Where are the Questioning Minds?

#360 by Mantolives

[I remember Sadna bibi also made a claim a bit different though different though from our poor logic-starved Harish Hyd.]

Calling someone logic-starved doesn`t make him/her one, it only indicates that you`re at a loss to put forth a coherent argument and are trying to put up a brave face. If your past posts are any indication, where every accusation/false compliment has been met by evidence to the contrary, you`re even losing at what you considered was your mastery (selective of course) of the events leading to Partition.

If this is all you have (and I`m sure it is), I won`t stoop down to name-calling by discussing this thing anymore with you. Do come back with more `evidence` to prove Jinnah`s legendary `justice and fairplay` and I`ll respond.

Lets not go in circles. The Congress Working Committee had agreed to the CMP under Azad... which is why he lost his gaddi. Why the Congress should have accepted the CMP is clear from the historical context- elections of 1946. Muslim League had proved its representative status... and honestly I will support such a demand from the Ahmadis if it was representative and authoritative backed by a majority area as was the case with 100 million Muslims who voted enmasse for the Muslim League in 1946 elections.

As for shining or outshining... this is a ridiculous argument and shows you have run out of arguments so you are falling back on traditional patterns. The fact of the matter is that Jinnah could have shone much brighter had he actually done what Ambedkar suggested only he could do- form a counter-Congress non-communal alliance... but his constituents- the Muslims- would not have been better off since the issue here was of limited franchise for a largely illiterate minority.

#359 by Mantolives

[Congress could have agreed to groupings instead of changing Azad... that is a demand that Jinnah actually raised.]

Yaar tell me why should the Congress have agreed to the CMP? If Jinnah was so democratic, he should have fought elections on a level playing field without the aid of the crutch called CMP. Tomorrow if the Ahmedis in Pakistan start demanding a similar grouping because they are in a majority in a certain area and do not trust the Paki govt. (actually they have very valid reasons, but that is a different story altogether), will the Paki govt agree? Will you support the demand?

What other reason was there but the fact that Jinnah wanted a fief for himself under the guise of CMP? He knew there was no way he was going to outshine Nehru, Patel, or even Azad, so the best thing was to create a Pakistan where he would be god.

[And yes there is justice and fairplay in a communal demand when a party (Congress) blatantly discriminates against its own Non-Hindu members after claiming to represent all Indians.. Jinnah`s positions after 1940 were based on two nation theory and an attempt to arrive at a consociationalist agreement. To understand why they were fair and just, one should take into account that this was the same man your own leaders described as the incorruptible ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.]

Hmm...how silly can one get. Just because the man is supposedly discriminated against, he takes his personal grouses into politics and puts at stake the lives of millions of people, many of whom are killed in the violence during the Partition. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for far lesser crimes by the South African regime for 27 (?) years. Martin Luther King paid with his life, Gandhi took an assassin`s bullets in his chest. These are the true leaders. Leadership is not for the faint-hearted.

PS:

I remember Sadna bibi also made a claim a bit different though different though from our poor logic-starved Harish Hyd.

She claimed that she has seen the reason cited that Azad as the chief of the Congress would be a candidate for Premiership... when asked to produce the evidence for her blatant lie, she said she would after looking at the Transfer of Power Papers... she still hasn`t produced any evidence to back up her claim that Azad was a candidate for premiership. Infact others produced evidence that Nehru was groomed as the Prime Minister right from the late 1930s...


I wonder if she has found the requisite evidence now.

Harish Hyd,

I can`t do anything if you wish to deny the facts.

So the Congress was disagreeable on the Cabinet Mission Plan but was willing to remove its own head because ``Jinnah would accuse it of being intransigent``. This is precisely what one would describe ``Heads I win tails you lose``. Congress could have agreed to groupings instead of changing Azad... that is a demand that Jinnah actually raised. I have gone through the documents of the time and there is absolutely no evidence that Congress removed him because they wanted to accomodate Jinnah`s wishes... No historian has claimed this but then you think up ``facts`` in your head. I challenge you to produce a single statement, document or factsheet that shows Azad was removed because Congress wanted to look accomodating to Jinnah.

And yes there is justice and fairplay in a communal demand when a party (Congress) blatantly discriminates against its own Non-Hindu members after claiming to represent all Indians.. Jinnah`s positions after 1940 were based on two nation theory and an attempt to arrive at a consociationalist agreement. To understand why they were fair and just, one should take into account that this was the same man your own leaders described as the incorruptible ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.

-YLH

#356 by Mantolives

[You see how much you contradict yourself]

Contradiction? Please show me where. You are the one who`s contradicting yourself. On the one hand you claim Jinnah stood for `justice and fairplay`, and smack after that I produce that one among the many statements of Jinnah that proved him to be a blatant communalist. So tell me HOW could someone who`s made such a statement considered just and fair? OTOH, show me one statement from Gandhi describing Muslims in similar terms.

