Saviour or Tinpot Dictator?

PS: Whether my findings would stand the test of academic scholarship- ofcourse it would.

About my conclusions on partition- they are well supported by all historians who have investigated the matter- this includes Ayesha Jalal, H M Seervai, S K Majumdar, Patrick French, Irfan Habib, Durga Das, Sumit Sarkar, Ainslie Embree, Ian Talbott, Roger D Long, H V Hodson etc.

About my conclusions on Gandhi... I wrote this: ``Ungandhian Gandhi`` by Claude Markovits argues exactly the same about Gandhi and is considered an authority. I have not used ``gandhi behind the mask of divinity`` because apparently you have something against Sikhs... even though that is also merely quotes primary sources about Gandhi`s life and therefore is unimpeachable. Similarly Gandhi nobody knew is another book that reaffirms this point of view.

Dear BJKumar...

Why do you even try when you always put your foot in your mouth?

1- I suggest you hold what you *think* Seervai`s argument would be and read the book itself. Your problem is that you operate on teoo many assumptions. Seervai has not written a biography of Jinnah... he has written solely about the events of partition as per primary source documents and his verdict is that Jinnah was the only person who acted honorably in the whole mess. He blames Congress for partition and says Jinnah was committed to a United India even in the end. This is his argument in a nutshell... it is way beyond where Ayesha Jalal stops... it questions the intentions and tactics of Congress leaders.

2- I did not at any point declare my sources as less than impeccable. That you would distort my words to sound like that shows just how far you can go in order to ``Win`` though there isn`t a ghost chance of that happening given the low quality of your rebuttals.
What I said was that while I base my comments on Primary sources ... I do respond to biased sources (like those quoted by Harish Hyd) by quoting similar sources (Dalitstan and Khalistan etc though they might be accurate who knows) to show that point of views exist on both sides. My allegations against Gandhi are from THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI and I have painstakingly referenced every single word- Can you deny this? You can`t- but may be you can given your questionable level of honesty and personal integrity.

3- Other than personal attacks and insinuation- you`ve not proved a single word by way of argument... infact you are even worse at than our friend Harish Hyd... who atleast tried to argue on some sort of facts- except he made a mess of himself.

What matters is that when I sleep at night my conscience is clear... but I wonder if the facts I have put up plainly infront of you allow you a good night`s rest. I don`t think so.

#583 Yasser

Yasser, finally, after a lot of running away, you admit that some of your sources are less than impeccable. The fact that you were FORCED to do so - and it took over 500 posts to get you to this point - speaks volumes of your objectivity - or rather, the lack of it. (I would urge you not to be so ``modest`` - give yourself ``credit`` for a LOT more questionable sources, please! Your sheer volume of interacts guarantees it.)

The problem with your credibility - the way it appears to me, is from the apparent confusion in your mind between your role of a lawyer - who must win no matter what the truth is - and a wanna-be historian - which does not appear to be your strong suit.

The lawyer in you beats the pulp out of the amateur historian in you - he makes him cry and run to the bathroom to hide - and cringe like a curds-covered cat.

I am looking at some of the people who you mention as if they were keepers of the great gospel. The truth is - I am feeling even less impressed.

These individuals appear to have had their own weaknesses and axes to grind, too. M.N.Roy for example, was a communist - I take pretty much everything that communists say with a pinch of salt. There is little objectivity in those whose words and deeds are ideologically driven. The communists - thank God for their departure from most theaters - invented the very term ``propaganda``. The Soviets excelled in revising and recreating history to suit their worldview. There have been FEW liars like them.

If I understand the situation right, many communists from those times were opposed to the Indian freedom movement to begin with. Such boot-lickers!

