Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do

#567 by nasah on January 20, 2006 5:19am PT


Mushrraf`s proposals of demilitarization of three cities to end militancy in the three cities


No militancy, no military...It`s not far fetched..that`s the way it was pre-1989..

though presented in a flippant self promoting way -- Mushrraf`s proposals of demilitarization of three cities to end militancy in the three cities MERIT a careful consideration....

a positive feed back is coming from the Indian Kashmris -- there is no harm in trying the formula -- what if it works -- it will be great for Srinagar to give it a breathing space --

Mehbooba is right -- the Indian Army should be withdrawn -- and Kashmir police should take over the law and order business in Srinagar -- if needed Kashmiri youth should be recruited by the government to maintain in police to make up for extra work... to maintain peace.

Dr. Manmohan SIngh MUST take a chance on Srinagar -- the Indian army can stay in the outskirts -- to return in case of breakdown of law and order.......let`s see if and how the cookie crumbles

India must take the gamble -- it will be mother of all CBMs.....and some reprieve to Indian Kashmiris from the suffocating hug of the Indian army...

.....DO IT DR. MANMOHAN SINGH -- DO IT

#562, rsridhar {``Why dont u tell Manto and his ilk the stinking legacy that Jinnah the mofucking pork eating bastard has left. ``}

Sri Sridhar Saheb,
Now that we are discussing Babai Qaum Hajrat Quaid-e-Ajam Mohammad Ali Jinnah Allaissalaam`s gastronomical peculiarities, may I add that he enjoyed shrimp and chablis also? :)

Ref #564:

Dear Yasser:

As per his own volition his brains has slid down to between his legs. He just has a huge godown between his hearing posts. All he knows to do is go in circles just like his mahatama and act important. This guy has no shame because he knows not.

Respectfully submitted,

Dear Rsridhar,

No need to lose your temper and prove to us that just like Gandhi you don`t have control over your impulses.

The issue here is simple... whereas I have quoted Gandhi`s own works to prove that he was a racist casteist Hindu fanatic... you unfortunately have relied on bashing Pakistanis (not to mention calling Jinnah ``mofucker``- very Gandhian indeed).

Gandhi was much like you. At Simla he broke the camera owned by Sikh journalist ... in much the same fashion. All hypocrites are the same.

Yours sincerely

YLH

re: Jinnah`s abiding legacy: Paki terrorists are caught the worldover
terrorist caught in US
Mali (of all countries!) transports Paki terrorists back to Pak
Thai Police arrests Pakis with fake passports

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/16/AR2005091601744.html

(The charges against Chandia, a legal permanent resident who emigrated from Pakistan in 1994, are an outgrowth of the ``Virginia jihad network`` case, in which nine Muslim men have been convicted over the past two years of training overseas for holy war against the United States.)
Paki terrorist in Oklahoma
Paki terrorism link in Australia:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17186582%255E601,00.html
(Martin Chulov
November 09, 2005

SYDNEY father Khaled Cheikho is believed to have trained in a paramilitary camp run by outlawed Kashmiri group Lashkar-e-Taiba in early 2001.

An ASIO target for the past two years, the 32-year-old was identified at the Pakistani camp by a rollover witness testifying in a Sydney committal hearing earlier this year.

According to the witness, Mr Cheikho`s nephew Moustafa, 28, arrived for training at the camp about a year after his uncle had returned to Australia. Moustafa was allegedly known in the camp by the alias Abu Asad.....)
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article331422.ece
(Dutch Terrorism: links with Pakistan:
t pre-trial hearings, prosecutors said the accused possessed copies of a letter left on Van Gogh`s body and handbooks on how to carry out murders.

They were heard speaking in tapped telephone conversations about slaying non-believers like sacrificial lambs. Several of them trained in Pakistan to carry out armed attacks, prosecutors said.

The first witness, identified by judges as Malika Shabi, declined to speak to the judges or even confirm her name. She sat silently as Judge de Boer read aloud excerpts from a statement she made to police in which she told of her hasty marriage to one of the suspects, Nouriddin el Fatmi.

He was arrested near an Amsterdam railway station with a machine pistol and ammunition....)

