Where are the Questioning Minds?

Dear Harish...

This is primary source evidence which I`ll leave to your discretion.

Gandhi and Jinnah signed the following formula during the CMP negotiations…

The Congress does not challenge but accepts that the Muslim League now is the authoritative representative of an overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India. As such and in accordance with democratic principles they alone have today an unquestionable right to represent the Muslims of India. But the Congress does not agree that any restriction or limitation should be put upon the Congress to choose such representatives as they think proper from amongst the members of the Congress.

Gandhi agreed to it and signed it. So did Jinnah. This meant that both parties moved fundamentally from their extreme positions… Gandhi accepted that Jinnah had the right to speak for Muslims alone and Jinnah accepted that Congress could nominate Muslim members from their own party to the government…

It was Gandhi who backed out … after Nehru rejected the plan. But for a brief moment there was a chance of compromise.

Congress President Azad wrote in the aftermath of the CMP failure:

It was not correct to say that Congress was free to modify the plan as it pleased. We had further agreed to Sections viz. A, B and C in which the provinces would be grouped. These matters could not be unilaterally changed by Congress without consent of other parties to the agreement.

About “Interpretation”:


On 6 December 1946, the Pro-Congress Labour Government gave its legal opinion on the Cabinet Mission Plan …

The Cabinet Mission Plan have through out maintained the view that decisions of the Sections should, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, be taken by a simple majority vote of the representatives in the Sections. This view has been accepted by the Muslim League but Congress have put forward a different view…

His Majesty’s Government have had legal advice which confirms what the Cabinet Mission always stated was their intention


And then…

On 5th January 1947 the Congress passed a resolution in which it advise action in accordance with the interpretation of the British Government in regard to the procedure to be followed in sections.

And then Congress backed out…

Sources for all above:

1-Sir Maurice Gwyer and A. Appadorai “Speeches and documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-1947

For Gandhi-Jinnah formula see Page 648

For HMG`s legal opinion see Page 660

2- For Azad`s statement read India wins freedom page 155.

Dear Harish,

Well your Gandhi described it perfectly democratic in a formula he inked his name to. So you as usual have no idea what you are talking about.

#407 by Mantolives

[Like I pointed out I am in no mood to indulge your inanities so I am going to ignore your personal insults and abuses.]

You started it dear Yasser, so you should be able to take it like a man.

[Azad wrote in his book very clearly that ``Congress`` had agreed to ``grouping`` and to back out of it was undemocratic and a breach of faith. This is there in his book and you may read it ... he was after all the Congress President.]

The point, if you missed it is that the whole business of the ML demanding autonomy/rule in Muslim-majority provinces is an undemocratic one. What the Congress and ML agreed upon is totally irrelevant. Besides, I never claimed the Congress was the paragon of correctness. It probably made only one mistake less than the ML, and that is enough for all of present-day India to be grateful to it for.

[This should really tell you who wanted what and who was ready to come to an agreement.]

You don`t really have to strain hard to understand that. To begin with a patently undemocratic demand and then accuse the Congress of intrasigence must sound ingenous to you, but it doesn`t deflect from the fact that the ML committed harakiri in demanding Pakistan and then crying murder when the Congress refused to bow down to its blackmailing tactics.

Dear Majumdar...

By participating in the elections and holding seats under the LFO (Recall 60 special women`s seats) PPP and PML-N not to mention the MMA have agreed to LFO being a part of the constitution. Furthermore we`ve had the 17th Amendment to the constitution.

There isn`t even the analogy... Provinces had been built up in every constitutional framework including those accepted by the Congress ...

Dear Harish Hyd,

Like I pointed out I am in no mood to indulge your inanities so I am going to ignore your personal insults and abuses.

Azad wrote in his book very clearly that ``Congress`` had agreed to ``grouping`` and to back out of it was undemocratic and a breach of faith. This is there in his book and you may read it ... he was after all the Congress President.

Secondly, in 1946 Gandhi and Jinnah agreed on a formula in which Gandhi signed the statement that ``Congress does not challenge but accepts that Muslim League commands the support of the majority of Muslims and by democratic norms can claim to speak authoritatively for Muslims.`` Jinnah agreed in turn that Muslim League could not object to Congress nominating Muslims if the Congress pleases ... since Congress calls itself an Indian Party. This formula was agreed upon by both Jinnah and Gandhi... it was Nehru who first wrote to Jinnah and said that he did not agree to the formula... and then Gandhi backed out of the formula after signing it.

This should really tell you who wanted what and who was ready to come to an agreement.

Dear Manto

(GOIA1935 if you recall was what the Congress and the Muslim League contested elections not once but twice. so there is no point in declaring that it was ``imposed`` )

Even if the PPP, PML, MQM et al contest elections under the LFO twice it would be still be an imposed document just as the said Act was.

The violence in the partition was tragic irrespective of what caused it.

Regards

#399 by Mantolives

[You may lose patience- that is your prerogative. I am not going to give into your inanities and circular illogical argumentation.]

But please let me know how to argue with someone who does not have basic English comprehension skills.

[It seems to me that you are hell bent on being dishonest. I quoted only Stanley Wolpert five years ago because that was the only book on Jinnah I had read in 2000]

Who is being dishonest is already clear Yasser, it is only to rub it in that I`m here.

[I have not dropped him as ``hot potato`` as you allege, but then for a dishonest person as you have proved yourself here any claim would do.]

You did Yasser, you used Wolpert`s name fairly regularly till I dug up some extracts that didn`t paint Jinnah as favorably as you claimed. That`s when dear friend you stopped.

[Therefore it was a perfectly democratic demand and justified. Muslim League`s manifesto had been Pakistan and therefore it was imperative on Congress to come to an agreement with the Muslim League on the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan- something which most reasonable Congressmen understood and something for which Azad lost his presidency of the Congress Party.]

