome" and "quarrelsome," but it is, indeed, related to "some." ^ It goes back to the Indo European root "sem," which had the notion of "one, together, united." This gave Indo European "samos/somos"), which meant "same." Sanskrit, an ancient Indo European language (still in use on a limited basis, primarily in India) had "sama(h)," which meant "identical," and also "level, even," all obviously with the basic meaning of "same." The Indo European form gave its Old Germanic offspring "samaz," with the "same" basic meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "-sum," with the meaning, "same as,^^ together as." This then became the suffix "-some," initially with the "e" pronounced as "eh/ah," before the modern pronunciation. German, a close cousin to English, has and uses "-sam" as a suffix.  
^ For the extensive history of "some," use this link to my article with that Word History:
 http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/01/german-question-part-seventy-four.html 

^^ "Same as," from the notion, "with the same 'collected' traits, characteristics." 

Heston And Olivier Star: "Khartoum," Plus Some History

NOTE: This article contains information about the movie "Khartoum," including its ending. If you have not seen the movie before and if you don't want to know the ending (although the ending is really obvious), please be forewarned.

While the historical "siege of Khartoum" took place in 1884-85, and the movie was released in 1966, and I'm writing this in November of 2014, you will see that the wars and killings centered around this general topic are not new, and they remain with us to this very day.

The movie "Khartoum" was released back in the mid 1960s and was loosely based upon historical events in the Sudan in eastern Africa in the 1880s. Charlton Heston starred as British General Charles Gordon, who a few years earlier had served in the Sudan as part of the Turkish-Egyptian governing authority, and who played a big role in ending the slave trade there, giving Gordon a great deal of popularity among many of the Sudanese. Gordon had become well known to the British public for his earlier role in China, where he led a highly successful force of British, American and Chinese troops in support of the Chinese emperor to put down some rebellions. This earned Gordon the nickname, "Chinese Gordon." Laurence Olivier starred as "the Mahdi," a self proclaimed Sudanese religious and military leader, whose name was Muhammad Ahmad. The Mahdi led a rebellion against the governing powers of the Sudan (see more below), and thousands of Sunni Muslim Sudanese who believed him to be the true successor to the Prophet Muhammad, flocked to his cause.

Sudan, or "the" Sudan, as I use (I must have been taught that in school long ago, and it therefore sounds more natural to me), had a complicated relationship with Egypt, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), and Britain. The region had long been linked with Egypt, but much of Egypt and the Sudan was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. The British got involved in Egypt in the early 1880s, and this brought calls for the use of British forces to quell the uprising led by the Mahdi, something the British government did not want to do. The Sudan was garrisoned by Egyptian troops, but with some British officers. The movie depicts the British government's resistance to sending troops and instead asking General Gordon to go to the Sudan in an attempt to satisfy those calling for military forces to be sent, and to evacuate British and Egyptian military, governmental and business personnel from the region. Remember, this is a movie and not a documentary, and as such, actual historical events are not always followed, but rather depicted in some fashion to generally represent the historical events, and then too, there is always the need for any film to make money, and thus scenes are often added for tension and to get people interested to pay to see it.

Khartoum was the center for the administration of the Sudan and Gordon arrives there to jubilant crowds, for his reputation is so powerful, people feel they will now be saved from the Mahdi's takeover. While Gordon prepares a defense of the city, he also tries to get the British government to change its policy and to send troops. The movie shows Gordon going to meet with the Mahdi on a couple of occasions during the ten month siege of Khartoum, although that likely never happened in real life, but historically, the two leaders did exchange various communications. Gordon wants the Mahdi to allow the Egyptian troops and administrators to leave unharmed, but while the Mahdi wants Gordon to leave, he will not permit the Egyptians to leave, as they are marked for death. The Sudanese population will then have to submit to strict Islamic law or be executed. Meanwhile, back in Britain, the public wants British troops sent to the Sudan to "save Gordon." The government relents and finally thousands of troops are sent to Egypt, where they spend time training for the hot climate and rough terrain. The government really hopes this delay will force Gordon to abandon Khartoum, save himself, and join these British forces in Egypt, something, however, he will not do. Historically, Gordon had strong, but somewhat out of the ordinary, Christian religious beliefs, and the religious element of his life is depicted in the movie. In his last meeting with the Mahdi, the two use their religious views against one another, as each essentially condemns the other to death as the will of their views of God (Allah).

