‘Our Liberals’ and Minority Psyche

#706 Yasser

Ummah yaar Yasser, all this crap you copy and paste for the umpteenth time has been dealt with before. It has been countered effectively and you KNOW it is falsehood (the only unknown at this time is what could be your motivation for consistently lying – and it is only a matter of time before I will find that out, too!)

“Divide and Rule” was a very effective strategy that the British used. They used it in Africa to distinguish between blacks and Indians and they used it even later in the subcontinent to create a chasm between Hindus and Muslims. They were far more successful in the latter case.

The stuff you claim to quote is all from early nineteen hundreds when Gandhi was a relatively newcomer to South Africa and when he was still forming as a politician/satyagrahi. You are perhaps incapable of growing yourself – so the concept is alien to you – but he continued to grow after all of that and that is how he became so successful later on – he was able to grow beyond the original domain.

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

Read the following again from his “Satyagraha in South Africa”!

---

Chapter 2
History

The geographical divisions briefly noticed in the first chapter are not at all ancient. It has not been possibly definitely to ascertain who were the inhabitants of South Africa in remote times. When the Europeans settled in South Africa, they found the Negroes there. These Negroes are supposed to have been the descendants of some of the slaves in America who managed to escape from their cruel bondage and migrated to Africa. They are divided into various tribes such as the Zulus, the Swazis, the Basutos, the Bechuanas, etc. They have a number of different languages. These Negroes must be regarded as the original inhabitants of South Africa. But South Africa is such a vast country that it can easily support twenty or thirty times its present population of Negroes. The distance between Cape Town and Durban is about eighteen hundred miles by rail; the distance by sea also is not less than one thousand miles. The combined area of these four colonies is 473,000 square miles. In 1914 the Negro population in this vast region was about five millions, while the Europeans numbered about a million and a quarter.

Among the Negroes, the tallest and the most handsome are the Zulus. I have deliberately used the epithet “handsome” in connection with Negroes. A fair complexion, and a pointed nose represent our ideal of beauty. If we discard this superstition for a moment, we feel that the Creator did not spare Himself in fashioning the Zulu to perfection. Men and women are both tall and broad-chested in proportion to their height. Their muscles are strong and well set. The calves of the legs and the arms are muscular and always well rounded. You will rarely find a man or woman walking with a stoop or with a hump back. The lips are certainly large and thick, but as they are in perfect symmetry with the entire physique, I for one would not say that they are unshapely. The eyes are round and bright. The nose is flat and large, such as becomes a large face, and the curled hair on the head sets off to advantage the Zulu’s skin which is black and shining like ebony. If we ask a Zulu to which of the various races inhabiting South Africa he will award the palm for beauty, he will unhesitatingly decide in favour of his own people, and in this I would not see any want of judgement on his part. The physique of the Zulu is powerfully built and finely shaped by nature without any such effort as is made he Sandow and others in Europe in order to develop the muscles. It is a law of nature that the skin of races living near the equator should be black. And if we believe that there must be beauty. in everything fashioned by nature, we would not only steer clear of all narrow and one-sided conceptions of beauty, but we in India would be free from the improper sense of shame and dislike which we feel for our own complexion if it is anything but fair.

The Negroes live in round huts built of wattle and daub. The huts have a single round wall and are thatched with hay. A pillar inside supports the roof. A low entrance through which one can pass only by bending oneself is the only aperture for the passage of air. The entrance is rarely provided with a door. Like ourselves, the Negroes plaster the walls and the floor with earth and animal dung. It is said the Negroes cannot make anything square in shape. They have trained their eyes to see and make only round things. We never find nature drawing straight lines or rectilinear figures, and these innocent children of nature derive all their knowledge from their experience of her.
…..
Before the advent of European civilisation, the Negroes used to wear animal skins, which also served them as carpets, bed sheets and quilts. Now-a-days they use blankets. Before British rule men as well as women moved about almost in a state of nudity. Even now many do the same in the country. They cover the private parts with a piece of skin. Some dispense even with this. But let not anyone infer from this that these people cannot control their senses. Where a large society follows a particular custom, it is quite possible that the custom is harmless even if it seems highly improper to the members of another society. These Negroes have no time to be staring at one another. When Shukadeva passed by the side of women bathing in a state of nudity, so the author of the Bhagavata tells us, his own mind was quite unruffled; nor were the women at all agitated or affected by a sense of shame. I do not think there is anything supernatural in this account. If in India today, there should be none who would be equally pure on a similar occasion, that does not set a limit to our striving after purity, but only argues our own degradation. It is only vanity which makes us look upon the Negroes as savages. They are not the barbarians we imagine them to be.

