Pakistani Obsessions

Dear Netizen,


1-Please tell me where exactly Jinnah was from ``UP``? He was a Karachite Born and bred.

2- Basically you don`t have a point about leaders leading and not listening to the people. You either can be democratic or you can`t be. In any event, it is a god given right, affirmed by United Nations Human Rights Charter, to ascribe to any identity the people want.

3- It boils down to this? Why was there grief and misery? Why couldn`t Jinnah`s clients claim a distinct identity which is their political right both as a minority and as a citizen of the world? Look- when we talk of Jinnah`s Indian nationalism... it is pre-1937... I for one believe that is post 1937 politics were much more just than his pre-1937 Indian Nationalism. Had Gandhi and Nehru been more accepting of the Muslims` democratic decision of choosing an alternative identity than the one they wished to impose on them... they would have stayed in India.


4- By the time Jinnah went to Cairo in Dec 1946, Cabinet Mission Plan had already been rejected... and partition of India was a foregone conclusion (though H M Seervai and Ayesha Jalal disagree with this)


5- Your understanding of TNT is very limited. The two nation theory did not envisage necessarily two states.... but that the two nations ought to be given a consociationalist federal democratic solution .... Please search these terms and you will understand what I am trying to say.

6- About Lahore resolution you are still going in circles. I suggest you read my previous post and read the text of the Lahore Resolution. The question remains ``Did Pakistan mean a partition of India``. Khushwant Singh, who lived in Lahore during that period, says he supported ML`s Pakistan demand... because he never thought it meant partition of India. The complete separation of two states was borne out of Congress` desire for a more centralised form of government.

Manto/Netizen,

Actually I didn`t have the leadership of ML in mind- the fat cats always find a way of getting rich and powerful. What I had meant was that ordinary Muslim voters of ML in UP/Bihar supported partition. The ones who migrated and the ones who stayed back- both are often similarly tarred as traitors.

Regards

Re: # 159

manto

``I`ve said several times that Gandhi had poisoned politics to an extent where Muslims had no choice but to seek a distinct political identity. ``

earlier you have said that jinnah didn`t have a choice now you saying muslims didn`t have.
you have said many more things several times before but most of them are just your beliefs. your arguments are not conclusive. there are no facts to suport them.

`` A ``leader`` who doesn`t accept what the people say is often known as a dictator... you`ve just negated the whole concept of democracy with ``leader doesn`t listen to people``.``

in democracy, it doesn`t have to be a leader, just a people`s representative.
a leader is totally different concept. you can have leadership in several areas like business, political, scientific.....
a leader is a person who has the vision and the courage to take decisions, which even if unpopular in the short run, in the long run are for the best interests of the people/subjects.

a leader doesn`t have to take a decision which even though liked by the majority is going to bring grief and misery to them later.

``Jinnah was very clear that he was acting as a lawyer ... trying to get the best deal for his client - the Muslim people. ``

could be.

``As for your question - tell me why the Congress was trying to present its case with the Japanese, Germans and Americans? ``

could you elaborate a bit....

``he presented the Muslim League`s point of view. ``

its very odd that ML was concerned that ``hindu raj`` would stretch up to middle east ......

if congress also bitched about ``muslim rule`` to the americans, germans than it is also deplorable.

``Why was he planning on retiring in Hindu majority Bombay then. ``

thats very strange. he was afraid of hindu hegemony and still wanted to come back to live under it? why did he think that it was still possible? did he think hindus are too forgiving?


``And as for Majumdar... please don`t misquote... he didn`t say that all of Muslim League`s top leadership was from UP ... ``

thats what i wrote: ``in addtion to what majumdar said, the top leadership of ML was entirely from hindu-majority areas. ``

i believe i didn`t say that he said that.....



by ML leadership I meant Jinnah, Liaqat, the top two. and anyway who are these other fellas?
wasn`t mandal elected because of ml support, don`t tell me that he had a support base among muslims.

`` I am afraid your entire argument collapses as usual. ``

lets refrain from making such statements. let the facts decide.

also, what do you think about this:

``yes they joined because it was an interim arrangement with many of their demands having been met ... before a final arrangement. ``

what ever these demands which were not met before?

you had often said that if congress had not remained stubborn partition could have been avoided. in that case why is jinnah quoted with ``hindu muslims are two separate nations`` also:
jinnah was fully aware of the Lahore resolution (didn`t he chair it) and was fine with a demand for pakistan, he didn`t distance himself from it nor did he say that we (musims) don`t want a separate country/region but just don`t want to live in a hindu state.
isn`t it stubborness on his part?

Netizen...