The pressure on the British government becomes too much, and the troops in Egypt are given the order to move into the Sudan. The Mahdi organizes his attack on Khartoum and gives the order for the assault. The Egyptian troops put up a valiant defense, inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy, but in the end the Mahdi's forces overcome their resistance and enter the city. Gordon, who is in his residence, goes out to meet the Mahdi's forces. As he appears at the head of some steps, the soldiers cease fire and grow silent. Gordon descends a few steps and one of the soldiers throws a spear which kills him and his body topples from the staircase. Gordon is beheaded and his head is put atop a long pike and carried to the Mahdi, who is terrified by its sight, as he had ordered that Gordon not be killed (historically true). The idea here is, the Mahdi was an astute leader, and he knew that killing the famous Gordon "could" bring substantial British military forces against him. The narrator tells us the British troops arrived just two days later (true), but that the Sudan suffered terribly in the aftermath of the Mahdi's victory, although the Mahdi's rule was short lived, as he too died just a short time later, and the narrator says, "Why, we shall never know," but with the implication that Gordon's religious "threat" or "curse" to the Mahdi in their last meeting had been fulfilled. Historically, how Gordon died is not really known, but the scene in the movie was not "invented" by the filmmaker, but rather was taken from some accounts and from a famous painting depicting Gordon's death. The actual final battle was not really as seen in the movie, as one of Gordon's own men opened one of the gates to the city, allowing the Mahdi's forces to enter. Many of the Egyptians were killed in the fighting, with survivors being executed, and some Sudanese were executed, with the total number being in the thousands. The Mahdi did indeed die just a few months later, "presumably" from typhus.  

The following were consulted for this article:
"Gordon of Khartoum-The Saga Of A Victorian Hero" by John H. Waller, published by Atheneum, 1988.
"Gordon of Khartoum" by Peter Johnson, published by Patrick Stevens, 1985

WORD HISTORY:
Ennet-This now largely British dialectal, but generally antiquated word for "duck," the waterfowl, goes back to Indo European "anet/anat," with the meaning "waterbird, waterfowl." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "anuth," with the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ened/enid," which meant "duck." This later became "enede," before the later version, "ennet," which is also at times written "annet." Other forms in the Germanic languages are: German "Ente," Low German "Aant," Dutch "eend," West Frisian "ein," Danish and Norwegian "and," Icelandic "önd," Swedish "and," but also "an."

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Twenty-Eight

Foreign policy and military actions during Clinton's two terms were important, as always, but they were also highly complex, making them beyond the scope of these articles. I'm just going to barely touch on some subjects which should be familiar to some degree with most readers, but there is plenty of information available elsewhere for those subjects of interest to you. The point isn't for me to do an entire detailed history, but to provide a general background as to what went on during the various administrations, while occasionally providing somewhat more detail, and to see how they or opponents formed or maintained coalitions.
  
During Clinton's two terms he deployed troops to Somalia, where there were American casualties, and the bodies of dead American troops were dragged through the streets there, an incident which brought the withdrawal of U.S. forces.* In the Balkans, the fall of communism had brought ethnic conflict to the region, as, very generally speaking, some ethnic groups (Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians) desired independence from the weakened Yugoslavia, while the Yugoslav government, dominated by Serbs, tried to retain the other regions under its control.** The U.S. military, along with NATO forces, primarily provided air units. In the late 1990s, the Albanian population, centered in the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia, wanted independence from Yugoslav, and thus Serbian, control. Long time animosities grew into armed conflict, and the United Nations and NATO wanted intervention to protect the civilian population (mainly Albanian) and its increasing number of refugees from the Yugoslav military and the exposure of the refugees to the elements. Eventually NATO authorized bombing attacks on Yugoslavia and these attacks were under the overall command of U.S. General Wesley Clark. Further, the end of the Gulf War provided for containment and monitoring of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and U.S. forces were still deployed in the region to assist in that mission, and indeed, some Iraqi installations were bombed during Clinton's time in office due to violations of the agreement which ended the war. 

The deployment of U.S. troops (and troops from other nations), primarily to Saudi Arabia for the war against Saddam Hussein under President Bush (Sr.), had stirred some Muslim extremists to retaliate for violation of what they considered to be religious lands of Islam and for interference in the affairs of Muslim countries, although other reasons also certainly existed, primarily U.S. support for Israel. Shortly after Bill Clinton took office, the World Trade Center in New York City was bombed by Muslim extremists, killing several people and injuring hundreds. Osama bin Laden, the leader of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, had established himself in Sudan, but he later was forced to leave, and he went to Pakistan. Bin Laden "declared war" on the United States and plans were formulated to attack various U.S. installations both inside the U.S. and elsewhere, culminating in simultaneous attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa, killing a dozen Americans and 200-300 Africans, and injuring hundreds more. This brought the FBI to place bin Laden on its list of most wanted and the President ordered missiles fired at targets in Afghanistan and Sudan; the latter missile strike was supposedly based upon erroneous intelligence information and destroyed a prescription drug maker's building, although the U.S. has maintained to this day that the building was used to produce chemical weapons. Further, a truck loaded with explosives was detonated outside a complex with American military personnel in Saudi Arabia killing 19 Americans and wounding a couple of hundred more. Then just before the 2000 election, a terrorist attack occurred on the destroyer USS Cole while it refueled in Yemen, killing 17 sailors and wounding dozens more. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility, with bin Laden calling for more such attacks.