[Did Congress all of a sudden accept it represented Hindus and therefore Azad was not acceptable? This ironic then... because Congress did not accept the CMP which entailed much less. Azad was removed because he was about to accept the CMP and this much is very clear to anyone who has read history.]

Where did I say Congress accepted it? YOU are the one saying that. The Congress had to remove Azad because Jinnah claimed that he was the sole representative of Indian Muslims and the `Congressi` Muslims were unacceptable to him. This is the `Heads I win tails you lose` game that was perfected by Jinnah and the Muslim League. If the Congress hadn`t removed Azad, Jinnah would accuse it of being intrasigent. If it did (as it did), it suddenly becomes a Hindu party. Ridiculous!

[Gandhi was described as a manipulative Hindu fascist by many people.. so lets not even go there.]

And Jinnah was described in worse terms by many more people, so let`s go there. I`m all ears.

``Any hypocrite who doesn`t consider Hindus and Muslims as equal isn`t fit to be anything in India, or at least that`s how it should be....``


Well then you should abuse Gandhi from roof tops ... he declared: ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian``

Dear Harish...

You see how much you contradict yourself :

``Azad was removed because Jinnah objected to it. He claimed to be the sole spokesman of Indian Muslims and Azad was an eyesore that he could not stomach. ``

We had this discussion on this website earlier as well. Did Congress all of a sudden accept it represented Hindus and therefore Azad was not acceptable? This ironic then... because Congress did not accept the CMP which entailed much less. Azad was removed because he was about to accept the CMP and this much is very clear to anyone who has read history.

In 1920... Jinnah had asked Gandhi to stop encouraging Khilafat movement.. and to work towards a purely political movement after educating the people in non-cooperation. Why then was Gandhi encouraging Azad to raise people in the name of ``Jehad`` against ``Kaffirs`` (direct quote from Azad`s Al-Hilal editorial) .. and to move out of India because it was ``Darul-Harb``.

Gandhi was described as a manipulative Hindu fascist by many people.. so lets not even go there.

#354 by harish_hyd

[Any hypocrite who doesn`t consider Hindus and Muslims as equal isn`t fit to be anything in India, or at least that`s how it should be.]

``Hindus and Muslims`` in the above should be ``all Indians``.

#352 by Mantolives

[It must upset you greatly that a man whose integrity and honesty was considered unquestionable and who was revered as the Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity for the 30 years finally turned around and exposed Gandhi and Nehru etc for what they really were...]

Not really. I would hate to be the citizen of a country that had Jinnah as a leader. Thankfully Gandhi`s stupid idea of handing over the PM`s post to Jinnah was foiled by Patel and Nehru. Any hypocrite who doesn`t consider Hindus and Muslims as equal isn`t fit to be anything in India, or at least that`s how it should be.

[In 1946 he was deliberately removed from the Congress presidency because Gandhi feared he would accomodate the Cabinet Mission Plan... ]

Azad was removed because Jinnah objected to it. He claimed to be the sole spokesman of Indian Muslims and Azad was an eyesore that he could not stomach.

[In the 1920s the simpleton Mullah was giving fatwas calling upon Muslims to voluntarily migrate back to ``home countries`` because Gandhi prodded him to - what a brilliant solution to Muslim problem- from the Hindu angle...]

Perhaps Gandhi should have gone for a Jinnah-type `Direct Action` type of solution, no? But not even his sworn enemies can ever accuse him of being such a cold-minded human being, let alone a manipulative and scheming person like Jinnah

In any case, you forgot to answer my very pertinent question, where was `justice and fairplay` in that statement by Jinnah? Or are you saying that ``Hindu leaders`` convinced him into foregoing even that last bit `justice and fairplay`?

The two nation theory:

Azad`s book that remained censored till 1988...


The first was the case of Mr. Nariman, a Parsee and an acknowledged leader of the local Congress in Bombay, who was generally expected to lead the provincial government. Sardar Patel and his colleagues could not reconcile with such a leadership of non-Hindu Chief Minister where ``the majority of members in the Congress Assembly Party were Hindus.`` [p. 16]

``Mr. Nariman was naturally upset about the decision. He raised the question before the Congress Working Committee. Jawaharlal was then President and many hoped that in view of his complete freedom from communal bias; he would rectify the injustice to Nariman. Unfortunately this did not happen. ... He [Jawaharlal] sought to placate Patel and rejected Nariman`s appeal. ... Nariman was surprised at Jawaharlal`s attitude, especially as Jawaharlal treated him harshly and tried to shout him down in the meeting of the Working Committee.`` [p. 16-17]

``Nariman had lost the case even before the enquiry began. It was finally held that nothing was proven against Sardar Patel. None who knew the inner story was satisfied with this verdict. We all know that truth has been sacrificed in order to satisfy Sardar Patel`s communal demands. Poor Nariman was heart broken and his public life came to an end.`` [p. 17]

