Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do
Farzana Versey January 8, 2006
#536 Posted by harish_hyd on January 17, 2006 1:20:18 am
#534 by Mantolives
[I am not interested in whether you keep your job or not.]
Fair enough. Why would you be?
[While you persist in denying the truth, please be fairminded enough to recall that you never produced a quote despite my prodding- at any time.]
I did and only time is preventing me from looking it up. It is from Ambedkar`s own book, from where I culled it and presented here. The only one who seems to be denying both the truth and common sense is you Mr. Yasser. But having known you for some time, it wouldn`t be easy to convince you to own up to your stupidity. Not that I care anyways.
[I produced the only detailed view of Jinnah that Ambedkar left behind...]
As always, you seem to rely more on what others thought and wrote about Jinnah than what your own common sense says. But then, to each his own.
BTW, you cleverly skipped the part of my post that conclusively proves Jinnah`s monumnetal blunder of seeking safeguards for Muslims, when Muslims today though proprotionately lesser than they were during independence enjoy all the benefits as Hindus do and are doing very well as compared to the Hindus in Pakistan.
[I am not interested in whether you keep your job or not.]
Fair enough. Why would you be?
[While you persist in denying the truth, please be fairminded enough to recall that you never produced a quote despite my prodding- at any time.]
I did and only time is preventing me from looking it up. It is from Ambedkar`s own book, from where I culled it and presented here. The only one who seems to be denying both the truth and common sense is you Mr. Yasser. But having known you for some time, it wouldn`t be easy to convince you to own up to your stupidity. Not that I care anyways.
[I produced the only detailed view of Jinnah that Ambedkar left behind...]
As always, you seem to rely more on what others thought and wrote about Jinnah than what your own common sense says. But then, to each his own.
BTW, you cleverly skipped the part of my post that conclusively proves Jinnah`s monumnetal blunder of seeking safeguards for Muslims, when Muslims today though proprotionately lesser than they were during independence enjoy all the benefits as Hindus do and are doing very well as compared to the Hindus in Pakistan.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#535 Posted by MantoLives on January 17, 2006 12:59:29 am
Oops that should read ``Negative opinion on Muslims not Jinnah``-
#534 Posted by MantoLives on January 17, 2006 12:56:48 am
Dear Mr Harish-hyd,
I am not interested in whether you keep your job or not.
While you persist in denying the truth, please be fairminded enough to recall that you never produced a quote despite my prodding- at any time. The only unfavorable quote you produced was Ambedkar`s negative opinion on Jinnah. I produced the only detailed view of Jinnah that Ambedkar left behind...
I have the pleasure of producing it again:
Dr Ambedkar on Jinnah:
At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.
Far cry from your claim that ``But you won`t disclose that the man hated Jinnah even more than he ever hated Gandhi because that would give you no legs to stand on in your war against Gandhi`s popularity.``
Here is the only detailed profile of Jinnah that Ambedkar has left behind:
How complete the revolution is can be seen by reference to the past pronouncements of some of those who insist on the two-nation theory and believe that Pakistan is the only solution of the Hindu-Muslim problem. Among these Mr. Jinnah, of course, must be accepted as the foremost. The revolution in his views on the Hindu-Muslim question is striking, if not staggering. To realize the nature, character and vastness of this revolution it is necessary to know his pronouncements in the past relating to the subject so that they may be compared with those he is making now.
A study of his past pronouncement may well begin with the year 1906 when the leaders of the Muslim community waited upon Lord Minto and demanded separate electorates for the Muslim community. It is to be noted that Mr. Jinnah was not a member of the deputation. Whether he was not invited to join the deputation or whether he was invited to join and declined is not known. But the fact remains that he did not lend his support to the Muslim claim to separate representation when it was put forth in 1906.
In 1918 Mr. Jinnah resigned his membership of the Imperial Legislative Council as a protest against the Rowlatt Bill. 98[f.54] In tendering his resignation Mr. Jinnah said :
`` I feel that under the prevailing conditions, I can be of no use to my people in the Council, nor consistently with one`s self-respect is cooperation possible with a Government that shows such utter disregard for the opinion of the representatives of the people at the Council Chamber and the feelings and the sentiments of the people outside. `` In 1919 Mr. Jinnah gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee appointed by Parliament on the Government of India Reform Bill, then on the anvil. The following views were expressed by him in answer to questions put by members of the Committee on the Hindu-Muslim question.
EXAMINED BY MAJOR ORMSBY-GORE.
Q. 3806.—You appear on behalf of the Moslem League— that is, on behalf of the only widely extended Mohammedan organisation in India ?—Yes.
Q. 3807.—I was very much struck by the fact that neither in your answers to the questions nor in your opening speech this morning did you make any reference to the special interest of the Mohammedans in India: is that because you did not wish to say anything ?—No, but because I take it the Southborough Committee have accepted that, and I left it to the members of the Committee to put any questions they wanted to. I took a very prominent part in the settlement of Lucknow. I was representing the Musalmans on that occasion.
Q. 3809.—On behalf of the All-India Moslem League, you ask this Committee to reject the proposal of the Government of India ?—I am authorised to say that—to ask you to reject the proposal of the Government of India with regard to Bengal [i.e., to give the Bengal Muslims more representation than was given them by the Lucknow Pact].
Q. 3810.—You said you spoke from the point of view of India. You speak really as an Indian Nationalist ?—1 do.
Q. 3811.—Holding that view, do you contemplate the early disappearance of separate communal representation of the Mohammedan community ?—I think so.
Q. 3812.—That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you wish to do away in political life with any distinction between Mohammedans and Hindus ?—Yes. Nothing will please me more than when that day comes.
Q. 3813—You do not think it is true to say that the Mohammedans of India have many special political interests not merely in India but outside India, which they are always particularly anxious to press as a distinct Mohammedan community? —There are two things. In India the Mohammedans have very few things really which you can call matters of special interest for them—I mean secular things.
Q. 3814.—I am only referring to them, of course ?—And therefore that is why I really hope and expect that the day is not very far distant when these separate electorates will disappear.
Q. 3815.—It is true, at the same time, that the Mohammedans in India take a special interest in the foreign policy of the Government of India ?—They do ; a very,—No, because what you propose to do is to frame very keen interest and the large majority of them hold very strong sentiments and very strong views.
Q. 3816.—Is that one of the reasons why you, speaking on behalf of the Mohammedan community, are so anxious to get the Government of India more responsible to an electorate ?—No.
Q. 3817.—Do you think it is possible, consistently with remaining in the British Empire, for India to have one foreign policy and for His Majesty, as advised by his Ministers in London, to have another ?—Let me make it clear. It is not a question of foreign policy at all. What the Moselms of India feel is that it is a very difficult position for them. Spiritually, the Sultan or the Khalif is their head.
Q. 3818.—Of one community ?—Of the Sunni sect, but that is the largest; it is in an overwhelming majority all over India. The Khalif is the only rightful custodian of the Holy Places according to our view, and nobody else has a right. What the Moslems feel very keenly is this, that the Holy Places should not be severed from the Ottoman Empire— that they should remain with the Ottoman Empire under the Sultan.
Q. 3819.—I do not want to get away from the Reform Bill on to foreign policy.—1 say it has nothing to do with foreign policy. Your point is whether in India the Muslims will adopt a certain attitude with regard to foreign policy in matters concerning Moslems all over the world.
Q. 3820.—My point is, are they seeking for some control over the Central Government in order to impress their views on foreign policy on the Government of India ?—No.
EXAMINED BY MR. BENNETT
Q. 3853.—...........Would it not be an advantage in the case of an occurrence of that kind [i.e., a communal riot] if the maintenance of law and order were left with the executive side of the Government ?—1 do not think so, if you ask me, but I do not want to go into unpleasant matters, as you say.
Q. 3854.—It is with no desire to bring up old troubles that I ask the question ; I would like to forget them ?—If you ask me, very often these riots are based on some misunderstanding, and it is because the police have taken one side or the other, and that has enraged one side or the other. I know very well that in the Indian States you hardly ever hear of any Hindu-Mohammedan riots, and I do not mind telling the Committee, without mentioning the name, that I happened to ask one of the ruling Princes, `` How do you account for this ? `` and he told me, `` As soon as there is some trouble we have invariably traced it to the police, through the police taking one side or the other, and the only remedy we have found is that as soon as we come to know we move that police officer from that place, and there is an end of it. ``
Q. 3855.—That is useful piece of information, but the fact remains that these riots have been inter-racial, Hindu on the one side and Mohammedan on the other. Would it be an advantage at a time like that the Minister, the representative of one community or the other, should be in charge of the maintenance of law and order ?—Certainly.
Q. 3856.—It would ?—If I thought otherwise I should be casting a reflection on myself. If I was the Minister, I would make bold to say that nothing would weigh with me except justice, and what is right. Q. 3857.—I can understand that you would do more than justice to the other side; but even then, there is what might be called the subjective side. It is not only that there is impartiality, but there is the view which may be entertained by the public, who may harbour some feeling of suspicion ?—With regard to one section or the other, you mean they would feel that an injustice was done to them, or that justice would not be done ?
Q. 3858.—Yes; that is quite apart from the objective part of it ?—My answer is this: That these difficulties are fast disappearing. Even recently, in the whole district of Thana, Bombay, every officer was an Indian officer from top to bottom, and I do not think there was a single Mohammedan—they were all Hindus—and I never heard any complaint Recently that has been so. I quite agree with you that ten years ago there was that feeling what you are now suggesting to me, but it is fast disappearing.
EXAMINED BY LORD ISLINGTON
Q. 3892.—. ...... You said just now about the communal representation, I think in answer to Major Ormsby-Gore, that you hope in a very few years you would be able to extinguish communal representation, which was at present proposed to be established and is established in order that Mahommedans may have their representation with Hindus. You said you desired to see that. How soon do you think that happy state of affairs is likely to be realized ?—1 can only give you certain facts : I cannot say anything more than that: I can give you this which will give you some idea: that in 1913, at the All-India Moslem League sessions at Agra, we put this matter to the lest whether separate electorates should be insisted upon or not by the Mussalmans, and we got a division, and that division is based upon Provinces ; only a certain number of votes represent each Province, and the division came to 40 in favour of doing away with the separate electorate, and 80 odd—1 do not remember the exact number—were for keeping the separate electorate. That was in 1913. Since then I have had many opportunities of discussing this matter with various Mussulman leaders ; and they are changing their angle of vision with regard to this matter. I cannot give you the period, but I think it cannot last very long. Perhaps the next inquiry may hear something about it.