Now Seervai, from all accounts - appears to have been a brilliant jurist - so it is understandable that a lawyer like you would hold him in awe like a god - perhaps the same reason you do it for Jinnah. Leaving aside the point that I have not even looked at what Seervai said of Gandhi, it is worth impressing to you that even professionally brilliant minds are not necessarily good judges of human beings and can make mistakes. It would be my guess that his thinking of Jinnah as a secularist would be influenced by how he saw Jinnah do things which were not what a ``pious`` Muslim would have done - simple things like eating or drinking. Rest assured that the vast hordes of Muslims who followed Jinnah did not do so because of his secular credentials - and Jinnah took full advantage of their blind religious madness for political purposes - when he did that, that makes him a demagogue through and through - irrespective of how he was earlier on in his life!

So what people say about individuals - and the opinions that they express - come to naught.

In the end, what remains is deeds and the consequences of those deeds. There is no running away from those. Anybody can become an arm-chair lecturer - especially in these days of the internet - when false trails are so easy to create! This site and perhaps other sites on the web are teeming with such lecturers.

And by the way you have still completely failed to answer my question why you have not held up your write-ups to the scrutiny of professional historians - even the ones that you have quoted yourself.

But, I like your energy and enthusiasm anyway. Anybody who calls Mushy what you called him deserves better than simply being ridiculed. Your intents must not be discounted.

For the thousandth time, I wish you well with your dreams. They are good dreams. In my view, your chances of accomplishing them will improve dramatically if you open up your mind a bit and start seeing things for what they were instead of how you would LIKE them to be.

Wishing you well,
BJ Kumar

Dear Harish mian,

Your being sure doesn`t mean a thing nor would it ever mean a thing. It is your bias and ignorance of the man. I am not going to correct you on this. You may continue to believe what you do...

On DAD... once again:


1- Stanley Wolpert (for whom you`ve not given any hard copy reference/page number) does not at any point say that Muslim League planned it. There is no blame apportioned on Jinnah or the Muslim League leadership.

2- H V Hodson on page 166 says

The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen.``

Have you even picked up the book by the guy ... because had you done so you would be trying to impeach his credibility as well.


3- Gurcharan Singh`s communal evidence is as neutral as Suhrawardy`s evidence. Sikhs were also actively involved in communal violence in Calcutta as per Sir Francis Tuker. Now thats news for you... Sikhs in Calcutta but these are the facts...

4- Ofcourse you would now try and hide behind wheeling and dealing.. but if that were the case why didn`t Wavell give the government to the Muslim League instead of wooing the Congress as per the original promise by the Cabinet Mission? Wavell`s conclusion page 879 Volume IX does not take a partisan line but concludes simply that there was simply no evidence that pointed fingers at the Muslim League let alone the Central Muslim League who you want to blame.

But I can see why you are so hard-pressed to find arguments... as to repeat the same old bankrupt arguments which don`t stand any test. As for your affirmation that you wanted Pakistan`s creation - I didn`t accuse you otherwise. It was after all because of the intransigence of the Congress Party on partitioning provinces and separating completely Pakistan and Hindustan ... that led to two hostile countries.


-YLH

#590 by Mantolives

Now you claim that Jinnah gloated and yet you know full well that even as the saying goes if you died a hundred times and brought to life a hundred times you can`t substantiate the statement that Jinnah showed any glee on Hindus and Sikhs getting killed... it is just so out of character for a man like him. He was not Sardar Patel or Harish Hyd or even Gandhi to demean himself in such a manner.

Sure. I`m sure he wouldn`t have cared to give second thought to those who had perished due to his avarice for power. The man was sleeping on the floors, did nothing to stop violent Muslim marauders, didn`t show a hint of regret that so many had died due to his folly, was all gung-ho when Margaret Bourke White went to interview him without pausing to condole with those who had lost their lives due to his stupidity. It was so out of character for him.

FTR You`ve not produced a single argument or damning evidence that proves that Muslim League was complicit- other than quoting pov articles by sources (if you can call websites and googling that) of your choice. So please continue to repeat this mantra which is indicative more of your dishonesty than anything else ... Unless you can rebuke Wavell`s clear statement of fact and Hodson`s clear acquiital of the League leadership...you have no case.

