‘Our Liberals’ and Minority Psyche

ok. This is just to let you know that I saw your message (#723). I may only respond on Monday.

Kalyan,

There are two things here...

1- First of all the dispute is as to what importance that particular document held in the larger scheme of things... Why is for example that resolution, which clearly for public consumption to make CMP more amenable to the people who wanted a fully sovereign Pakistan, more important than the Terms of Offer that Muslim League gave and which I have quoted in 707 and 720... OR why is more important than Muslim League`s actual acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan?

2- Even on the basis of the document you suggest there is a lot of room for various interpretations... please inform me if France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain etc are sovereign states or not? And if they are sovereign states... are they not in a defacto confederation/union called the European Union? So let us be a little more accepting that there may be an alternative interpretation...

I suggest you read the Lahore Resolution where the founding fathers used the word ``autonomous`` and ``independent`` interchangeably... this is called keeping the whole document broad.

``I am alleging that your interpretation of what a particular primary source document is supposed to mean is in of itself the point of argument. ``

My interpretation??? I haven`t offered an interpretation beyond the plain and explicit text of the primary source.... that sovereignty is the ``unalterable objective`` about which there may be ``no manner of doubt``.

I have only pointed out that your ``interpretation`` directly contradicts the plain text. . You are actually casting doubt on the unalterable objective by saying it was only to appease ``the masses who wanted Pakistan``

--
Your comments about me in various posts are noted without response: ``I put words in your mouth, I choose to be dishonest.``
I will be maintaining this collection but only respond with my comments and questions on the subject matter. I hope it doesn`t grow too big.

PS:

I want to point out a few more things...

1- This is a completely academic debate. Pakistan, a sovereign Pakistan, is a reality and there is no undoing this reality. Whatever good points or bad points Pakistan has, it is entirely of its own doing. Furthermore... India hardly is something special that I for one would want anything to do with it... To constantly barrage me with this accusation that we want or we rue ``influence`` in India ... is just a ridiculous argument.

2- H M Seervai, SK Majumdar, Irfan Habib, Ajeet Javed and many many Indian historians and writers who agree with me on this issue would hardly have any ulterior motive like conquering India or something of the sort. This is an academic debate, and the arguments of these gentlemen are very logical.... and the record itself reaffirms their views.

3- Sadna can`t impugn intentions or start abusing others simply because we refuse to agree to her view of history ...

Yaar Kalyan,

If you choose to be dishonest here what can I say? I am alleging that your interpretation of what a particular primary source document is supposed to mean is in of itself the point of argument.


Sadna,

You see here is how you distort the facts. What I had said was that having a federal system or a confederal system or a consociationalist did not negate the one man one vote system ... and not as you have distorted it into meaning that a federal system would not have one man one vote system... I for one did not mention the United States of America.. but yes the principle of having a US Senate, with major financial powers and without whose consent everything is impossible in the US, which takes 2 representatives from California (Population 53 million) and 2 representatives from New Jersey (Population 8 million) is actually completely in line with the one man one vote system... just like the CMP which was also completely in tune with the principle of one man one vote...

Infact ... under the CMP the issues of redistribution, economics, taxation etc was completely under the GROUP legislatures... and from the looks of it there wouldn`t have been any Union Legislature... just the executive. So that essentially means that each voter of the Indian Union consisting of Pakistan and Hindustan units would have one vote in taxation and finance bill... So the Cabinet Mission Plan preserves the principle of One Person One Vote and ensures that each unit and each province had a real control of its destiny. This is what Lahore Resolution was about and this is what Pakistan`s Non-Punjabi provinces ask for... and this is what Bengalis were asking for through their 6 points.

Now let us consider what Muslim League offered one more time:

Terms of the offer made by the Muslim League as a basis of agreements 12 May 1946.

1.The six Muslim Provinces(Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Baluchistan, Sind, Bengal and Assam) shall be grouped together as one group and will deal with all other subjects and matters except Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications necessary for Defence, which may be dealt with by the constitution-making bodies of the two groups of Provinces-Muslim Provinces(hereinafter named Pakistan Group) and Hindu Provinces-sitting together.

2. There shall be a separate constitution-making body for the six Muslim Provinces named above, which will frame Constitutions for the group and the Provinces in the group and will determine the list of subjects that shall be Provincial and Central(of the Pakistan Federation) with residuary sovereign powers vesting in the Provinces.