If the ML had already made up its mind on Pakistan and the CMP was merely to avert that event, why should the Congress have given into such blackmail? This is typical suicide bomber mentality ``give me what I want, or I`ll blow this house up``, and the Congress did well not to give in. If the Congress leaders who made that fateful decision were alive today, they would be proud of the choice they made. Jinnah was already unhappy with the ``moth-eaten`` Pakistan (that didn`t stop him from accepting it, otherwise he would have lost that only chance of lording over his fief), he would have been heart broken today.

[Its seems to me that you have entangled yourself in your own web to an extent that you have lost all track of the argument which is indicative of an extremely troubled mind.]

On the contrary dear Yasser, the almost pathological infatuation with Gandhi that you (and your wife) suffer from leads me to conclude that you both suffer from a serious disorder that needs to be dealt with quickly if you are to lead a normal life. May I request our friend Shankar the shrink to please examine Yasser?

In any event, please don`t bother to answer the pertinent questions I raised. You`ll come back with the same old rehashed trash and in any event this board is dying. But don`t let this debate dent your confidence, you`ll get over it.

Azra..

Since the debate here has veered off and is now dying down... I just want to say more power to your causes... even if I have objections to your facts.

Let us join together and work for the repeal of Hudood Ordinance and other discriminatory legislation to make our homeland a progressive liberal welfare secular state.

May the force be with you.

Majumdar,

This is an endless debate... except the demand for Pakistan was based on the provinces as units... But the arguments you used are what Congress used... and you can justify them clearly... but it was ultimately their insistence on partitioning the two provinces that led to the violence.. and not the secession of Pakistan from India.

GOIA1935 if you recall was what the Congress and the Muslim League contested elections not once but twice. so there is no point in declaring that it was ``imposed``


Dear Inquirer,

Your stupidity is apparent from your posts so I can`t even comment on that. Please continue to buff up harish hyd.. he needs all the propping he can get.

As for Jinnah being an Ahmadi or a secret British agent ... either is as true as the other.

God help us. No wonder you feel you wife can`t be interested in Physics or Philosophy.

Re: # 400, Majumdar:
Very reasonable post. But train in debate with Mantolives has long since left for those left on platforms of reason and rationality.

Let me take this opportunity to state that Mantolives` infatuation with Jinnah is due to the fact that both are Ahmadis. He cannot let Jinnah go because there are many Pakistani Sunni/Shia, in their mania for sectarianism, don`t even consider Ahmadis as Muslims.

May be Yasser thinks that salvation of Pakistan lies in another Ahmadi becoming leader of Pakistan. Fat chance!!

Re: # 398, Harish:
Give up, Harish. Why waste your time on someone who is truly what you have found and declared to be? Did you notice the sensible Muslims either did not enter this debate or have long since quit with Mantolives. He is reasonable except for his fetish for Jinnah. Remember he is an Ahmadi, whom many Sunnis don`t even consider Islamic.

Jinnah was not a fanatic but he was a secret British Agent for weakening and dividing resurgent South Asia. He was fittingly eliminated by Punjabi Muslims.

Re: 392

Dear Manto

(It was based on secession of provinces ... to divide the provinces up which were recognised units under GOIA1935, the legal basis for British India at that time .. was illegal and devoid of common sense. )

If a country can be divided up on the basis of religion there is no reason why a province cannot be. The partition did not stop at state or even division levels anyway- for instance the Dinajpur district of Bengal and Sylhet division of Assam were divided and Silchar district (sub-division of Sylhet) too was divided into some tehsils which went to EPak and others to India. Obviously division at mohalla level was not found feasible. Any case there is no need to treat the GOIA1935 as a gospel as it was an illegal doucment having been imposed without the consent of the Indian people just as in future Pakistanis may reject the LFO as it was imposed without their willing consent.

(It was the Congress Working Committee that passed the resolution for the partition of Bengal and Punjab. )

CWC did what it could to protect the interests of its constituents, the residual India and its Hindu and Sikh voters. Thank God that they did else the large Hindu/Sikh population of these provinces (including my forebears) would have been converted killed or expelled. Before you protest you may consider that the population of Hindus-Sikhs in EPak was 28% in 1951 which came down to less than 10% by the last census and in WPunjab/Sindh/Karachi the same % came down from 15-20% to less than 5%. In any case they are officially unequal citizens of Islamic Bangladesh and Pakistan. Much of course can be faulted of India’s treatment of Muslim citizens and many others, but at least they are officially equal citizens of secular India.

(Jinnah said a Punjabi is a Punjabi before he is a Muslim or Hindu . )

The same principle can be applied to Indians in general, thus negating the rationale for Pakistan. In any case the gusto with which Punjabis killed each other in 1947 suggests that Jinnah sahib was either ignorant or being economical with the truth.

Regards

Dear Harish Hyd,

You may lose patience- that is your prerogative. I am not going to give into your inanities and circular illogical argumentation.

It seems to me that you are hell bent on being dishonest. I quoted only Stanley Wolpert five years ago because that was the only book on Jinnah I had read in 2000 - I still quote from the book as it is extremely well written though incomplete having not answered any questions.. I have not dropped him as ``hot potato`` as you allege, but then for a dishonest person as you have proved yourself here any claim would do. I have been quoting Seervai for many years now and his book is not ``new``. The reason it is a very credible book is because he sifted through primary source material ``Tranfer of Power Papers`` and used only that matter to pronounce a judicial judgement of sorts.

To repeat again : 1946 Elections gave Muslim League the mandate to speak for the Muslims as they had won 430+ out of 480 Muslim seats. Therefore it was a perfectly democratic demand and justified. Muslim League`s manifesto had been Pakistan and therefore it was imperative on Congress to come to an agreement with the Muslim League on the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan- something which most reasonable Congressmen understood and something for which Azad lost his presidency of the Congress Party. Please recall that you have failed to produce any evidence for your outrageous suggestion that Congress suddenly became sensitive to Jinnah`s displeasure with Azad.

Its seems to me that you have entangled yourself in your own web to an extent that you have lost all track of the argument which is indicative of an extremely troubled mind.

I wish you luck.