Next, "Sex Scandal and Impeachment"

*  There was a civil war in Somalia and the U.N. and the U.S. tried to provide aid to the suffering population.

** The Balkans has long been a hotbed for conflict, with the "South Slav" (Yugoslav) areas being in the forefront of such conflict. That area had several "ethnic/nationalist" groups, often, but not always, divided over religion, as generally, Serbs, Macedonians and Montenegrins were Orthodox, Croats and Slovenes were Roman Catholic, and Bosnians were Muslim. Add in other groups living in the area, Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Germans, and you can see the potential for conflict. Much of the region was dominated by the Turks for quite some time, thus the Muslim affiliation (an overall minority, but with a majority in certain areas) of part of the population. The (Austro-German) Habsburg family had controlled other parts of the region, and indeed, ethnic tensions there were the immediate cause of the outbreak of World War One (notice I said "immediate cause," not the only cause), as the heir to the Habsburg family, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, along with his wife, were assassinated in Sarajevo in 1914. During World War Two, the Germans and Italians occupied the area, but found it difficult, if not impossible, to control, which led to the rise of Marshal Tito and his eventual postwar rule. During the war, however, there was almost always an air of civil war, and many an atrocity was committed by one group against the other, and that's not counting anything done by the Germans or the Italians. 

WORD HISTORY:
Race-This is the noun for "group of people of common heritage," and that was the meaning until more recent times, when it became more specifically about skin color. If you read some old history books, authors often referred to a particular group as a "race," a term more commonly replaced today by "tribe" (or ethnic group), as in, "The Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes that founded England," as it would sound odd to us today to call the Angles and Saxons races. You might think the history of this word is an easy one, but its origin is very much in question; so, rather than trace it forward from ancient times, I'm going to go backwards in its history. English borrowed the word in the late 1400s or very early 1500s from French "razza," which seems to have also been spelled "race," by some, and meant "group of people of common heritage, breed (used for animals)." This was derived from Italian "razza," with the same general meanings. The original English word for "race," in the general sense "people," was "theode," and the derived "theodisc," which also referred to language, and which is the ancestor of both "Deutsch" ("German") and "Dutch." Now things get sticky on "race," as no one really is certain where Italian got the word "razza." Attempts to connect it to Arabic and Hebrew (both "Semitic" languages^) seem tempting, but improbable. Connections to Germanic are "possible," as Lombardic, an old Germanic dialect, had "raiza," which meant "line," the implication being "bloodline," and the Lombards did conquer and settle in northern Italy in the mid 500s A.D., giving their name to the northern Italian region "Lombardia," but even if correct, where Germanic got the term is unknown. Whatever the case, the word spread to other European languages, including English relatives German, which has "Rasse," Low German Saxon, which has "Raass," and Dutch "race."

^ Semitic is a branch of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages. Besides Arabic and Hebrew, Semitic also includes, for example, Syriac and Aramaic. 

Extremist Religion Can Be Hazardous To Everyone's Health

Billions of people world wide have various religious beliefs, and many even have strong religious beliefs, but they go about their lives, they go to work, they go to their places of worship, and they don't hurt or bother anyone else over religion. If someone doesn't agree with them, they may wish it were otherwise, but they go about their business. If someone makes fun of them or their religion, they may not like it, they may even get angry, but they contain themselves and move on. Then there are those who have such fanatical religious beliefs, that anyone who dares to disagree with their religious view in any way faces severe repercussions. I just saw where in Bangladesh, a country with an overwhelmingly Muslim population, some Muslims rampaged through a Buddhist area destroying Buddhist temples and burning Buddhist homes, because of a photo posted on Facebook by ONE Buddhist which some Muslims felt insulted Islam. (The story said "one" Buddhist posted the picture, and the story provided no details about the picture.) The government there is trying to keep a lid on things now.

I needn't tell any half way sane person, this behavior is lunacy! It is nonsense out of the Middles Ages, which needed to die in the Middle Ages along with the plague, to which it bears a serious resemblance. It threatens EVERYONE! However, both the plague and such antiquated religious fervor survived the Middle Ages, and to be quite honest, no one really knows what to do about the latter. Unless you've been visiting another planet lately, and some people seem to do so, you are also aware of protests and violence in many Muslim areas of the world directed at the United States over a film made by a guy in California (born in Egypt), a film which was unknown to virtually every human being not visiting another planet before the violence started, which Muslims say insulted their Prophet Mohammad, a charge I believe is likely true (although I didn't see the film), but the extreme reaction to the film has only served to give it more publicity and to give Muslims an increasingly negative image in many parts of the world, an image perhaps exaggerated, since not all Muslims, nor even most Muslims, rose up and started lashing out at the United States. Folks, most of us probably get insulted every day, or at least every week, but people who are seriously troubled about their beliefs are the dangerous ones, since people who feel confident in themselves and any beliefs, religious or political, don't run around in a panic, lashing out at others, because someone said something about them. The fearful ones try to suppress differing views or go out of their way to prove their beliefs are stronger by attacking others. These are signs of weakness, not strength. Such insecure people wall themselves off, fearful someone or some view might actually change them, and they're terrified! "What if my beliefs are wrong? Ahhhhhhhhh! I don't want to know!"