The law requires Negro women to cover themselves from the chest to the knees when they go to a town. They are thus obliged to wrap a piece of cloth round their body. Consequently pieces of that size command a large sale in South Africa, and thousands of such blankets or sheets are imported from Europe every year. The men are similarly required to cover themselves from the waist to the knees. Many, therefore, have taken to the practice of wearing second-hand clothing from Europe. Others wear a sort of knickers with a fastening tape. All these clothes are imported from Europe.

The staple food of the Negroes is maize, and meat when available. Fortunately, they know nothing about spices or condiments. If they find spices in their food or even if it is coloured by turmeric, they turn up their noses at it, and those among them who are looked upon as quite uncivilised will not so much as touch it. It is no uncommon thing for a Zulu to take at a time one pound of boiled maize with a little salt. He is quite content to live upon porridge made from crushed mealies boiled in water. Whenever he can get meat, he eats it, raw or cooked, boiled or roasted, with only salt. He does not mind taking the flesh of any animal.

The Negro languages are named after the various tribes. The art of writing was recently introduced by Europeans. There is nothing like a Negro alphabet. The Bible and other books have now been printed in the Negro languages in Roman character. The Zulu language is very sweet. Most words end with the sound of broad “a”; so the language sounds soft and pleasing to the ear. I have heard and read that there is both meaning and poetry in the words. Judging from the few words which I happened to pick up, I think this statement is just. There are for most of the places sweet and poetical Negro names whose European equivalents I have mentioned. I am sorry I do not remember them and so cannot present them here to the reader.

…. They have a perfect grasp of the distinction between truth and falsehood. It is doubtful whether Europeans or ourselves practice truthfulness to the same extent as the Negroes in their primitive state do. They have no temples or anything else of that kind. There are many superstitions among them as among other races……

---

Dear Sadna,

I have read through your posts and I am afraid nothing is contained in your posts that contradicts my claim that Jinnah as the lawyer of the litigant was putting up maximum demands which were completely negotiable. No one is denying the record but your record does not go even a single inch in proving H M Seervai or Ayesha Jalal`s assertions as wrong but instead goes a long way to prove them... that Jinnah was operating out of a cornered position, that Pakistan was a reality given the people`s demand for it... and that Jinnah was trying to work out a formula which would be a compromise between two divergent positions.

Secondly your constant harping on our alleged opposition to ``one-man one-vote democracy`` principle... I have explained to you several times that a federal or confederal or a consociationalist agreement does not necessarily amount to a negation of the one man one vote democracy .... if this were true, the principle of bicameral legislatures that is common place in many republics of the world would itself be a negation of one man one vote democracy - Netherlands, which is the closest to the model I speak of, is a very successful one man one vote democracy... so lets try to be honest for once...

Let us consider the facts

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.


So let us draw some elementary conclusions which you and your readers have repeatedly failed to appreciate:


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

2- The communal voting 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.

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.


So then why did the Congress disagree- when all its programme was firmly intact? This is the billion dollar question, the failure to answer which has forced you and your buddy Kalyan to put words in my mouth...

The bottom line is that the horrendous partition cost has to be put on the Congress` feet which was responsible for throwing away this golden opportunity of keeping India united with autonomous Pakistan Units within it.



Kalyan,

I am afraid your putting words in my mouth will not change my position. The disagreement is on what primary record shows... primary record does not show what you guys allege it to show.