#381 by Mantolives on February 14, 2006 3:22am PT

[I am enjoying you trying to do sommersaults like calling my praise of Seervai selective. I praise him because he wrote an excellent book in which he used nothing but the transfer of power papers and came to the conclusion that the only honorable man in the whole partition debacle was Jinnah.]

Why am I not surprised? Just because Seervai writes highly of Jinnah, his book is the new gospel truth. It was Wolpert earlier, but once I produced that not so favorable extract from his book, you dropped him like a hot potato. It is your own logical somersaults, an example of which is provided below that forces me to come back to shove it into your face. I enjoy when you squirm uncomfortably trying to twist facts to ``prove`` Jinnah was blameless. But all you`ve proved until now is that there isn`t an honest way of doing that.

[Besides I can`t do anything if you fail to grasp simple facts and confuse definitions. That is your prerogative- Ignorance can be a choice and you have definitely made that.]

You can`t argue logically to save your life, let alone debating with me. You could not understand the difference between ``may not`` and ``could not``. Is there anything more left for me to say on your stellar logic, language, and comprehension skills?

[While you abuse me, your own reading comprehension is so poor that while I am quoting actual election results from 1946, you claim I am basing Pakistan on petty personal grouses.]

This is getting hilarious. As it is the demand for Pakistan itself is ridiculously undemocratic, but that is a different story altogether. On the one hand, you argue that Jinnah was made to feel an outsider which is why he demanded the creation of Pakistan. On the other hand, you say the election results of 1946 forced him to demand Pakistan. Please tell us which one is it? Or is it too much to expect an honest answer from you?

[While I quote from Azad`s own book to show that Congress was largely a Hindu Party which discriminated against Non-Hindus, you ignore that and abuse Jinnah and try to restart issues which have already been discussed and dispensed off.]

Dispensed off? How? How is Jinnah exonerated from the fact that he was a hypocrite and a communalist? ``The Congress forced him to`` is not a valid reason. It looks like a kid whining.

[And then you claim you ``provided evidence`` - which you know is a joke.]

Merely by claiming that ``you know`` is not washing Yasser. You have to find better ways of arguing. That statement is a damning indictment of Jinnah and came way before the election results of 1946. What do you have to say about it?

[... there is the principle of res judicata, which is precisely why you denigrate H M Seervai, who is considered a giant amongst practitioners of law and his written word on Constitutional Law is the final authority in the subcontinent.]

Dear Yasser, please look up the meaning of the word ``denigrate`` in a dictionary. As you`ve repeatedly proved, you have serious comprehension issues, and I`m losing patience with having to explain simple things to you over and over again.

``Ya Ilaahi kar tabbahi saare Pakistan ki
Bachaa bachaa maangta azaadi Hindustan ki.

I now find it amusing that Hindu and Sikh kids would be invoking Allah for the destruction of Pakistan.``(dost-mitter)

so it was you kids that Allah was listening to -- not the Muslim League -- now that explains the mess in Pakistan...

well for Allah also -- as they say in vernacular -- ``ghar kee murghee daal braabar.......:)

Re: # 391, urstruly:
All research is apriori to begin but it is the maturity of researcher devoted to truth that leads to objective research results.
As far as your question is concerned it has been answered in the context of Lahore by Ishtiaq Ahmed. For the context of undivided India, no body organized it (the genocide as you call it). It was an unintended effect of wrong policies (as has been again indicated by Ishtiaq Ahmed in the second paragraph from page 65 quoted by me), more of Muslim League but also of Congress Party.
I will be interested in your findings not opinions on the subject.

Mantolives and Dost-Mitter:
You are talking like jilted suitors!!!
The relationship between US and India is developing due to mutual interests not a one-sided dependence due to a vendetta against a third party.
While with Soviet Union the socialism was not nationalistics and it was coupled with get strong quick approach of Europeans, the Chinese communism is highly nationalistic and deliberate. There is much greater need to contain China than ever was for containing Soviet Union. Furthermore, US is now no longer the Globe controller which it thought once, it was. Hence, a more dependable partner. The drastic actions of this administrations are also needed due to lopsided treatment the Muslim nations give to adherents of other religions.
At any rate we, the Indian diaspora in US, are delighted at the turn the world politics has taken bringing World`s most important two democracies coming together.

agreed.

Uncle Sam is a selfish suitor though. Tread with caution when dealing with the bigamist.

Manto#392:

Arre yaar, yeh kabhi na khatam honay wali daastaaN hai. It`s the usual he-said she-said following a divorce. And now, we have decided to marry the same suitor, Uncle Sam. Khuda khair kare!

D-M..

Thats a very interesting recollection and shows the communal feeling that existed. On another note Khushwant Singh speaks of a very superficial mixing of Hindus/Sikhs and Muslims and that too in upper and upper middle classes..

The question however about the division of Punjab and Bengal was a constitutional and legal one. Pakistan demand was a territorial demand even if it was to solve a communal issue. It was based on secession of provinces ... to divide the provinces up which were recognised units under GOIA1935, the legal basis for British India at that time .. was illegal and devoid of common sense. Why not go further and divide up Mohallas as well? Why stop at districts- why then call Rahmat Ali crazy- why not implement his 10 Muslim nations of India? But the fact is that AIML was a political body which worked according to the framework- just like the Congress ... and the framework was British India and its search for federations to succeed it. AIML had laid claim to Pakistan because of the Majority provinces ... indeed the idea that Muslims were a nation was complete only because they formed those majorities in those constituent units.

I don`t blame Mountbatten for the partition of Pakistani provinces of Punjab and Bengal alone... indeed he was just a front for Nehru, Gandhi and Patel. It was the Congress Working Committee that passed the resolution for the partition of Bengal and Punjab.

Muslim League`s reaction:

`Muslim League cannot agree to the partition of Bengal and the Punjab. It cannot be justified historically, economically, geographically, politically or morally. These provinces have built up their respective lives for nearly a century`

(M.A. Jinnah, the President of the Muslim League, Mid May 1947, in a letter to Lord Mountbatten)

And from the book you quoted: Jinnah said a Punjabi is a Punjabi before he is a Muslim or Hindu .