Communism in eastern Europe built walls and barbed-wire fences, complete with armed guards in gun towers, for the announced purpose of keeping aggressors out of their "paradise," but the propaganda fooled no one, as the walls and fences were built to keep their own people from experiencing anything beyond their own imagined "Garden of Eden," because they were too afraid their own ideas and life style could not stand up in comparison or criticism. Such weak egos are VERY dangerous. Some people don't want to know or to search for truth. They are content with their beliefs, and they don't care how flawed their beliefs might be. "Two plus two is five," and they are happy to believe that and they don't want anyone telling them it's three...ah, wait a second, let's see... oh...four! The whole point is, weak leaders exploit the lack of education and backwardness of some to keep control of such people.

Like it, not like it, change requires criticism, something none of us is especially fond of when it is directed at us. Moderates, or people who really practice peaceful religion do not always speak up, so the fanatics take over. Remember, you may feel very strongly about your religion, but your religion is sacred to YOU, not necessarily to others. I try to accept people's religious beliefs, but behavior such as that mentioned above makes it very difficult. This kind of religious terror, however,  is a reality and we're going to have to live or die with it. When you have "elements of a religion" (not everyone) say that no one can criticize their religion, or we'll kill you, there's no room for any discussion with such people. When you have these same elements attacking members of other religions or nationals from other countries, just because one person, or one small group of people affiliated with a particular religion or nation, insulted their religion, this has all the ingredients of major world tension for a long, long time to come; and that's if we don't blow the world to pieces over such things first.

Christianity also has fanatics and the history of Christianity is not pretty. It is filled with hatred, violence, killing and intolerance; and that's just among people who called themselves Christians! Christianity also has been highly intolerant of other religions, although some of that has lessened in more recent times, especially in relation to Judaism. Islam has also had such a troubled history within its own ranks. Christianity and Islam have had a very contentious relationship throughout history, but with periods of relative peace. People from both religions have perpetrated atrocities against members of the other religion. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between religious and political fanatics, since some fanatics wrap themselves in the garb of religion to spew their hatred. As I said, I generally respect people's religious beliefs, but some things are not purely religious, nor can we allow zealots to try to pull us back to medieval, or even to ancient, times.

WORD HISTORY:
Fanatic-The ultimate origin of this word is uncertain. It goes back to Latin "fanum," which meant "temple." This then produced "fanaticus," which had the notion of "something derived from the temple," which then led to the extended meaning "inspired by a deity." The fervor of some religious people in Roman times led to the further meaning "frenzied or overzealous religious person," a further development of which dropped the religious necessity to become "mad, insane person." English borrowed the word in the earlier part of the 1500s, but its pronunciation apparently was strongly influenced by French "fanatique," a word Latin-based French inherited from its Latin ancestor. In English the word gradually assumed the meaning "overzealous person," a meaning even used in Roman times.  

"Gandhi" The Movie and History, Part Four

Note: I omitted the fact that besides efforts on behalf of "untouchables," and India's poor in general, Gandhi also championed the cause of Indian women and he used women in his various campaigns, something that was relatively new in male dominated Indian society back then. 

The history of Hindu-Muslim conflict in India is complex. This article is simply an attempt to give readers basic information, but for those interested, there are many books and articles on the subject that can provide far more detail on this very hot issue, which still flares up in modern times. Remember, please support your local library.  

As noted in the previous segments, India was a much larger nation in the time of Mahatma Gandhi, with both Bangladesh and Pakistan comprising parts of the greater whole. The Hindu religion was the largest in India, but Islam held a substantial minority position among India's population, with some areas having Muslim majorities, especially in the northwestern and northeastern regions, but Muslims were essentially scattered throughout all parts of India, just as Hindus and Sikhs lived in Muslim majority areas. The desire of Indians to rule themselves and to end British colonial rule united Indians, no matter what their religious beliefs, and for a time, there was no desire by Indians to divide India into separate Muslim and Hindu majority nations. Muhammed Ali Jinnah, one of the main Indian Muslim leaders going back to the early part of the 20th Century, very much favored one India for quite some time, but his support waned over time. 

