Dodging Pakistani Sleuths to Cover a War and a Coup

PS: This attempt to reduce the Pakistan Movement to "Islam in danger" claim is actually absolutely bull shit. Jinnah's claim was always "Muslims in danger" which specifically meant economic and political sovereignty.

"Islam in danger" was evoked by the Congress and its allies who attacked Jinnah and other Muslim League leaders for being too irreligious.

You are damn right about the group dynamic.... but get the reasons for it right as well. It was Muslim nationalism all the way.... but the whole regressive reactionary Islam in danger campaign was waged by those who stood against Jinnah and Muslim League.

Here is the formula Gandhi agreed to.... and then later backed out.

The Congress does not challenge but accepts that the Muslim League now is the authoritative representative of an overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India. As such and in accordance with democratic principles they alone have today an unquestionable right to represent the Muslims of India. But the Congress does not agree that any restriction or limitation should be put upon the Congress to choose such representatives as they think proper from amongst the members of the Congress.

Gandhi agreed to it and signed it. So did Jinnah. This meant that both parties moved fundamentally from their extreme positions? Gandhi accepted that Jinnah had the right to speak for Muslims alone and Jinnah accepted that Congress could nominate Muslim members from their own party to the government?

Now for some real facts... without any Sadna-esque obfuscation:

1. Mahomed Ali Jinnah was the only politician in the subcontinent to be called the Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity for 30 years of his career. He tried longer than any other Indian Muslim politician to keep India and Indians together. At the end he was the most reluctant of partitionists.

2. Till 1946 Jinnah still tried to come to an arrangement with the Congress Party on the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan which would have kept India together but it was the Congress ultimately vetoed the Cabinet Mission Plan because it did not satisfy their centralising concerns.


3. Sadna tries to assume that all positions taken were irrevocable. Jinnah it is well known was himself in favor of joint electorates... but the Muslim group as a whole was not. He would have played an important role in convincing the Muslims in 1920s to accept joint electorates had the Hindu majority been willing to concede some ground.

4. In 1937... Muslim League's demand was not as much that Congress was a Hindu Party but that Muslim League was the representative communal Muslim organisation just like Hindu Mahasabha was representative communal Hindu organisation willing to work together with Congress.

The fact that Hindu industrialists funded the Muslim League in 1936-1937 according to Durga Das blows a million holes in Sadna's claims.

Durga Das' "From Nehru to Curzon" is quite clear on this issue and even chastises Kidwai and other "nationalist" Muslims for trying to encourage defections from the League to Congress.

Thus to try and distort the events of 1937 - as is Sadna's wont- by playing with words is just indicative of a mindset unwilling to accept the facts of history. In 1937 it was not about Congress' credentials but the independent identity of Muslim League as a party... which according to Durga Das was the target of malicious attempts by the likes of Kidwai and Nehru.

A trained historian like Romilla Thapar has actually outright criticised the Congress for its actions in 1937... as every right thinking person should.

I see that someone has been having a field day lying like crazy on this board about Jinnah.

PS: kaalchakra, there were indeed many Muslims standing against the British+ Jinnah tide and Jinnah called them traitors. The natural human tendency is to cross over to the side which is perceived to be winning. My impression is that many Muslims did not actually cross over until Pakistan began to seem inevitable about an year and a half before independence.

dost-mittar#196
Yes, I personally found it better to read and understand for myself than to blame a couple of people for everything under the sun :).

kaalchakra
Sorry in advance for the length. I intended to keep this short but didn't succeed.

I agree with most of what you say. It was an Islam in danger argument alright but there was a Muslim sovereignty argument embedded in there too.

Many big shots of the Muslim majority provinces Punjab and Bengal did not like the idea of surrendering their prerogative to a center, especially a Hindu majority one.

The big shots of the Muslim minority provinces were told that in a government formed by a legislative majority aka the majority Hindus, they would be permanently barred from power - look what Congress did in U.P etc.

These arguments were actually as difficult to counter as the Islam in danger one.

Take what happened in U.P. Congresss' talks with Muslim League over coalition government failed because their mutual conditions couldn't be met by each other. The Congress govt had won a majority by itself mainly(say historians) on a tenantry reform platform.

Must a party which is already in majority, and which will be taking responsibility towards voters for running the govt and implementing its election platform, necessarily include another party which had no such platform and refuses to agree to vote with Congress on the floor of the house?

Next the sole right to appoint Muslims. Congress would lose the right to appoint Muslims and betray its own longstanding Muslim members.

