Indian Muslims

Re: # 308
[I DO know is that my parents and grand parents as well as some uncles who moved during partition in the thick of it, ALL used to categorically say that Gandhi was a fraud.]
If you know people of subcontinent and our society in general, you`ll find that it`s very hard to please even `few` people most of the time, forget `all` the people. Gandhi, despite his shortcomings, was much better person then most of those who criticize him and think that he was a fraud.
He did more then sitting around and talking trash. Please learn to acknowledge someone for good things that they did and not just for some flaws they had. Maybe you should have asked your Uncles and other relatives about what great things they did in their lives and then decide for yourself who was better person.
You have to `think` for that `fairly` though. Only if you can do that.

Re: # 288 Tahmed32
My grandfather, who came of age in British India, used to tell me that skeptics of Gandhi used to think that he was a fraud who chanted the mantra of non-violence and behind its thin veneer he really believed in violence. In other words, he too believed in `maro, maro` secretly, but was `clever` enough to to articulate it as such.
Most skepics were silenced after the killings of 22 policemen in Chauri Charan (UP) during the Non Cooperation Movement in 1922. Gandhi blamed himself for not having correctly gauged the commitment of his followers to non-violence and called off the movement. Nehru and Bose were aghast and disagreed with his willingness to demobilize public opinion which took years to develop. All for a single isolated incident. However, Gandhi did not reconsider his decision.
The skeptics were silenced. There are many who think that this may have set back India`s freedom by 20 years, because the Quit India Movement was not to launched for another 20 years. Read details at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauri_Chaura#Consequences
My great grandfather was jailed in Peshawar Central Jail for participating in the Non Cooperation Movement and charged under the Frontier Crimes Regulation (still in effect in NWFP).

#341 by nasah on November 12, 2006 5:54pm PT


as the eldest patriarch of my expanding extended Muslim family I can count now that it includes two Hindus, one Jewish, and two Christian kids as well


In the unlikely event that your leftist ass ends up in hell, you`ll have at least one relative to crash with :-)

Re: # 338

Tahmad sahib:

``You are entitled to you views on gandhi. as i am to mine. ``

You are so correct.

It is called pluralism, without it tolerance cannot come. Yasser may do introspection to learn to accept pluralism.

In one of the post he mentioned that he was not sure, if Gandhi`s views changed. If he researches Gandhi`s later views and his dealings with untouchables. He might find some pointers to reach the conclusions, that Nelson Mandela reached. When Mandela was told about Gandhi`s views on Africans expressed in late 1800s and early 1900s. This is 2000. I have Mandela`s speech that he had given to Indian community in Durban in early 1990s.

In another few generations, Gandhi would be no more than a footnote in some idealists research. Because they will have their own heros and their own battle and inequalities to fight. But principle of non-violence will survive.

Similarly, Sadna is presenting one Indian perspective (there can be many more Indian perspective). Yasser and Sadna just have to accept the existance of such divergent views, they do not have to agree or change each other. Enough on Gandhi-Jinnah nonsense. I just see talented people wasting their time on such silly arugments.

Another one is on GDP/GNP. These are macro indicators. If Indian IITians do not understand, although I have great regards for this talent, it is this talent not their teacher who made IITs what it is, but he is an economist he should understand that both India and Pakistan need to look for micro indicators to work and improve them.

Macro indicators are like saying whose laddos are bigger. Not worth it. Leave this argument to management consultants, like Hamidm to sort out.

Anil

Re: # 341

Nasah Sahib:

You have spoken...

Indian economic engine is cranking faster and faster. India is no one ``bapauti``, no one party, no one region, or religion can lay claim on it. Its institutions evolved and now economy is evolving too. Where muslim Indians should fight for their piece of the pie. South started claiming it in 60s, now the economy there can outpace north. The democratic institutions are present to claim. Mayawati, Kanshi Ram, Laloo Prasads have further demonstrated that this, however defective, democracy indeed works.