Jinnah was born in Karachi, a port city in then northwestern India, and now part of Pakistan. His father was a successful business man and Jinnah later studied law in England, a similarity he shared with Mohandas Gandhi.* Later Jinnah lived in Bombay (now called Mumbai), on the west coast of India, where he had a huge mansion built. Jinnah advocated Hindu-Muslim unity and was, for a time, not only one of the main leaders of the movement to bring varying degrees of independence to the country, but THE main leader; being highly regarded by both Hindus and Muslims. Jinnah's and Muslim ideas began to change as plans for future self-government began to be dominated by Hindu leaders, including Gandhi, who, in spite of his overt inclusive attitude towards Muslims and others, was a Hindu. Jinnah argued for certain protections for religious minorities, and especially for Muslims, but Hindu leaders, pressed by a fanatical Hindu element, did not respond favorably to Jinnah's proposals, which were defeated in a vote of the main Indian political organization, the Indian National Congress. Jinnah quit the organization and his proposals became the basis of Muslim demands from then on if Hindus wanted Muslim support for one independent Indian nation. After a period out of the political limelight, Jinnah became the head of the (Indian) Muslim League.

Gandhi continued to preach non violent resistance to British rule, always with the idea that he and others would suffer, and have to accept, the consequences of their attempts to free India. While Gandhi preached against British colonial rule, even calling it "evil," he refused to participate in any "war on the British." There is a scene in the movie "Gandhi," where he and others are sitting outside and he tells them, "We've come along way with the British. When they leave, we want to see them off as friends." This certainly represented Gandhi's basic real life feelings, not just something depicted in the movie. While certainly not all Indians agreed with him, his leadership, and the revered stature in which he was held, kept Indians from direct all out hostile conflict with the British.

Gandhi's inclusive behavior towards non Hindus, especially towards Muslims, brought an increasing disenchantment with him from fanatical Hindu elements. As India moved toward independence during World War Two,** Gandhi was confronted with the possible, and likely, division of his country into an independent Muslim nation, under the name Pakistan,*** and the majority Hindu state of India. His attempts to preserve one Indian nation only left Muslims dissatisfied and many Hindus angry that he was too considerate of Muslim demands. Gandhi and many Indians, but certainly not all, opposed helping the British during the war, and Gandhi's antiwar speeches and protests by Indians brought massive arrests by the British, including the arrest of Gandhi. During his imprisonment his wife died, and Gandhi was chronically ill (he was in his 70s). Fearing he would die while in their custody and that his death would then spark a violent uprising by Indians against Britain, the British released him from prison. 

Gandhi and other Indian leaders then faced the nasty divide between Hindus and Muslims. The war ended and Britain made it clear they would grant Indian independence, but the religious issue remained at the center of controversy, and, in spite of attempts by Gandhi, Jinnah, and others to work out a solution, the matter remained unresolved. Muslim leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, dissatisfied with efforts to keep Muslims within some sort of Indian state, announced he wanted a separate Muslim nation of Pakistan as the only acceptable solution to the religious divide between Indians.**** To put pressure on the Hindus and the British for the creation of an independent Pakistan, Jinnah called for a "direct action day" by Muslims set for mid August 1946, with strikes and protests seemingly meant as the definition of such "action." When the day arrived, events went awry, with some violence in various parts of India, but especially in and around the northeastern city of Calcutta, in the province of Bengal, an area of very mixed Hindu-Muslim population, but with an overall Muslim majority. Terrible violence erupted as Muslims rioted, and then Hindus rioted. As many as 10,000 people were killed, with many bodies horribly mutilated, as one side tried to get even with the other (remember folks, this was all in the name of "religion"). While the violence halted after a few days, periodic and terrible episodes of mass killings took place in the region for months, and Gandhi went there to try to stop the carnage, but he was unable to undo the mistrust that had by then developed between the religious sects. In August of 1947, India was formally given its independence, but without Pakistan, which was partitioned (there was about a thousand mile gap between Western Pakistan and Eastern Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh). All hell broke loose as millions of Muslims living outside of Pakistan picked up as many belongings as possible and headed for the new border, while Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan tried to reach India. Heavy fighting broke out and at least a half million people died. Gandhi, the father of the nation, was devastated that he couldn't achieve a peaceful unified country. Since those times and as a result of the partition and all the violence, India and Pakistan have led a very troubled existence as neighbors, a situation which continues to this day. 

On January 30, 1948, Hindu extremist Nathuram Godse shot Mohandas Gandhi three times in the chest, killing Gandhi as he walked to a prayer service. Godse hated Gandhi's non violent approach to politics and religion, and he resented Gandhi's close association with Muslims over the years. Hindu militants believed Pakistan should not have been granted a separate state from India. Godse was tried and executed by hanging. The trial demonstrated to Hindus that it was one of their own, not a Muslim, who killed Mahatma Gandhi.