3. The method of election of the representatives to the constitution-making body will be such as would secure proper representation to the various communities in proportion to their population in each Province of the Pakistan Group.

4. After the constitutions of the Pakistan Federal Government and the Provinces are finally framed by the constitution-making body it will be open to any Province of the Group to decide to opt out of its group, provided the wishes of the people of that Province are ascertained by a referendum to opt out or not.

5. It must be open to discussion in the joint constitution-making body as to whether the Union will have a Legislature or not. The method of providing the Union with finance should also be left for decision of the joint meeting of the two constitution-making bodies, but in no event shall it be by means of taxation.

6. There should be parity of representation between the two groups of Provinces in the Union Executive and the Legislature, if any.

7. No major point in the Union Constitution which affects the communal issue shall be deemed to be passed in the joint constitution-making body, unless the majority of the members of the constitution-making body of the Hindu provinces and the majority of the members of the constitution-making group of the Pakistan Group, present and voting, are separately in its favour.

8. No decision, legislative, executive or administrative, shall be taken by the Union in regard to any matter of controversial nature, except by a majority of three-fourths.

9. In Group and Provincial Constitutions fundamental rights and safeguards concerning religion, culture and other matters affecting the different communities will be provided for.

10. The Constitution of the Union shall have a provision whereby any Province can, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for reconsideration of the terms of the Constitution, and will have the liberty to secede from the Union at any time after an initial period of ten years.

These are the principles of our offer for a peaceful and amicable settlement and this offer stands in its entirety and all matters mentioned herein are interdependent.

`Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-1947` by A. Appadorai 1957 Vol. II.


And just to drive home the points that have been mentioned earlier as well:

1- The principle of parity is between Pakistan and Hindustan groups and NOT Muslim and Hindu communities per se.

2- The vote communal issue that you use - when projecting it on (illogically) an alleged Afghan war we Pakistanis would have forced you into- is subject to both a majority vote in Hindustan Constituent Assembly and Pakistan Constituent Assembly. To explain this ... if some Pakistani politician - as you are so fond of speculating (though no Pakistani politician would or even has) - were to present the Afghan War as a communal issue... he would not only have to win a majority in Pakistan Unit ... but also a majority in the Hindustan Unit.

3- All controversial decisions would have to be made with 3/4ths majority.

4- For all practical purposes Congress would be free to devise its Economic and social policy unfettered by Muslim League unlike your claim that AIML would have forced its hand.

5- After the constitution was drafted, each province had the right to opt out of the group federation.

Yasser,

I thought I was paraphrasing you. If you thought the paraphrase was misleading say so. Why impute motives (``putting words in your mouth``)?

Ok. Let`s do this again.

FACT (Parts directly from primary source in quotes):
The CMP acceptance resolution says there should be ``no manner of doubt`` that sovereignty is the ``unalterable objective``.

INTERPRETATION (Direct from your post #701):
``It is a question of interpretation. Was unalterable sovereignty infact appeasement of the masses who wanted Pakistan... ``

TRAINING/PEDIGREE MATTERS: (Again, Direct quotes from your post #701)
``...in my interpretation I am joined by H M Seervai amongst others. Infact when it comes down to interpretation... not only Seervai but most trained historians are in agreement with the view that I have forwarded. So it does matter what Seervai`s credentials are...``

Given the above, I seriously do not understand why my paraphrasing (in post #702, quoted below) is incorrect, but I`m willing to listen to an explanation.


``Ok. So you are saying that the INTERPRETATION of trained historians and others with pedigree (Seervai) trumps the clearly declared and consistent (for an extended duration) positions in the PRIMARY-SOURCE TEXTS/SPEECHES.

I firmly disagree. I can leave it at that.``

That`s another curious thing. The ``great constitutional authority`` H M Seervai cites the US Senate to ``prove`` that the world`s oldest democracy US doesn`t follow one-man one-vote. He totally omits mentioning the U.S House of Representatives.

#716 Manto

So…. Does Jerry LOVE bitter, or what?!!

[Now suddenly it is about my academic credentials]

Actually my darling lying weasel Ummah yaar of a lawyer-cum-politician, there is nothing sudden about my simple enquiry – it was a question posed to you on another board a while ago. (Note: the word “cum” above should not be misconstrued as part of “scum”.)

You chose to first hemm and haw and then your usual predictable response.

A deafening silence!

Hence the reminder.

And here is a slogan back to you:

“Down with Muslim terrorists – starting with the first subcontinental terrorist – Mohammed Ali Jinnah!”