Q. 3893.—You think at the next inquiry the Mahommedans will ask to be absorbed into the whole ?—Yes, I think the next inquiry will probably hear something about it.
Although Mr. Jinnah appeared as a witness on behalf of the Muslim League, he did not allow his membership of the League to come in the way of his loyalty to other political organizations in the country. Besides being a member of the Muslim League, Mr. Jinnah was a member of the Home Rule League and also of the Congress. As he said in his evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, he was a member of all three bodies although he openly disagreed with the Congress, with the Muslim League and that there were some views which the Home Rule League held which he did not share. That he was an independent but a nationalist ,is shown by his relationship with the Khilafatist Musalmans. In 1920 the Musalmans organized the Khilafat Conference. It became so powerful an organization that the Muslim League went under and lived in a state of suspended animation till 1924. During these years no Muslim leader could speak to the Muslim masses from a Muslim platform unless he was a member of the Khilafat Conference. That was the only platform for Muslims to meet Muslims. Even then Mr. Jinnah refused to join the Khilafat Conference. This was no doubt due to the fact that then he was only a statutory Musalman with none of the religious fire of the orthodox which he now says is burning within him. But the real reason why he did not join the Khilafat was because he was opposed to the Indian Musalmans engaging themselves in extra-territorial affairs relating to Muslims outside India.
After the Congress accepted non-co-operation, civil disobedience and boycott of Councils, Mr. Jinnah left the Congress. He became its critic but never accused it of being a Hindu body. He protested when such a statement was attributed to him by his opponents. There is a letter by Mr. Jinnah to the Editor of the Times of India written about the time which puts in a strange contrast the present opinion of Mr. Jinnah about the Congress and his opinion in the past. The letter 99[f.55] reads as follows :—.
`` To the Editor of `` The Times of India ``
Sir,—1 wish again to correct the statement which is attributed to me and to which you have given currency more than once and now again repeated by your correspondent ` Banker `in the second column of your issue of the 1st October that I denounced the Congress as ` a Hindu Institution `. I publicly corrected this misleading report of my speech in your columns soon after it appeared ;.but it did not find a place in the columns of your paper and so may I now request you to publish this and oblige. ``
After the Khilafat storm had blown over and the Muslims had shown a desire to return to the internal politics of India, the Muslim League was resuscitated. The session of the League held in Bombay on 30th December 1924 under the presidentship of Mr. Raza Ali was a lively one. Both Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Mahomed Ali took part in it. 100[f.56]
In this session of the League, a resolution was moved which affirmed the desirability of representatives of the various Muslim associations of India representing different shades of political thought meeting in a conference at an early date at Delhi or at some other central place with a view to develop `` a united and sound practical activity `` to supply the needs of the Muslim community. Mr. Jinnah in explaining the resolution said 101[f.57] :—
`` The object was to organize the Muslim community, not with a view to quarrel with the Hindu community, but with a view to unite and cooperate with it for their motherland. He was sure once they had organized themselves they would join hands with the Hindu Maha Sabha and declare to the world that Hindus and Mahomedans are brothers. ``
The League also passed another resolution in the same session for appointing a committee of 33 prominent Musalmans to formulate the political demands of the Muslim community. The resolution was moved by Mr. Jinnah. In moving the resolution, Mr. Jinnah 102[f.58] :—
``Repudiated the charge that he was standing on the platform of the League as a communalist. He assured them that he was, as ever, a nationalist. Personally he had no hesitation. He wanted the best and the fittest men to represent them in the Legislatures of the land (Hear, Hear and Applause). But unfortunately his Muslim compatriots were not prepared to go as far as he. He could not be blind to the situation. The fact was that there was a large number of Muslims who wanted representation separately in Legislatures and in the country`s Services. They were talking of communal unity, but where was unity ? It had to be achieved by arriving at some suitable settlement. He knew he said amidst deafening cheers, that his fellow-religionists were ready and prepared to fight for Swaraj, but wanted some safeguards. Whatever his view, and they knew that as a practical politician he had to take stock of the situation, the real block to unity was not the communities themselves, but a few mischief makers on both sides. ``
And he did not thus hesitate to arraign mischief makers in the sternest possible language that could only emanate from an earnest nationalist. In his capacity as the President of the session of the League held in Lahore on 24th May 1924 he said 103 [f59] :—
`` If we wish to be free people, let us unite, but if we wish to continue slaves of Bureaucracy, let us fight among ourselves and gratify petty vanity over petty matters. Englishmen being our arbiters. ``
In the two All-Parties Conferences, one held in 1925 and the other in 1928, Mr. Jinnah was prepared to settle the Hindu-Muslim question on the basis of joint electorates. In 1927 he openly said 104[f.60] from the League platform :—
`` I am not wedded to separate electorates, although I must say that the overwhelming majority of the Musalmans firmly and honestly believe that it is the only method by which they can be sure. ``
In 1928, Mr. Jinnah joined the Congress in the boycott of the Simon Commission. He did so even though the Hindus and Muslims had failed to come to a settlement and he did so at the cost of splitting the League into two.
Even when the ship of the Round Table Conference was about to break on the communal rock, Mr. Jinnah resented being named as a communalist who was responsible for the result and said that he preferred an agreed solution of the communal problem to the arbitration of the British Government. Addressing the U. P. Muslim Conference held at Allahabad on 8th August 105[f.61] 1931 Mr. Jinnah said :—
`` The first thing that I wish to tell you is that it is now absolutely essential and vital that Muslims should stand united. For Heaven`s sake close all your ranks and files and slop this internecine war. I urged this most vehemently and I pleaded to the best of my ability before Dr. Ansari, Mr. T. A. K. Sherwani, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr. Syed Mahmud. I hope that before I leave the shores of India I shall hear the good news that whatever may be our differences ; whatever may be our convictions between ourselves, this is not the moment to quarrel between ourselves.
`` Another thing I want to tell you is this. There is a certain section of the press, there is a certain section of the Hindus, who constantly misrepresent me in various ways. I was only reading the speech of Mr. Gandhi this morning and Mr. Gandhi said that he loves Hindus and Muslims alike. I again say standing here on this platform that although I may not put forward that claim but I do put forward this honestly and sincerely that I want fair play between the two communities. ``
Continuing further Mr. Jinnah said: ``As to the most important question, which to my mind is the question of Hindu-Muslim settlement—all I can say to you is that I honestly believe that the Hindus should concede to the Muslims a majority in the Punjab and Bengal and if that is conceded, I think a settlement can be arrived at in a very short time.
``The next question that arises is one of separate vs. joint electorates. As most of you know, if a majority is conceded in the Punjab and Bengal, I would personally prefer a settlement on the basis of joint electorate. (Applause.) But I also know that there is a large body of Muslims—and I believe a majority of Muslims—who are holding on to separate electorate. My position is that I would rather have a settlement even on the footing of separate electorate, hoping and trusting that when we work our new constitution and when both Hindus and Muslims get rid of distrust, suspicion and fears and when they gel their freedom we would rise to the occasion and probably separate electorate will go sooner than most of us think.
`` Therefore I am for a settlement and peace among the Muslims first; I am for a settlement and peace between the Hindus and Mahommedans. This is not a lime for argument, not a time for propaganda work and not a time for embittering feelings between the two communities, because the enemy is at the door of both of us and I say without hesitation that if the Hindu-Muslim question is not settled, I have no doubt that the British will have to arbitrate and that he who arbitrates will keep to himself the substance of power and authority. Therefore, I hope they will not vilify me. After all, Mr. Gandhi himself says that he is willing to give the Muslims whatever they want, and my only sin is that I say to the Hindus give to the Muslims only 14 points, which is much less than the ` blank cheque ` which Mr. Gandhi is willing to give. I do not want a blank cheque, why not concede the 14 points ? When Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru says: `Give us a blank cheque ` when Mr. Patel says : ` Give us a blank cheque and we will sign it with a Swadeshi pen on a Swadeshi paper ` they are not communalists and I am a communalist ! I say to Hindus not to misrepresent everybody. I hope and trust that we shall be yet in a position to settle the question which will bring peace and happiness to the millions in our country.
`` One thing more I want to tell you and I have done. During the lime of the Round Table Conference,—it is now an open book and anybody who cares to read it can learn for himself—I observed the one and the only principle and it was that when I left the shores of Bombay I said to the people that I would hold the interests of India sacred, and believe me—if you care to read the proceedings of the Conference, I am not bragging because I have done my duly—that I have loyally and faithfully fulfilled my promise to the fullest extent and I venture to say that if the Congress or Mr. Gandhi can get anything more than I fought for, I would congratulate them.
`` Concluding Mr. Jinnah said that they must come to a settlement, they must become friends eventually and he, therefore, appealed to the Muslims to show moderation, wisdom and conciliation, if possible, in the deliberation that might take place and the resolution that might be passed at the Conference. ``
As an additional illustration of the transformation in Muslim ideology, I propose to record the opinions once held by Mr. Barkat Ali who is now a follower of Mr. Jinnah and a staunch supporter of Pakistan.