--

``As you are aware, in Bengal Sarat Bose and Suhrawardi did at least try to make such a case for United independent Bengal. ``

This had the blessing of the Muslim League high command ... Congress rejected it.
You know what else Congress rejected? I suggest you read about something called the Plan Balkan ... Plan Balkan which also had AIML`s tacit approval was rejected by Congress ...


``However, the demand for a separate homeland was made by UPites and led by a Gujarati.``

The actual fact is slightly different. The demand for a separate homeland was made by Punjabi and Sindhi Muslims first and long before Muslim League took it up. UPites led by a Gujurati (as in the AIML) only took it up as a bargaining counter to mobilise the Muslim vote behind them so that they could claim to speak for all Muslims at the centre... after Congress rebuffed them by saying that they did not have any support outside UP and Bombay.

Inquirer

I still have not read Ishtiaq Ahmad`s report, except the particular page (I think page 7) which Ramnujan pointed out to. However, I think that the referneces in the report may be a useful tool in my reaserch.

Although , it seems that my research is a priori because of my stated objective of finding out who organized the genocide but I have promised myself that I will have an objective and open mind, and my results may completely be in contrast with my objectives. So be it.

Re: # 388, Dost-Mitter:
You invoked Allah because:
1. Hindus are not anti-Allah, as most Muslims are anti-any other conception of God.
2. Lahore was 64 percent Muslim and the dominance of Muslims was imprinted on your (Hindu Children`s) minds.

Re: # 386, Dost -Mitter:
We will learn the message only when Pakistan exhausts itself in the sectarian wars. That is the only lesson to be learnt. Pakistan will not be able to get rid of the dictators easily and most likely take long time before it gets to that exhaustion. Military dictators, particularly Musharraf`s types, unlike Zia-type, give Pakistan a respite to persist in their delusionary path. It is becoming clear that the Shia-Sunni-Ahmadi internecine wars will continue. What we really need, to precipitate an end to this metastable state of Pakistan, is to have a Sindhi counterpart of Zia. That will lead to exhaustion sooner and thus the needed reconciliation for South Asia. Meanwhile, India -U.S. relationship has to be strengthened to ward off the dominance of the Chinese influence which Pakistani dictators will invite to keep themselves in power and the delusion going.

Manto:

I think that it is too simple to blame Mountbatten alone for the partition of Punjab. If the demand for a separate Punjab had been made by Punjabis in the name of Punjab, that would be a different issue. However, the demand for a separate homeland was made by UPites and led by a Gujarati. As you are aware, in Bengal Sarat Bose and Suhrawardi did at least try to make such a case for United independent Bengal.

Let me tell you something that I now find amusing. Even us kids were drawn into the frenzy. I remember the slogan we used to shout even before Pakistan was created:

Ya Ilaahi kar tabbahi saare Pakistan ki
Bachaa bachaa maangta azaadi Hindustan ki.

I now find it amusing that Hindu and Sikh kids would be invoking Allah for the destruction of Pakistan.

Dear D-M,

This debate is necessary because ultimately I fear Mountbatten exacted his revenge on Pakistan by bloodying its birth... and no one can deny that we suffered the most as we were a completely new state.

The problem may I add lay not in the secession of Muslim Majority Provinces from British India... as new successor federation. The problem lay with partitioning of the two major provinces of this new federation of Pakistan. My own research shows that Partition of India is a misnomer. What happened in 1947 was a partition of Pakistan. Whether you take this point of view or that... there is no denying that the blood was spilt because of the partition of Punjab and Bengal... because the Pakistan demand was based on provincial units seceding and not the separation of Muslim Majority and Hindu Majority districts in those provinces...

Manto and Inquirer:

I agree with you both. My original post was about the present but got into time-lines in response to someone`s resposne to my post.

What`s important is that we should avoid the kind of hateful atmosphere which created such bloodshed in the past. I wish I could say that we have learnt our lessons from history.

First common sense post from you Inquirer.

However the matter needs to be settled.

It is pointless to quote Hindu Muslim sources regarding the initiation of riots. They existed on both sides. The issues are permanently irreconciliable.
Proper thing is to develop an understanding of the concerns that still divide the parts of South Asia.
We should try to develop the mutual give-and-takes needed to bridge the divide. By thinking in that way we may be able to develop an appreciation of the others` fears.

Dostmittar..

It must be pointed out that League in question is the Punjab league and the leaders are Mamdot and Daultana in particular.

Ishtiaq Ahmed, who I interact with on a daily basis, is now in the process of compiling a new book in which he takes the culpability above and beyond mere Punjab League leaders and points out that a national leader such as Sardar Patel was involved.

anil#373:

This post seems more plausible. Another thing that I am skeptical about in your earlier post was that Mr. Khosla wrote that report after visiting several Pakistani villages. You might want to verify if your memory is serving you right. Moreover, the following quote by Inquirer (#368) from a book by Ishtiaq Ahmad seems to contradict the point you insinuated earlier that Khosla had suggested that the riots were started by Sikhs because of Tara Singh`s statement.

``His (Khosla`s) findings affirm, however, that the Muslim League, its leaders and cadres, initiated the riots that continued as a one-sided affair until mid August. The attacks on Muslims in eastern Punjab against Muslims were a reaction to the preceding events in West Punjab.16``

Dear Harish,

Why do you feel I am convincing you? Please don`t feel that way. I am enjoying you trying to do sommersaults like calling my praise of Seervai selective. I praise him because he wrote an excellent book in which he used nothing but the transfer of power papers and came to the conclusion that the only honorable man in the whole partition debacle was Jinnah. Those who have actually attempted to look beyond the official mythology (both in India and Pakistan) have contradicted the official narratives. Besides I can`t do anything if you fail to grasp simple facts and confuse definitions. That is your prerogative- Ignorance can be a choice and you have definitely made that. In any event, let us stick to the topic instead of repeating the often stated positions.