Note: There are many books about the life of Gandhi, but to do these articles, I relied heavily upon notes I made a number of years ago from: "Gandhi: A Life," by Yogesh Chadha, published in New York by John Wiley and Sons, 1997. I once owned the book, and while I'm not certain, I believe I donated it to The Cleveland Public Library in about 2009. The movie "Gandhi" is available on DVD.

* Both Gandhi and Jinnah also came from rather well off families of business background, putting them into relatively high social position in Indian society. The movie "Gandhi" depicts the subject's social position early in his life when he mentions "I always travel first class." The movie also shows Jinnah's standing when several of the Indian leaders meet at his elaborate mansion, complete with servants. As the movie correctly shows, Gandhi eventually chose to associate himself with the poorer elements of Indian society, which was by far the majority of the population, and he arrives at Jinnah's mansion for the above mentioned meeting, having come by "THIRD CLASS." Gandhi could just as easily have lived a pretty comfortable life, with fine clothes and a nice residence. Jinnah, on the other hand, retained his wealth.

** There had also been proposals to create Pakistan as a state within a state; that is, Pakistan would have been a mainly self governing region, but would have remained a part of India. 

*** The war only helped Gandhi keep the moral high ground against British rule. Britain declared war on Germany, including in India's name, but the Indian leaders were never consulted beforehand. Gandhi pointed out that Britain wanted to fight "German" tyranny, while at the same time they continued to rule India.
  
**** This sounded easier than it was to accomplish, because while Muslims constituted large majorities in the northwest and northeast, millions of Muslims lived scattered throughout the rest of India, while Hindus and Sikhs lived within the majority Muslim regions in the northwest and northeast. Property also became a big issue later, including Jinnah's mansion, which was in Bombay, a part that remained in India.

Photo is of DVD edition released in 2001 by Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment.

WORD HISTORY:
Yoga-This word traces back to Indo European "yewg," which had the notion of  "join together, unite." This gave Sanskrit, an ancient Indo European language still used to some degree today, primarily in religion, "yoga," with the same basic meaning, but with the context of "joining with a great spirit, god." This then passed to Hindi, one of the main languages of India. By the 1800s the word began to be used by British military, governmental and civilians in India with the idea of "exercise and mediation used to control the body and mind as one." As interest in eastern religions grew by English speaking people, the use of "yoga" spread, as did the word itself.

"Gandhi," The Movie & History, Part Three

India had a social system called the "Caste System." While most strongly associated with the Hindu religion, it had adherents among some of  India's Muslims and Christians.^ This stratified social system divided Indians into various fixed groups, with little or no social mobility for people of these groups. At the bottom were the "untouchables," with people in this group often suffering terrible discrimination and ill treatment, and with no way out of their "fixed" social position at the bottom of Indian society. Mahatma Gandhi's tolerance and inclusiveness for people of various religious and political views also included his desire to improve the acceptability and the plight of the those at the lowest levels of society. In the early 1930s Gandhi undertook a fast to bring national attention to the situation of the "untouchables" and to protest a British approved plan to give "untouchables" a separate system of representation under a newly devised Indian constitution. Gandhi rejected such a division. To demonstrate inclusiveness, Gandhi preferred to call the "untouchables" the more acceptable "children of God." Gandhi's fast and his subsequent concentration for a time on the nation's social system diverted attention from the attempts to attain freedom from British colonial rule, but it was part of the Mahatma's plan to gradually bring India toward the ability to rule itself and provide a more equitable society.

Gandhi's campaign brought discussions about the overall system and it achieved the abandonment of the division of the nation's representatives in the constitution. Many Hindu leaders reconsidered, or outright reversed, their previous support for the overall social system of India. In an ominous sign, however, more orthodox Hindu elements drifted further from Gandhi's ideals of tolerance and inclusiveness.

Next, Gandhi focused his and the nation's efforts on the Indian economy. India was a land of extreme poverty, which Gandhi believed was made worse by exploitation by capitalist interests at the highest economic level, who were not ethical in their treatment of workers. Workers labored long hours, but large profits went to business owners, while the workers earned so little, they could not always get the necessary food or clothing for themselves or their families. To Gandhi, capitalists benefited far out of proportion from the labor of others. He believed the system had to be made fairer, with workers gaining proper wages and respect for the goods they helped to produce, but that workers could not let themselves fall into laziness. Needless to say, business people were not thrilled with Gandhi's ideas. In what became a trademark of Gandhi, he took to spinning his own clothes, and encouraged his Indian brethren to do the same. Why? Indian cotton was sent to England and manufactured into clothing, returning to India at prices many times the original cost. Gandhi reasoned, why not keep the cotton in India, with Indians making their own clothing and keeping the costs at a minimum? The spinning wheel became a symbol of Indian independence.^^ Gandhi likewise promoted Indian agriculture as a means to limit the country's dependence on colonial food products.^^^  Further, by gaining more independence on food and clothing products, it also weakened the British reasons for maintaining colonial rule; that was, to have a colony that produced raw materials that could then go to Britain to be processed or refined, and then returned, at least in part, to the colony for sale at handsome profits. So Gandhi's effort also had major ties to his view of gaining Indian independence from Britain. 