The claim that muslim Indians need is to ensure education is available. In education no one should settle for a tilted playing field. No one, it is a birth right of every human. Muslim Indians must develop talent without being religious. Pakistani madarasas cannot happen. Indians are quite vigilant.

They have enough vote bank to ensure it. What Jinnah could not see, muslim Indians can do it. You have to see the creation of middle class muslim Indians in Moradabad from craft, and Benares from Silk. I have personally seen these transformations. Their granfathers were struggling under the power of middle men. Now they connected directly to the market, and brought more profits back to their business, their community. These grandsons are just as religious, but they are equally committed Indians. Such talent development and access to markets without middle men will deliver it. This formula is non-religious, it is business and profit generation.

You are correct that in India, now talent is recognized and rewarded. Cricket and Bollywood are good examples. Why is it so, because competition is fair and square, only Talent gives the competitive advantage, not religious bias. Just as in the U.S. silicon valley. Indians and Chinese talent proved it. India`s silicon valley is the next stomping ground for all Indians of whatever religion or region.

Anil

Re: # 341
[... Muslims are doing much better in India than Muslims in other places -- if they can only get rid of their congenital disease of carrying their religion on their sleeves. Period...]

well said...

But I think the muslim mindset is changing... they are realizing that secular education is the way to go... what`s your assessment on that?

Re: # 340

But it won`t... nothing can stop YLH from hurtling down the path of stupidity and irrelevance... :)

Lemme give my `unbiased` verdict on the condition of the Muslims in India -- my family straddles both sides of the subcontinent -- for me Hindu hai aik aankh mussalmaan doosree -- and now included are do kaan (ears) one Jewish and the other Christian.

as the eldest patriarch of my expanding extended Muslim family I can count now that it includes two Hindus, one Jewish, and two Christian kids as well -- so I naturally am a well wisher of all four communities.

This is what I have to say about the `condition` of the Muslims in India (I was in India last year): In the Indian ocean of Hindu poverty -- and the Hindu love of talent -- the Indian Muslims are doing NOT bad at all -- even if they may doing a little poorer than the poor Hindus of which I am even not sure.

And believe me that is not due to the discrimination by the Hindus.

it is because of the Muslims OWN goddam obsession with either everything Islamic or nothing else at all -- and for their OWN insistence on that opiate prescription for backwardness -- called the Muslim Personal Law -- and it is for their OWN cowardly escape to freeloading institutions of repetitive `knowledge` at madarsas and Masjids -- than to tough it out in search of new knowledge in secular schools and colleges.

...and it`s because of their addiction to their decadent Deobands and narcotic Nadvas -- and their rote rabble rousers -- and their abhorrence of anything -- secular and scientific.

let me say this -- there is nobody more religious and ritualistic than the Hindus -- but Hindus since ancient days have separated education and math from religion -- and since old days they have also separated Statecraft from their religion.

the curse on the Muslims is that they consider their repetitious rediscoveries of their own religion umpteenth time -- the beginning and the end of THEIR education.....

and of course for us idiot Muslims the Statecraft can never be separated from our 1400 year `new` religion.

the result: we are producing generations after generations of maladjusted, science and logic-deprived, educationally malnourished, Jinnh-believing, Houri expecting -- mentally retarded, emotionally unbalanced good for nothing rabble rousers.

All because of too much blind certitude -- and too little questioning skepticism -- too much madarasas and too little medical or engineering schools.

It is not the fault of the Hindus that the Muslims are retarded -- India like the United States is a place where talent is admired, appreciated, encouraged, and heavily paid for -- look at the Muslim names in Bollywood -- almost 80% of the talented Heroes are Muslim MEN -- admired and mobbed and made rich by Hindus -- now don`t tell me that Hindus are not a tolerant talent rewarding secular community.

They are....

India is a place where there are three Christian states -- and one Muslim state -- they fight they complain they live together. They discriminate against each other here and there -- so what -- tell me is there a country in the world that does not discriminate here and there at one time or another.