I am afraid your arguments are stretching it and are completely illogical. The question here was whether Pakistan meant partition of India or a complete separation. I`ve said several times that Gandhi had poisoned politics to an extent where Muslims had no choice but to seek a distinct political identity.

As for your new dictum- are you kidding me ? A ``leader`` who doesn`t accept what the people say is often known as a dictator... you`ve just negated the whole concept of democracy with ``leader doesn`t listen to people``. Jinnah was very clear that he was acting as a lawyer ... trying to get the best deal for his client - the Muslim people.

As for your question - tell me why the Congress was trying to present its case with the Japanese, Germans and Americans?

At Cairo... Jinnah was asked to explain his point of view on the situation in India... he presented the Muslim League`s point of view. Was it personal? I don`t think so. Why was he planning on retiring in Hindu majority Bombay then.

And as for Majumdar... please don`t misquote... he didn`t say that all of Muslim League`s top leadership was from UP ... actually I can think of only three major ones... Liaqat Ali, Muhammad Ismail and Hasrat Mohani... the rest were from Muslim Majority regions... Mamdot, Daultana, Noon, FazlulHaq, Suhrawardy, Nishtar, Jogindranath Mandal, Hidayatullah, Aga Khan III, Shaista Ikramullah, Jahanara Shahnawaz, Mumtaz Shahnawaz etc... I am afraid your entire argument collapses as usual.

manto...

``because the demand for Pakistan - which had started way before ML took it over in an ambiguous way through the Lahore Resolution- was what got them the votes in these regions. ``

hence to say that jinnah had no choice or congress forced partition on him isn`t right, is it?

jinnah was fully aware of the Lahore resolution (didn`t he chair it) and was fine with a demand for pakistan, he didn`t distance himself from it nor did he say that we (musims) don`t want a separate country/region but just don`t want to live in a hindu state.

``the supporters of autonomy/Pakistan demand were entirely from Muslim Majority Areas... ``

in addtion to what majumdar said, the top leadership of ML was entirely from hindu-majority areas.

also, the people follow the leader , only an oppurtunist follows what the people demand.

``yes they joined because it was an interim arrangement with many of their demands having been met ... before a final arrangement. ``

what ever these demands which were not met before?



``As for Jinnah and his fear of Hindu imperialist tentacles... that is a what if .. what if Pakistan wasn`t there etc... I don`t think this is as such a major issue of any relevance to our discussion. ``

it is relevant in the sense it gives you an idea of his understanding of the affairs. it does show that he was scared of hindu domination. it shows that he was hell bent on getting pakistan. (whether it was right or wrong is not an issue here)
also of particular interest is why is he talking to eqytians about it? did he expect some help from them?

Manto mian,

(while ML`s supporters were from Hindu Majority Areas ... the supporters of autonomy/Pakistan demand were entirely from Muslim Majority Areas... )

As a matter of fact many of ML`s supporters from Hindu majority areas of UP and Bihar too were in favour of Pakistan demand. They were lunatics and by and large got what they deserved.

Regards

Netizen...

It was about how much say a particular group would have in the constitution making process... and Congress` claim to represent all communities was not backed up by elections.

And why work for autonomous regions... because the demand for Pakistan - which had started way before ML took it over in an ambiguous way through the Lahore Resolution- was what got them the votes in these regions. This needs a lot of clarification... while ML`s supporters were from Hindu Majority Areas ... the supporters of autonomy/Pakistan demand were entirely from Muslim Majority Areas... as representative of the Muslims, the ML had to bring together the diverse interests of these two disparate groups with different priorities.

As for League joining the Assembly... yes they joined because it was an interim arrangement with many of their demands having been met ... before a final arrangement.

As for Jinnah and his fear of Hindu imperialist tentacles... that is a what if .. what if Pakistan wasn`t there etc... I don`t think this is as such a major issue of any relevance to our discussion.

going further....

``Do you think that was an intelligent position- to refuse to deal with the real representatives of the minority - choosing instead unrepresentative Mullah``

irrespective of each party`s ``claim`` about representing a particular community, it was amply clear that ML had more seats (irrespective of whether only muslims or hindus or whoever) elected them.

hence the question comes back to the ones that I had asked you earlier....

why insist on separate autonomous zones or country when with around 30-35% seats ML could have worked as a bulwark against the congress hegemony.

also what aboiut the following:

what other issues caused ML to stay out of the assembly?

---

also, later on they did join the assembly as you said. what made them join it???

---

what do you think about jinnah speech to egytians regarding, ``otherwise there will be the menace of a Hindu imperialist Raj spreading its tentacles right across the Middle East``

so he was afraid of hindu raj spreading to middle east?

having won ... not one.

Netizen...