Next, the last part on "Gandhi"

^ Keep in mind, this was still the "large" India, which then included Pakistan and Bangladesh.

^^ Gandhi's beliefs were also critical of (then) modern technology utilized by capitalists, which replaced workers with various mechanical devices. There has always been a struggle between displaced workers and technology, but technology always wins in the end. While Gandhi correctly saw a large Indian population that needed work, work at times deprived by technology, the idea that technological advances can be held back in favor of less efficient methods of production was too idealistic, in my opinion. Understand, Gandhi did not dismiss technology in all cases, and he understood the need for mass production in more advanced nations, but he saw unemployment and under employment as one of the social ills of India, only made worse by technology.

^^^ Large landholders charged rent to small farmers on their land either in cash or by taking percentages of farm goods. At times farmers could not produce enough to pay rent and provide for their families.  

Photo is of DVD edition released in 2001 by Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment.

WORD HISTORY:
Guru-This word goes back to Indo European "gru/gur," which had the notion of "heavy," which then produced the idea of "serious," and also "heavy with knowledge," which gave Sanskrit "guru," which meant "respected for knowledge;" and thus produced the eventual meaning "teacher," with the further meaning of "priest" in religious contexts. Sanskrit is an ancient Indo European language still used to some extent, often in religion, primarily in India. The word then passed to Hindi and Urdu, both common Indo European languages in India and Pakistan. The word was borrowed by English, likely in the mid to late 1700s, as India came under the firmer control of Britain, but the word didn't really spread throughout English until later, eventually expanding the meaning to the more general "adviser, mentor," with no particular association with religion. The word came into widespread usage during the late 1960s as the Beatles and other popular music groups delved into Indian religion.       

"Gandhi," The Movie & History

Updated August 24, 2014: The producer and director of "Gandhi," Sir Richard Attenborough, died today just days short of his 91st birthday. This is a series of four articles I did on the movie and the actual history of Gandhi and India. I relied heavily upon notes I made from a book I once owned for much of the information in these articles: "Gandhi: A Life," by Yogesh Chadha, published in New York by John Wiley and Sons, 1997.

The film "Gandhi" was released in late 1982. The movie was more than three hours in length and was produced and directed by English actor/director Sir Richard Attenborough. Just a couple of years after the film was released, I actually met one of the Indian actors of the film (relatively minor role), as we were staying in the same hotel in Frankfurt, (then, West) Germany. "Gandhi" won the Academy Award for "Best Picture" and Richard Attenborough won the Oscar for "Best Director."

If you have never seen this movie, PLEASE do so. In a world filled with such troubles as we have today, I can't believe you would EVER regret it. The film deals with the life of Mohandas Gandhi,* who was born in Porbandar, on the western coast of India. The movie traces much of Gandhi's adult life from the time he went to southern Africa (Natal, a British colony) as an attorney to represent an Indian business.** There he met ruthless discrimination and became determined to fight it, albeit peacefully. He gradually organized the relatively small Indian community in the colony and gave the colonial authorities more than they could handle, achieving some significant civil rights victories for Indians in South Africa. This made Gandhi a force to be reckoned with years later when he returned to his homeland, then too a colony of the British Empire.

Gandhi gradually assumed the leadership of a movement to bring independence to India, a process that took Gandhi and his followers nearly three decades to achieve. During that time he also worked to bring attention to India's excruciating poverty and to try to bridge religious differences within the populace. His plan and beliefs for independence were governed by peaceful non-cooperation with the British and Indian princely authorities. With newsreels shown in movie houses all over the world, Gandhi's peaceful protests were filmed being forcefully put down by colonial police or military forces, a sight that gradually lowered British prestige, but which raised Gandhi's stature throughout the world, including in Britain. Some of Gandhi's followers became frustrated as the Mahatma (see "Word History" below) plodded along against British imperial rule, but he seems to have wanted to prepare Indians for the assumption of self rule.

Just a little history overview: Britain firmly established itself in India during the mid 1700s, but it must be noted that the "India" of those times was far larger than the present nation, as it included what is today Pakistan and Bangladesh. The British ran a colonial government in India, but they also relied heavily upon regional Indian princes to govern the immense country. The northwestern areas and the eastern areas were heavily Muslim in religion, while Hindus generally had a majority in the rest of the country (and overall), although Muslim minorities were widespread. As Indians strove for independence from Britain under the overall leadership of Gandhi, religious differences in India were relatively muted, but once Britain agreed to grant Indian independence in the future, the question of how religion would be handled in the governing of the country became a red-hot issue. Gandhi, while a Hindu, embraced people of all faiths, including Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Jews, but while he was highly respected by all groups within India, his tolerance of other religions was not accepted by everyone, and religious-based violence erupted. Even Gandhi could not defeat the terrible feelings and hatred caused by the bloodshed, and in spite of his attempts to hold the nation together, a major movement developed among India's Muslim population to form a separate Muslim-majority state to be called "Pakistan." In the end, India was divided, with an independent Pakistan comprising two distinct regions, one in the northwest and one in the east, but separated by a thousand miles, and then the rest of India, with a Hindu majority, but with a substantial Muslim minority, as it remains to this day. Later the eastern part of Pakistan, initially known as East Pakistan, became independent as Bangladesh in the early 1970s.