Dear BJK,

yaar why do you think anyone reads the long and badly worded posts you put up? God save us from those who taught you the English language. Either that, or you have some serious issues mentally. I didn`t know the Congress Party and Gandhi and Co were white, though most of what I have quoted from Gandhi does show that he thought he was from the ``Indo-Aryan/Indo-Germanic`` race and therefore superior to the rest of the world.

Now suddenly it is about my academic credentials- whereas in post 702 Kalyan declares that trained historians don`t matter altogether... or failing that it is about my votes etc... you see this is your problem - logic is something quite alien to you.

As for the world knowing Gandhi... I told you there was a time when a great majority of learned people and idiots alike believed that the earth was flat and persecuted those who said otherwise.... you are like that majority... but Gandhi`s image as saint will not survive another generation... Gandhi will be exposed as the racist, casteist Hindu bigot that he was .. and put aside for being quite improper for a modern, inclusive and progressive humanity. This will happen. You know it... which is why you are so anxious to stop the progress of humanity on all counts...

Down with WITCHDOCTORS like Gandhi and SAY no to RACISM and CASTEISM.

And not to rub it in too much.

Your vote tally still stands at a dismal zero.

Could that be a preview of things to come?!!!

And by the way Yasser – here is a long-ago post still awaiting your response!

Let everybody know when you get your academic recognition - then perhaps people will actually start taking you seriously - perhaps even Mushy would (although that does carry some risks).

So far you have been rather evasive regarding describing your efforts at such scrutiny - and if any such scrutiny took place, what the results have been yet. In light of your promptness to jump and claim ``look ma, told ya...`` on virtually everything, I somehow feel that the results may have been less encouraging than what you expected.

I hope ``Jerry`` likes bitter!

Face the facts, ummah yaar Yasser!

You keep trying to weasel out but there is no chance of its success. Therefore, let me bring it back to your attention.

Let me repeat.

All you have shown so far in case of Jinnah is that once upon a time, Jinnah portrayed himself as a “liberal” to a bunch of white guys (big deal!) – even discounting the inherent penchant for lying as part of their jobs that lawyers possess.

And all you are showing in case of Gandhi – leaving aside the extreme likelihood of your quoting selectively – a lawyer specialty! – is that back in the 1900-1910 timeframe, Gandhi still needed to grow.

The reality is that Gandhi grew – Jinnah shrunk!

Accordingly, Gandhi’s base grew automatically – people of all faiths followed him.

Jinnah’s base shrank and shrank – till there were only a section of Muslims left – who put their “Muslimness” before everything else (and perhaps do it till today)! The autocrat got his wish – a diminished but devoted dumpistan of dark-souled dour devils!

Gandhi opened up to the world – Jinnah (who perhaps was jealous (although reading minds is a dicey business!) thinking that he was the better lawyer and not getting his due jolts (I mean his due accolades)) – he went the other way! Gandhi became larger than life – Jinnah smaller than a skunk!

Therefore, the world at large recognizes the importance of what Gandhi was and what he stood for – whether certain biased chowk numbskulls do, or not!

On the other hand, Jinnah has been cast aside – kicked with army boots and thrown into the dustbins where he lies stinking – is spite of the persistent attempts of revisionists like you to pull him up and smear that thick snout with layers of lipstick.

And then you wonder why he still keeps smelling like a skunk!

A dirty, smelly skunk! Who continues to stink so many decades later – what can be worse than a dead skunk?!!

Jinnah, the man may have been a lot of things – but when the push came to shove – he was clearly only about making a distinction between Hindus and Muslims – and he never would have settled for one Hindu as equal to one Muslim. From my perspective – his irrational fear was similar to the type of fear the whites of apartheid era harbored against majority rule in that country.

It was the same theme. It was merely apartheid practiced by a section of “exclusive” Muslims – and being continued here even to this day – and YOU enjoy its fruits to this day! Highly reminiscent of the same mindset!

It is the same darn stinking wine – served then in a different container – and this one came only in green color!

There is no difference between defending Jinnah, and defending apartheid, and defending Nazi racism! And the effect of the partition on the sub-continental population was analogous to a local holocaust! Jinnah’s mindset of exclusivity is similarly analogous to Hitler’s mindset of Nazi superiority.

With one important difference! The whites of South Africa have realized their idiocy finally and moved on. The “Muslims are special” mindset of the “elite” Pakistanis has become more entrenched! That includes you and your other “buddies” in this franchise who keep talking to each other and merely reinforcing what they have already said to themselves countless times.