It is ironic, that Muslim League`s resolutions and manifesto denouncing British rule and calling for independence for the subcontinent are not enough for biased Indian nationalists to establish their anti-British and pro-freedom character... but their resolution accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan with reference to a future sovereign Pakistan is some how suddenly evidence enough of their actual position.... Same goes for Congress whose pro-Nazi policies are whitewashed over by their latter day propagandists...

The double standards are just amazing.


BJK,

I agree that one does not have to be a historian to disagree with racist bigots like Adolf Hitler and ``Mahatma`` Gandhi... Both stood for ``Indo-Germanic`` and ``Aryan`` Superiority, both stood for dividing races on the basis of how they looked. Jinnah on the other hand was constantly admired as the Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity for 33 years by your own leaders... Whites of South Africa realised their mistakes but have you realised that Gandhi was a racist casteist Hindu bigot?

Please consider the following golden words from Gandhi ... they are all from his collective works. Let us see the consistency of this record.... I am doing it to educate you and open your hitherto closed eyes.

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

I think it is abundantly clear who has the exclusive mindset and who has inclusive mindset...

#705 by sadna

Sadna, that bit of history is highly illuminating. Needless to say, all of this knowledge could not have come overnight – you have spent a considerable amount of time here. There is absolutely no way somebody like me would put in that much effort (the returns just are not there)! Therefore, thanks!

But I must insist on my own way of looking at Jinnah – just the way one does not have to be a “scholar” to instinctively dislike Hitler – I don’t need to do a lot of reading to figure out what the man (to whom I justifiably refer by using much stronger terms) was all about.

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! 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!

And that describes Manto’s crowd – including his other “buddies” in this franchise who keep talking to each other and merely reinforcing what they have already said to themselves countless times.

That is no different from a Mullah being smug inside his own madrassah! Life seems to work fine as long as you don’t have to stick your neck out and face the outside world. All that Jinnah’s successors have done over the last sixty years has been to simply reinforce that mindset of exclusivity – both inside and out!

No external country, not their bitterest possible enemy could have inflicted the punishment on them that these people have inflicted upon themselves.

If the country had stayed united, there is little doubt that Muslims would not have retained the preeminent position of the previous centuries – so what? If one believes in the essential equality of all human beings then why be afraid of other human beings – especially those you have lived among for centuries. So they would not have any special status – it would have been only a status as an equal human being and little else.

Do they have that NOW? (Just being funny! (I wonder why the less-than-“elite” Pakistanis have such a tough time laughing.)) Show me a person who says that with a straight face and I will show you a liar!

Democracy is a strange animal – and it is also the great equalizer! No matter what the great grandparents of the present-day Pakistanis were a few centuries ago – they would have been reduced to the status of the commoners – like everybody else – like the Zamindars, like the “high castes”, like countless other groups and subgroups all over the country!

Instead, this crowd sizzles in its own “exclusive” juice – and wonders why the taste is so bitter!

bjk #704
While I claim the fundamental right to thoroughly criticise politicians` public stances(which affect millions of people) I do not see any point in personally disrespecting any individual or politican.

From my point of view, anyone is welcome to defend Jinnah but not to misrepresent the record.

According to me, Jinnah felt that Muslim sovereignty and independence in Muslim affairs, in other words, freedom from the Hindu majority, would be the best safeguard of Muslims` rights. So he did whatever it took(even abuse Hindus up India and down India for 10 years) to achieve a sovereign independent state, which he felt would uphold Muslim sovereignty and independence over Muslim affairs.

If anyone defends Jinnah on that, I have no real objection, though the human costs were horrendous and implications of the ideological hatred of Hindus underlying the Pakistani state are horrendous. But I am willing to let bygones be bygones.

However, after reading Jinnah expound at length on numerous occasions, his above thesis about Muslim sovereignty being the indispensible safeguard of Muslim rights, it is profoundly depressing to read Pakistanis with their full sovereignty 60 years later not really bothered about Pakistani Muslim rights at all but still carping about how the Hindus still owe them and that Jinnah did not really want Pakistan.