Your one-time favorite Stanley Wolpert clearly says ML was to blame. H V Hodson says Muslims started it. Gurcharan Singh Talib`s report says the ML was preparing for a showdown months in advance, the British website I quoted blames the ML, and you say there`s no damning evidence? Must have been lost on you no? Wavell`s statement carries no weight because we all know the wheeling-dealing between him and Jinnah. It is like saying Modi is innocent. As for Hodson, I`ve provided his very own words. So it you who`s dishonest.

I am certain - in my hearts of hearts- that you are a very distressed individual today because all that you believe about that ``wrinkly bharat mata`` and its moral superiority lies shattered before you.

On the contrary, I`m very happy that Pakistan was created. With 140 million Jihadis and their closet-suppporters like you, it makes progress that much more difficult and India wouldn`t be the toast of the world today. India`s foresighted leaders did the right thing by amputating the gangrenous limb that Pakistan was. Since then, your country has become more diseased and the CIA says it won`t be there in 2015. You guys are still searching for an identity and like cheap imitation jewelry, you have to call yourselves Indians when you go abroad to save your skins. Not even Sub-Saharan African nations have to put up with this kind of humiliation. The Quaid`s dream lies shattered today and Gandhi`s India is on its way to taking its right place on the world stage. So the only thing you can do is put lipstick on the pig, but unfortunately, it will still remain a pig.

Harish mian...

More repetition of the same old. Now you claim that Jinnah gloated and yet you know full well that even as the saying goes if you died a hundred times and brought to life a hundred times you can`t substantiate the statement that Jinnah showed any glee on Hindus and Sikhs getting killed... it is just so out of character for a man like him. He was not Sardar Patel or Harish Hyd or even Gandhi to demean himself in such a manner.

You say old arguments have not been cleared up. My dear friend you must be joking. FTR You`ve not produced a single argument or damning evidence that proves that Muslim League was complicit- other than quoting pov articles by sources (if you can call websites and googling that) of your choice. So please continue to repeat this mantra which is indicative more of your dishonesty than anything else ... Unless you can rebuke Wavell`s clear statement of fact and Hodson`s clear acquiital of the League leadership...you have no case. Let me give you the references for those sources again:

1-Mansergh TOPP Volume IX Page 879

2- H V Hodson Page 166- third Paragraph- the Great Divide.


You say I am certain of who conceded defeat- you are right - I am quite certain. It is certainly not me. I have proved my case beyond a shadow of doubt using primary sources prompting you to resort to personal attacks and abuse. I am certain - in my hearts of hearts- that you are a very distressed individual today because all that you believe about that ``wrinkly bharat mata`` and its moral superiority lies shattered before you.

-YLH

#587 by Mantolives

Please note for your own benefit that other than personal insults and abuse you`ve not introduced a single new argument which can in any way prove your argument. You keep claiming a lot of things... but no real facts.

Well, I`d introduce new arguments only after the old ones have been cleared, but your inability to do that plus the fact that you`re forced to do the cat-on-a-hot-tin-roof dance (I rather enjoy that) make me put you through the same routine over and over again.

I accept your concession of defeat wholeheartedly. Now you can continue to go in circles and claim what you`ve been claiming but the bottom line is that there is no evidence to support your claim... infact damning evidence shows that Congress used Muslim League`s direct action day to create trouble in Bengal to bring down the League ministry.

What damning evidence Yasser? Wavell`s conclusion that the ML was not to blame? But that doesn`t blame the Congress either, so is there some ``damning evidence`` which only Yasser Latif Hamdani, the great lawyer from Lahore knows? Or are you hearing voices? I`m sure its the latter, but it`d be better if you spell it out.

As for defeat, after trying to wriggle out of answering those uncomfortable questions, I`m sure in your heart you abundantly know who`s conceded defeat. Some things are best left unsaid because it is embarrassing to the other party, so I`ll grant you that face-saver.

As for Narendra Modi... he can only be compared to Patel ... both were full of glee at the number of Muslims dead.