When the Muslim League split-into two over the question of cooperation with the Simon Commission, one section led by Sir Mahommad Shafi favouring co-operation and another section led by Mr. Jinnah supporting the Congress plan of boycott, Mr. Barkat Ali belonged to the Jinnah section of the League. The two wings of the League held their annual sessions in 1928 at two different places. The Shafi wing met in Lahore and the Jinnah wing met in Calcutta. Mr. Barkat Ali, who was the Secretary of the Punjab Muslim League, attended the Calcutta session of the Jinnah wing of the League and moved the resolution relating to the communal settlement. The basis of the settlement was joint electorates. In moving the resolution Mr. Barkat Ali said 106 [f62] :—
`` For the first time in the history of the League there was a change in its angle of vision. We are offering by this change a sincere hand of fellowship to those of our Hindu countrymen who have objected to the principle of separate electorates. ``
In 1928 there was formed a Nationalist Party under the leadership of Dr. Ansari. 107[f.63] The Nationalist Muslim Party was a step in advance of the Jinnah wing of the Muslim League and was prepared to accept the Nehru Report, as it was, without any amendments—not even those which Mr. Jinnah was insisting upon. Mr. Barkat Ali, who in 1927 was with the Jinnah wing of the League, left the same as not being nationalistic enough and joined the Nationalist Muslim Party of Dr. Ansari. How great a nationalist Mr. Barkat Ali then was can be seen by his trenchant and vehement attack on Sir Muhammad lqbal for his having put forth in his presidential address to the annual session of the All-India Muslim League held at Allahabad in 1930 a scheme 108[f.64] for the division of India which is now taken up by Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali and which goes by the name of Pakistan. In 1931 there was held in Lahore the Punjab Nationalist Muslim Conference and Mr. Barkat Ali was the Chairman of the Reception Committee. The views he then expressed on Pakistan are worth recalling 109[f.65] Reiterating and reaffirming the conviction and the political faith of his party, Malik Barkat Ali, Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Conference, said :
`` We believe, first and foremost in the full freedom and honour of India. India, the country of our birth and the place with which all our most valued and dearly cherished associations are knit, must claim its first place in our affection and in our desires. We refuse to be parties to that sinister type of propaganda which would try to appeal to ignorant sentiment by professing to be Muslim first and Indian afterwards. To us a slogan of this kind is not only bare, meaningless cant, but downright mischievous. We cannot conceive of Islam in its best and last interests as in any way inimical to or in conflict with the best and permanent interests of India. India and Islam in India are identical, and whatever is to the detriment of India must, from the nature of it, be detrimental to Islam whether economically, politically, socially or even morally. Those politicians, therefore, are a class of false prophets and at bottom the foes of Islam, who talk of any inherent conflict between Islam and the welfare of India. Further, howsoever much our sympathy with our Muslim brethren outside India, i.e., the Turks and the Egyptians or the Arabs,—and it is a sentiment which is at once noble and healthy,—we can never allow that sympathy to work to the detriment of the essential interests of India. Our sympathy, in fact, with those countries can only be valuable to them, if India as the source, nursery and fountain of that sympathy, is really great. And if ever the lime comes, God forbid, when any Muslim Power from across the Frontier chooses to enslave India and snatch away the liberties of its people, no amount of pan-lslamic feeling, whatever it may mean, can stand in the way of Muslim India fighting shoulder to shoulder with non-Muslim India in defence of its liberties.
`` Let there be, therefore, no misgivings of any kind in that respect in any non-Muslim quarters. I am conscious that a certain class of narrow-minded Hindu politicians is constantly harping on the bogey of an Islamic danger to India from beyond the N.-W. Frontier passes but I desire to repeat that such statements and such fears are fundamentally wrong and unfounded. Muslim India shall as much defend India`s liberties as non-Muslim India, even if the invader happens to be a follower of Islam.
`` Next, we not only believe in a free India but we also believe in a united India—not the India of the Muslim, not the India of the Hindu or of the Sikh, not the India of this community or of that community but the India of all. And as this is our abiding faith, we refuse to be parties to any division of the India of the future into a Hindu or a Muslim India. However much the conception of a Hindu and a Muslim India may appeal and send into frenzied ecstasies abnormally orthodox mentalities of their party, we offer our full throated opposition to it, not only because it is singularly unpractical and utterly obnoxious but because it not only sounds the death-knell of all that is noble and lasting in modern political activity in India, but is also contrary to and opposed to India`s chief historical tradition.
`` India was one in the days of Asoka and Chandragupta and India remained one even when the sceptre and rod of Imperial sway passed from Hindu into Moghul or Muslim hands. And India shall remain one when we shall have attained the object of our desires and reached those uplands of freedom, where all the light illuminating us shall not be reflected glory but shall be light proceeding direct as it were from our very faces.
`` The conception of a divided India, which Sir Muhammad lqbal put forward recently in the course of his presidential utterance from the platform of the League at a time when that body had virtually become extinct and ceased to represent free Islam—I am glad to be able to say that Sir Muhammad lqbal has since recanted it—must not therefore delude anybody into thinking that it is Islam`s conception of the India to be. Even if Dr. Sir Muhammad lqbal had not recanted it as something which could not be put forward by any sane person, I should have emphatically and unhesitatingly repudiated it as something foreign to the genius and the spirit of the rising generation of Islam, and I really deem it a proud duty to affirm today that not only must there be no division of India in to communal provinces but that both Islam and Hinduism must run coterminously with the boundaries of India and must not be cribbed, cabined and confined within any shorter bounds. To the same category as Dr. lqbal`s conception of a Muslim India and a Hindu India, belongs the sinister proposals of some Sikh communalists to partition and divide the Punjab.
`` With a creed so expansive, namely a free and united India with its people all enjoying in equal measure and without any kinds of distinctions and disabilities the protection of laws made by the chosen representatives of the people on the widest possible basis of a true democracy, namely, adult franchise, and through the medium of joint electorates—and an administration charged with the duty of an impartial execution of the laws, fully accountable for its actions, not to a distant or remote Parliament of foreigners but to the chosen representatives of the land,—you would not expect me to enter into the details and lay before you, all the colours of my picture. And I should have really liked to conclude my general observations on the aims and objects of the Nationalist Muslim Party here, were it not that the much discussed question of joint or separate electorates, has today assumed proportions where no public man can possibly ignore it.
`` Whatever may have been the value or utility of separate electorates at a time when an artificially manipulated high-propertied franchise had the effect of converting a majority of the people in the population of a province into a minority in the electoral roll, and when communal passions and feelings ran particularly high, universal distrust poisoning the whole atmosphere like a general and all-pervading miasma,—we feel that in the circumstances of today and in the India of the future, separate electorates should have no place whatever. ``
Such were the views Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali held on nationalism, on separate electorates and on Pakistan. How diametrically opposed are the views now held by them on these very problems ?
So far I have laboured to point out things, the utter failure of the attempts made to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity and the emergence of a new ideology in the minds of the Muslim leaders. There is also a third thing which I must discuss in the present context for reasons arising both from its relevance as well as from its bearing on the point under consideration, namely whether the Muslim ideology has behind it a justification which political philosophers can accept.
Many Hindus seem to hold that Pakistan has no justification. If we confine ourselves to the theory of Pakistan there can be no doubt that this is a greatly mistaken view. The philosophical justification for Pakistan rests upon the distinction between a community and a nation. In the first, place, it is recognized comparatively recently. Political philosophers for a long time were concerned, mainly, with the controversy summed up in the two questions, how far should the right of a mere majority to rule the minority be accepted as a rational basis for government and how far the legitimacy of a government be said to depend upon the consent of the governed. Even those who insisted, that the legitimacy of a government depended upon the consent of the governed, remained content with a victory for their proposition and did not cane to probe further into the matter. They did not feel the necessity for making any distinctions within the category of the `` governed ``. They evidently thought that it was a matter of no moment whether those who were included in the category of the governed formed a community or a nation. Force of circumstances has, however, compelled political philosophers to accept this distinction. In the second place, it is not a mere distinction without a difference. It is a distinction which is substantial and the difference is consequentially fundamental. That this distinction between a community and a nation is fundamental, is clear from the difference in the political rights which political philosophers are prepared to permit to a community and those they are prepared to allow to a nation against the Government established by law. To a community they are prepared to allow only the right of insurrection. But to a nation they are willing to concede the right of disruption. The distinction between the two is as obvious as it is fundamental.. A right of insurrection is restricted only to insisting on a change in the mode and manner of government. The right of disruption is greater than the right of insurrection arid extends to the secession of a group of the members of a State with a secession of the portion of the State`s territory in its occupation. One wonders what must be the basis of this difference. Writers on political philosophy, who have discussed this subject, have given their reasons for the justification of a Community`s right to insurrection 110[f.66] and of a nation`s right to demand disruption. 111[f.67] The difference comes to this : a community has a right to safeguards, a nation has a right to demand separation. The difference is at once clear and crucial. But they have not given any reasons why the right of one is limited to insurrection and why that of the other extends to disruption. They have not even raised such a question. Nor are the reasons apparent on the face of them. But it is both interesting and instructive to know why this difference is made. To my mind the reason for this difference pertains to questions of ultimate destiny. A state either consists of a series of communities or it consists of a series of nations. In a state, which is composed of a series of communities, one community may be arrayed against another community and the two may be opposed to each other. But in the matter of their ultimate destiny they feel they are one. But in a state, which is composed of a series of nations, when one nation rises against the other, the conflict is one as to differences of ultimate destiny. This is the distinction between communities and nations and it is this distinction which explains the difference in their political rights. There is nothing new or original in this explanation. It is merely another way of staring why the community has one kind of right and the nation another of quite a different kind. A community has a right of insurrection because it is satisfied with it. All that it wants is a change in the mode and form of government. Its quarrel is not over any difference of ultimate destiny. A nation has to be accorded the right of disruption because it will not be satisfied with mere change in the form of government. Its quarrel is over the question of ultimate destiny. If it will not be satisfied unless the unnatural bond that binds them is dissolved, then prudence and even ethics demands that the bond shall be dissolved and they shall be freed each to pursue its own destiny.
V
While it is necessary to admit that the efforts at Hindu-Muslim unity have failed and that the Muslim ideology has undergone a complete revolution, it is equally necessary to know the precise causes which have produced these effects. The Hindus say that the British policy of divide and rule is the real cause of this failure and of this ideological revolution. There is nothing surprising in this. The Hindus having cultivated the Irish mentality to have no other politics except that of being always against the Government, are ready to blame the Government for everything including bad weather. But time has come to discard the facile explanation so dear to the Hindus. For it fails to take into account two very important circumstances. In the first place, it overlooks the fact that the policy of divide and rule, allowing that the British do resort to it, cannot succeed unless there are elements which make division possible, and further if the policy succeeds for such a long time, it means that the elements which divide are more or less permanent and irreconcilable and are not transitory or superficial. Secondly, it forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British even by the worst of his enemies. He may be too self-opinionated, an egotist without the mask and has perhaps a degree of arrogance which is not compensated by any extraordinary intellect or equipment. It may be on that account he is unable to reconcile himself to a second place and work with others in that capacity for a public cause. He may not be over-flowing with ideas although he is not, as his critics make him out to be, an empty-headed dandy living upon the ideas of others. It may be that his fame is built up more upon art and less on substance. At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.
--
I am not interested in whether you keep your job or not.
While you persist in denying the truth, please be fairminded enough to recall that you never produced a quote despite my prodding- at any time. The only unfavorable quote you produced was Ambedkar`s negative opinion on Jinnah. I produced the only detailed view of Jinnah that Ambedkar left behind...
I have the pleasure of producing it again:
Dr Ambedkar on Jinnah:
At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.
