Who s Who of Mughal Nobility

January 25, 1986 he discusses 'From Ethnicity to Regionalism', describing the regional movement in Chota- nagpur as the only developed form deserving attention (and correctly so), and characterising that as a 'separatist movement'. The categorisation itself speaks of Singh's inclination. Should one apply the same standard for the privileged mainstream of the country, the movement for the creation of Bihar led by Rajendra Prasad was a separatist movement and though it mobilised the core of the Bihari intelligentsia from the freedom movement it needs to be seen as counterposcd to the latter, Singh's close association with the Chotanagpur region is reflected in an enormous volume of information and in a really multi-dimensional approach towards understanding the regional movement. But for his sectarianism, the chapter 'From Ethnicity to Regionalism' would have been a commen dable study. This must not be misconstrued as suggesting that he adopts an attitude of condemnation towards these movements. Far from that, he has appealed vehemently for proper appreciation of many genuine problems raised by them. "Tolerance is a quality without which we can hardly survive as a nation'' is his motto. Yet, as I have shown, he uses different standards for his own community and for the tribals; the concern smacks of paternalism. The point is important because in this attitude Singh is the company of the great majority of our pro-people intelligentsia. Probably it is time to think of the role we