This I suspect is the reason for such carping. The Muslim League`s power over the subcontinent was at its zenith in the 1939-mid 1946 period courtesy the British. The elected Muslim members in the Central Assembly were in number 80% of the elected Hindu members. The British had handed Jinnah a veto over India`s constitution which M.J.Akbar points out in his book on Nehru, that even Mountbatten acknowledged. Muslims as a community were very influential in the Indian Army and Indian civil services, and as BR Ambedkar pointed out the Hindu majority provinces paid for the armed forces which were dominated by Muslims from the Muslim majority provinces. The departure of the British and advent of one-man one-vote democracy posed a real threat to that pre-eminent position.


It was pointed out in the early 40s itself to Jinnah that a sovereign Pakistan comprising the Muslim majority provinces might not be in Muslims` best interests and might not be able to pay for itself. In one of his many speeches on the subject he said(in 1941)

``Next we are told that it is not in the interests of Muslims themselves. I say to my Hindu friends, please do not bother about us. We thank you most profusely by pointing out to us our interests. We are prepared to take the consequences of our considered resolution. Please look after yourselves.

The next argument is that it is economically not a practical scheme... If there is a partition, if there are independent zones, as we are defining, then those zones will get for themselves the revenue direct and it will not go to the centre, because there will be no centre for India. Why do you bother about this? If the worse comes to the worse, like a sensible man we will cut our coat according to our cloth.``


Now, the actual withdrawal of the British and granting of sovereignty over certain regions to the Muslim League in 1947 meant a net loss of Muslims` power over the entire subcontinent. It was not as if it was unanticipated. Jinnah said in public speeches in the 40s and to the Cabinet delegation, that all that the Muslims are asking for was 1/4th (he used 1/3rd on some occasions) of India. Let the Hindus have remaining 3/4ths(or 2/3rd), and as that is more than the Hindus have ever had in their history, what then is Hindus` problem in granting a sovereign Pakistan, he asked.


The realisation later that Muslim sovereignty over Pakistan regions did not really rid them of the problem of their declared Hindu enemy`s relative size and was accompanied by a net loss of Muslim power over the subcontinent as well, lead to a whole school of thought and histiography which contemplates not more justice to their own Muslim compatriots as Jinnah envisaged, but instead a return to the zenith of Muslim power of the 40s via a ``rearrangement`` of the Pakistan settlement. Disowning Jinnah`s own positions and words from 1940-47 and abusing Nehru, Gandhi and one-man one-vote democracy is a fundamental precept of that school of thought.

I too rue on present-day Indian Muslims` behalf, the loss of their power in present-day Indian affairs due to Partition.

But the spin coming from the above school of thought just proves to me that the realisation of ordinary Muslims` rights (which Pakistani Muslims have had the freedom to exercise for 60 years for whatever purpose they wanted) are less important to some people than absolute power. For such people, the principle towards India is `what is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable` as arjun_m says.

#703 Sadna

Ms. Sadna, one question. Why does Manto white-wash the vamp so much? What does he gain by it? You have observed this creature for a while longer than I have. What motivates his consistent yearning for this constant whipping-of-the-rear?! Any ideas or guesses?

Or does it pertain to Dr. Sohail’s domain?

#699
``A settlement by definition has to give up future claims. If the acceptance of a ``settlement`` is couched in words that refuse to give up future claims, it is NOT a settlement.``


Precisely. To permanently hold out the threat of secession if not satisfied on every issue as the price of unity is a contradiction in terms.

The majority party couldn`t even say that customs was an element of external affairs without being accused of having the evil intention of economically choking the Muslim majority provinces. No matter of state was to be discussed or decided on its own merits, it was to be discussed and decided solely on the basis of the cardinal principle that the majority was inherently evil and hence the majority party`s opinion on all matters of state had no validity except to prove its evil intent towards Muslims.

Thank heaven all that cr_p ended in 1947.

Here is some more primary source text - this has all been posted before on chowk.com, and more than once.