As a Muslim let me try to settle the issue -- Muslims are doing much better in India than Muslims in other places -- if they can only get rid of their congenital disease of carrying their religion on their sleeves. Period.

``I have not seen one shred of evidence that Gandhi actually promoted violence while talking non-violence. Not one single, lousy, threadbare, shred of evidence. And much evidence to the contrary.``(tahmed)

Neither have I....Tauheed Sahib -- I second you 1000% -- thank you -- hope this ends this bizarre mentally deranged debate....!

#308 Perhaps Gandhi was a fraud as you say. But the fact remains that his name is synonymous with non-violence the world over. There is no denying that, I think you will agree.

Furthermore, I have not seen one shred of evidence that Gandhi actually promoted violence while talking non-violence. Not one single, lousy, threadbare, shred of evidence. And much evidence to the contrary.

So - all evidence points to the contrary. The rest of the world thinks highly of Gandhi. Many Indian muslims did not trust him. A hindu extremist killed him. Hamidm, and Churchill before him, didnt like him because he ...horrors!....dressed in a lungi.

Connect all these dots and what do you get - one great guy!! Gandhi zindabad!! :-)

mantolives: Please re-read where you thought I was questioning your patriotism. in fact it was the other way around.

You are entitled to you views on gandhi. as i am to mine.

and supposing you are right and i am wrong - so what?? is there any general principle that is thereby proved??

Re: # 301

Yasser,

Did I say that I am not objective and lying? Ah......my name is NOT Yasser Lateef Hamdani? Lying is ur first nature.

Since Sadna is doing the main fight, I am just supporting her. If I were the main fighter, make no mistake, I wud go full throttle.

Re: # 283

Hizra Paaki,

Macaca is a term used to denote Muslims of north Africa. If u want to see a real Macaca remember Musharraf`s face.

BTW, what abt ur mental problem? Still suffering from erectile dysfucntion at home?

For strength eat enough paalak washed with sewage water.

For every YLH there is a Sadna.....:)

#326

I didn`t say anywhere that tenancy reform had caused the break.
I said
#268
``The Congress had moreover won elections in UP in 1937 on promises of tenantry reform while the Muslim League of UP was vehemently opposed to such reform. Thank goodness for India that Congress made the right decision then and did not compromise its election platform to placate Jinnah. ``

And #310
``I have conclusively proved my point that the Muslim League differed fundamentally from the Congress in the matter of tenants rights vs the landlords - the Muslim League opposition to the Congress bill cited by Durga Das took place in the U.P Legislative Assembly, ie on the record and out of the realm of your speculations. ``

And #315
``If the Congress had entered into a coalition with the Muslim League without asking for Muslim League agreement to the Congress platform, the Congress would be shortchanging the voters it had made promises to and who voted for it on the basis of those promises...And the Congress`s caution in U.P proved to be very justified given the Muslim League`s later vehement opposition in the U.P Assembly to the very legislation which Congress had won a majority for promising to its voters.``

And
The Muslim League manifesto was different from the Congress one as Wolpert says:

``The one clear divergence between the League`s socioeconomic position and that of Congress, however, which reflected a basic difference in philosophy dividing Jinnah from Nehru and Subhas Bose, was the League`s firm opposition ``to any movement that aims at expropriation of private property.`` Even as Jawaharlal placed increasing faith in socialist solutions for India`s problems of poverty, Jinnah retreated more than ever behind the bastions of private property.``

#312
This is patently wrong. Jinnah`s demand for Congress to confine itself to caste Hindu interests came in the 1936-1938 period itself.

As I said read M.J. Akbar` s book on Nehru.
From S. Gopal
``At this stage, Govind Vallabh Pant and Mohanlal Saxena, leading members of the U.P Congress, not expecting their own party to take office in the near future, approached Khaliquzzaman to reinforce his decision not to join the `interim` govenrment and pressed him to return to the Congress. It is possible, though they did not admit this, that they went even further and offered to form a pact with the League. The atmosphere then, born of a collective triumph over the Government and the latter`s efforts to thwart the decision of the elections, was conducive to this.

