Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

Dear Ranjit,

There are two points I want to make on that well worded post- even if I disagree with it:

1. Gandhi's racist views had little to do with European discourse but his own understanding of Hinduism and caste ideology. That some similarity could be seen between the Nazi ideology and Gandhi's view does not merit a blanket denunciation of European discourse. Great Britain for example was gripped with John Morley style liberalism which had vociferously rejected racism.

2. Nehru and Jinnah were the products of their English education(s). Jinnah was the product of the late victorian age which was proper and he was also deeply influenced by John Morley and Dadabhoy Naoroji... who were the bastions of liberalism in this late victorian age. Nehru was the product of the post-victorian age and was inspired by Fabian Socialism (even though Jinnah also joined fabian society in the 1930s according to Wolpert) ... neither of them wanted to curry favor with anyone. Jinnah till the 1930s wanted Indians to be raised as equals in the British empire ruling their own Dominion just like the white dominions of Canada and Australia... Nehru was more flirtatious with the "inquilabi" and revolutionary movements of a marxist bent... like the Kirtis, communists etc.

#100 Posted by masadi

[Hey Einstein don't write about culture and society without understanding either. People's attitudes are shaped moreso by social institutions and when those institutions are designed by colonials to serve externals then you cannot talk about "people power" regardless of the religion of the masses.]

Who's talking about "people power", egghead? And in India there are enough institutions designed by us Indians. 79% of Pakis want Sharia enforced. Is that due to institutions created due to colonial conspiracy, or due to religion being constantly drilled into the Paki skull?

[Lack of democracy, (which by the way was an Islamic ideal long before the Hindu caste system "discovered" it, the Quran is explicit about "consultation" with the people regarding whom decisions are made and not forcing anything including God on them),...]

It is less than idiotic to discuss a third-rate cut-and-paste job cooked up by an illiterate bedouin for other illiterate bedouins.

[..of the kind in Pakistan is certainly not an occurrence in Muslim majority countries only. I only need to mention Mossadeq to show how the West has subverted democracy and democratic institutions in Muslim lands... ]

It is not a huge secret that you uncovered that the West has financial compulsions behind its geo-political strategies. The governments in the West are beholden to the machinations of the industry, which has resulted in a whole host of miseries for the world. All this is common knowledge.

We in India have democracy in spite of it. And that too without the koran!

If you want democracy, then bring it back, with the help of the koran. And without bombing civilians. And if you want "Islamic" democracy, then keep on the path you are on.

Good luck.

Re:HP#101

HP, Gandhi is a very complex figure in history and I doubt that most people understand him properly. He started out as an ordinary Indian eager to ape the west and pick up the prevailing western culture. Manto is right about his racist views in his early days, which were very much in line with the typical European discourse at the turn of the century.

However, at some point in his life he began to change. Perhaps it was his bitter experience in South Africa. No one knows exactly when the change happened, but he started going back to his roots. He wanted to understand the ordinary Indian, the vast millions of unwashed, starving indians across the subcontinent. His objective was to mobilize the grassroots. His turn towards religion was less to do with an interest in ritualized religion or theocracy, but rather it was a way to reject western values and replace it with indian values. In that he drew upon his hindu background but was also willing to coopt muslim values as well.

Therefore Gandhi's interpretation of hinduism was radically different from the brahminincal hinduism as supported by the hindu right wing - a difference that ultimately cost him his life. For him hinduism was an expression of native, son of the soil culture. It was the espousal of a simple, inclusive ideology that emphasized on humanity and caring for the weak via social welfare, as compared to the brutal dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, materialistic and individualist culture of the west.

His natural affinity towards the muslim religious elements was borne out of a recognition that islam had a similar emphasis on social welfare. It was not an opportunisitic pandering as imagined by jinnahphiles like manto. Rather it was a natural alliance based on a similar value system. It was a radical rejection of western values.

Therefore, Gandhi was an unique politician while Nehru, Jinnah etc were typical run of the mill politicians who wanted to curry favor with the british with the objective of inherting the empire from the british by proving their impeccable brown sahib credentials. The british never quite understood Gandhi but they were very comfortable with Nehru and Jinnah and essentially split their empire to give each a piece of it. However, Gandhi's approach and mindset was something extraordinary, which the world recognizes as such. The irony is that both Indians and Pakistanis have totally rejected his philosophy and have gone full speed in aping the west, although the religious elements in Pakistan are still fighting against it.

