Jhoot bolne waalon tera moonh kala-II

Muslim League was not a progressive party it was an opportunistic one. In rural areas it took the support of religious pirs/feudals/landholders on communal basis while promising to protect landholdings but disowning all alliances with Hindu feudals(as in Punjab). Where the feudals were Hindus it championed the cause of worker population on communal basis(disowning all workers’ alliances with Hindus as in Bengal). In urban areas it took the cause of job quotas of Muslims as an economic issue on communal basis(disowning all common economic platform with Hindu urban class as in U.P). In U.P in 1936-1937 Jinnah got the Jamat e Ulema Hind to merge with the ML and decide on party candidates causing Liaquat Ali Khan to go to Europe in a huff.

(I read somewhere recently that Jinnah wanted even trade unions to be Muslim only, TRUST NO LEFTIST OR PROGRESSIVE MUSLIM TO MENTION THAT)

To claim that ML was progressive is to deny its opportunistic history.

Jinnah had no issues with the Khilafat cause, he had no issues with the Muslims who had associated themselves with the Khilafat mass agitation and he had no problem merging at provincial level his Muslim League with religio-political parties very active in Khilafat movement like Jamat e Ulema Hind as he did in UP in 1936-1937.

His problem solely and wholly was with the Hindu-Muslim political cross pollination which could take place through a grassroots movement - his chief problem with the noncooperation/Khilafat agitation was that Congress Hindus would gain ground with grassroots Muslims, which was a future threat for Muslim leaders like him in a joint electorate scenario. His 1937 Islam in danger mongering was his response to the Congress’s Muslim mass contact program and putting up candidates in Bengal-leave Muslims to Muslims he said. For Jinnah whether in the Lucknow Pact and the Khilafat agitation period or the subsequent periods, the principle was that Muslim leaders had the sole sovereign right over Muslim issues and representation of the Muslim masses.

The habit of complaining about Hindus dies hard. It is funny that with 100% Muslim representation of 100% Muslims(virtually), Pakistanis are still complaining about Hindus.

Jinnah’s anger with Unionists was not their feudalist royalist ways (the same feudalist royalist ways of UP landlords who funded the League)- it was their association with Hindus.

Jinnah’s anger with Ghaffar Khan was not his bringing of Islam in public sphere(Jamat Ulema Hind, Iqbal and Mohammad Ali all brought Islam into public sphere very robustly and independent Pakistan under Jinnah lost no time in launching a jehad) it was Ghaffar Khan’s association with Hindus.

It was not Allah Bux Sumro’s landlord connections which angered Jinnah(other landlords were with ML), it was his association with Hindus.

Jinnah was thus a principled politician - a principled opponent of all and any Muslims’ Hindu associations unless specified by himself.