While you abuse me, your own reading comprehension is so poor that while I am quoting actual election results from 1946, you claim I am basing Pakistan on petty personal grouses. While I quote from Azad`s own book to show that Congress was largely a Hindu Party which discriminated against Non-Hindus, you ignore that and abuse Jinnah and try to restart issues which have already been discussed and dispensed off.

And then you claim you ``provided evidence`` - which you know is a joke. Meanwhile Gandhiji`s clear and blatant statements like ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian`` or his abuses against black people or his claim that women should be confined to their houses are totally lost on you. All you have is abuse Jinnah by saying that he was a ``misogynist`` because he merely opposed (not stopped) his daughter`s wedding. That he was, unlike Gandhi, giving his own child the right to choose is completely lost on you.
The great thing about the British legal system is that for the kind of specious arguments you bring up every two months or so... there is the principle of res judicata, which is precisely why you denigrate H M Seervai, who is considered a giant amongst practitioners of law and his written word on Constitutional Law is the final authority in the subcontinent.

#379 by Mantolives

[That you denigrate him for being a fairminded person is indicative of your biases.]

Look Yasser, you have serious comprehension issues. I`m only pointing to your selective praise of that man. There are any number of people who`ve written some not-so-favorable stuff about Jinnah. I know what you`d call them, so this is more a comment about you than it is about Seervai.

[Furthermore if you are so confident that Gandhi was this and Jinnah was that, why must you convince me- the fact is that you know its a clever ruse and nothing else. The fact is that the Mahatma was a misogynist casteist racist hypocrite and Jinnah was a principled modern lawyer who stood for equality, justice and fair play.]

Why must I convince you? For the same reason you`re trying to denigrate Gandhi and convince everyone that Jinnah was the best thing to have happened to Muslims. Your arguments about Jinnah being ``fair and just`` have been torn to shreds repeatedly by the evidence I provided. You may call Gandhi names, but that only indicates that your labored efforts are failing.

Jinnah was the misogynist and hypocrite who opposed his daughter`s wedding to a Parsi, despite himself having married one. Jinnah was the casteist and racist who said that Muslims could not allow Hindus to dominate them merely by virtue of being numerically superior. In contrast, never in his life did Gandhi have an adverse comment for Muslims. That itself should say a lot.

HM Seervai for your information was a great Indian jurist. Refer to posts 59 and 60.
That you denigrate him for being a fairminded person is indicative of your biases. Furthermore if you are so confident that Gandhi was this and Jinnah was that, why must you convince me- the fact is that you know its a clever ruse and nothing else. The fact is that the Mahatma was a misogynist casteist racist hypocrite and Jinnah was a principled modern lawyer who stood for equality, justice and fair play.

Dear Harish hyd,

Please cease the name-calling. You don`t need to show that you are unable to handle mature adult debate.

To state the obvious yet again:

Congress had been given due chance and only simpletons like Azad remained in its fold. Jinnah had taken up the communal case only after trying for 3 decades for Hindu Muslim unity... The Naidus, Gandhis, Nehrus etc called him the best ambassador of hindu Muslim unity.

Communal demands can be just and fair too you know. It was legitimate.

You ask if Congress was a Hindu party?

Yes Congress was a Hindu party after the 1930s and the Muslims in it were for show only.
To quote Azad, the biggest showboy of them all, who said belatedly (and this amounts to no less than a confession):

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]

So you see if Congress claimed to speak for anyone else but the Hindus after 1930 it was merely hypocrisy- nothing else.

When you say that there were an ``equal number`` in the Congress, you again are showing your ignorance. Congress did not have equal number of Muslims to th Muslim League and Muslim League`s claim to represent the Muslims alone was justified because out of the 480 odd Muslim seats, Muslim League had 430+ seats. Congress won less than 20. That should tell you who spoke conclusively for the Muslims.


-YLH

#376 by Mantolives

[None of my claims are hollow as far as I can see.. but you can disagree and keep the spin going.]

Like I said before, you can`t see too far. Anyone who claims Jinnah stood for `justice and fairplay` despite his blatantly communal approach to politics obviously can`t see too far.

[Ofcourse you don`t understand history or politics very well to see why it was imperative that Congress come into an arrangement with the minority party which had won the majority of a sizeable community.]

Thank you very much, but I feel your own childish propensity to explain history in terms of peeves and personal grouses is laughable. Politics based on emotion cannot be sustainable but can lead to dangerous consequences as the Partition proved.

[If the electorate of a sizeable section of the Indian population declares that it wishes certain constitutional arrangements and votes enmasse for a certain party...it was imperative on the Congress to play by the rules of Justice and Fair Play and accept the Cabinet Mission Plan]

Pray tell us why? Please tell us how democracy as practised then was ``tyranny of the majority``. Was the Congress a Hindu-only party? Did it not have Muslims in its ranks? Did it have an anti-Muslim agenda? If no, then what was the need to seek a ``Muslim mandate`` other than to pander to Jinnah`s ego? What gave ML the right to negotiate on behalf of ALL Muslims when there was an equal number of Muslims in the Congress? Obviously, it was Jinnah`s desire to blackmail the Congress and grab power.

[... Azad understood it... the great Parsi jurist Seervai understood... but I don`t expect you to understand it.]

Just because Seervai wrote a book sympathetic to Jinnah`s POV, he becomes ``the great Parsi jurist``? Your biases are showing Yasser, and I tell you don`t do a very good job of camouflaging them; with the result that you look much like the cat that closes its eyes and thinks the world is not watching her. Trust me the world knows what Jinnah and Gandhi were about. Despite the spin and years of labor, you still haven`t been able to sully Gandhi`s reputation while Jinnah remains none the better.

Dear Harish Hyd,

None of my claims are hollow as far as I can see.. but you can disagree and keep the spin going.

Jinnah`s entire life was a struggle for justice and fairplay... if you can`t see it is because your antecedents were on the receiving end. Surely you don`t expect Lord Cornwallis` descendants to describe Alexandar Hamilton as a great man... and yet Hamilton stood head and shoulders above say Thomas Jefferson.