Well in that case, Jinnah was worse than the two. Modi and Patel gloated (if at all they did) at the death of Muslims. Jinnah gloated at the death of Hindus and Sikhs, but too bad he forgets that lakhs of Muslims, many of them innocent were killed too.

And by the way- I myself took the debate off of M N Roy ... because I didn`t want you to even have a little bit of room to wriggle out of the position you`ve cornered yourself into and which is why you are back to old ways.

But on M N Roy and your claims about him- I do hope you will visit my ilog and read something about the great man.

Dear Harish Hyd,

Please note for your own benefit that other than personal insults and abuse you`ve not introduced a single new argument which can in any way prove your argument. You keep claiming a lot of things... but no real facts.

I accept your concession of defeat wholeheartedly. Now you can continue to go in circles and claim what you`ve been claiming but the bottom line is that there is no evidence to support your claim... infact damning evidence shows that Congress used Muslim League`s direct action day to create trouble in Bengal to bring down the League ministry. As for Narendra Modi... he can only be compared to Patel ... both were full of glee at the number of Muslims dead.

-YLH

#584 by Mantolives on April 25, 2006 10:20pm PT

After investigating the matter a little more, I`ve discovered that the Gurcharan Singh Khushwant Singh refers to is Gurcharan Singh Tohra and not the gentleman referred to by Harish Hyd.

Thanks for admitting this but if you thought by such confessions, you can shore up your lost credibility, you`re naiver than we thought.

In any event...the source remains one sided and biased- but I felt it was fair that this clarification was made in order to be fair to Mr Talib and Mr Tohra.

Bhai it is such blanket judgments that strain your already low credibility further. I for one wouldn`t pass such sweeping judgments, until I have a stronger source to disprove my rival`s.

#573 by Mantolives

Please point out how many of the leaders that you`ve named were physically present in Bengal? Zero. That is the answer to the question what Jinnah did to restrain them... none of them were involved in violence in Bengal.

Yasser Yaar, you must be smoking something. First of all, where did I claim they were in Bengal? Secondly, what logic leads you to conclude that in order to incite violence, you need to be physically present close to the theater of violence? Was Narendra Modi personally raping Muslim women and killing children during the Gujarat violence? So your defense is basically a heap of doo-doo.

The reason I said Punjabi was you were quoting two more than others... Feroz Khan Noon and Abdur rab Nishtar... and with the exception of Hidayatullah- all of them are Punjabis.

There you go again. Yet another contortion. And please tell us what Gilani and Ghazanfar Ali were? Three out of six are not Punjabis, yet you went on to make that ludicrous claim. Perhaps you thought you could get away cheaply.

If Suhrawardy- not on your list- was nominated as the culprit- he was removed for negligence as well... and as for the comparison between Gujurat and Calcutta... ofcourse.

If Jinnah hadn`t done that, the Congress and British both would have bayed for his blood, so he let the violence die down on its own and then made Suhrawardy the convenient scapegoat. Not that Suhrawardy was innocent but he thought he`d be rewarded for his ``services``, but Jinnah the master strategist simply fired him.

I told you yesterday that it is a very apt comparison...

In that case, Jinnah can very well be compared to Modi. Suhrawardy was merely the pawn that was acting at his master`s behest. As to your argument that Jinnah`s intentions were ``noble``, it is quite clear from the statements issued by his cohorts and the subsequent turn of events. Events that even a newspaper reporter could foresee, but the great statesman Jinnah couldn`t.

In both instances an Armed Hindu Majority in a Hindu Majority city killed a large number of the Muslim minority under a false pretext that they had provoked violence.

Only a man with his head buried in an unmentionable place would think that blood-curdling calls to violence are a false pretext. But then, you`ve mastered the art of contortion, so please excuse us it it sounds nonsensical.

In both instances inquiries absolved Muslims of planning the violence.

Like I said, Narendra Modi has NOT been implicated in the Gujarat, but there is enough evidence to prove that he was indeed responsible, first by making provocative speeches (as Jinnah and his cohorts did), and then not responding quickly enough (like Suhrawardy, who declared a holiday to the entire Police force). So you`re fooling nobody here, except perhaps yourself.

