Where are the Questioning Minds?

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

#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)..

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: # 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.

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.

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

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.