AIML was a self proclaimed interest party representing the Muslims. Who did you think it was going to seek Mandate from? Ofcourse you don`t understand history or politics very well to see why it was imperative that Congress come into an arrangement with the minority party which had won the majority of a sizeable community. This is what consociationalism is and democracy is ... Democracy is totally different from ``tyranny of the majority``... democracy is justice and fairplay first and foremost.

If the electorate of a sizeable section of the Indian population declares that it wishes certain constitutional arrangements and votes enmasse for a certain party... it was imperative on the Congress to play by the rules of Justice and Fair Play and accept the Cabinet Mission Plan... Azad understood it... the great Parsi jurist Seervai understood... but I don`t expect you to understand it.

Yours sincerely,

YLH

#374 by Mantolives

[I enjoy indulging him because he thinks he is doing a public service by trying to ``create doubts`` in my head- which he claims on and off only to return to tell us that I am a fool for believing what I do.]

By now its amply clear that your claims that Jinnah was ``just and fair`` are as hollow as your claims to ``indulging me``.

[AIML won the Muslim vote all over India and it was strongest in UP and Bombay.]

Sorry to tell you, but you`re caught with your pants down yet again. It has become so regular that it`s not even funny anymore. ``AIML won the Muslim vote`` is not the same as ``AIML won the majority vote``. After all, democracy is about the majority vote isn`t it? Is it any wonder that you guys, who haven`t understood even the most basic thing about democracy are still groping in the dark for a democratic Pakistan?

[If the majority of the Muslim electorate voted solidly for the Muslim League, then that meant a mandate for the League.]

It is not about the ``Muslim electorate`` dear Yasser, but the ``Indian electorate``. Did the AIML win the majority ``Indian vote``? If no, by what definition of democracy can it demand a larger representation? Isn`t it much like the MMA claiming greater representation at the Center because it won a handsome mandate in the FATA? Whatever happened to the `one-man one-vote`` principle which is one of the foundations of democracy? Is it any wonder that your aspirations for a ``secular and demoratic Pakistan`` (or whatever it is) is as hollow and hypocritical as Jinnah`s speech where he claimed ``Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims`` after inciting and then presiding over a communal bloodbath.

[As for Jinnah-Gandhi... recall that the only reason you decided to attack Jinnah (so unsuccessfuly may I add) was because you wanted to defend Gandhi`s honour - which you were unable to do given Gandhi`s racist and casteist inclinations.]

Yaar my case is already closed. Jinnah`s speech at the AMU shows him to be a rabid communalist. His opposition to his daughter`s marriage shows him to be an out and out hypocrite. His demand for Pakistan shows him to be a cunning opportunist and power-hungry megalomaniac. I have nothing more to prove. You on the other hand have been laboring for years now to paint Gandhi as the villain, but going by the pathetic results achieved until now with only your wife who seems convinced, you have light years to go.

Dost mittar,

You are right on both counts, but I consider self censorship also censorship and yes you won`t learn anything new from my debates with Harish Hyd. He is unable to argue within the framework and merely vents his abuse. I enjoy indulging him because he thinks he is doing a public service by trying to ``create doubts`` in my head- which he claims on and off only to return to tell us that I am a fool for believing what I do.

Harish-hyd,

Still spinning in circles I see...

AIML won the Muslim vote all over India and it was strongest in UP and Bombay. If the majority of the Muslim electorate voted solidly for the Muslim League, then that meant a mandate for the League. To Azad`s credit he understood it when he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan for which he lost his post as the president of the Congress Party.

As for Jinnah-Gandhi... recall that the only reason you decided to attack Jinnah (so unsuccessfuly may I add) was because you wanted to defend Gandhi`s honour - which you were unable to do given Gandhi`s racist and casteist inclinations.

-YLH

Re: # 366

Dost Sahib:

I will once again read and possibly quote the passages from Stern Reckoning, and let you know March 1947 or March 1946. While reading I recall point jumping on me too, and went back and re-read the date to confirm the date. The numbers that this investigation came up with have been used by another british author, I do not recall his name, but his book, I too have. The author of this book mentioned the credential and acceptance of numbers in Stern Recknoning. He was chastizing Lord Mountbetton, and the British Chief of the newly formed Pakistani army for the violence for not preparing for the violence when the leaders from all side were making threats since March 1946. He went on to state that the british were not interested in getting involved in the civil war that they thought was eminent, and the massacre were just the beginning.

Apparently, British Chief of the newly formed Pakistani Army had agreed to Gorkha Regiment escorts for the trains out of West Punjab. Instead he instead allowed Baloch regiment escort. Later both Gorkha and Maratha regiments provided escorts. This was just one of the many government lapses that Stern Reckoning also mentions. Interestingly Stern Recknoning also talks about the direct action day in 1946, and that british officers refused to deploy the army for two or three days to defend. I believe there is a picture of one of the posters with Jinnah`s picture that were pasted all over Calcutta to call for Direct Action Day.

My knowledge on these subjects is extremely limited, and might create a controversy that I cannot manage due to lack of knowledge.

I suggest that you might buy the book and critique it for Chowk, since you have great knowledge on this subject. The following is from www.amazon.com:

(Stern Reckoning : A Survey of the Events Leading Up To and Following the Partition of India (Oxford India Paperbacks) -- by Gopal Das Khosla; Paperback (Rate it)
Buy new: $10.90 -- Used & new from: $10.90 ). This I got from Amazon.com. The book was re-released in early 1990s.)

{Excellent Record of the events leading to and after Partitio, September 6, 1999
Reviewer: A reader
Khosla dispasionatly details the story of the Partition. The book is based upon a commission that was appointed by the government of India exactly after partition. Its an accurate record of one of the largest genocides in this century. A must read for anyone of Indian decent.}

So this commission was set up by govt. of India.

Anil

#364 by Mantolives

[There you go declaring victory after making a complete fool out of yourself.]