Jinnah`s Speech at the Secret Session of the All India Muslim League Council, New Delhi, June 6 1946` Speeches, `Statements and Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam`, Vol IV, Khurshid Yusufi, Bazm-i-Iqbal, Lahore.

I advised you to reject the Cripps proposal, I advised you to reject the last Simla Conference formula. But I cannot advise you to reject the British Cabinet Mission`s proposal. I advise you to accept it.``..Mr Jinnah added ``The Lahore resolution did not mean that when Muslims put forward their demand, it must be accepted at once. It is a big struggle and a continued struggle. The first struggle was to get the representative character of the League accepted. That fight they had started and they had won. Acceptance of the Mission`s proposal was not the end of their struggle for Pakistan. They should continue their struggle till Pakistan was achieved.``

Mr Jinnah said that they could create a deadlock in the Constituent Assembly if anything was done against their wishes. They would continue to fight in the Constituent Assembly for their objective. They would also fight for the right of the Units or Groups to rejoin the Group from which they seceded.

As regards groupings, Mr. Jinnah is reported to have expressed satisfaction and said : The Groups should have power on all subjects except defence, communications and foreign affairs. But so far as defence is concerned, it would remain in the hands of the British till the new constitution was enforced. So they need not worry about it now. They would fight in the Constituent Assembly to restrict ``Communications`` to what was absolutely necessary for defence only.


From The Transfer of Power Vol VII, Eds. Nicholas Mansergh and Penderel Moon, 1977. Note of Conversation between Major Woodrow Wyatt and Mr. Jinnah, on the morning of Tuesday, 11 June, 1946

1. Mr Jinnah said that he is not prepared to discuss parity with anyone. He had had great opposition in his own party to accepting the Mission`s proposal, he did not think that opposition was fully appreciated, nor what he had gone through. The only way he had been able to persuade the Muslim League Council and Working Committee to accept the Statement was by promising them that he would not join the Interim Government unless the Muslim League had parity with the Congress. He was now pledged to that. He could not go back on that. He was not his own master. Whatever I might think of the reasonableness of the claim it was there and fixed.

2. Although he was not prepared to discuss parity he would discuss it with me in order to try and satisfy me. I told him that I disagreed with him and thought that he no longer had a justifiable claim to parity. He had voluntarily suspended the issue of a fully independent sovereign state for Pakistan for ten years so that he could not say that this was a case of two equal nations meeting together to wind up the affairs of the sub-continent. His reply to this was rather thin and he said that he had not given up the idea of Pakistan.

3. He was not prepared to meet Nehru or anyone else from Congress to talk about the Interim Government until Congress had accepted the Mission`s proposals. Then any such talk would have to be on basis of parity. The moment that Congress accepted, he would, of course, be willing to meet Nehru and the Viceroy and put before them the names of his nominees with the suggested portfolios.

4. He was very shocked because he got the impression that it was not considered important who the Muslim League nominees were, as though any old people from the Muslim League Working Committee would do. He wanted the best men. This was an important matter. It was a very different type of Executive Council to anything they had had before, and it had a big job before it. He was not going to put in as his nominees people who were popular or well known in the Muslim League if they could not do the job. He had many able men in the civil service and he would put some of those in even though no one had ever heard of them. The problem was to get the right man for the right job. He was quite prepared to talk over the portfolios with Nehru and make adjustments with him so that they could get a workable team which was what was needed.

5. In his view the Congress grievance about parity was not bona fide. It had been suggested by Bhullabhai(sic) Desai in the first place and he had had the approval of Gandhi.

Discussions had always proceeded on the basis of parity. The first Simla Conference only broke down because a Unionist Muslim was nominated for one of the Muslim vacancies. Congress was only trying it on and we should take no notice of them. If we stuck it out they would give in. At the moment they are trying to drive a wedge between the British and the Muslims.

6. He seemed slightly interested in an idea that had been put to him of an inner cabinet of six with parity for Congress and the Muslim League. (Something based on these lines may be the way out).

7. He would not consider anything based on the first Simla Conference formula of parity between caste Hindus and Muslims.