Far cry from your claim that ``But you won`t disclose that the man hated Jinnah even more than he ever hated Gandhi because that would give you no legs to stand on in your war against Gandhi`s popularity.``
Here is the only detailed profile of Jinnah that Ambedkar has left behind:
How complete the revolution is can be seen by reference to the past pronouncements of some of those who insist on the two-nation theory and believe that Pakistan is the only solution of the Hindu-Muslim problem. Among these Mr. Jinnah, of course, must be accepted as the foremost. The revolution in his views on the Hindu-Muslim question is striking, if not staggering. To realize the nature, character and vastness of this revolution it is necessary to know his pronouncements in the past relating to the subject so that they may be compared with those he is making now.
A study of his past pronouncement may well begin with the year 1906 when the leaders of the Muslim community waited upon Lord Minto and demanded separate electorates for the Muslim community. It is to be noted that Mr. Jinnah was not a member of the deputation. Whether he was not invited to join the deputation or whether he was invited to join and declined is not known. But the fact remains that he did not lend his support to the Muslim claim to separate representation when it was put forth in 1906.
In 1918 Mr. Jinnah resigned his membership of the Imperial Legislative Council as a protest against the Rowlatt Bill. 98[f.54] In tendering his resignation Mr. Jinnah said :
`` I feel that under the prevailing conditions, I can be of no use to my people in the Council, nor consistently with one`s self-respect is cooperation possible with a Government that shows such utter disregard for the opinion of the representatives of the people at the Council Chamber and the feelings and the sentiments of the people outside. `` In 1919 Mr. Jinnah gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee appointed by Parliament on the Government of India Reform Bill, then on the anvil. The following views were expressed by him in answer to questions put by members of the Committee on the Hindu-Muslim question.
EXAMINED BY MAJOR ORMSBY-GORE.
Q. 3806.—You appear on behalf of the Moslem League— that is, on behalf of the only widely extended Mohammedan organisation in India ?—Yes.
Q. 3807.—I was very much struck by the fact that neither in your answers to the questions nor in your opening speech this morning did you make any reference to the special interest of the Mohammedans in India: is that because you did not wish to say anything ?—No, but because I take it the Southborough Committee have accepted that, and I left it to the members of the Committee to put any questions they wanted to. I took a very prominent part in the settlement of Lucknow. I was representing the Musalmans on that occasion.
Q. 3809.—On behalf of the All-India Moslem League, you ask this Committee to reject the proposal of the Government of India ?—I am authorised to say that—to ask you to reject the proposal of the Government of India with regard to Bengal [i.e., to give the Bengal Muslims more representation than was given them by the Lucknow Pact].
Q. 3810.—You said you spoke from the point of view of India. You speak really as an Indian Nationalist ?—1 do.
Q. 3811.—Holding that view, do you contemplate the early disappearance of separate communal representation of the Mohammedan community ?—I think so.
Q. 3812.—That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you wish to do away in political life with any distinction between Mohammedans and Hindus ?—Yes. Nothing will please me more than when that day comes.
Q. 3813—You do not think it is true to say that the Mohammedans of India have many special political interests not merely in India but outside India, which they are always particularly anxious to press as a distinct Mohammedan community? —There are two things. In India the Mohammedans have very few things really which you can call matters of special interest for them—I mean secular things.
Q. 3814.—I am only referring to them, of course ?—And therefore that is why I really hope and expect that the day is not very far distant when these separate electorates will disappear.
Q. 3815.—It is true, at the same time, that the Mohammedans in India take a special interest in the foreign policy of the Government of India ?—They do ; a very,—No, because what you propose to do is to frame very keen interest and the large majority of them hold very strong sentiments and very strong views.
Q. 3816.—Is that one of the reasons why you, speaking on behalf of the Mohammedan community, are so anxious to get the Government of India more responsible to an electorate ?—No.
Q. 3817.—Do you think it is possible, consistently with remaining in the British Empire, for India to have one foreign policy and for His Majesty, as advised by his Ministers in London, to have another ?—Let me make it clear. It is not a question of foreign policy at all. What the Moselms of India feel is that it is a very difficult position for them. Spiritually, the Sultan or the Khalif is their head.
Q. 3818.—Of one community ?—Of the Sunni sect, but that is the largest; it is in an overwhelming majority all over India. The Khalif is the only rightful custodian of the Holy Places according to our view, and nobody else has a right. What the Moslems feel very keenly is this, that the Holy Places should not be severed from the Ottoman Empire— that they should remain with the Ottoman Empire under the Sultan.
Q. 3819.—I do not want to get away from the Reform Bill on to foreign policy.—1 say it has nothing to do with foreign policy. Your point is whether in India the Muslims will adopt a certain attitude with regard to foreign policy in matters concerning Moslems all over the world.
Q. 3820.—My point is, are they seeking for some control over the Central Government in order to impress their views on foreign policy on the Government of India ?—No.
EXAMINED BY MR. BENNETT
Q. 3853.—...........Would it not be an advantage in the case of an occurrence of that kind [i.e., a communal riot] if the maintenance of law and order were left with the executive side of the Government ?—1 do not think so, if you ask me, but I do not want to go into unpleasant matters, as you say.
Q. 3854.—It is with no desire to bring up old troubles that I ask the question ; I would like to forget them ?—If you ask me, very often these riots are based on some misunderstanding, and it is because the police have taken one side or the other, and that has enraged one side or the other. I know very well that in the Indian States you hardly ever hear of any Hindu-Mohammedan riots, and I do not mind telling the Committee, without mentioning the name, that I happened to ask one of the ruling Princes, `` How do you account for this ? `` and he told me, `` As soon as there is some trouble we have invariably traced it to the police, through the police taking one side or the other, and the only remedy we have found is that as soon as we come to know we move that police officer from that place, and there is an end of it. ``
Q. 3855.—That is useful piece of information, but the fact remains that these riots have been inter-racial, Hindu on the one side and Mohammedan on the other. Would it be an advantage at a time like that the Minister, the representative of one community or the other, should be in charge of the maintenance of law and order ?—Certainly.
Q. 3856.—It would ?—If I thought otherwise I should be casting a reflection on myself. If I was the Minister, I would make bold to say that nothing would weigh with me except justice, and what is right. Q. 3857.—I can understand that you would do more than justice to the other side; but even then, there is what might be called the subjective side. It is not only that there is impartiality, but there is the view which may be entertained by the public, who may harbour some feeling of suspicion ?—With regard to one section or the other, you mean they would feel that an injustice was done to them, or that justice would not be done ?
Q. 3858.—Yes; that is quite apart from the objective part of it ?—My answer is this: That these difficulties are fast disappearing. Even recently, in the whole district of Thana, Bombay, every officer was an Indian officer from top to bottom, and I do not think there was a single Mohammedan—they were all Hindus—and I never heard any complaint Recently that has been so. I quite agree with you that ten years ago there was that feeling what you are now suggesting to me, but it is fast disappearing.
EXAMINED BY LORD ISLINGTON
Q. 3892.—. ...... You said just now about the communal representation, I think in answer to Major Ormsby-Gore, that you hope in a very few years you would be able to extinguish communal representation, which was at present proposed to be established and is established in order that Mahommedans may have their representation with Hindus. You said you desired to see that. How soon do you think that happy state of affairs is likely to be realized ?—1 can only give you certain facts : I cannot say anything more than that: I can give you this which will give you some idea: that in 1913, at the All-India Moslem League sessions at Agra, we put this matter to the lest whether separate electorates should be insisted upon or not by the Mussalmans, and we got a division, and that division is based upon Provinces ; only a certain number of votes represent each Province, and the division came to 40 in favour of doing away with the separate electorate, and 80 odd—1 do not remember the exact number—were for keeping the separate electorate. That was in 1913. Since then I have had many opportunities of discussing this matter with various Mussulman leaders ; and they are changing their angle of vision with regard to this matter. I cannot give you the period, but I think it cannot last very long. Perhaps the next inquiry may hear something about it.
Q. 3893.—You think at the next inquiry the Mahommedans will ask to be absorbed into the whole ?—Yes, I think the next inquiry will probably hear something about it.
Although Mr. Jinnah appeared as a witness on behalf of the Muslim League, he did not allow his membership of the League to come in the way of his loyalty to other political organizations in the country. Besides being a member of the Muslim League, Mr. Jinnah was a member of the Home Rule League and also of the Congress. As he said in his evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, he was a member of all three bodies although he openly disagreed with the Congress, with the Muslim League and that there were some views which the Home Rule League held which he did not share. That he was an independent but a nationalist ,is shown by his relationship with the Khilafatist Musalmans. In 1920 the Musalmans organized the Khilafat Conference. It became so powerful an organization that the Muslim League went under and lived in a state of suspended animation till 1924. During these years no Muslim leader could speak to the Muslim masses from a Muslim platform unless he was a member of the Khilafat Conference. That was the only platform for Muslims to meet Muslims. Even then Mr. Jinnah refused to join the Khilafat Conference. This was no doubt due to the fact that then he was only a statutory Musalman with none of the religious fire of the orthodox which he now says is burning within him. But the real reason why he did not join the Khilafat was because he was opposed to the Indian Musalmans engaging themselves in extra-territorial affairs relating to Muslims outside India.
After the Congress accepted non-co-operation, civil disobedience and boycott of Councils, Mr. Jinnah left the Congress. He became its critic but never accused it of being a Hindu body. He protested when such a statement was attributed to him by his opponents. There is a letter by Mr. Jinnah to the Editor of the Times of India written about the time which puts in a strange contrast the present opinion of Mr. Jinnah about the Congress and his opinion in the past. The letter 99[f.55] reads as follows :—.