The only one who`s made a fool out of himself is YOU Yasser. After making tall claims about Jinnah`s ``justice and fairplay``, when I provided evidence that Jinnah was the blatant communalist we all know, you were left whimpering about the injustice he suffered at the hands of the Congress leaders which caused him to make that statement. Knowing your handicap at comprehending even simple English, that`s what is called ``making a fool out of oneself``.

[For your information I have already proved my point.]

Where? I didn`t see any `point` you made.

[but you also refused to notice that CMP was accepted earlier and justifiably because the AIML had won a large mandate.]

AIML won a large mandate only in the Muslim-majority provinces and not all of India like the Congress. Next you`ll claim that the MMA is justified in asking for greater representation at the Center, because it won a large mandate in FATA. You see the ridiculousness of the CMP? I bet not, because that would go against what your hero stood for so you`ll continue to make an ass out of yourself each time you open your mouth.

[But then again making specious arguments and claiming that the other person ``is at loss`` is your way of ``winning arguments`` in your imaginary little world. Honestly you`ve never been able to prove any single point you ever raised, but I suppose it is a measure of your shamelessness that you continue to claim to the contrary, all to defend that racist casteist bigot Gandhi (by your own admission that is your stated aim).]

Well again it shows how frustrated you are. But it`s natural given the fact that Jinnah`s life and actions were never something that future generations could look upto, and defending such a character is an impossible task.

#369 by Urstruly on February 13, 2006 1:34pm PT


This is concession Pakistan has already made. Otherwise, people of Pakistan do not want a `solution` of Kashmir issue, they want Kashmir.


The people of India have an alternate solution: India keeps Indian Kashmir and there`s nothing you can do about it..(by you, I mean people of Pakistan and people of detriot)..

Re: # 369, urstruly:
Before I reply to you, I would like to make a couple of statements.

1. I would like to point out that the paper which you and ramanujan have been discussing is an example of research in oral history. My father Professor O. P. Bhatnagar of Allahabad University had developed this technique of research at Allahabad University and was successful in its official adoption by the Indian Historical Records commission in 1974. Upto now thirteen States in india have officially declared acceptance of this technique in History Research.

2. I congratulated Ishtiaq Ahmed for very successfully using the technique for a very significant test case of Lahore. The full import of the problem and the paper can be understood by only carefully studying the paper. Needless to say that it would be immature to regard it as a be all and end all of the subject.

Now, I return to the exchange that you and ramanujan have had in the entrails of this thread. I believe both you and ramanujan are running with the fragments of the information contained in the paper. This is clear from the fact that both of you are addressing Page 7. After reading the exchange, I went ahead and before I had fully grasped the paper, presented for the use of other readers the page that you guys were having arguments about.

I PROPPOSE THAT BOTH OF YOU SHOULD CONCERN YOURSELF WITH PAGE 65 IN THE CONCLUSION SECTION. I quote the appropriate paragraph below:

``One can emphasise, however, that the situation in Lahore reflected the balance of
power in a particular situation. Elsewhere things happened differently. In eastern Punjab the
Sikh-Hindu reprisals against Muslims are too well known. As the Punjab degenerated into
anarchy and chaos and the state practically abdicated its sovereign role to maintain law and
order, the logic of survival gave birth to conspiracies on both sides to annihilate the other.
Fear can convert easily into aggression, when circumstances are favourable. That the
intentions and motives behind those crimes may include, on the one hand, an idealism for a
separate homeland and, on the other, the more baser concerns for loot, plunder, rising
ambitions to power, revenge and so on, is not unthinkable. Different sections of society that
took part in those riots probably had different reasons for doing so. No social science method will ever suffice to uncover all those motivational drives.

In a more ideological sense, however, the exclusion of non-Muslims from the category
of equal citizens of the state was intrinsic to the logic of a Muslim/Islamic state, even when
Muslim League leaders did not admit this. Also in terms of the chronology of communal riots,
it is beyond any doubt whatsoever that the first large-scale, planned slaughter in Punjab took
place in the Rawalpindi division and the Muslims were the culprits. Munir asserts that Jinnah
intervened to stop the carnage, but evidence of such a public stand of his or of his close
associates has not been established by impartial scholarship. As regards Lahore, what
happened in 1947 was a consequence of a bigger game of high politics taking place at the all-
India level. Who bears the ultimate responsibility for the Partition of India is beyond the
scope of the present enquiry, but Lahore certainly changed its ethno-cultural composition in
favour of the Muslim majority. ``

THE APPROPRIATE IMPRESSION THAT ONE SHOULD GATHER IS THAT DUE TO UNCONTROLLABLE FEARS AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS THERE WAS A COLLECTIVE MADNESS IN SOUTH ASIAN COMMUNITIES. IT IS TIME NOW TO ESTABLISH THE PATHS FOR COMMON GOOD.

Therefore, instead of perpetuating the wrong actions, Muslims of Pakistan should do what Muslims of India are doing. Of course, that does not mean subservience to Hindus. Believe me, I know full well the steps that Hindus have to take to correct the the situation for all Hindus within Hindu Fold. But just as Ishtiaq says in the second paragraph, a large and controlling section of Hindus, indeed has acted towards the resolution of communal errors without holding Indian Muslims responsible for the Division of OUR HOMELAND.

Inquirer

``IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PAST RECORD, THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO ACT NOW TO SECURE A JUST FUTURE FOR ALL IN SOUTH ASIA.``

I appreciate these thoughts but it is just not that easy. The buisness of Partition never had a closure. The issues that were created by the riots-turned-genocide have only balooned over the years. In the process, two countries have gathered the biggest armies in the world, as an extension to the conflict that started with the riots. If there were a closure then four wars and Bangladesh would have never happened. The genocide in kashmir would have never happened.

As a Pakistani it is the burden of leadership upon my generation to do whatever is possible to bring that unfinished business to an end. The solution to this problem is that the people of Kashmir be given their democratic right to choose. It shouldn`t matter what they choose because it is their right. This is concession Pakistan has already made. Otherwise, people of Pakistan do not want a `solution` of Kashmir issue, they want Kashmir. In the coming decades, it is quite possible that International institutions of justice gain strength and will be able to resolve the world issues with justice (it is highly unlikely but plausible) and when that time comes Pakistan must have its case prepared. The people of Pakistan may not forget but I think they will forgive Bangladesh.