I have a very clear idea of what “Jerry’s Pakistan” will actually look like.

Very similar to the current one – because it is the same mindset! Continuing to sizzle in its own “exclusive” juice – and wondering why the taste is so bitter!

Sadna, Kalyan,

In case you miss my post in this back and forth between myself and BJK... please refer to post 707, in which I have shown how the record clearly proves my interpretation of the facts.

Hindu exclusivist bigot aka Mahatma Gandhi said that CASTE SYSTEM was a natural organisation of humanity... Hindus ought to be exclusive... and dine and separately from Muslims etc etc... this is from the hey day of his Indian nationalist movement...


Some Gandhian statements... whose wider implications we all need to consider...

`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity` : Mahatma Gandhi

(Young India January 6th 1927)


A translation of a Gujrati essay he wrote in 1922 for Niya Jawan

(1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
(2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole....

(3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.

(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.

(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe.... Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.

(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes.

(7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.

(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.

(9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.

Dear BJK,

Are you now ``disowning`` Gandhi`s own words from his own works... It hasn`t been countered. You are the one lying here.

``It has been very clearly shown that Gandhi never deprecated blacks – what to say of hatred!``

One can only laugh at such a blatant lie... this is what Gandhi believed about Black people and Aryan Superiority... he echoed Adolf Hitler completely and consistently... and if Dr B R Ambedkar is to be believed remained a casteist Hindu bigot to the last...

On What Gandhi wanted

The last week has been very busy. We have not had a moment`s leisure. We saw Mr. Theodore Morison of Aligarh and the well-known Mr. Stead of the Review of Reviews. Mr. Stead has boldly come out to give us all the help he can. He was therefore requested to write to the same Boer leaders that they should not consider Indians as being on the same level as Kaffirs

Indian Opinion, 15-12-1906, CWOMG Vol. 6, pg 183



private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (3)

CLASSIFICATION OF ASIATICS WITH NATIVES

The cell was situated in the Native quarters and we were housed in one that was labeled `For Coloured Debtors`. It was this experience for which we were perhaps all unprepared. We had fondly imagined that we would have suitable quarters apart from the Natives. As it was, perhaps, just as well that we were classed with Natives. We would now be able to study the life of Native prisoners, their customs and manners. ...Degradation underlay the classing of Indians with natives. The Asiatic Act seemed to me to be the summit of our degradation. It did appear to me, as I think it would appear to any unprejudiced reader, that it would have been simple humanity if we were given special quarters. ...the Governor of the gaol tried to make us as comfortable as he could...But he was powerless to accommodate us beyond the horrible din and the yells of the Native prisoners throughout the day and partly at night also. Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought amongst themselves in their cells.

Indian Opinion 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 120


Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized -- the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company

Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135



private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (2)

INDIANS ON PAR WITH KAFFIRS

There, our garments were stamped with the letter `N`, which meant that we were being classed with the Natives. We were all prepared for hardships, but not quite for this experience. We could understand not being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives seemed too much to put up with. I then felt that Indians had launched on passive resistance too soon. Here was further proof that the obnoxious law was intended to emasculate the Indians.

It was, however, as well that we were classified with the Natives. It was a welcome opportunity to study the treatment meted out to the Natives, their conditions [of life in the gaol] and their habits. ...We were given a separate ward because we were sentenced to simple imprisonment; otherwise we would have been in the same ward [with the Kaffirs]. Indians sentenced to hard labour are in fact kept with the Kaffirs.

Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized -- the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company

Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135



private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (1)

I have, though, resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are not lodged with Kaffirs or others. When I arrived at the place, there were about 15 Indian prisoners. Except for three, all of them were satyagrahis. The three were charged with other offences. These prisoners were generally lodged with kaffirs. When I reached there, the chief warder issued an order that all of us should be lodged in a separate room. I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to the Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life. Moreover, those who wish to sleep in the same room have ulterior motives for doing so.
Obviously, we ought to abandon such notions if we want to make progress.


Indian Opinion, 6-1-1909, CWOMG Vol. 9, pg 149



On What Gandhi wanted (9)



Gandhi`s disdain for black people continues:

It is one thing to register Natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing and most insulting to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered

What is a Coolie, Indian Opinion 2151904, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 193

CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi


private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (8)



The whole affair is as much a disgrace to the Indian community as it is to the British Empire. The British rulers take us to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets

Indian Opinion, 29-2-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 105

CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi


private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (7)


More on SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL theory of Gandhiji...

