Saving Pakistan with the Constitution

re: rozaiba # 170
“I fail to see how Gandhi`s beliefs and actions pointed out above can be out-weighed by the good he did.” That’s your perspective and its fine. But you must understand that other people view it differently and view Gandhi in an entirely different light.

I don’t see the parallels you draw with American history. “Separate but equal” has worked for us in the form of linguistic states. We tried to preserve the distinct culture of every part of the country and I think it has worked for us. It has enabled an incredibly diverse nation come together. To the best of my understanding Gandhi was trying to extend that to the Muslims. I think the idea was flawed but it was not malicious.

Regards,

Faruk.

Faruk...

My only issue is this... if Gandhi was helping ``Muslims`` achieve a ``distinct identity`` by promoting the Mullahs of Deoband... then Indians who follow Gandhi should not fault the Muslims modernists of Aligarh, united under Jinnah, for mounting a counter coup to take over that distinct identity.

You can`t have it both ways... it can`t be ``heads Congress wins, tails League loses``.

Faruk:

``He was trying to help Muslims preserve a distinct identity, as flawed as his ideas were I don’t think he had bad intentions. ``

Yes, even the old Southerners will insist they were trying to protect the human race by flying banners of seperatism. They too had `good intentions`. In fact, Woodrow Wilson, when he saw the film where the Ku Klux Klansmen are seen as heroes protecting the purity of the white race from the Nergoids who had kidnapped their women was so touched he proclaimed the movie as a great inspiration for its truth! And this was a Princeton professor mind you.

Does Wilson`s `good intentioned` bigotry take anything away from his achievements? One can argue that point. But one thing is certain. He would most certainly not be labelled a `mahatma`.

``To put this is perspective, all the Punjabis criticizing your article are not necessarily anti baloch. ``

I agree. I haven`t seen anyone here who is anti-Baloch - no matter how much people disagree with the article. It`s common sense to support the Baluch. So your analogy was useless.

Subcontinental history is filled with heroes whose objective analysis would strip them of their stature. For example, Shah Waliullah is showered with accolades and his letter to Abdali is read in school classes. Few care to understand the other side of such historical strategems (such as Baba Bulleh Shah`s ridicule of Abdali`s conquests) and prefer to solidify the one-sided view of history based entirely on religious affiliation. However, the 20th century was no longer the century of ignorance and those who could see the filth that religious inspiration was bound to unfurl strayed clear of it. Gandhi chose to side with ignorance and that will irreparably dent his credentials.

In any case, Gandhi`s `separate but equal` belief system was inherently repulsive and the stupidity of the Khilafat Movement set a precedent that will take many years to recover from. I fail to see how Gandhi`s beliefs and actions pointed out above can be out-weighed by the good he did.

re : rozaiba # 167
In India we recognize Gandhi for what he achieved, we don’t expect any of our leaders to take us all the way. There is a lot you can criticize about Gandhi but he did achieve greatness in spite of all his shortcomings. We as Indians and people all over the world recognize him for that.
Was he right in supporting the Khilafat movement? No. Was Gandhi right to support the concept of “Separate but equal” as you call it? No. But I don’t think this takes away from his greatness. He was trying to help Muslims preserve a distinct identity, as flawed as his ideas were I don’t think he had bad intentions.
To put this is perspective, all the Punjabis criticizing your article are not necessarily anti baloch. Nor are they mad at showing them the mirror. I guess it takes a lot to look beyond your nose.

Regards,

Faruk

bjk...

Gandhi never changed his outlook... he was a Hindu misogynist racist bigot to the very last.
There was no expansion of his outlook... you`ve not produced a single statement where he expressed his regret at his bigotry which he was committed to most of his adult life...

As for Jinnah and his movement... it was a coup against the very Mullahs who had alongwith Gandhi tried to hijack the Muslims and had made Islamic and Hindu identities a non-negotiable question in Indian politics... And yes... I am not a scholar. Only you are .. of what? God only knows.


Humsab...