As for Hodson`s statement absolving Muslim League of intending to start violence... the context is what I said you need to pick up. He was very clear that Muslim League had not planned violence... but violence erupted. Both statements are indeed made by him... but had you actually picked up his book you would know what the context is.

More spin. Goebbels would have been proud of you Yasser, but which context? Please explain that to us.

On M N Roy- you`ve been caught once again to pull a fast one- which is why you are back despite having said two hours ago that you were leaving.

Thanks, but I won`t take the bait. We`ll come to this issue after we`ve sorted out the other one. If you thought you could use this Roy dude as the escape route out of the hole in which you find yourself, you`re mistaken.

At this point I wish to point out that yesterday I quoted Khushwant Singh on Gurcharan Singh. After investigating the matter a little more, I`ve discovered that the Gurcharan Singh Khushwant Singh refers to is Gurcharan Singh Tohra and not the gentleman referred to by Harish Hyd.

In any event... the source remains one sided and biased- but I felt it was fair that this clarification was made in order to be fair to Mr Talib and Mr Tohra.

BJkumar...

The two or three websites that you ascribe to me have indeed been quoted by me once or twice... but by no means has my argument rested on them ... I`ve always used PRIMARY SOURCES of information and hard copy sources. It is when people like Harish hyd and you respond by quoting anonymous websites instead of hard copy sources that I too put up these websites as counters.

I am very happy to quote primary sources as well hard copy sources... but some how I have a nagging suspicion that you are incapable of complying to this rule. Why? Because earlier on this board you were quoting a review piece on Ayesha Jalal and continued to claim you were right - even when I produced a rebuttal by Ayesha Jalal herself... So there is no point in being all self righteous. Similarly my arguments on DAD and Partition are basically derived from Ayesha Jalal, H M Seervai, Sumit Sarkar, Durga Das and S K Majumdar.

As for my findings on Gandhi... they are based on Gandhi`s own collected works and I`ve referenced every single word... I am afraid it does not require the patronisation of any academic ... your analogies aside... you know very well that your claim that I will stand ``exposed`` is merely to satisfy your own self now that you have discovered the facts about the man you admire so much.

An example of this is that the book ``Ungandhian Gandhi`` by Claude Markovits argues exactly the same about Gandhi and is considered an authority. I have not used ``gandhi behind the mask of divinity`` because apparently you have something against Sikhs... even though that is also merely quotes primary sources about Gandhi`s life and therefore is unimpeachable.

Okay, so I went a bit overboard with my analogies in #578, #579. I am sorry about that. It should not be taken in the wrong way.

It was for a moment.

Only for a moment.

In the heat of the moment!

That`s all!

Majumdar #539, {``In that sense India is lucky that there is a grand mess and no clear cut ethnic majority of Hindi speakers- even Hindi speakers are more conscious of being Biharis, Rajasthanis, Haryanvis etc. than of being a Hindi speaking monolith. ``}

Majumdar,
You have given the perfect analogy to the Punjabi hegemony issue in Pakistan. You are right about comparing the situation to a mammoth Hindi-speaking province consisting of UP, MP, Bihar, Haryana, and Rajasthan. Such a province would have a sizable (50% or more) of India`s population. To that if you added a hypothetical assumption of Hindi-speakers constituting 70% or more of the armed forces, you would approach the situation in Pakistan today. India has been taking large provinces and cutting them down to smaller administrative units (East Punjab into Haryana, Punjab, and HP). UP and Bihar have been broken down further, and I can see J&K also splitting up into at least three smaller units. Instead of downsizing West Punjab into three smaller units, Pakistan added to Punjab`s size by including Bhawalpur state into that monolith. There is nothing bad about Punjabis or Hindi-speakers, it is the tyranny resulting from monopolization that becomes the problem.

#538, {``Salim bhai...
Fancy yourself as the Caesar I see? :) ``}

No sir, with my luck I am always playing the part of Mark Antony. :)