His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of `coloured person` on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult

Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178

Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: CWOMG


private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (6)


More on SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL theory of Gandhiji...

His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of `coloured person` on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult

Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178

Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: CWOMG


private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (5)



It reduces British Indians to a status lower than that of the aboriginal races of South Africa and the Coloured people.

Indian Opinion 15-9-1906, CWOMG Vol. 5, pg 419-423

On What Gandhi wanted (14)

On Minority White rule in South Africa:

We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words `gentle compulsion` in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children


Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360

CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (13)


On Minority White rule in South Africa:

We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words `gentle compulsion` in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children


For Beej who is apparently BLIND: Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360

CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.


private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (12)



What the British Indians pray for is very little. They ask for no political power. They admit the British race should be the dominant race in South Africa. All they ask for is freedom for those that are now settled and those that may be allowed to come in future to trade, to move about, and to hold landed property without any hindrance save the ordinary legal requirements

Petition to Natal Legislature, CWOMG, vol3, pg 330


private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (11)


Ah... and they said Plessey Vs Ferguson was bad...

Well here is Gandhi with his theory of ``Separate and Unequal``

...The petition dwells upon ``the co-mingling of the Coloured and white races``. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?

The Transvaal Chambers and British Indians, Indian Opinion 24-12-03, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 89


private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (10)

More on Gandhi`s theory of ``separate and unequal``

Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension. ...Of course, under my suggestion, The Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly

Indian Opinion, 10-4-04, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 130-131

#707 (continued)

Face the facts, ummah yaar Yasser!

All you have shown so far in case of Jinnah is that once upon a time, Jinnah portrayed himself as a “liberal” to a bunch of white guys (big deal!) – even discounting the inherent penchant for lying as part of their jobs that lawyers possess.

And all you are showing in case of Gandhi – leaving aside the extreme likelihood of your quoting selectively – a lawyer specialty! – is that back in the 1900-1910 timeframe, Gandhi still needed to grow.

The reality is that Gandhi grew – Jinnah shrunk!

Accordingly, Gandhi’s base grew automatically – people of all faiths followed him.

Jinnah’s base shrank and shrank – till there were only a section of Muslims left – who put their “Muslimness” before everything else (and perhaps do it till today)! The autocrat got his wish – a diminished but devoted dumpistan of dark-souled dour devils!

Gandhi opened up to the world – Jinnah (who perhaps was jealous (although reading minds is a dicey business!) thinking that he was the better lawyer and not getting his due jolts (I mean his due accolades)) – he went the other way! Gandhi became larger than life – Jinnah smaller than a skunk!

Therefore, the world at large recognizes the importance of what Gandhi was and what he stood for – whether certain biased chowk numbskulls do, or not!

On the other hand, Jinnah has been cast aside – kicked with army boots and thrown into the dustbins where he lies stinking – is spite of the persistent attempts of revisionists like you to pull him up and smear that thick snout with layers of lipstick.

And then you wonder why he still keeps smelling like a skunk!

A dirty, smelly skunk! Who continues to stink so many decades later – what can be worse than a dead skunk?!!

Jinnah, the man may have been a lot of things – but when the push came to shove – he was clearly only about making a distinction between Hindus and Muslims – and he never would have settled for one Hindu as equal to one Muslim. From my perspective – his irrational fear was similar to the type of fear the whites of apartheid era harbored against majority rule in that country.

It was the same theme. It was merely apartheid practiced by a section of “exclusive” Muslims – and being continued here even to this day – and YOU enjoy its fruits to this day! Highly reminiscent of the same mindset!

It is the same darn stinking wine – served then in a different container – and this one came only in green color!

There is no difference between defending Jinnah, and defending apartheid, and defending Nazi racism! And the effect of the partition on the sub-continental population was analogous to a local holocaust! Jinnah’s mindset of exclusivity is similarly analogous to Hitler’s mindset of Nazi superiority.

With one important difference! The whites of South Africa have realized their idiocy finally and moved on. The “Muslims are special” mindset of the “elite” Pakistanis has become more entrenched! That includes you and your other “buddies” in this franchise who keep talking to each other and merely reinforcing what they have already said to themselves countless times.

I have a very clear idea of what “Jerry’s Pakistan” will actually look like.

Very similar to the current one – because it is the same mindset! Continuing to sizzle in its own “exclusive” juice – and wondering why the taste is so bitter!