Next, in Part Two I'll cover a few events in Gandhi's life.

* We Americans "tend" to pronounce the name as "gawn-dee," but British pronunciation "tends" to be more "gandee," which rhymes with, ah...Randy. I just thought that up. Gandhi was portrayed in the movie by actor Ben Kingsley, who is of Indian descent on his father's side. Kingsley won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his excellent performance as the peaceful Indian revolutionary.

** Gandhi had studied law in London, England.

Photo is of DVD edition released in 2001 by Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment.

WORD HISTORY:
Mahatma-This is a title given in India to someone as a sign of great respect, typically for their great knowledge and ability to give counsel to others; literally it means "great soul." It is a compound, with the first part tracing back to Indo European "megh," which meant "great." The second part, "atman," means "soul, spirit," but its original meaning was "breath." This gave Old English and its other Germanic relatives their original word for "breath," which was "aethm" in Old English. German still has "Atem" as its word for "breath" (as well as the verb "atmen," "to breathe"). The compound "mahatman" goes back to Sanskrit (an early Indo European language/dialect). "Mahatma" came into some usage in English in the latter half of the 1800s, as Britain ruled India in those times, but it really became known due to its application to Mohandas Gandhi, aka "Mahatma Gandhi."

Importance of Pakistan

I don't know if you've been paying attention to the recent upheavals in Pakistan, but if you haven't, take a moment to check out your favorite news sites for stories about this important country.
Why is Pakistan so important? It is a Muslim country, with something like 99.5% of the population being of the Muslim faith. Now, you might say, "So? Lots of countries have populations that are 99.5% Muslim." Pakistan is different from those other Muslim countries because it has nuclear weapons. That is a difference some Muslims would like to eliminate, especially those adhering to the likes of Bin Laden. There have already been numerous stories about Pakistani military personnel or Pakistani nuclear scientists having had contact with the militant Islamists.

Until after World War II, Pakistan was a part of India. While a British colony, the population of all India were united against a common opponent...Britain. The people wanted the British to leave and grant them freedom. Once it became clear that the British would indeed be leaving, the religious split, particularly between Muslims and Hindus came to the fore. It was incredibly violent and brutal, with many thousands killed on both sides. From this developed a terrible hatred between the two religious segments of the population and the eventual partition of India into a Hindu dominated India and a Muslim dominated Pakistan. There was a great movement of people, as the small Hindu segment living in the Pakistani areas moved into India, and many Muslims in India moved into Pakistan. Pakistan was literally divided into two parts, the one which is still Pakistan today, and the other part like about a thousand miles east/southeast, which in the early 1970s became the independent country of Bangladesh. The hatred between India and Pakistan grew even more intense over the area known as Kashmir. Most of the area is under Indian rule, but it contains a large Muslim population. The dispute over this area has festered for decades, and I'm sure, if you've paid much attention to news stories over the years, you've heard about bombings and killings in Kashmir. (I should note, that while Pakistan is essentially an all Muslim country, India has a substantial Muslim minority.)

During their colonial rule of "India," even the British had problems in many of the areas which later became Pakistan. When we hear today about Bin Laden possibly hiding in border areas in Pakistan, it is these almost "lawless" regions where he is thought to be.

The government of Pakistan is a military dominated dictatorship, which pays a certain homage to Islam, but is not in the radical Islamist camp. While Americans love to talk about freedom for others, if anything happens to the Pakistani government, and a militant Islamist group takes control, LOOK OUT!!! India would almost certainly be their first target (India also has nulcear weapons), but what other Muslim fanatics would have access to "the bomb" is another scary notion . Fanatics have tried to kill the head of the current Pakistani government, Musharraf, on several occasions. I'm not one to uphold dictators, but sometimes self interest has to get the nod. Iraq has shown us that toppling a dictator can be easy; after all, that part of the war in Iraq was not terribly difficult. It is the AFTERMATH than can be hell, especially in countries where we really don't understand the political and religious divides. Pakistan is a similar country. It has faced West in many ways (at least the government and many elements of the population), but it also has a fanatical Islamist element, and tribal chieftains who control their own areas, and where the "national" government is not welcome.

So, hopefully things will settle down in Pakistan and that will also help to keep us safer too.