Paki Briton extradited to US for terror
And so the saga goes on. Paki terrorists caught in nearby places like Male to farflung areas like Romania. An abiding legacy of Jinnah is that the moth-eaten land has also now become terrorist-infested.
Sridhar

re:#536 by harish_hyd
Why dont u tell Manto and his ilk the stinking legacy that Jinnah the mofucking pork eating bastard has left.
That will be more fruitful than interacting with that nutcase.
Anyway, Manto probably has a lot of time at hand, suffering from one more illness that plagues that society viz squalor.
Sridhar

re:#540 by Mantolives
Manto,
You and your ilk are one reason why Pakis are so hated in India and the world over. You have your own idea of world order.
Jinnah is zilch in today`s world. Gandhiji is remembered for his principled stand of non-violence.
Now chew on that while you get orgasms over Jinnah (i know u have stopped making love to your wife for sometime now).
Sridhar

re:#530 by ranjit
Manto is symptomatic of illness that pervades every strata of Paki society. It is called obfuscation of facts. There is also self-denial as that article that i posted talks about. If something is wrong in Pak, the so-called experts there will immediately proclaim: is it not worse in India?
Pak is an aritificial creation that will go the way artificially created nations like Yugaslavia, Prussia, Soviet Union went: on a rollercoaster ride into oblivion. We need not despair at what Manto and his ilk write about Gandhi. Message is more important than the messenger. Gandhiji`s message of peace reverberates throughout the world today. Jinnah is not known outside Pakistan.
Sridhar

rsridhar...

So what that the link doesn`t have anything to do with Jinnah- I suppose everything goes when one is using Gandhian methods...

but anyway... have a nice day.


Good night rest-

Re # 556

masanamuthu,

Agree completely.
End of discussion on my part at least.

re: Pak`s violent jehadi legacy
Jinnah`s contribution to Paki state:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/magazine/07PAKISTAN.html?ex=1137646800&en=1b3dd23ba49fa027&ei=5070
Sridhar

The topic of this article has nothing to do with Gandhi/Jinnah.. Don`t you guys get tired??.. :-))

Anyways, we should all thank Jinnah and Gandhi for what they have done and move on with life.. Think about this..If not for Jinnah, Pakistanis would be fearing the ``domination`` by ``kafirs``, and if not for Gandhi, Indians would have to check if every line of their constitution falls in line with the ``sharia``.. :-))

If you have to blame someone for all the ills, blame that arab dude of the 7`th century..

That should read

``Syed Ahmed Khan, the great Muslim moderniser, choose to keep Muslims out of CONGRESS``

Dear Shishapa bhai...

Looks like you`ve skipped over the entire history post-1857- if indeed not the last 400 years...

The issue of religion was not the doing of Jinnah or the Muslim League. Indeed it wasn`t even Gandhi`s doing... though his support of both the Pan-Islamic Khilafat movement and also his own emphasis on Hinduism brought the religion issue out in the open...

Why did the Hindu Bourgeoisie develop separately than the Muslim Bourgeoisie... why did Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the great Muslim moderniser, choose to keep Muslims out of Aligarh... why did Lord Minto grant the Muslim delegation`s demand for separate electorate (ironically with severe protest from Congressman Jinnah)...

Look... Khushwant Singh, who is the most secular of secular Indians, said in an interview with Christopher Mitchell - that there was very superficial mixing of Hindus/Sikhs and Muslims... it was tragic but it was a fact. This is precisely why Jinnah, in the 1920s, had pleaded with Gandhi to use parliament because he believed Hindu-Muslim unity could only be imposed if a secular elite took the initiative by completely keeping religion out and undoing the separate electorates. (Please read the excerpt from Ambedkar on Jinnah in post 205 in entirety)

What about Hindu majority areas within muslim majority areas, muslims majority
areas within hindu majority areas, buddhists majority areas within hindu majority
areas, hindu majority areas within christians majority areas?

If we keep revolving around religion like this, and keep balancing like this, when is the
time for nation building? All the time is wasted in making these arrangements.
What a nightmare.

India was not just Hindu Muslims. There were Buddhists majority areas (Ladakh),
there were Christian majority or tribal majority areas.

This too much empahsis on religion and balancing all religious balances and
manipulations would have been so counterproductive to any nation building.

``it would mean equal say of Muslim Majority areas and Hindu majority areas ``

But why even stipulate that? Why qualify with the religion?
What would have happened to Northeast of India when it it would have had majority
Chirstians (the way it has right now)? How about Sikhs, they were neither Hindus
nor Muslims!
Why get tangled up so much into religion? Why not just humans, man/woman?