`` To the Editor of `` The Times of India ``
Sir,—1 wish again to correct the statement which is attributed to me and to which you have given currency more than once and now again repeated by your correspondent ` Banker `in the second column of your issue of the 1st October that I denounced the Congress as ` a Hindu Institution `. I publicly corrected this misleading report of my speech in your columns soon after it appeared ;.but it did not find a place in the columns of your paper and so may I now request you to publish this and oblige. ``
After the Khilafat storm had blown over and the Muslims had shown a desire to return to the internal politics of India, the Muslim League was resuscitated. The session of the League held in Bombay on 30th December 1924 under the presidentship of Mr. Raza Ali was a lively one. Both Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Mahomed Ali took part in it. 100[f.56]
In this session of the League, a resolution was moved which affirmed the desirability of representatives of the various Muslim associations of India representing different shades of political thought meeting in a conference at an early date at Delhi or at some other central place with a view to develop `` a united and sound practical activity `` to supply the needs of the Muslim community. Mr. Jinnah in explaining the resolution said 101[f.57] :—
`` The object was to organize the Muslim community, not with a view to quarrel with the Hindu community, but with a view to unite and cooperate with it for their motherland. He was sure once they had organized themselves they would join hands with the Hindu Maha Sabha and declare to the world that Hindus and Mahomedans are brothers. ``
The League also passed another resolution in the same session for appointing a committee of 33 prominent Musalmans to formulate the political demands of the Muslim community. The resolution was moved by Mr. Jinnah. In moving the resolution, Mr. Jinnah 102[f.58] :—
``Repudiated the charge that he was standing on the platform of the League as a communalist. He assured them that he was, as ever, a nationalist. Personally he had no hesitation. He wanted the best and the fittest men to represent them in the Legislatures of the land (Hear, Hear and Applause). But unfortunately his Muslim compatriots were not prepared to go as far as he. He could not be blind to the situation. The fact was that there was a large number of Muslims who wanted representation separately in Legislatures and in the country`s Services. They were talking of communal unity, but where was unity ? It had to be achieved by arriving at some suitable settlement. He knew he said amidst deafening cheers, that his fellow-religionists were ready and prepared to fight for Swaraj, but wanted some safeguards. Whatever his view, and they knew that as a practical politician he had to take stock of the situation, the real block to unity was not the communities themselves, but a few mischief makers on both sides. ``
And he did not thus hesitate to arraign mischief makers in the sternest possible language that could only emanate from an earnest nationalist. In his capacity as the President of the session of the League held in Lahore on 24th May 1924 he said 103 [f59] :—
`` If we wish to be free people, let us unite, but if we wish to continue slaves of Bureaucracy, let us fight among ourselves and gratify petty vanity over petty matters. Englishmen being our arbiters. ``
In the two All-Parties Conferences, one held in 1925 and the other in 1928, Mr. Jinnah was prepared to settle the Hindu-Muslim question on the basis of joint electorates. In 1927 he openly said 104[f.60] from the League platform :—
`` I am not wedded to separate electorates, although I must say that the overwhelming majority of the Musalmans firmly and honestly believe that it is the only method by which they can be sure. ``
In 1928, Mr. Jinnah joined the Congress in the boycott of the Simon Commission. He did so even though the Hindus and Muslims had failed to come to a settlement and he did so at the cost of splitting the League into two.
Even when the ship of the Round Table Conference was about to break on the communal rock, Mr. Jinnah resented being named as a communalist who was responsible for the result and said that he preferred an agreed solution of the communal problem to the arbitration of the British Government. Addressing the U. P. Muslim Conference held at Allahabad on 8th August 105[f.61] 1931 Mr. Jinnah said :—
`` The first thing that I wish to tell you is that it is now absolutely essential and vital that Muslims should stand united. For Heaven`s sake close all your ranks and files and slop this internecine war. I urged this most vehemently and I pleaded to the best of my ability before Dr. Ansari, Mr. T. A. K. Sherwani, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr. Syed Mahmud. I hope that before I leave the shores of India I shall hear the good news that whatever may be our differences ; whatever may be our convictions between ourselves, this is not the moment to quarrel between ourselves.
`` Another thing I want to tell you is this. There is a certain section of the press, there is a certain section of the Hindus, who constantly misrepresent me in various ways. I was only reading the speech of Mr. Gandhi this morning and Mr. Gandhi said that he loves Hindus and Muslims alike. I again say standing here on this platform that although I may not put forward that claim but I do put forward this honestly and sincerely that I want fair play between the two communities. ``
Continuing further Mr. Jinnah said: ``As to the most important question, which to my mind is the question of Hindu-Muslim settlement—all I can say to you is that I honestly believe that the Hindus should concede to the Muslims a majority in the Punjab and Bengal and if that is conceded, I think a settlement can be arrived at in a very short time.
``The next question that arises is one of separate vs. joint electorates. As most of you know, if a majority is conceded in the Punjab and Bengal, I would personally prefer a settlement on the basis of joint electorate. (Applause.) But I also know that there is a large body of Muslims—and I believe a majority of Muslims—who are holding on to separate electorate. My position is that I would rather have a settlement even on the footing of separate electorate, hoping and trusting that when we work our new constitution and when both Hindus and Muslims get rid of distrust, suspicion and fears and when they gel their freedom we would rise to the occasion and probably separate electorate will go sooner than most of us think.
`` Therefore I am for a settlement and peace among the Muslims first; I am for a settlement and peace between the Hindus and Mahommedans. This is not a lime for argument, not a time for propaganda work and not a time for embittering feelings between the two communities, because the enemy is at the door of both of us and I say without hesitation that if the Hindu-Muslim question is not settled, I have no doubt that the British will have to arbitrate and that he who arbitrates will keep to himself the substance of power and authority. Therefore, I hope they will not vilify me. After all, Mr. Gandhi himself says that he is willing to give the Muslims whatever they want, and my only sin is that I say to the Hindus give to the Muslims only 14 points, which is much less than the ` blank cheque ` which Mr. Gandhi is willing to give. I do not want a blank cheque, why not concede the 14 points ? When Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru says: `Give us a blank cheque ` when Mr. Patel says : ` Give us a blank cheque and we will sign it with a Swadeshi pen on a Swadeshi paper ` they are not communalists and I am a communalist ! I say to Hindus not to misrepresent everybody. I hope and trust that we shall be yet in a position to settle the question which will bring peace and happiness to the millions in our country.
`` One thing more I want to tell you and I have done. During the lime of the Round Table Conference,—it is now an open book and anybody who cares to read it can learn for himself—I observed the one and the only principle and it was that when I left the shores of Bombay I said to the people that I would hold the interests of India sacred, and believe me—if you care to read the proceedings of the Conference, I am not bragging because I have done my duly—that I have loyally and faithfully fulfilled my promise to the fullest extent and I venture to say that if the Congress or Mr. Gandhi can get anything more than I fought for, I would congratulate them.
`` Concluding Mr. Jinnah said that they must come to a settlement, they must become friends eventually and he, therefore, appealed to the Muslims to show moderation, wisdom and conciliation, if possible, in the deliberation that might take place and the resolution that might be passed at the Conference. ``
As an additional illustration of the transformation in Muslim ideology, I propose to record the opinions once held by Mr. Barkat Ali who is now a follower of Mr. Jinnah and a staunch supporter of Pakistan.
When the Muslim League split-into two over the question of cooperation with the Simon Commission, one section led by Sir Mahommad Shafi favouring co-operation and another section led by Mr. Jinnah supporting the Congress plan of boycott, Mr. Barkat Ali belonged to the Jinnah section of the League. The two wings of the League held their annual sessions in 1928 at two different places. The Shafi wing met in Lahore and the Jinnah wing met in Calcutta. Mr. Barkat Ali, who was the Secretary of the Punjab Muslim League, attended the Calcutta session of the Jinnah wing of the League and moved the resolution relating to the communal settlement. The basis of the settlement was joint electorates. In moving the resolution Mr. Barkat Ali said 106 [f62] :—
`` For the first time in the history of the League there was a change in its angle of vision. We are offering by this change a sincere hand of fellowship to those of our Hindu countrymen who have objected to the principle of separate electorates. ``
In 1928 there was formed a Nationalist Party under the leadership of Dr. Ansari. 107[f.63] The Nationalist Muslim Party was a step in advance of the Jinnah wing of the Muslim League and was prepared to accept the Nehru Report, as it was, without any amendments—not even those which Mr. Jinnah was insisting upon. Mr. Barkat Ali, who in 1927 was with the Jinnah wing of the League, left the same as not being nationalistic enough and joined the Nationalist Muslim Party of Dr. Ansari. How great a nationalist Mr. Barkat Ali then was can be seen by his trenchant and vehement attack on Sir Muhammad lqbal for his having put forth in his presidential address to the annual session of the All-India Muslim League held at Allahabad in 1930 a scheme 108[f.64] for the division of India which is now taken up by Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali and which goes by the name of Pakistan. In 1931 there was held in Lahore the Punjab Nationalist Muslim Conference and Mr. Barkat Ali was the Chairman of the Reception Committee. The views he then expressed on Pakistan are worth recalling 109[f.65] Reiterating and reaffirming the conviction and the political faith of his party, Malik Barkat Ali, Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Conference, said :
`` We believe, first and foremost in the full freedom and honour of India. India, the country of our birth and the place with which all our most valued and dearly cherished associations are knit, must claim its first place in our affection and in our desires. We refuse to be parties to that sinister type of propaganda which would try to appeal to ignorant sentiment by professing to be Muslim first and Indian afterwards. To us a slogan of this kind is not only bare, meaningless cant, but downright mischievous. We cannot conceive of Islam in its best and last interests as in any way inimical to or in conflict with the best and permanent interests of India. India and Islam in India are identical, and whatever is to the detriment of India must, from the nature of it, be detrimental to Islam whether economically, politically, socially or even morally. Those politicians, therefore, are a class of false prophets and at bottom the foes of Islam, who talk of any inherent conflict between Islam and the welfare of India. Further, howsoever much our sympathy with our Muslim brethren outside India, i.e., the Turks and the Egyptians or the Arabs,—and it is a sentiment which is at once noble and healthy,—we can never allow that sympathy to work to the detriment of the essential interests of India. Our sympathy, in fact, with those countries can only be valuable to them, if India as the source, nursery and fountain of that sympathy, is really great. And if ever the lime comes, God forbid, when any Muslim Power from across the Frontier chooses to enslave India and snatch away the liberties of its people, no amount of pan-lslamic feeling, whatever it may mean, can stand in the way of Muslim India fighting shoulder to shoulder with non-Muslim India in defence of its liberties.
`` Let there be, therefore, no misgivings of any kind in that respect in any non-Muslim quarters. I am conscious that a certain class of narrow-minded Hindu politicians is constantly harping on the bogey of an Islamic danger to India from beyond the N.-W. Frontier passes but I desire to repeat that such statements and such fears are fundamentally wrong and unfounded. Muslim India shall as much defend India`s liberties as non-Muslim India, even if the invader happens to be a follower of Islam.
`` Next, we not only believe in a free India but we also believe in a united India—not the India of the Muslim, not the India of the Hindu or of the Sikh, not the India of this community or of that community but the India of all. And as this is our abiding faith, we refuse to be parties to any division of the India of the future into a Hindu or a Muslim India. However much the conception of a Hindu and a Muslim India may appeal and send into frenzied ecstasies abnormally orthodox mentalities of their party, we offer our full throated opposition to it, not only because it is singularly unpractical and utterly obnoxious but because it not only sounds the death-knell of all that is noble and lasting in modern political activity in India, but is also contrary to and opposed to India`s chief historical tradition.