That was when the Congress refused to accept that Muslim League, having one upto 90% of the Muslim Seats and Congress` Mullah allies not even 5%, represented the Muslims ...
Do you think that was an intelligent position- to refuse to deal with the real representatives of the minority - choosing instead unrepresentative Mullahs? This is the politics that cost Congress dearly later and is very rightly denounced as ``Pseudo-secularism``.

Essentially ... ML was not opposed to Congress nominating Muslims but Congress` suggestion that its Muslims represented the Muslims in general... who had voted enmasse for the Muslim League.

i know later it was resolved but isn`t it a stupid idea to begin with that ML was initially objecting to congress appointing muslims.

``The ultimate solution was ``
but it wasn`t an agreement or a solution. the ML was free to elect whomsoever it wanted and so was the congress.
wasn`t mandal supported by the league during elections?

---

what other issues caused ML to stay out of the assembly?

---

also, later on they did join the assembly as you said. what made them join it???

---

what do you think about jinnah speech to egytians regarding, ``otherwise there will be the menace of a Hindu imperialist Raj spreading its tentacles right across the Middle East``

so he was afraid of hindu raj spreading to middle east?

Netizen,

I am afraid you`ve got many of the events wrong...

The issue of Muslims being nominated by the League was raised but it was resolved through formula that Gandhi signed... which stated that as the majority party on Muslim seats, Muslim League alone represents the Muslims.... but that ML would not have any objections to Congress nominating Muslims on its own seats...

The ultimate solution was that on 5 seats by the ML, one Hindu - Jogindernath Mandal- was appointed by Jinnah and on the 6 seats by the Congress... one was a Muslim.

Netizen,

I am afraid you`ve got many of the events wrong...

The issue of Muslims being nominated by the League was raised but it was resolved through formula that Gandhi signed... which stated that as the majority party on Muslim seats, Muslim League alone represents the Muslims.... but that ML would not have any objections to Congress nominating Muslims on its own seats...

The ultimate solution was that on 5 seats by the ML, one Hindu - Jogindernath Mandal- was appointed by Jinnah and on the 6 seats by the Congress... one was a Muslim.

Re: # 148

``the three tier plan was not as simple. Congress had agreed to the plan but had then come up with a weird interpretation in which wanted to play province against province.
Muslim League was out of the assembly on principle... ``

reagrding the issue of provinces within the group, congress later on forsaked it, isn`t?

but didn`t ML had other issues. like they would be the only party to elect muslims to the council, basically making congress a non-muslim party?

what other issues caused ML to stay out of the assembly?

also, later on they did join the assembly as you said. what made them join it???

`` I am afraid I still don`t understand why his being in Cairo is such a big problem. ``

as ML had decided to stay out of the assembly, it doesn;t matter than where jinnah was.

regarding jinnah, why was he explaining egytians about the Pakistan. this is what I found:

``In the light of this Indian world-view, how significant was Jinnah`s warning in December 1946. During his sojourn, in Cairo, he told his Egyptian audience: ``It is only when Pakistan is established that we (Indian Muslims and the Egyptians) should be really free, otherwise there will be the menace of a Hindu imperialist Raj spreading its tentacles right across the Middle East.`` ``If India will be ruled by a Hindu imperialist power,`` he added, ``it will be as great a menace for the future, if not greater, as the British imperialist power has been in the past. Therefore, I think the whole of the Middle East will fall from frying pan into the fire. The Middle East countries want to be free and self-governing and not subject to spheres of influence.``

1- Nope... the three tier plan was not as simple. Congress had agreed to the plan but had then come up with a weird interpretation in which wanted to play province against province.
Muslim League was out of the assembly on principle...

2- Jinnah had to gone to London with Liaqat, Nehru, Mountbatten and V P Menon. He came back via Cairo- to explain the Muslim League position better to the world at large. I am afraid I still don`t understand why his being in Cairo is such a big problem. I am not even sure Jinnah was a member of this particular assembly... even though he had been one from 1910-1945 ... but I have never really come across any thing about him participating in the 1945-1946 elections as a candidate.

manto:

why wasn`t jinnah there even for those 3 days?
wasn`t he aware of the assembly or some emergency came up that he had to live (even for a few days).
also, why were the ML members not there, even if jinnah had an emergency.

these questions are not to berate anyone, just to understand your perspective.

once again, could you please answer the following:

``Jinnah was not in the constituent assembly because after reaching an agreement on the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan in good faith... the Congress had gone back on its word and left Muslim League no option but to opt out of the constituent assembly.``

i do know that congress agreed for the may 16 plan and ML agreed to both of them.
what exactly congress did that?? did it go back on the may 16th plan, after first agreeing to it?

may 16th plan, i guess was for the autunomous muslim states within the union, isn`t?