Dear Shishapa...

On the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan ... which was after all the brainchild of Congress` own Maulana Azad and which was accepted by Jinnah.

I think you are mistaken when you suggest that CMP would mean equal say of the Muslims... it would mean equal say of Muslim Majority areas and Hindu majority areas (meaning ofcourse that non-Muslims from Pakistan provinces would also be represented from its share at the centre). If you do the arithmetic... it came to 35% representation for roughly 25% to 30% Muslims of South Asia. Thus the principle of one-man one-vote was pretty much intact ...

Like I pointed out before... it was either a federation of United India with neither Hindu nor Muslim domination... or two states one Hindu dominated and the other Muslim dominated... the decision was made when Nehru, on the egging of Gandhi, rejected the CMP.

Now coming to the other part of your question- If you ask me ... I believe a consociationalist arrangement of the sort that Cabinet Mission Plan suggested should become part of Pakistan`s system and while there being no areas in Pakistan with a Muslim majority , I believe constitutional safeguards should be made whereby minorities should have a greater than normal say in Pakistan`s affairs... thereby providing the minorities of Pakistan affirmative action- I believe this process should continue for the next 50 years... this is what I suspect Jinnah was doing when he appointed a Hindu law minister....

-YLH

There is absolutely no doubt that Ambedkar hated Gandhi the most.
(Quite understandable, as Gandhi was his direct competitor for the dalit constituency)

Re # 529

``BTW two nation theory did not say that Muslims and Hindus could not live together but that they should have equal share in government. ``

Why? On what basis? Do Hindus have equal share in Pakistan? Why does not
two nation theory now apply in current Pakistan? Why only in United India?
Did two nation theory mandate that if Muslims and Hindus do not have equal share in the
government, they should reside separately, in separate enclaves, ruling only themselves?

Are you saying one hindu vote was less than one muslim vote?

This discussion has veered off from the original subject but here is a relevant article...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1374350.cms


`In Musharraf, we have an illegitimate leader`
Rahul Chandawarkar


Imran Khan, former Pakistan cricket captain and presently, a member of parliament in Pakistan, has always been known for his outspokenness. Khan tells Rahul Chandawarkar that General Musharraf`s days are numbered and that democracy will resurface in Pakistan:

Why do you think that the General`s days are numbered?

History shows that military dictators do not leave peacefully. Either there is a public movement against them or there is an accident. We in the opposition had planned a countrywide agitation against Musharraf.

But the quake happened and the matter has been kept in abeyance. If the combined opposition does launch a movement against him, it will be difficult for him to stay the course.
...
...
What is the state of Pakistan politics today?

Simple. There is no substitute for democracy. Elections do not mean democracy. Saddam had elections, Mubarak had elections and Musharraf has had them. What you need is an independent judiciary and an independent election commissioner.

Sadly, we do not have these in Pakistan. Even the civilian governments who worked for 11 years did not allow these two agencies to function independently. This stunted the growth of local leadership.

What do you expect in the 2007 elections?

The nation`s collective wisdom has grown. The people have learnt from their past mistakes and are willing to move forward. The independent television channels have worked wonders.
...
...
Regular political debates being beamed across the country have transformed public opinion. Musharraf has also played his part. He has not only discredited the army but has exposed the political mafia and himself.

Why are you so hopeful?

Let me give an example. The 2002 elections were controlled elections. However, the Pashtun people from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), the most politically aware and free ethnic group in Pakistan, created a revolution through the ballot.

They voted en bloc for the MMM party, defeated Musharraf`s candidates and caught the secret agencies by surprise. This magic can spread in the 2007 elections and the winner could be a coalition that represents change.
...
...
Do you think India and Pakistan can resolve their political differences through an active exchange of sports, trade and culture?

I would love to think so. However, our past 15 years of start and stop relationship does not suggest this. It is clear that the two countries have to resolve the Kashmir issue first.

Today, all you need is a major incident in Kashmir and all the tensions come out in the open again.

The hardliners on both sides get back to action once again. To make matters worse, there is no strong leadership on both sides. In Musharraf, we have an illegitimate leader.

Puyu... Absolutely- I acknowledge it. Please see post 545 again to see the issues at hand.