8. He complained that he had made the concession about the Union Government and got nothing in return for it and the Congress were trying to break the whole thing down on every conceivable pretext.

9. Sikhs: He said ``I will give you an assurance that as soon as the Interim Government is constituted I will go down and see Master Tara Singh and will give him anything that he asks for within reason. I am going to stand as a candidate in the Punjab for the Section ``B`` Constituent Assembly. This will be the time for me to say publicaly to the Sikhs that on any matter which affects their community the Muslim League will be guided by the majority of the Sikh votes as far as possible. I cannot go further than that and I cannot give them the absolute right of voting on communal issues in the same way as will be done at the Centre.``

NOTE[IN ORIGINAL]: I have now heard otherwise from different sources(apart from Mr. Jinnah) that Jinnah did promise the Muslim League Council and Working Committee that he would not go into the Interim Government without parity. I believe that he did really have to deal with a great deal of resentment in his party.

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.

Kaylan...

It is a question of interpretation. Was unalterable sovereignty infact appeasement of the masses who wanted Pakistan...

I for one don`t agree with your view or Sadna`s and I have already expressed why... and 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... it also matters that Seervai is taking a holistic view of things.

Whether compromise, settlement, final or not, the fact remains that this was the minimum that ML was going to agree on, that Pakistan was inevitable in some form Jinnah or no Jinnah, ML or no ML, and that such an agreement would have saved Pakistan and India a lot of heartache as it would have allowed a stage wise gradual separation or perhaps a confederation type agreement.


-YLH

Manto said: ``but pray tell why H M Seervai, a well respected Indian jurist, is ``selectively`` quoting``.

Are you questioning that Seervai has selective quoted CMP acceptance resolution to omit the declaration of sovereignty as the ``unalterable objective`` about which there may be ``no manner of doubt``?
That`s a verifiable claim.

Or are you saying that the selective quoting does not make any material difference to his thesis? It clearly does.

And this repeated qualification of Seervai as a ``well respected Indian jurist`` etc is neither here nor there. If he has selectively quoted the resolution, how do his credentials matter??
It is not your claim that we accept whatever ``well-respected`` folks say if their facts are in error, is it?

A settlement by definition has to give up future claims. If the acceptance of a ``settlement`` is couched in words that refuse to give up future claims, it is NOT a settlement.

And ML`s acceptance resolution (in Sadna`s post 684) clearly indicates that there was no settlement.

Not everyone in India buys the Indian nationalist and Hindu point of view and for this Indians must be commended...


http://www.flonnet.com/stories/20060714000607800.htm

From Frontline of the Hindu ...

BOOKS

The Koran and Muslims


A.G. NOORANI



`....Jinnah`s secular politics put the mullahs back in their proper place. In a speech delivered at the Aligarh Muslim University Union on February 5, 1938, he triumphantly exclaimed that there was a time when Muslims ``were led by either the flunkeys of the British government or camp-followers of the Congress... What the League has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed you from that undesirable element of Maulvis and Maulanas. I am not speaking of Maulvis as a whole class``. `

Ah poor Harish mian,

1- First of all the issue was of ``extra-territorial loyalties`` to ``foreign powers`` and not the vocabulary of Jehad etc - so your intervention shows how little you know of what we are talking about. Producing British statements or Iskandar Mirza`s son`s statement about Jehad ... even if completely true... actually contradicts the multitude of theories put up by Indian nationalists of all Muslim Leaguers being British collaborators... So you see, it is hardly an issue here... and you bring it up only because you want to use the negative connotations of the word ``Jehad``... even though it means struggle, resistance and fighting for justice and not the latter day terrorism associated with it... In other words Bhagat Singh was a true Mujahid, doing Jehad against the British.

2- And what about the Jehad that Gandhi was encouraging in form of Khilafat Movement? The vocabulary was much the same... except Jehad was initiated by Moplahs against Hindus in South India...