``A similar development took place in Bihar. Dr. Syed Mahmud was the top leader of the province when the elections were held. He was also a General Secretary of the All India Congress Committee and as such he had a position both inside and outside the province. When the Congress secured an absolute majority, it was taken for granted that Dr. Syed Mahmud would be elected the leader and become the first Chief Minister of Bihar under Provincial Autonomy. Instead, Sri Krishna Sinha and Anugraha Narayan Sinha who were members of the Central Assembly, were called back to Bihar and groomed for the Chief Ministership. Dr. Rajendra Prasad played the same role in Bihar as Sardar Patel did in Bombay.`` [p. 17]

`` Looking back, I cannot help feeling that the Congress did not live up to its professed ideals. One has to admit with regret that the nationalism of the Congress had not then reached a stage where it could ignore communal considerations and select leaders on the basis of merit without regard to majority or minority.`` [p. 18]

Dear Harish,

Only you will describe an evolution in thought spanning over 30 years as ``over night``. It must upset you greatly that a man whose integrity and honesty was considered unquestionable and who was revered as the Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity for the 30 years finally turned around and exposed Gandhi and Nehru etc for what they really were...

Poor Azad was a simple minded human being who realised the truth very late. In 1946 he was deliberately removed from the Congress presidency because Gandhi feared he would accomodate the Cabinet Mission Plan... In the 1920s the simpleton Mullah was giving fatwas calling upon Muslims to voluntarily migrate back to ``home countries`` because Gandhi prodded him to - what a brilliant solution to Muslim problem- from the Hindu angle...

Thankfuly the first batch of Muslims that left India under Gandhi-Azad propaganda returned to the subcontinent after being humiliated.

#350 by Mantolives

[You see Harish you have been forced to go in circles ... We have discussed these issues and this was not the issue here.. but you bring it. We all know that after 1940 Jinnah proceeded on the basis of two nation theory which Hindu leaders convinced him of.]

This is the funniest thing I`ve ever heard someone say. Hindu leaders convinced Jinnah? Was he so prone to manipulation that a handful of Hindu leaders convinced him and he demanded Pakistan? What happened to the Jinnah who you said was known for his integrity? Integrity is not something that can be manipulated overnight.

As for circles, when one goes around in circles for far too long, everything stationary appears to be going around in circles too. So I don`t blame you for your plight.

[.. I quoted Azad`s belated confession about how Congress deliberately discriminated against Non-Hindus when it came to making chief ministers etc... so the whole thing is something else.]

How come Azad didn`t champion TNT then? Was it because he wasn`t a power-hungry megalomaniac?

[The man was about justice and fairplay and was not a hypocrite.]

Sorry to say this Yasser but you`re making an ass out of yourself. If there is anything that statement does not contain, it is justice and fairplay. Please explain to us how that loaded statement contains ``justice and fairplay``.

You see Harish you have been forced to go in circles ... We have discussed these issues and this was not the issue here.. but you bring it. We all know that after 1940 Jinnah proceeded on the basis of two nation theory which Hindu leaders convinced him of... I quoted Azad`s belated confession about how Congress deliberately discriminated against Non-Hindus when it came to making chief ministers etc... so the whole thing is something else.

Jinnah did not claim to be a freedom fighter but rather an opposition leader in the parliament. The man was about justice and fairplay and was not a hypocrite.

#295 by Mantolives

[I see that you have only one myth left: Gandhi was brutally honest.]

Too bad the whole world believes this `myth` while no one buys the ``Jinnah wanted safeguards for Muslims`` BS.

[he always had some ulterior motive and it will not be too off the mark to say that he was an officially sanctioned freedom fighter who on the one hand gave British enough room to wriggle out of their dominion status proposal which the Congress had been fighting for pre-Gandhi and on the other hand took the wind out of genuine liberation movements waged by the likes of Bhagat Singh etc.]

One would think you were talking about Jinnah. Yes, Jinnah was the officially-sanctioned freedom fighter who not once during almost 4 decades of freedom struggle went to jail. Please don`t give me the `constitutional methods BS`. The fact is that Jinnah who never toiled as Gandhi, Nehru, Azad and other doyens wanted the mantle of leadersip to fall in his laps. When that failed, the man resorted to TNT. Care to explain the following statement he made at the Aligarh Muslim University on March 6, 1940?

``We cannot accept a system of government in which the non-Muslims merely by numerical majority would rule and dominate us``.

This statement is enough to make even the mentally-challenged understand what the man was about. But it doesn`t work with the dishonest, so I won`t be surprised if you resort to long-winding explanations to spin your way out.

Urstruly,

Calling others kaffir elements is merely your intolerance and bigotry. Thank God a disgusting bigot like you doesn`t live in Pakistan..

Is it not true that disgusting freaks like you were siding with the Congress... before you got your ... as it was famously said... balls chopped off.

While you are right about the percentage ratios... if you deny that Hindus and Sikhs were killed in the bloodshed... instigated by freaks like you who had NOTHING to do with the Pakistan demand in reality... then you need to visit the National Archives of Pakistan.

Now grow up... and serve Pakistan.