--

Some Views on Jinnah.


H V Hodson writes in his book:

``One thing is certain, it was not for any venal motive that he changed. Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self seeking. He could be bought by no one and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weathercock, swinging in the wind of popularity or changing his politics to suit the chances of the time. He was a steadfast idealist, as well as a man of scrupulous honour.`` (Page 39- The Great Divide)


Dr Ambedkar`s view :

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.... Indeed Mr. Jinnah is the one person who had all the chances of success on his side if he had tried to form such a united non-communal party. He has the ability to organize. He had the reputation of a nationalist. Even many Hindus who were opposed to the Congress would have flocked to him if he had only sent out a call for a united party of like-minded Hindus and Muslims. What did Mr. Jinnah do ? In 1937 Mr. Jinnah made his entry into Muslim politics and strangely enough he regenerated the Muslim League which was dying and decaying and of which only a few years ago he would have been glad to witness the funeral. However regrettable the starting of such a communal political party may have been, there was in it one relieving feature. That was the leadership of Mr. Jinnah. Everybody felt that with the leadership of Mr. Jinnah the League could never become a merely communal party. The resolutions passed by the League during the first two years of its new career indicated that it would develop into a mixed political party of Hindus and Muslims.

(Pakistan or Partition of India)


Nelson Mandela:

`Ali Jinnah is a constant source of inspiration for all those who are fighting against racial or group discrimination.` (Nelson Mandela had come to Islamabad in 1995 and had insisted on including Karachi as a destination to visit Jinnah`s Grave and his house in Karachi where upon reaching he drove straight to the Quaid`s Mazar)


Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (not that his patronisation counts much) said famously:

``Jinnah is incorruptible and brave``


M C Rajah, the leader of the scheduled castes and made this comment on Christmas Day 1940:

``All religions hold that God sends suitable people into the world to work out his plans from time to time and at critical junctures. I regard Mr Jinnah as the man who has been called upon to correct the wrong ways in which the people of India have been led by the leadership of Mr Gandhi. Congress took a wrong turn when it adopted wholesale the non cooperation programme of Mr Gandhi and assumed an attitude of open hostility towards Britain and tried to infusew the minds of people a spirit of defiance of law and civil disobedience more of less thinly veiled under a formula of truth and non violence. Moreover by Mahatmafying Mr Gandhi it appealed to the idolatorous sperstition of the Hindus, thus converting the religious adherence of the Hindu section of the population to the Mahatma into political support of his non cooperation movement.While this strategy was of some avail in hustling the British Government to yield more and more it divided the people into Hindu and non hind! u sectionsIn these circumstances a man was needed to stand up to congress and tell its leaders that their organization however powerful numerically and financially doesnot represent the whole of India. I admire Mr Jinnah and feel grateful to him because in advocating the cause of the Muslims he is championing the cause of all the classes that are in danger of bein crushed under the steam roller of the caste Hindu majority, acting under the inspiration and orders of Mr Gandhi `` (25th December 1940, 9 months After the Pakistan Resolution, Seen here are Scheduled castes of India)


Sarojini Naidu:

a sincerity of purpose and the lasting charm of a character animated by a brave conception of duty and an austere and lovely code of private honour and public integrity... Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s attenuated form is a deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance. Somewhat formal and fastidious, and a little aloof and imperious of manner, the calm hauteur of his accustomed reserve but masks, for those who know him, a naive and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman`s, a humour gay and winning as a child`s. Pre-eminently rational and practical, discreet and dispassionate in his estimate and acceptance of life, the obvious sanity and serenity of his worldly wisdom effectually disguise a shy and splendid idealism which is of the very essence of the man. (Sarojini Naidu, Advocate of Hindu Muslim Unity)

NEHRU

The old Advocate of Unity, Mr. M.A.Jinnah, ... was advanced than his colleagues, and stood head and shoulders above them. (Paraphrased: Quoted from his book freedom at midnight)


SARAR CHANDRA BOSE

``Mr. Jinnah`` he said on his death on 1948, ``was great as a lawyer, once great as a Congressman, great as a Leader of Muslims, great as a world politician and diplomat, and greatest as of all as a man of action. By Mr. Jinnah`s passing away, the world has lost one of the greatest statesmen and Pakistan its life-giver, philosopher and guide.``