Re: # 333, urstruly and ramanujan exchange: For every ones info the discussed page 7 is attached below. Note this is written by Ishtiaq Ahmed.
****
Any mention of counter-violence by Sikh and Hindus in Lahore is absent in Talib’s
account, however. He also rejects the counter-charge that the Sikhs had hatched a conspiracy to empty eastern Punjab of Muslims so that their co-religionists uprooted from the western part could be relocated there and a compact Sikh majority achieved in contiguous areas.13 The Sikh reprisals against Muslims in East Punjab are explained merely as a reaction, which assumed alarming proportions only after Pakistan had come into being on 14 August. It is further asserted that a million Sikh and Hindu refugees had already in April arrived from West Punjab, mainly from the Rawalpindi division, to the various camps in the eastern part following the first major large-scale attacks in that part in early March .14 In the other compilation of data on the partition riots, Stern Reckoning, Justice G. D.
Khosla, formerly of the Punjab High Court, traces the history of Hindu-Muslim tension and
mutual suspicion to at least the beginning of the 20th century.15 The implication is that the
events of 1947 had deep historical and religious roots. His findings affirm, however, that the
Muslim League, its leaders and cadres, initiated the riots that continued as a one-sided affair
until mid August. The attacks on Muslims in eastern Punjab against Muslims were a reaction
to the preceding events in West Punjab.16
From the Pakistani side, comparable extensive reports on the riots have not been
prepared by any religious or political organisation. Chaudhri Muhammad Ali was one of the
two members of the Steering Committee, which was responsible to the Partition Council for
the administrative tasks involved in the Partition process. He represented Pakistan. Later he
was prime minister of Pakistan during 1955-56. In his book, The Emergence of Pakistan, he
alleges that the Sikh leadership at the highest level, especially the Maharajas of Patiala and
Kapurthala, were involved in a macabre conspiracy to wipe out all Muslims from East
Punjab. Hindus also took part in the killing orgies but the main culprits were Sikhs.17 As
regards the partisan behaviour of the police in the eastern areas, he quotes a British officer of
the Punjab Boundary Force who remarked, ‘There was no case on record of a Sikh or Hindu
policeman having shot any one except a Muslim.’18 He quotes another British official:
On 15 August the day of liberation was strangely celebrated in the Punjab. During the
afternoon a Sikh mob paraded a number of Muslim women naked through the streets of
Amritsar, raped them and hacked some of them to pieces with kirpans and burned the others
alive’.19****

IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PAST RECORD, THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO ACT NOW TO SECURE A JUST FUTURE FOR ALL IN SOUTH ASIA.

Re: # 314, tahmed 32:
You probably meant #304.
Of course, my statement there is applicable to India. But crucial difference between India and pakistan is that India has met that test fifteen times in last 60 years.
Agree?

Urstruly#345:

``I don`t think that this characterization of me and my work will deter me from doing it.``

What characterization? I think that you are mixing me with another poster.

As for your research, may I suggest that your time would be more usefully spent in fighting hateful caricaturing, whether in Pakistan, India or Denmark, which can avoid future such events.

anil#346:

I haven`t read ``Stern Reckoning`` and was not aware that he was commissioned by the British. Master Tara Singh`s inflammatory speech in Lahore is well documented. However, I do not see why a speech delivered in March 1946 would cause riots more than a year later. Are you sure it was not delivered in 1947?

Mantlives#353:
I generally ignore your debates with harish, sadna, balu et. al because I believe, maybe incorrectly, that I wont learn anything new in them. But this line caught my eyes:
``Azad`s book that remained censored till 1988...``

Azad`s book was never censored and I read it when it came out, I think, in early 60s. But Azad had asked for a few pages of his book to be kept in a safety box in a bank for 25-30 years. It was generally thought at that time that the secret pages perhaps contained material which was uncomplimentary to Nehru and he did not want it to come out as long as Nehru was alive.

errata:

*fail* in second line.

Dear Harish,

There you go declaring victory after making a complete fool out of yourself.

For your information I have already proved my point. Not only did you failed to back up your illogical assertion: ``Azad was removed because of Jinnah`` .. but you also refused to notice that CMP was accepted earlier and justifiably because the AIML had won a large mandate.

But then again making specious arguments and claiming that the other person ``is at loss`` is your way of ``winning arguments`` in your imaginary little world. Honestly you`ve never been able to prove any single point you ever raised, but I suppose it is a measure of your shamelessness that you continue to claim to the contrary, all to defend that racist casteist bigot Gandhi (by your own admission that is your stated aim).

I take your post 363 an affirmation that you never could argue logically.

#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.

#345 by Urstruly on February 12, 2006 10:56am PT

while you`re busy pounding away at the keyboard, foreign governments are bombing paki civilians on paki soil..

Pakistanis `killed in US strike`

Two Pakistani nomad women have been killed after a rocket fired across the border from Afghanistan landed on their tent, Pakistani officials say.

Four children were hurt in the attack late on Saturday in North Waziristan.

Locals say US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan fired four rockets into Pakistan`s tribal area after coming under fire from unknown attackers.

A US spokesman confirmed coalition forces had returned fire into Pakistan, but was not aware of casualties.

Post `attacked`

The incident is the third this year in which civilians have been killed inside Pakistani territory in apparent missile strikes by US-led forces who are hunting al-Qaeda and Taleban suspects in the mountainous border area.

Re: # 343

Dost Sahib:

There is a book on riots during partition that was published in 1949. The book is called ``Stern Reckoning``. The british had asked G.D. Khosla, the Chief Justice of Punjab to investigate the riots during partition. I have this book in my library and could not stop reading it, once I started. As I recall reading that before March 1946, there used to be minor and sporadic riots in Lahore and elsewhere which used to die down. The real incidence started in March 1946, after Master Tara Singh had isssued an ultimatum that the Sikhs had organized