3- In any event, if you recall my original answer to your query, Sadna`s 696 (sadna in whom you`ve placed such faith and confidence) actually does reflect my assertion that I wouldn`t believe Iskandar Mirza`s son in anything. Who is this Iskandar Mirza ? He was an establishment politician, who tried to drive down the Muslim League in West Pakistan and NAP in East Pakistan, by forming the Republican Party headed by none other than Dr Khan Sahib, brother of ``Bacha Khan`` aka Frontier Gandhi, ... he later abrogated the first constitution of Pakistan and made General Ayub Khan - the CinC- the Prime Minister of the Country... only the ``Prime Minister`` soon dispatched the President abroad. The illfated president loved flattery and had brought in Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who was no mean flatterer had written most shamelessly to Mirza that when the history of Pakistan would be written, his (Mirza`s) name would be written above that of Jinnah.


Sadna,

You may continue to believe that... however aren`t you omitting the 33 years that preceded those 7 years? Why not take that into the record.

The point again is that when a suit is filed, a maximum demand is put up... but settlement is for much less... just like how producer surplus and consumer surplus exist when bargaining is done... both parties move from their stated positions. This is a common element in Law, Economics and Politics... the period when Jinnah accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan shows the settlement point ...

harish_hyd #694
Yup. Just one note of caution, though. Ayub Khan`s son or grandson recently lied about FM Sam Manekshaw alleging that he `leaked` India`s war secrets to Pakistan or sthing. Iskander Mirza was from the same group of people as Ayub Khan so I wouldn`t take everything his son says without a spoon of salt.

#692
The record shows that for 7 years he refused to settle for anything less than a sovereign Pakistan. He also told every Muslim in India that they like him must settle for nothing less than a sovereign Pakistan. Historians who have to omit the entire 7 year historical record in pressing their theses are not ``trained``, they are desperate.

#643 by sadna

You can spin and you can weave but history shows jihad was called by Muslim League supporters in Punjab and in NWFP before independence. The British Indian Home Ministry`s intelligence report in 1946 speculated on the chances that jihad would be called by Jinnah and the Muslim League to achieve Pakistan.

Sadna, this assertion is corroborated by Humayun Mirza, son of Jinnah`s blue-eyed boy Iskander Mirza in his book `From Plassey to Pakistan`. I culled out the relevant extracts from a review of the book by Inder Malhotra of the Hindustan Times from here (http://www.hvk.org/articles/0301/126.html):

``In February 1947``, records the son, admittedly on the basis of his father`s testimony to him, ``Jinnah sent for Iskander Mirza and told him that the prospects of getting Pakistan did not look good. He felt that the Muslim anger had to be properly demonstrated, otherwise the British would hand the country over to the Congress. He declared that if Pakistan could not be won by negotiation, it would have to be won by the will of the Muslims.``

Jinnah added that he had decided that ``should negotiations fail by the middle of May, a dramatic statement must be made by the Muslims``. Humayun Mirza continues: ``He asked Iskander Mirza to be prepared to resign from the Government of India, and return to the tribal territory that he knew so well. There he was to start a jehad (holy war) against the British. Jinnah reiterated his faith in Iskander Mirza, urging him to take this extraordinary step to preserve the interests of the Muslims of India.``

Yasser explained this away by saying that Jinnah resorted to Jihad because ``he felt let down by the British``. I couldn`t help chuckling at this jilted-lover type reasoning.

#692 Manto

[But Musharraf seems to be more amenable to having Jinnah`s name and ideas around, if only in name.]

And yet you question his lineage and ascribe it to canine origin! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you – or lets you feed off you know who!

You can not have it both ways.

So, how many votes are in yet to get you elected?

Sadly, it stays at zero. Even among chowk people – who have read your stuff.

Zero, that permanent tally for all Pakistani liberals – trying to save face and stay alive in the country founded on the vary basis of illogic, pigheadedness, and Muslim exclusivity!

Liberals – the lot with no constituency! No constituency whatsoever – reduced to badmouthing leasers from the past to gain legitimacy which never comes!

Because their hypocrisy and ignorance is so obvious!