Ambedkar on Jinnah and Gandhi
The link is ...http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/txt_ambedkar_ranade.html
I think Manto knows this. I remember pasting this link on his thread on Ranade


``The first thing that strikes me is that it would be difficult to find two persons [Gandhi and Jinnah] who would rival them for their colossal egotism, to whom personal ascendancy is everything and the cause of the country a mere counter on the table. They have made Indian politics a matter of personal feud. Consequences have no terror for them; indeed they do not occur to them until they happen. When they do happen they either forget the cause, or if they remember it, they overlook it with a complacency which saves them from any remorse. They choose to stand on a pedestal of splendid isolation. They wall themselves off from their equals. They prefer to open themselves to their inferiors. They are very unhappy at and impatient of criticism, but are very happy to be fawned upon by flunkeys. Both have developed a wonderful stagecraft, and arrange things in such a way that they are always in the limelight wherever they go.

Each of course claims to be supreme. If supremacy was their only claim, it would be a small wonder. In addition to supremacy each claims infallibility for himself.``

``... the spirit of domination exhibited by these two Great Men has transgressed all limits. By their domination they have demoralised their followers and demoralized politics. By their domination they have made half their followers fools and the other half hypocrites. In establishing their supremacy they have taken the aid of ``big business`` and money magnates. For the first time in our country, money is taking the field as an organised power.``

Dear Harish...

Once again I have seriously tried to apply myself to your train of thought but you seem to be jumping from argument to argument and in the process have entangled yourself hopelessly. So for your sake I am going to try and sift through our discussion.

What the issue is not :

Therefore I must say that lets start by stating the obvious and framing the issue between us at the moment. The issue here is NOT that you dislike Jinnah or have a low opinion of me or that I dislike Gandhi or have an even worse opinion of you. The issue is here is certainly not whether you view Ambedkar as a saint or a sinner or the gospel of the truth or an outright contradictory liar, or whether I see him as this thing or that. Similarly whether I view Jinnah as a secular liberal or Gandhi as a casteist bigot and you the opposite... or whether you think India is a great safe haven for all minorities and I the opposite is not an issue here.

I hope you agree with me when I say that we have the right to our opinions.


The issue between us is:

The issue between us arose, when in a bid to show that Indian constitution owes its strength to a man who was opposed to Gandhi and held Gandhiism in contempt, which in any event is true, I quoted Ambedkar on Gandhi. You emerged and made the claim that he hated Jinnah more than he hated Gandhi. I have contested this view.


Evidence

I produced Ambedkar`s comments on Jinnah in which he described Jinnah as an incorruptible politician who has never been bought and who has never been a soldier of fortune- and that hence the customary hindu explanation falls flat-

I produce here the quote from the larger excerpt I produced:

I asked you to prove your statement- and after much prodding you produced today, an analysis of Jinnah`s demands, you produce the statement where Ambedkar criticises the plan which suggests that the whole of Bengal and whole of Punjab be made part of Pakistan-and criticises Jinnah`s demand as ``illogical`` and ``unreasonable`` (it must be recalled that in 1947 Bengal and Punjab were indeed partitioned)...

But in any event this is my conclusion about what Ambedkar`s view of Jinnah and Gandhi is:

Jinnah

Ambedkar holds Jinnah to be a man of incorruptible integrity who is fit to lead the a non-communal movement against the Congress- indeed the only man as he says- but criticises Jinnah bitterly for abandoning Secular Indian Nationalism for Muslim Nationalism and calls Jinnah`s decision as well as the decision of the Muslims in general to be illogical and irrational..

Gandhi

Now Ambedkar`s view on Gandhi is that Gandhi was a blue blooded Hindu fanatic who manipulated the scheduled caste Hindus and was their worst enemy. I refer to ``What have Gandhi and the Congress Party done to the scheduled castes`` and ``Gandhi or Gandhiism``.. two of his most famous pamphlets.


--

Coming back to your claim in #203 we must address this issue. Who did Ambedkar hate most in light of evidence produced by both of us? It must be remembered here that it is immaterial whether you think Ambedkar was being contradictory or that he is an outright liar or whatever else you may believe.

Similarly my views on Jinnah or Gandhi as well as yours are completely immaterial to our discussion dear friend.

Hope this helps.

#543 by Mantolives

[I reject Ambedkar`s statement about Jinnah`s demand being illogical- but if we were to accept it... the question naturally arises.]