Thanks for your comments... I take your perspective as is .. an Indian perspective. I think rozaiba has raised the points I had .. so I don`t need to repeat myself.

Humsab:

I am always surprised when people dismiss a 30-somethings racist diatribe by saying he ‘evolved’. Other than adopting a retro dress sense, I fail to see how Gandhi evolved. Nor did Dr. Ambedkar see Gandhi evolve.

At best he transferred the racist bigotry he valiantly carried the banners for in South Africa, to the caste-ist and religious bigotry of South Asia.

Yes, I also accept some of the positive things Gandhi did. The salt march for example. But when I am blasting Muslims for their desire to revitalize the Khalifat and such nonsense, it is only fair to blast people like Gandhi who promoted the pollution of the political landscape with religious idiocy.

If we deplore the religious parties as fascists today, why does it become so difficult to lambaste Gandhi for using the same techniques that fundo freaks use today?

Separate is NOT equal. Anyone who uses that equation and sells it as a form of egalitarianism deserves to be castigated and ridiculed.

Many in the American south were great folks. They really wanted Blacks to do well. They wanted them to be educated. They treated them like humans. But they believed all this based on the ‘Separate but equal’ mantra.

And so no matter how great a human they were, I don’t think anyone today gives an iota of respect to such filthy beliefs!

#164

[As a scholar ...]

Yaar, who in their right mind would call this character a scholar?!

In fact, every time I have asked him to get a peer review by a legitimate scholar - of the academic type, he has quietened - like a mouse! He merely throws more verbal garbage.

Because this ain`t no scholar. All he is - is a....

I will hold the adjective, because I got to leave for work and I wish to keep my mouth clean!

Ciao.

#163 Yasser

Gandhi started out small. He kept expanding his outlook. He rose and rose. Now he is recognized and admired throughout the world.

Jinnah started out as a “liberal”. When the crunch time came, he proved to have a narrow mindset. He kept narrowing his domain – till he became the pygmy that he ended up being.

A pigmy who is clutched on to – for dear life, by a bunch of pygmies!

And the world sees it for what it is.

And all the lawyerly tricks in the world can not change that simple fact!

Yasser

I have normally stayed away from reacting to your Gandhi bashing. I am not a committed admirer of Gandhi but I admire what I find is admirable. ( For Example I admire your passion and love for your country.)

You see we in India don`t have icons who can`t be criticised or evaluated and so Gandhi is also discussed and criticised on many forums and this has made us less sensitive to this issue.

You people on the other hand have only one icon and are rightly possessive about him and refuse to see that he was wrong on many counts.

You must recognise the fact that you are quoting from Gandhi`s collected works and neither Gandhi nor his admirers found any need to hide these facts of his life. That is remarkable as this man practiced what he preached and for him `Truth was religion`.

Second fact you refuse to consider is this man`s Evolution over time in his life.
He was an ordinary man who evolved over time to become a Great Man recognised all over the world in spite of his earlier failings which he never tried to hide.

On the other hand your Idol Jinnah took the reverse course. He started as a Great Man but at the end became an ordinary person. However, spark of his earlier version remained as he himself accepted that creation of Pakistan was a blunder. (I personally feel very happy that your country was created by him) But part of hypocracy was that he wanted to come back and live in India among Hindus who were a different nation. How do you reslove this dilemma on his part?

As a scholar you have to keep your mind open and not get bogged down by the position you have adopted in the beginning. Learned persons conitnue to learn.

I wish you all the best that you achieve the dream that you have about your country but do you really think you will win this battle. It is sad that now you are receiving end of the abuse from educated well-placed compatriots of your country.
You do have the courage to continue. Do keep it up as you will need it continuously.

Best Wishes and Regards

Gandhi`s Early life ? He was a Hindu fanatic all his life... and just because you say something doesn`t make it true. Jinnah was hailed by your own leaders as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity for 35 years....