Jawaharlal got wind of these overtures and warned Pant against any such agreement. `I am personally convinced that any kind of pact or coalition between us and the Muslim League will be highly injurious. It will mean many other things also which are equally undesirable.` It is worth adding that Azad, who was staying with Jawaharlal at this time, was equally opposed to any such pact.

Faced with this reprimand, the U.P Congress abandoned any idea it might have had a pact with the League; but relations between the two parties continued to be cordial. In a vacancy which arose in a Muslim constituency which had been held by the League, the board of that party in the U.P, despite Jinnah`s announcement that it should be retained by the League and warning the Congress not to claim it, decided to leave it to a leading Congressman, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai.

Jinnah himself, however, was in favour of a coalition with the Congress, or, as he termed it, `a united front`. Now that the Congress was willing to accept office if it were satisfied on certain points, there seemed to him to be no substantial difference between the two parties. He was right to the extent that the Congress no long even claimed to be a revolutionary organization and there was no difference on that score between it and the League.

But the main hitch still remained, that any coalition with the League implied the Congress accepting a Hindu orientation and renouncing the right to speak for all Indians. For fear that Khaliquzzaman might go further than a coalition and agree to merge the League with the Congress, Jinnah came to Lucknow and authorized the continuance of negotiations on the basis of the maintanance of separate identities. But this the Congress was not prepared to grant.

When, towards the end of June, it became clear that the Congress would take office, Khaliquzzaman and Nawab Ismail Khan again suggested a coalition. Khaliquzzaman seems to have gone further and and informed Azad that the League would accept any terms provided he and Nawab Ismail Khan were included in the ministry. [ref.Jawaharlal to Rajendra Prasad. In Khaliquzzaman`s account of his meeting with Azad, he states that discussion centred only on two points:whether the League would resign office along with the Congress if at any time the Congress resigned(to which he agreed), and whether he would agree to another Muslim in place of Nawab Ismail Khan(which he refused) `Pathway to Pakistan`].

Jawaharlal was not enthusastic, for a Congress ministry should undertake land reforms and he did not wish this to be precluded by any agreement with the League, which was influenced by zamindari interests. But Azad was attracted by the possibility of the League ceasing in the U.P to exist as a separate group. He was in charge of the negotiations, being authorized by the Working Committee to deal both with Congress affairs in the U.P and Bihar and with Muslim representation in all the provincial ministries.

He consulted Jawaharlal, Pant, Kripalani and Narendra Deva and it was decided to offer ministerships to Khaliquzzaman and Nawab Ismail Khan in return for acceptance of the Congress programme and the winding up of the Muslim League group and the U.P parliamentary board. All Muslim League legislators should become full members of the Congress party and abide by its discipline; no Muslim League candidates should be set up in by-elections, and they should resign their offices or vacate their seats whenever the Congress decided to do so.[ref:Jawaharlal to Rajendra Prasad, Khaliquzzaman]

These were stringent conditions which, if accepted, would have seriously weakened the Muslim League in the U.P, although Khaliquzzaman and others were not asked to sever all connection with the parent Muslim League or specifically to take the Congress pledge. Khaliquzzaman agreed to all conditions except two: the winding up of the parliamentary board and the injunction against contesting by-elections. He himself was willing to accept even these but was not authorized to do so. However, he added, this might happen in any case.