Well if you agree with his assessment of Jinnah`s ``impeccable integrity`` (whatever the heck that meant considering the fact that the man didn`t care for the lives of millions of Indians), I`m afraid you`ll have to put up with his negative comments as well. Selective agreement won`t cut. Maybe in Pakiworld, but not elsewhere.

[Is there a contradiction? You are pretty illogical but does it mean you are corrupt?]

By the same token, just because Jinnah was a man of impeccable integrity, does it mean he was not a communalist and a religious bigot? See the contradiction?

[I have quoted Seervai, Ambedkar, Wolpert and Ayesha Jalal consistently - so it is not quite how you put it. None of them maybe gospels of the truth but one takes what is common between all writings... include in this Louis Fischer`s Gandhi as well.. and all of them consider Jinnah to be incorruptible.]

See the point made above.

[The reason why this discussion started was because I was quoting Ambedkar on GANDHI ... not on Jinnah. You claimed that he hated Jinnah more than Gandhi.]

The point is not whether he hated them both equally or one more than the other. The point is he had negative impressions of both. And that should suffice.

[Instead of tying yourself up in knots produce the quote where Ambedkar describes Jinnah like he described Gandhi : A manipulative casteist blue blooded Hindu fanatic.]

It is you who are tying up yourself in knots. Do show us why Jinnah was not a religious fanatic despite arguing and snatching a Muslim state and in the process causing the deaths of millions.

[For Muslims doing well... please tell that to the relatives of those recently found in the mass graves in Gujurat.]

Ha! Is that the only thing you have? Enough Hindus and Christians have been converted forcibly in Pakistan too. Will you shut them up by reading out Jinnah`s idiotic speech in which he prophetically claimed ``Hindus will cease to be Hindus`` or Yousuf Youhana`s (aka Mohammad Yousuf) opinion where he claimed that if all non-Muslims converted to Islam then Pakistan would truly become ``Paak``.

Dear Harish Hyd,

I am not entirely sure what you are arguing about... you seemed to have tied yourself up in knots

Ambedkar says:

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.

Did Ambedkar not write this in the same book?

You write:

``any man with even an iota of common sense would understand that a man cannot be incorruptible and at the same time unreasonable and illogical. That is plain old contradiction.``

Now here is why this a logical sommersault for you.

1- I reject Ambedkar`s statement about Jinnah`s demand being illogical- but if we were to accept it... the question naturally arises : Is there a contradiction? You are pretty illogical but does it mean you are corrupt?

2- I have quoted Seervai, Ambedkar, Wolpert and Ayesha Jalal consistently - so it is not quite how you put it. None of them maybe gospels of the truth but one takes what is common between all writings... include in this Louis Fischer`s Gandhi as well.. and all of them consider Jinnah to be incorruptible.

3- The reason why this discussion started was because I was quoting Ambedkar on GANDHI ... not on Jinnah. You claimed that he hated Jinnah more than Gandhi.


4- Instead of tying yourself up in knots produce the quote where Ambedkar describes Jinnah like he described Gandhi : A manipulative casteist blue blooded Hindu fanatic.

5- If at all there is a contradiction- then it must have something to do with Ambedkar and not me.

6- For Muslims doing well... please tell that to the relatives of those recently found in the mass graves in Gujurat.

-YLH

#540 by Mantolives

You say he called Jinnah : An incorruptible man of integrity
Ambedkar says: Unreasonable and illogical

See the contradiction here?

[Your claim is brought to a nought with the quote I have presented earlier.]

First it was Wolpert, then Seervai, and now Ambedkar seems to be in vogue as the gospel of truth these days? Mr. Yasser, whatever happened to your own brain? Or is it that there is none? I don`t take Ambedkar to be the voice of God, but since you said he called Gandhi a fanatic, I had to show that he didn`t regard Jinnah too highly too. And while he may have called Jinnah an ``incorruptible man of integrity``, any man with even an iota of common sense would understand that a man cannot be incorruptible and at the same time unreasonable and illogical. That is plain old contradiction. But having been cast in the same mould as Jinnah, you wouldn`t understand, just as the man who thought Muslims would be doomed in Hindu-majority India. I`m sure the old crook must be turning in his grave to see Muslims prospering in India, his idea having failed spectatcularly.