#101, I don't see a difference between the two, except the former (pro-West) ensures long term misery that is carried out more sophisticatedly, while the latter (the religious fringe that distorts Islam) causes short term misery till the people take care of them. Given our condition today where the latter have been used as legitimation tool by the former to control and dominate the people, I still wouldn't consider pro-West to be something good...

Echoboom Posts: 85, 86, 86
Urdu Text could not be printed...there
Please check ilog page where the same post with URdu text is available.

Asadi,
I am going to throw an interesting thing for you to consider.
If we put both Gandhi and Jinnah thru a Turing test, who do you think would come out looking like a machine?

Being pro-western in the subcontinent's context is being progressive and liberal from the next guy even when the answers are more mechanical.

Had Gandhi been left alone to lead the Indian independence struggle, he would have led India to a religious state but he was countered by a very effective Nehru and other progressive in the Indian National Congress.

Jinnah on the other hand was leading very primitive and regressive political bunch and the only way to keep them down for Jinnah was to stay as pro western as he could. Otherwise the Deobandis and Barelvis who were waiting in the wings would have taken over the whole movement.

Krishna writes "The reason for this is that people's attitudes are shaped by the culture they are born into, and religion shapes the culture in most societies. And public attitudes reinforce the culture. For Muslims born into Islamic majority societies"

Hey Einstein don't write about culture and society without understanding either. People's attitudes are shaped moreso by social institutions and when those institutions are designed by colonials to serve externals then you cannot talk about "people power" regardless of the religion of the masses. Lack of democracy, (which by the way was an Islamic ideal long before the Hindu caste system "discovered" it, the Quran is explicit about "consultation" with the people regarding whom decisions are made and not forcing anything including God on them), of the kind in Pakistan is certainly not an occurrence in Muslim majority countries only. I only need to mention Mossadeq to show how the West has subverted democracy and democratic institutions in Muslim lands...

#95, Being pro-West to me suggests being subservient to the US elite, it signifies not only acceptance of the miserable history the colonials forced on us in the past but also the current fate they have relegated us to in the present world order. Therefore I consider it something very bad for people of the "Third World".

The under was in reply to Manto's #94

Re #95, YES it is a very bad thing. Slavery and being pro-slave master is a VERY BAD THING in my book, but then like the mass society in the US most people don't think that, they are Cheerful Robots, happy and cheerful in their enslavement....don't we have tahmed here singing the praises of colonization or the Missing Hamid mian who sings often enough how the white man is superior to all?

The debate about Jinnah's motivations, about Islam, the role of Islam in the lives of Muslims, the compatibility of Islam and democracy etc. will go on forever. Muslims will want to show their religion in the kindest light possible, constructing all kinds of tortured arguments and counter-arguments.

The real proof is in the pudding. NEVER, in ANY Islamic majority country, will there EVER be a stable democracy for any length of time.

The reason for this is that people's attitudes are shaped by the culture they are born into, and religion shapes the culture in most societies. And public attitudes reinforce the culture. For Muslims born into Islamic majority societies, there is no escape from this vicious circle.

Even in a country like Turkey, with a historic proximity to Europe, and a 87% literacy rate, the army has to strain hard to suppress Islamic fundamentalism.

Nope, this concept of Islam as a personal religion that exists separate from the state is pure fantasy. Will never happen, unless ANOTHER "prophet" pops up, and popularizes an edited version of the age-old nonsense. And what will make Muslims "accept" this new prophet will have to be economic and geo-political imperatives that are applied and enforced from without.

That will take at least another 9/11.

#91 Posted by masadi

In the subcontinent's context, I don't consider being pro western a disqualification or some sort of Lackey!

Re: # 91

And I am assuming you think it is a bad thing?

Hello!

At the height of Chief Justice crisis, I submitted an article to chowk captioned *Gang-rape of Pakistan*

Chowk editors have apparently opted not to publish it.

For my fellow chowkies and for the sake of posterity (ta ke sanad rahe that I too did raise my voice) I am posting a blog link to it. It is a letter that sent to all corps commanders of Pak army.

http://gangrapeofpakistan.blogspot.com/

Sorry, very sorry, that my comments are not very article specific.

Regards

MMI

Asadi, This is a troll. Borivili is an area in Bombay!

HP writes "Jinnah was as pro western as they come. He was perhaps the most pro western politician in the sub continent before Benazir attained maturity."

A history lesson for us all...especially Manto and his gang
= )