In fact, so eager was he to reach an agreement and take office that he offered to call a special meeting of the executive committee of the U.P Muslim League to consider the question of by-elections. He also suggested that members of the League be given freedom of vote on communal matters. But Azad and Jawaharlal insisted on full acceptance of the original conditions, and the negotiations broke down.``


Gwyer and Appadorai

Letter from Nehru to Jinnah 1938

``As far as I can make out from your letter and the enclosures you have sent you wish to discuss the following matters:
1. The Fourteen Points formulated by the Muslim League in 1929.
2. The Congress should withdraw all opposition to the Communal Award and should not describe it as a negation of nationalism.
..
``13. Recognition of the Muslim League as the one authoratative and representative organization of Indian Muslims.``

Resolutions passed by the Working Committee of the All-India Muslim League, 4-5 June 1938

RESOLUTION No.1

The Executive Council of the All-India Muslim League... find that it is not possible for the All-India Muslim League to treat or negotiate with the Congress the question of the Hindu-Muslim settlement except the basis that the Muslim League is the authoritative and representative organization of the Mussulmans of India.

RESOLUTION No.2

The Council have also considered the letter of Mr Gandhi dated the 22nd May 1938 and are of opinion that it is not desirable to include any Muslim in the personnel of the proposed Committee that may be appointed by the Congress.


Letter from Mr. M. A. Jinnah to Mr. Subhas Chandra Bose, 2 August 1938

The Council(of the League) is fully convinced that the Muslim League is the only authoritative and representative political organization of the Mussalmans of India. This position was accepted when the Congress-League Pact was arrived at in 1916 at Lucknow and ever since, till 1935 when Jinnah-Rajendra Prasad conversations took place, it has not been questioned. The All-India Muslim League, therefore, does not require any admission or recognition from the Congress nor did the resolution of the Executive Council passed at Bombay. But in view of the fact that the position-in fact the very existence-of the League had been questioned by the Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the President of the Congress, in one of his statements wherein he asserted that there were only two parties in the country, viz. the British Government and the Congress, it was considered necessary by the Executive Council to inform the Congress of the basis on which the negotiations between the two organizations could proceed.

Besides, the very fact that Congress approached the Muslim League to enter into negotiations for a settlement of the Hindu-Muslim question presupposed the authoritative and representative character of the League and as such its right to come to an agreement on behalf of the Mussulmans of India.

The Council are aware of the fact that there is a Congress coalition Government in the North-West Frontier Province and also that there are some Muslims in the Congress organization in other Provinces. But the Council is of the opinion that these Muslims in the Congress do not and cannot represent the Mussalmans of India, for the simple reason that their number is very insignificant and that as members of the Congress they have disabled themselves from representing or speaking on behalf of the Muslim community. Were it not so, the whole claim of the Congress alleged in your letter regarding its national character would fall to the ground.

As regards `the other Muslim organizations` to which reference has been made in your letter, but whom you have not even named, the Council considers that it would have been more proper if no reference had been made to them. If they collectively or individually had been in a position to speak on behalf of the Mussulmans of India, the negotiations with the Muslim League for a settlement of the Hindu-Muslim question would not have been initiated by the Presidents of the Congress and Mr Gandhi. However, so far as the Muslim League is concerned it is not aware that any Muslim political organization has ever made a claim that it can speak or negotiate on behalf of the Muslims of India. It is, therefore, very much to be regretted that you should have referred to `other Muslim organizations` in this connexion.

The Council is equally anxious to bring about a settlement of `the much vexed Hindu-Muslim question` and thus hasten the realization of the common goal, but it is painful to find that subtle arguments are being introduced to cloud the issue and retard the progress of the negotiations.

In view of the facts stated above the Council still hopes that the representative character of the Muslim League will not be questioned and that the Congress will proceed to appoint a commitee on that basis. (Footnote 1 by Ed)

With reference to the second resolution the Council wishes to point out that it considered undesirable the inclusion of Mussulmans in the Committee that might be appointed by the Congress because it would meet to solve and settle the Hindu-Muslim question and so in the very nature of the issue involved they would not command the confidence of either Hindus or the Mussulmans and their position indeed would be most embarrassing. The Council, therefore, request you to consider the question in the light of the above observations.