Here is also what Ambedkar wrote from the same link:

Indeed Mr. Jinnah is the one person who had all the chances of success on his side if he had tried to form such a united non-communal party. He has the ability to organize. He had the reputation of a nationalist. Even many Hindus who were opposed to the Congress would have flocked to him if he had only sent out a call for a united party of like-minded Hindus and Muslims. What did Mr. Jinnah do ? In 1937 Mr. Jinnah made his entry into Muslim politics and strangely enough he regenerated the Muslim League which was dying and decaying and of which only a few years ago he would have been glad to witness the funeral. However regrettable the starting of such a communal political party may have been, there was in it one relieving feature. That was the leadership of Mr. Jinnah. Everybody felt that with the leadership of Mr. Jinnah the League could never become a merely communal party. The resolutions passed by the League during the first two years of its new career indicated that it would develop into a mixed political party of Hindus and Muslims.

Dear Harish Hyd,

Nice try but here is why you`ve fallen flat on your face...

Your claim was that Ambedkar hated Jinnah more than he hated Gandhi...

Now- he called Gandhi: A blue blooded Hindu fanatic

He called Jinnah : An incorruptible man of integrity

The best you could do is find ``illogical`` while dealing with an idea?


For your information my understanding of Jinnah doesn`t depend on Ambedkar either... but we are discussing your claim and specifically your claim.

Your claim is brought to a nought with the quote I have presented earlier.

Dear Mr. Yasser, you wouldn`t listen and now I have to call your bluff. Please visit the following link for Ambedkar`s views on Jinnah:

http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan/40F.Pakistan%20or%20the%20Partition%20of%20India%20PART%20V.htm

But just to rub it in, here`s a small excerpt. Just see the logic that Ambedkar expounds, the simple logic that was way beyond Jinnah`s understanding:

``But does Mr. Jinnah seriously wish to argue that the Hindus of the Punjab and Bengal are only chattels so that they must always go wherever the Muslims of the Punjab and the Muslims of Bengal choose to drive them? Such an argument will be too absurd to be entertained by any reasonable man. It is also the most illogical argument and certainly it should not be difficult for so mature a lawyer as Mr. Jinnah, to see the illogicality of it. [What? Ambedkar calling Jinnah unreasonable and illogical?, but the picture you painted was so rosy.] If a numerically smaller nation is only a sub-nation in relation to a numerically larger nation and has no right to territorial separation, why can it not be said that taking India as a whole the Hindus are a nation and the Muslims a sub-nation and as a sub-nation they have no right to self-determination or territorial separation?``

As to my views on Gandhi, they are not formed by what others think and feel, they are by what he did. Like Jinnah, you seem to be reading too much between the lines and are becoming as paranoid of me as he was of Gandhi. You may be another Jinnah, but there never will be another Gandhi.

``As always, you seem to rely more on what others thought and wrote about Jinnah than what your own common sense says.``

This from a person who has been saying that Gandhi is great because the world thinks so and he couldn`t be a racist- despite the fact that in his own writings, he has described black people are subhuman.

Harish Hyd...

I am going to ignore your personal attacks and abuses....

On Jinnah and Partition : I have addressed the issue you have raised several times and my views on this are very well known. I disagree with you on this and I have given enough reasons which you can agree or disagree with.

Right now the issue here is simply of your lie. I have given you 3 or 4 days. All of Ambedkar`s books are archived on line as well. Why must you press an issue when you know that you are wrong. I have never received any such quote from you- I do recall that you put something up about a Mohammed Ali who turned out to be Maulana Mohammed Ali of the Ali Brothers. You had then acknowledged that I was right and that indeed it was Maulana Mohammed Ali and not Jinnah.

Your claim was that the man hated Jinnah more than he hated Gandhi who he characterised as a blue blooded Hindu fanatic.

I have produced the following quote from the man:

``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``

as well as the detailed account.


Now please produce this ``quote`` that you have claimed so many times but have failed to produce.

Yours sincerely

YLH

#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.

Oops that should read ``Negative opinion on Muslims not Jinnah``-

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.

--

#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.

``are`` protests even in this day and age.

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

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?

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.

#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?

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 -

Two can play at this game:

The HATEFUL legacy of Gandhi, the casteist hindu bigot, who also hated black people.

Bodies of Muslims burnt

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.

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