`` India was one in the days of Asoka and Chandragupta and India remained one even when the sceptre and rod of Imperial sway passed from Hindu into Moghul or Muslim hands. And India shall remain one when we shall have attained the object of our desires and reached those uplands of freedom, where all the light illuminating us shall not be reflected glory but shall be light proceeding direct as it were from our very faces.
`` The conception of a divided India, which Sir Muhammad lqbal put forward recently in the course of his presidential utterance from the platform of the League at a time when that body had virtually become extinct and ceased to represent free Islam—I am glad to be able to say that Sir Muhammad lqbal has since recanted it—must not therefore delude anybody into thinking that it is Islam`s conception of the India to be. Even if Dr. Sir Muhammad lqbal had not recanted it as something which could not be put forward by any sane person, I should have emphatically and unhesitatingly repudiated it as something foreign to the genius and the spirit of the rising generation of Islam, and I really deem it a proud duty to affirm today that not only must there be no division of India in to communal provinces but that both Islam and Hinduism must run coterminously with the boundaries of India and must not be cribbed, cabined and confined within any shorter bounds. To the same category as Dr. lqbal`s conception of a Muslim India and a Hindu India, belongs the sinister proposals of some Sikh communalists to partition and divide the Punjab.
`` With a creed so expansive, namely a free and united India with its people all enjoying in equal measure and without any kinds of distinctions and disabilities the protection of laws made by the chosen representatives of the people on the widest possible basis of a true democracy, namely, adult franchise, and through the medium of joint electorates—and an administration charged with the duty of an impartial execution of the laws, fully accountable for its actions, not to a distant or remote Parliament of foreigners but to the chosen representatives of the land,—you would not expect me to enter into the details and lay before you, all the colours of my picture. And I should have really liked to conclude my general observations on the aims and objects of the Nationalist Muslim Party here, were it not that the much discussed question of joint or separate electorates, has today assumed proportions where no public man can possibly ignore it.
`` Whatever may have been the value or utility of separate electorates at a time when an artificially manipulated high-propertied franchise had the effect of converting a majority of the people in the population of a province into a minority in the electoral roll, and when communal passions and feelings ran particularly high, universal distrust poisoning the whole atmosphere like a general and all-pervading miasma,—we feel that in the circumstances of today and in the India of the future, separate electorates should have no place whatever. ``
Such were the views Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali held on nationalism, on separate electorates and on Pakistan. How diametrically opposed are the views now held by them on these very problems ?
So far I have laboured to point out things, the utter failure of the attempts made to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity and the emergence of a new ideology in the minds of the Muslim leaders. There is also a third thing which I must discuss in the present context for reasons arising both from its relevance as well as from its bearing on the point under consideration, namely whether the Muslim ideology has behind it a justification which political philosophers can accept.
Many Hindus seem to hold that Pakistan has no justification. If we confine ourselves to the theory of Pakistan there can be no doubt that this is a greatly mistaken view. The philosophical justification for Pakistan rests upon the distinction between a community and a nation. In the first, place, it is recognized comparatively recently. Political philosophers for a long time were concerned, mainly, with the controversy summed up in the two questions, how far should the right of a mere majority to rule the minority be accepted as a rational basis for government and how far the legitimacy of a government be said to depend upon the consent of the governed. Even those who insisted, that the legitimacy of a government depended upon the consent of the governed, remained content with a victory for their proposition and did not cane to probe further into the matter. They did not feel the necessity for making any distinctions within the category of the `` governed ``. They evidently thought that it was a matter of no moment whether those who were included in the category of the governed formed a community or a nation. Force of circumstances has, however, compelled political philosophers to accept this distinction. In the second place, it is not a mere distinction without a difference. It is a distinction which is substantial and the difference is consequentially fundamental. That this distinction between a community and a nation is fundamental, is clear from the difference in the political rights which political philosophers are prepared to permit to a community and those they are prepared to allow to a nation against the Government established by law. To a community they are prepared to allow only the right of insurrection. But to a nation they are willing to concede the right of disruption. The distinction between the two is as obvious as it is fundamental.. A right of insurrection is restricted only to insisting on a change in the mode and manner of government. The right of disruption is greater than the right of insurrection arid extends to the secession of a group of the members of a State with a secession of the portion of the State`s territory in its occupation. One wonders what must be the basis of this difference. Writers on political philosophy, who have discussed this subject, have given their reasons for the justification of a Community`s right to insurrection 110[f.66] and of a nation`s right to demand disruption. 111[f.67] The difference comes to this : a community has a right to safeguards, a nation has a right to demand separation. The difference is at once clear and crucial. But they have not given any reasons why the right of one is limited to insurrection and why that of the other extends to disruption. They have not even raised such a question. Nor are the reasons apparent on the face of them. But it is both interesting and instructive to know why this difference is made. To my mind the reason for this difference pertains to questions of ultimate destiny. A state either consists of a series of communities or it consists of a series of nations. In a state, which is composed of a series of communities, one community may be arrayed against another community and the two may be opposed to each other. But in the matter of their ultimate destiny they feel they are one. But in a state, which is composed of a series of nations, when one nation rises against the other, the conflict is one as to differences of ultimate destiny. This is the distinction between communities and nations and it is this distinction which explains the difference in their political rights. There is nothing new or original in this explanation. It is merely another way of staring why the community has one kind of right and the nation another of quite a different kind. A community has a right of insurrection because it is satisfied with it. All that it wants is a change in the mode and form of government. Its quarrel is not over any difference of ultimate destiny. A nation has to be accorded the right of disruption because it will not be satisfied with mere change in the form of government. Its quarrel is over the question of ultimate destiny. If it will not be satisfied unless the unnatural bond that binds them is dissolved, then prudence and even ethics demands that the bond shall be dissolved and they shall be freed each to pursue its own destiny.
V
While it is necessary to admit that the efforts at Hindu-Muslim unity have failed and that the Muslim ideology has undergone a complete revolution, it is equally necessary to know the precise causes which have produced these effects. The Hindus say that the British policy of divide and rule is the real cause of this failure and of this ideological revolution. There is nothing surprising in this. The Hindus having cultivated the Irish mentality to have no other politics except that of being always against the Government, are ready to blame the Government for everything including bad weather. But time has come to discard the facile explanation so dear to the Hindus. For it fails to take into account two very important circumstances. In the first place, it overlooks the fact that the policy of divide and rule, allowing that the British do resort to it, cannot succeed unless there are elements which make division possible, and further if the policy succeeds for such a long time, it means that the elements which divide are more or less permanent and irreconcilable and are not transitory or superficial. Secondly, it forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British even by the worst of his enemies. He may be too self-opinionated, an egotist without the mask and has perhaps a degree of arrogance which is not compensated by any extraordinary intellect or equipment. It may be on that account he is unable to reconcile himself to a second place and work with others in that capacity for a public cause. He may not be over-flowing with ideas although he is not, as his critics make him out to be, an empty-headed dandy living upon the ideas of others. It may be that his fame is built up more upon art and less on substance. At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.
--
#533 Posted by harish_hyd on January 17, 2006 12:32:28 am
#529 by Mantolives
[First of all I await your response to my quoting of Ambedkar- Ambedkar shows conclusively that Jinnah for most his life tried to keep Hindus and Muslims united.]
Yaar, won`t you let me keep my job? If you are so interested in my response, it is already there at Chowk. You only have to search. If you remember, in one of our exchanges earlier, I had pasted that excerpt about Ambedkar`s unfavorable comments on Jinnah. Look it up on Chowk archives, and if you can`t find it, let me step in for you. Till then you do the dirty work.
[What Jinnah said, after trying 30 years to bring Hindus and Muslims together, was a statement of fact. BTW two nation theory did not say that Muslims and Hindus could not live together but that they should have equal share in government.]
If you look at the Indian government today, can you tell us which community has greater representation? Okay, let`s for a moment assume that it is the Hindus (since they are numerically superior), are they all united under one single block of Hindus against Muslims?
You see it is such monumental stupidity for which Jinnah is reviled. He couldn`t see the simple fact that even though Hindus are in a majority, they are further divided into numerous sects, sub-sects, and classes, with the result that even if they wanted, they can never be effective against Muslims, who are much more cohesive and united.
And if Muslims were to get preferential treatment, what would stop Christians, Sikhs, Parsees, Jews, Jains, and Buddhists from claiming similar treatment?
And please for the nth time, stop that baloney about how Jinnah tried to bring Hindus and Muslims together. It is not this, but his divisive and communal politics which killed thousands of Hindus and Muslims not to mention Sikhs, for which he will be remembererd forever, just as Gandhi is remembered for spearheading the freedom movement.
You can try to discredit Gandhi till the cows come home, but it WAS and IS Jinnah who remains discredited.
[First of all I await your response to my quoting of Ambedkar- Ambedkar shows conclusively that Jinnah for most his life tried to keep Hindus and Muslims united.]
Yaar, won`t you let me keep my job? If you are so interested in my response, it is already there at Chowk. You only have to search. If you remember, in one of our exchanges earlier, I had pasted that excerpt about Ambedkar`s unfavorable comments on Jinnah. Look it up on Chowk archives, and if you can`t find it, let me step in for you. Till then you do the dirty work.
[What Jinnah said, after trying 30 years to bring Hindus and Muslims together, was a statement of fact. BTW two nation theory did not say that Muslims and Hindus could not live together but that they should have equal share in government.]
If you look at the Indian government today, can you tell us which community has greater representation? Okay, let`s for a moment assume that it is the Hindus (since they are numerically superior), are they all united under one single block of Hindus against Muslims?
You see it is such monumental stupidity for which Jinnah is reviled. He couldn`t see the simple fact that even though Hindus are in a majority, they are further divided into numerous sects, sub-sects, and classes, with the result that even if they wanted, they can never be effective against Muslims, who are much more cohesive and united.
And if Muslims were to get preferential treatment, what would stop Christians, Sikhs, Parsees, Jews, Jains, and Buddhists from claiming similar treatment?
And please for the nth time, stop that baloney about how Jinnah tried to bring Hindus and Muslims together. It is not this, but his divisive and communal politics which killed thousands of Hindus and Muslims not to mention Sikhs, for which he will be remembererd forever, just as Gandhi is remembered for spearheading the freedom movement.