..
(Footnote 1 by Ed.) The Jinnah-Bose talks for a communal settlement ended in failure as the Congress refused to recognize the claim of the Muslim League that it was the one and only representative organization of Muslim interests and no other organization should be allowed to enter the picture and, by implication, admit that the Congress was a Hindu organization. This stand of Mr Jinnah, consistently maintained by him throughout his negotiations with the Congress in the coming years, prevented all talks for a communal settlement from proceeding beyond the preliminary states. For instance, referring to his attempts to bring Mr Jinnah and Gandhiji together Bose observed : `In his statement Mr Jinnah says that he showed his willingness to meet Mr Gandhi, or any other Hindu leader to have a heart to heart conversation. He would have been more accurate if he had drawn attention to the following sentence in his own letter to me : ``I have always been ready and willing to see Mr Gandhi, or any other Hindu leader, on behalf of the Hindu community and do all I can to help the solution of the Hindu-Muslim problem.`` .. Mr Gandhi as will appear from his letter was not in a position to agree in this condition. There the matter ended, and it was no use carrying the matter further with Mr. Jinnah.`[Ed.]


Ayesha Jalal
``The League could not even begin to set out a plausible facsimile of a social programme to eradicate Muslim poverty since such support as it possessed came from vested landed and business interests at the apex of society. In any event, such appeals were irrelevant to Jinnah`s predicament.

But the Congress`s siren calls to the Muslims, both to the elected representatives in the assemblies and to the people below, its efforts to seek accomodations with provincial Muslim factions and to launch a mass contact movement, had somehow urgently to be countered.

All Jinnah could do was to make much of the Congress threat to Muslim interests, portraying it as a perfidious party no Muslims after the U.P. experience could ever trust again; its mass contact movement a knife at the throat of every Muslim politician; its ministries blatantly favouring their own; a High Command whose iron control over its own provinces clearly hinted at what lay ahead for the Muslim-majority provinces once it came to dominate the centre.

Much of the League`s propaganda at this stage was directed against the Congress ministries and their alleged attacks on Muslim culture; the heightened activity of the Hindu Mahasabha, the hoisting of the Congress tricolour, the singing of the bandematram, the Vidya Mandir scheme in the Central Provinces and the Wardha scheme of education - all were interpreted as proof of `Congress atrocities`.

So Congress was clearly incapable of representing Muslim interests, yet it was trying to `annihilate every other party`. Jinnah wanted the League`s claim to `complete equality with the Congress` to be recognised. While he was prepared to come to an understanding in this basis:`we cannot surrender, submerge or submit to the dictates or the ukase of the High Command of the Congress, which is developing into a totalitarian and authoritative caucus functioning under the name of the Working Commitee, and aspiring to the position of a shadow cabinet in a future republic.

He warned that Congress was taking the offensive deep into the Muslim provinces, and hoping by dividing to rule. In Sind, his line was that Congress had contrived a split among Muslims; certainly it had helped to keep a League ministry out of office. In the C.P, the very provinces where according to League propaganda, Congress had ridden roughshod over Muslims, it was accused of dangling carrots before Muslim League M.L.As. These were some of the arguments, according to Jinnah, why Muslims needed to unite under his leadership.

Much of this propaganda was simply a response to Congress`s attempts to further consolidate its electoral success by winning Muslim support both inside and outside the legislatures.

But by now some elements in the Congress High Command were coming to realise that they had perhaps underestimated the League`s capacity for survival, or the fears among Muslims upon which it would play. So they called off the Muslim contact movement and made tentative approaches to Jinnah through Subhas Chandra Bose, an appropriate choice since Bose, as a Bengali, could see the advantages for his own province in some understanding between Congress and the Muslims.

But at this point Jinnah was not ready to parley with the Congress unless it accepted the League as the `authoritative and representative organisation of the Indian Muslims.` just as he was ready somewhat provocatively to admit that the Congress was the `authoritative and representative organisation of the solid body of Hindu opinion`.``