You ought to look at that racist, casteist, misogynist Hindu fanatic Mahatma Gandhi and his Khilafat movement which made religion and Islamic and Hindu identities a non-negotiable element in Indian politics...Gandhi was the poison that went to the roots of the tree... so much so that 3/4ths of it had to be cut and thrown away.

By the way... the fact that Maulana Fazlurrahman`s father Mufti Mahmood came into politics after being encouraged by Mohandas Gandhi.. and that Fazlurrahman was the father of the taliban... I suppose that makes Mahatma Gandhi the great grandfather of Taliban and international terrorismby your logic ... What a bigot... not only was Gandhi a cynical hindu bigot hypocrite... he also inspired Islamic fascists and Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists in general all over the world.

Wah Mahatma wah!

Yaar Manto, stop recycling old selective stuff from Gandhi’s early life. You have been called out a number of times on your lawyerly attributes of skewing the presentation to make your case and not giving a whit about the truth.

Also, let us focus on Jinnah – the chief mastermind of Muslim exclusivity – which is at the root of many of the problems that the world faces today in the form of international terrorism. It is also at the root of virtually every problem the subcontinent faces today.

Jinnah was the poison that went into the roots of the tree and destroyed it.

And people like you live with the consequences – whether or not you have the courage to face the truth!

Dear Majumdar,

Jinnah as a lawyer made the distinction between national language and state language. It was the latter that he designated Urdu as. I don`t think it was a great decision but we must be clear on what he said. He also encouraged Bengalis to propagate and preserve Bengali.

Faisal/Manto mian,

MAJ (pbuh) would have served Pakistan better had he made English the national language. There was no real rationale for making Urdu the national as well as official language- making a language which is the mother tongue of only one segment of the population as the national language is always a risky affair. Imposition of Hindi as the national language in 1960s created havoc in South India.

But having said that, I think the language issue was only a symptom rather than the cause of the breakup in 1970-71. The real issues were continuous denial of democratic rights, unequal development and of course the geographical unreality of pre-1971 Pakistan.

Regards

bjkumar several#,


I see that your symptoms (of the disease of ``Delusional Gandhiism``) have surfaced again:

You`ve asking for some treatment with that medicine called truth and facts...

Well I am at your service

Abusing Jinnah or anyone else will not change the fact that the only vamp in the history of South Asia was that casteist racist misogynist Hindu fanatic called Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi... who believed that some people were less human than others because of the color of their skin and who believed that in order to be a true Indian you had to be Hindu first.... who believed Hindus were superior to Muslims and who believed the ``harijans`` were god`s people deployed on cleaning shit and that is what they had to do...

Please NOTE all REFERENCES from GANDHI`S COLLECTED WORKS:

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

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


...

For his views on Caste system

(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.



This is Mohandas Gandhi

#157 Ferozk

Feroz sahib, there IS one difference between the politicians and the khakis - one of them has to win elections.

The real respect needs to be not for that paper document called the constitution, but to respect other people - and to develop the ability to accept diversity in general and diversity of opinions in particular and not having qualms regarding what means are to be acceptable to ``bring others round`` to one`s own views.

In other words, people have to start thinking of democracy as something which will require flexibility from EVERY side, even if one of the sides has a clear majority. The political players have to stop treating politics like a ball game with ``win`` or ``lose`` results.

The only win takes place if negotiations among the parties are successful.

And the elected leaders must consider themselves only custodians of the high office - not as becoming the office themselves.

re: Rozaiba

Listening to politicans on TV is not the same as listening to them ``off camera``. In front of the TV, they all make the right sounds but when they come to power, they are as wont to overstep the constitutional limits as the army. There is no difference between the politicans and the army as they all cater to their own power at expense of all else. To both of these groups, the constitution is simply another piece of paper. Unless and until, our political leaders in or out of uniform start to respect the constitution on a personal level, it is meaningless to expect them to follow the constitution regardless of how much they may ape its usefulness and agree to its implementation.

The point of my post was that things in Pakistan are too fraught with peronal political/party conflicts and unlike your fantasy bubble, the real world of politics in Pakistan is too much of a zero-sum game. :)

Ciao