You can try to discredit Gandhi till the cows come home, but it WAS and IS Jinnah who remains discredited.
#532 Posted by MantoLives on January 16, 2006 11:39:59 pm
``are`` protests even in this day and age.
#531 Posted by MantoLives on January 16, 2006 11:39:22 pm
Self delusional fantasies?
Read the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi...
You`ll find that that my self delusional fantasies were actually the delusional fantasies of Mahatma Gandhi who was a racist bigot.
Quite clearly the world doesn`t think Gandhi to be that great.... why in South Africa there were protests against him even today...
Or is ``Guardian`` a biased unknown newspaper?
Gandhi branded racist in Johannesburg
Posted By: New
Date: 17, October 03, at 11:15 p.m.
Gandhi branded racist as Johannesburg honours freedom fighter
Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
Friday October 17, 2003
The Guardian
It was supposed to honour his resistance to racism in South Africa, but a new statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Johannesburg has triggered a row over his alleged contempt for black people.
The 2.5 metre high (8ft) bronze statue depicting Gandhi as a dashing young human rights lawyer has been welcomed by Nelson Mandela, among others, for recognising the Indian who launched the fight against white minority rule at the turn of the last century.
But critics have attacked the gesture for overlooking racist statements attributed to Gandhi, which suggest he viewed black people as lazy savages who were barely human.
Newspapers continue to publish letters from indignant readers: ``Gandhi had no love for Africans. To [him], Africans were no better than the `Untouchables` of India,`` said a correspondent to The Citizen.
Others are harsher, claiming the civil rights icon ``hated`` black people and ignored their suffering at the hands of colonial masters while championing the cause of Indians.
Unveiled this month, the statue stands in Gandhi Square in central Johannesburg, not far from the office from which he worked during some of his 21 years in South Africa.
The British-trained barrister was supposed to have been on a brief visit in 1893 to represent an Indian company in a legal action, but he stayed to fight racist laws after a conductor kicked him off a train for sitting in a first-class compartment reserved for whites.
Outraged, he started defending Indians charged with failing to register for passes and other political offences, founded a newspaper, and formed South Africa`s first organised political resistance movement. His tactics of mobilising people for passive resistance and mass protest inspired black people to organise and some historians credit Gandhi as the progenitor of the African National Congress, which formed in 1912, two years before he returned to India to fight British colonial rule.
However, the new statue has prompted bitter recollections about some of Gandhi`s writings.
Forced to share a cell with black people, he wrote: ``Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves.``
He was quoted at a meeting in Bombay in 1896 saying that Europeans sought to degrade Indians to the level of the ``raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness``.
The Johannesburg daily This Day said GB Singh, the author of a critical book about Gandhi, had sifted through photos of Gandhi in South Africa and found not one black person in his vicinity.
The Indian embassy in Pretoria declined to comment, as it prepared for President Thabo Mbeki`s visit to India.
Khulekani Ntshangase, a spokesman for the ANC Youth League, defended Gandhi, saying the critics missed the bigger picture of his immense contribution to the liberation struggle.
Gandhi`s offending comments were made early in his life when he was influenced by Indians working on the sugar plantations and did not get on with the black people of modern-day KwaZulu-Natal province, said Mr Ntshangase.
``Later he got more enlightened.``
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
#530 Posted by Ranjit on January 16, 2006 11:35:55 pm
Re:harish_hyd and rsridhar
Guys, this jinnah/gandhi issue is ridiculous and we are wasting our energy trying to explain anything to a juvenile person like Manto. Manto thinks jinnah is a saint and gandhi is a devil. The entire planet of 6 Billion people including all other Pakistanis (except for behram) find this absurd. So why bother? Let him enjoy his self-delusional fantasies and think that the rest of the 6 billion people are wrong.
It doesnt matter that Gandhi created the non-violence movement that inspired leaders like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King and brought freedom to millions. No matter that Gandhi personally stopped communal rioting in Calcutta and elsewhere. No matter that Gandhi fought to get the portion of the treasury to Paistan after 1947.
So manto - ok, jinnah was the best. Happy now?
Guys, this jinnah/gandhi issue is ridiculous and we are wasting our energy trying to explain anything to a juvenile person like Manto. Manto thinks jinnah is a saint and gandhi is a devil. The entire planet of 6 Billion people including all other Pakistanis (except for behram) find this absurd. So why bother? Let him enjoy his self-delusional fantasies and think that the rest of the 6 billion people are wrong.
It doesnt matter that Gandhi created the non-violence movement that inspired leaders like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King and brought freedom to millions. No matter that Gandhi personally stopped communal rioting in Calcutta and elsewhere. No matter that Gandhi fought to get the portion of the treasury to Paistan after 1947.
So manto - ok, jinnah was the best. Happy now?
#529 Posted by MantoLives on January 16, 2006 11:26:06 pm
Harish Hyd...
First of all I await your response to my quoting of Ambedkar- Ambedkar shows conclusively that Jinnah for most his life tried to keep Hindus and Muslims united.
1- What Jinnah said, after trying 30 years to bring Hindus and Muslims together, was a statement of fact. BTW two nation theory did not say that Muslims and Hindus could not live together but that they should have equal share in government.
2- But lets humor you... a man says Hindus and Muslims are two nations and that is some how equal to Gandhi saying that Black people are subhuman savages and little better than animals... that Indo-germanic stock is better than negroid stock is the same as saying Hindus and Muslims are different nations?
I suppose you think the Jews are the same as the Nazis then... since Jews believed in their religio-national homeland... and Adolf Hitler in Germanic superiority much in the same terms as Gandhi expresses in his collected works.
First of all I await your response to my quoting of Ambedkar- Ambedkar shows conclusively that Jinnah for most his life tried to keep Hindus and Muslims united.
1- What Jinnah said, after trying 30 years to bring Hindus and Muslims together, was a statement of fact. BTW two nation theory did not say that Muslims and Hindus could not live together but that they should have equal share in government.
2- But lets humor you... a man says Hindus and Muslims are two nations and that is some how equal to Gandhi saying that Black people are subhuman savages and little better than animals... that Indo-germanic stock is better than negroid stock is the same as saying Hindus and Muslims are different nations?
I suppose you think the Jews are the same as the Nazis then... since Jews believed in their religio-national homeland... and Adolf Hitler in Germanic superiority much in the same terms as Gandhi expresses in his collected works.
#528 Posted by harish_hyd on January 16, 2006 11:18:49 pm
#523 by Mantolives
[A man calls Africans inferior and of lower stock than Indo-germanic stock to which white people and Indian belong...]
And what about the man who claimed that Hindus and Muslims were two different nations and as such could not live together? Would he not be classified as a racist?
[A man calls Africans inferior and of lower stock than Indo-germanic stock to which white people and Indian belong...]
And what about the man who claimed that Hindus and Muslims were two different nations and as such could not live together? Would he not be classified as a racist?
#527 Posted by MantoLives on January 16, 2006 11:16:13 pm
Gandhi`s HATEFUL legacy:
The advent of Christmas, 1998 marks a shift in the pattern of genocide meted out by the Brahmin-Occupied Government of India. After Pandit Nehru and the Brahmins partitioned India in 1947, engineering the Partition Holocaust, the Brahmins under Indira Gandhi targetted the innocent Sikhs, murdering 300,000 of them. Subsequently, Pandit Rajiv Gandhi invaded Sri Lanka and exterminated more than 10,000 Tamils there. Then it was the turn of the Indian Muslims : Pandit Vajpayee destroyed the Babri Masjid and murdered 10,000 Muslims in well-organised pogroms. Then the wrath of the Brahmins descended upon the helpless Christians. Hundreds of Christians were massacred, scores of nuns raped, and dozens of churches demolished. One of the incidents which occurred during the systematic persecution and mass murder of Indian Christians was the savage murder of Graham Staines.
Graham Staines was an Australian missionary working in the Eastern districts of Orissa, one of India`s poorest states. He was involved in curing leprosy amongst the Dalits, the Black Untouchables of India. Dedicated and hard-working, Graham Staines regularly toured the region in order to reach inaccessible Dalit villages. It was common for him to sleep overnight in his jeep on account of poor communication and transport facilities. On one such night, a mob of 100 brainwashed Brahminist Hindu fanatics cowardly surrounded the jeep Graham Staines was sleeping in, and torched it. Graham Staines was burned alive. Most shocking was that Graham`s two infant sons also perished in the blaze. Even the Brahminist Pseudo-Secular Press of India could not hide a crime of such enormity from international view -
The advent of Christmas, 1998 marks a shift in the pattern of genocide meted out by the Brahmin-Occupied Government of India. After Pandit Nehru and the Brahmins partitioned India in 1947, engineering the Partition Holocaust, the Brahmins under Indira Gandhi targetted the innocent Sikhs, murdering 300,000 of them. Subsequently, Pandit Rajiv Gandhi invaded Sri Lanka and exterminated more than 10,000 Tamils there. Then it was the turn of the Indian Muslims : Pandit Vajpayee destroyed the Babri Masjid and murdered 10,000 Muslims in well-organised pogroms. Then the wrath of the Brahmins descended upon the helpless Christians. Hundreds of Christians were massacred, scores of nuns raped, and dozens of churches demolished. One of the incidents which occurred during the systematic persecution and mass murder of Indian Christians was the savage murder of Graham Staines.
Graham Staines was an Australian missionary working in the Eastern districts of Orissa, one of India`s poorest states. He was involved in curing leprosy amongst the Dalits, the Black Untouchables of India. Dedicated and hard-working, Graham Staines regularly toured the region in order to reach inaccessible Dalit villages. It was common for him to sleep overnight in his jeep on account of poor communication and transport facilities. On one such night, a mob of 100 brainwashed Brahminist Hindu fanatics cowardly surrounded the jeep Graham Staines was sleeping in, and torched it. Graham Staines was burned alive. Most shocking was that Graham`s two infant sons also perished in the blaze. Even the Brahminist Pseudo-Secular Press of India could not hide a crime of such enormity from international view -
#526 Posted by MantoLives on January 16, 2006 11:14:27 pm
Two can play at this game:
The HATEFUL legacy of Gandhi, the casteist hindu bigot, who also hated black people.
Bodies of Muslims burnt
The HATEFUL legacy of Gandhi, the casteist hindu bigot, who also hated black people.
Bodies of Muslims burnt
#525 Posted by MantoLives on January 16, 2006 11:10:57 pm
I ask you a question and you post something that has nothing to do with Jinnah.
Do you see the difference between you and me?
I am the follower of a man, whose honesty and integrity was unquestionable- therefore I have only posted verifiable references.
You put up all nonsense from all over- and try and associate Jinnah`s name with it.
#524 Posted by rsridhar on January 16, 2006 11:08:31 pm
re: Jinnah`s hateful legacy
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/11/20/religious_minorities_fearful_after_attack_in_pakistan/
(The Muslim crowd, incensed by rumors that a Christian had desecrated copies of the Koran, tore open the doors of the Holy Spirit church, smashed the marble altar, and shattered the stained-glass windows. They torched Dilawar`s residence and the neighboring St. Anthony`s Girls school. Within moments flames were licking the walls and black smoke filled the sky.)
(Two other churches -- one Presbyterian and the other belonging to the evangelistic Salvation Army movement -- and at least six houses were also torched, in violence that lasted for several hours and that local police were apparently powerless to prevent or combat.)
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11159.shtml
(Kidnap Hindu girl, force marriage to Muslim: Pakistan
Sunday, January 08 2006 @ 07:07 PM Central Standard Time
Pakistan TerrorismJ. Grant Swank, Jr.
Sanao Menghwar has had three of his daughters kidnapped, then forced to marry Muslim men. That means that the young women were coerced into becoming Islamics. This happens daily, particularly in the Pakistani Sindh province, according to Hasan Mansoor, reporter, Midday.com. Other Hindus in the province worry when their daughters will disappear. Therefore, there are entire Hindu families leaving Pakistan for Canada, India or other nations.Menghewar and his wife left their house on errands. When they returned to their residence, their daughters were missing. They reported the missing young women to the police department, filing the necessary papers. Neighbors helped them on a search party to locate the daughters, but to no avail. Menghwar’s daughters have yet to be found. However, authorities have arrested three Islamic young men assumed to be connected with the girls’ kidnapping. The men have been released on bail by a court due to the men being minors.
``’Kidnapping Hindu girls like this has become a normal practice. The girls are then forced to sign stamp papers stating that they’ve become Muslims,’ says Laljee Menghwar, a member of the Hindu Panchayat in Karachi.`` Because of Muslim threats, Hindus have had to turn to what those in the Netherlands are resorting to. Both areas have been under extreme pressure from maiming and killing Islamics so that the local citizens have put into action what one person refers to as ``self-censorship.`` There is no talk. There is no public utterance. There is nothing said negatively about the Muslims in the area for fear of being slain. So it is that Islamic killers international could overtake country after country, area after area. Instill such fear in the people that no one speaks the facts concerning local Islamics kidnapping and killing; therefore, they have open skies to do just that — more so. ``’Hindus here are too frightened to vent their anger — they fear victimization,’ said one local.``
Nevertheless, Pakistani Christian community members have come to their aid. The Christians have organized support for the Hindus persecuted by Muslims. The Christians have ``carried out a demonstration with them in Karachi, protesting against this crime. ``Similarly startling incidents have occurred in several districts of Sindh and evoked identical responses. At least six Hindu girls met this fate a few months ago in Jacobabad (a tribal area heavily inhabited by Hindus) and Larkana districts. ``Sapna, the daughter of one Seth Giyanchand, was recently taken to a shrine (Amrote in Shikarpur district) by Shamsuddin Dasti. Dasti, a Muslim friend of Sapna’s brother, is a married man and father of two. ``Nevertheless, the custodian of the shrine, Maulvi Abdul Aziz lost no time in converting Sapna to Islam (her name was changed to ‘Mehek’) and marrying her to Dasti. The case came to light only when Sapna’s parents stated that their daughter hadn’t eloped but had been abducted.``
Islamic fanaticism is increasing alarmingly, according to Nuzzhat Shirin of the Aurat Foundation. The fanatics erect shrines that are used in coercing ``conversions.`` When a Hindu is forced to become a Muslim, zealot Islamics gather at the shrines, chanting and singing and marching in the streets. Such a ruckus is made that if the young kidnapped girl appears in court, the fanatic Muslims yell, scream, throw rose petals into the air and follow the youth into the building so that she is so intimidated that she can hardly speak. It is Muslim winning by intimidation. It is Muslim overcoming a culture by threatening. It is by Islamics abducting young girls that an entire community is snuffed out by moving away or succumbing to the Muslim murderers global. ``The threat of victimization by Muslims is palpable; Shirin says when forced conversion cases make it to court, lawyers themselves avoid taking them up, fearing a backlash from maulvis.`` It is the same with so-called ``honor killing.`` When Muslim males slay a Hindu female whom they have accused of dishonoring the clan in some way, usually police and media say nothing, looking the other way. Therefore, the slaughtering of innocent females continues daily. )
Sridhar
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/11/20/religious_minorities_fearful_after_attack_in_pakistan/
(The Muslim crowd, incensed by rumors that a Christian had desecrated copies of the Koran, tore open the doors of the Holy Spirit church, smashed the marble altar, and shattered the stained-glass windows. They torched Dilawar`s residence and the neighboring St. Anthony`s Girls school. Within moments flames were licking the walls and black smoke filled the sky.)
(Two other churches -- one Presbyterian and the other belonging to the evangelistic Salvation Army movement -- and at least six houses were also torched, in violence that lasted for several hours and that local police were apparently powerless to prevent or combat.)
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11159.shtml
(Kidnap Hindu girl, force marriage to Muslim: Pakistan
Sunday, January 08 2006 @ 07:07 PM Central Standard Time
Pakistan TerrorismJ. Grant Swank, Jr.
Sanao Menghwar has had three of his daughters kidnapped, then forced to marry Muslim men. That means that the young women were coerced into becoming Islamics. This happens daily, particularly in the Pakistani Sindh province, according to Hasan Mansoor, reporter, Midday.com. Other Hindus in the province worry when their daughters will disappear. Therefore, there are entire Hindu families leaving Pakistan for Canada, India or other nations.Menghewar and his wife left their house on errands. When they returned to their residence, their daughters were missing. They reported the missing young women to the police department, filing the necessary papers. Neighbors helped them on a search party to locate the daughters, but to no avail. Menghwar’s daughters have yet to be found. However, authorities have arrested three Islamic young men assumed to be connected with the girls’ kidnapping. The men have been released on bail by a court due to the men being minors.
``’Kidnapping Hindu girls like this has become a normal practice. The girls are then forced to sign stamp papers stating that they’ve become Muslims,’ says Laljee Menghwar, a member of the Hindu Panchayat in Karachi.`` Because of Muslim threats, Hindus have had to turn to what those in the Netherlands are resorting to. Both areas have been under extreme pressure from maiming and killing Islamics so that the local citizens have put into action what one person refers to as ``self-censorship.`` There is no talk. There is no public utterance. There is nothing said negatively about the Muslims in the area for fear of being slain. So it is that Islamic killers international could overtake country after country, area after area. Instill such fear in the people that no one speaks the facts concerning local Islamics kidnapping and killing; therefore, they have open skies to do just that — more so. ``’Hindus here are too frightened to vent their anger — they fear victimization,’ said one local.``
Nevertheless, Pakistani Christian community members have come to their aid. The Christians have organized support for the Hindus persecuted by Muslims. The Christians have ``carried out a demonstration with them in Karachi, protesting against this crime. ``Similarly startling incidents have occurred in several districts of Sindh and evoked identical responses. At least six Hindu girls met this fate a few months ago in Jacobabad (a tribal area heavily inhabited by Hindus) and Larkana districts. ``Sapna, the daughter of one Seth Giyanchand, was recently taken to a shrine (Amrote in Shikarpur district) by Shamsuddin Dasti. Dasti, a Muslim friend of Sapna’s brother, is a married man and father of two. ``Nevertheless, the custodian of the shrine, Maulvi Abdul Aziz lost no time in converting Sapna to Islam (her name was changed to ‘Mehek’) and marrying her to Dasti. The case came to light only when Sapna’s parents stated that their daughter hadn’t eloped but had been abducted.``
Islamic fanaticism is increasing alarmingly, according to Nuzzhat Shirin of the Aurat Foundation. The fanatics erect shrines that are used in coercing ``conversions.`` When a Hindu is forced to become a Muslim, zealot Islamics gather at the shrines, chanting and singing and marching in the streets. Such a ruckus is made that if the young kidnapped girl appears in court, the fanatic Muslims yell, scream, throw rose petals into the air and follow the youth into the building so that she is so intimidated that she can hardly speak. It is Muslim winning by intimidation. It is Muslim overcoming a culture by threatening. It is by Islamics abducting young girls that an entire community is snuffed out by moving away or succumbing to the Muslim murderers global. ``The threat of victimization by Muslims is palpable; Shirin says when forced conversion cases make it to court, lawyers themselves avoid taking them up, fearing a backlash from maulvis.`` It is the same with so-called ``honor killing.`` When Muslim males slay a Hindu female whom they have accused of dishonoring the clan in some way, usually police and media say nothing, looking the other way. Therefore, the slaughtering of innocent females continues daily. )
Sridhar
#523 Posted by MantoLives on January 16, 2006 11:03:48 pm
Rsridhar...
A man calls Africans inferior and of lower stock than Indo-germanic stock to which white people and Indian belong...
Would he not be classified as a racist bigot?
#522 Posted by rsridhar on January 16, 2006 10:57:13 pm
re:#517 by harish_hyd
IF people like Manto were only more objective, criticism of Gandhi may not be that hard to accept. Nobody says he is beyond blemishes. Gandhi had many eccentricities that i had talked about earlier. For eg his insistence on nature cure, bringing religious imagery into public discourse etc.
But to say Gandhi was a racist is pure bunkum. Only an intellectually bancrupt person like Manto can say so. May be that is how he earns his salary.
Sridhar
IF people like Manto were only more objective, criticism of Gandhi may not be that hard to accept. Nobody says he is beyond blemishes. Gandhi had many eccentricities that i had talked about earlier. For eg his insistence on nature cure, bringing religious imagery into public discourse etc.
But to say Gandhi was a racist is pure bunkum. Only an intellectually bancrupt person like Manto can say so. May be that is how he earns his salary.
Sridhar
#521 Posted by MantoLives on January 16, 2006 10:56:15 pm
PS:
Dr Ambedkar on Gandhi: Blue blooded manipulative Hindu fanatic
Dr Ambedkar on Jinnah: A man of integrity- completely incorruptible