Then the issue of communal veto. Say you have 10 Ministers total in Cabinet. By population, (14%), there would be two Muslims in the Cabinet of 10. By legislative representation(30%), say all Muslims were with Muslim League(they weren't) there would be 3 Muslims in a Cabinet of 10. Say Congress had agreed to 2 Muslim League ministers. And now if these Muslim League ministers held a communal veto as Muslim League insisted, one Muslim could nullify the decisions of the total 10 ministers, and consequently nullify the decisions of the entire Congress majority in legislature.

In such a situation, what happens to the prerogative of the legislative majority? What happens to Congress's election promises which formed the basis of its majority ? What happens to the safety of the minorities after a period of their exercising a series of contentious vetos over the majority? What happens to govt being responsible to elected legislature?

What do you lose by having such a system where executive is decided by religious quotas, paralyzed by religious groups' vetoes, and is not held accountable by nor is it empowered by elected legislature? In other words, it isn't democracy any more.

On top of that after winning in 7-8 provinces out of 11, to declare yourself a Hindu party and ditch all your Muslim members and allies, because Jinnah demands it? Give up your nationalist creed and self-rule creed both, after winning in 7-8 provinces out of 11 after propagating that very same creed?

Due to all these issues, the Congress did not agree to Jinnah's conditions for coalition.

In the event, Congress Muslims sat in the U.P Ministry and Muslim League sitting in opposition did oppose the tenantry reforms and said Islam was in danger because the Muslims landlords the repositories of Muslim culture were being undermined by legislation.

Another thing was that Congress since the 1920s wanted 'joint electorates' under which Hindus would not constitute a permanent majority nor would Muslims be a permanent minority as was the case in separate electorates. But Muslim groups had consistently resisted agreeing to joint electorates whatever the blandishments offered in return like reserved constituencies.

So the 'Muslims will always be out of power and under Hindu Congress raj' argument of Jinnah's was not correct that way too.

How do you explain all these issues to the general public? The nationalist Muslims did of course try. The person who should have understood was Jinnah, but he regarded the legislatures and state power as exclusive turf to be protected and expanded on behalf of his religious community. He cast all these issues as a question of protecting Muslim sovereignty from the Hindus and it struck a chord among Muslims.

Well good, so now the legislatures and state power in Pakistan is 100% with the Muslims and completely sovereign. Still they whine about Hindus and Islam in danger. Go figure.

sadan#192:

My list of required reading seems to be going up all the time. :-)

You may be right that all attempts at inter-communal dialogue would have been frustrated. In that case, the second scenario of a clean surgical operation would have taken place which, in my opinion, would have been a better alternative.

"Why should Indian Muslims demand to be governed by Sharia, which is an Arab tribal law instead of India's civil code?"

Is India governed by Shariat law ????for you to justfy and endorse barbaric animalistic and fascist behaviuor...Sitting in South you do not know the ground reality so shut uo you do not represent all indians nor all hindus...First no indians should be treated like the majority treated like the KKK towards there own citizenite cas of a black was tied and dragged by truck .Atleast Whites admit but you idiot come out justifying it ...

"If common criminals get away by paying bribes or calling on their connections,"

You idiot why dont you know the facts ..the person was orphan teen and unemployed or so ..do you think he can bribe or get away with connection infact the latter perpetrator of bigger crimes is more likely to bribe themseves out as in masscare of in 1989.There is no if and no but about it there are worse treatment meeted out to hindus lie brideI admit for not being partial towards him..indians face burning killing of dalits Foeticides pravalent kidnapping rape just go all round india and i have seen it ....But that does not justify such fascist behaviour which you moron support

Sadna

From your readings, is it possible to answer the following (off the cuff only, from the broad impressions one gets)?

When during Congress rule, before 1947, charges were levelled against Congress of basically setting out to deliberately destroy Muslims and Islam in India, were there quite a few prominent Muslims in Congress taking the role of actively defending Congress provincial governments against this charge?

In other words, do we get a sense that Muslims in Congress took any real lead in fighting the Muslim League politically on the communal platform?

re: sadna # 188

What a brilliant summation. You captured my position quite well. My view is (1) Those who saw themselves as Unionists, Punjabis, Bengalis, Tamils, Telugus, Socialists etc etc could have reached a common understanding. Thsoe who saw themselves as Muslims could not have reached and cannot reach a common understanding with others (they could still have lived/can live together, but only with one side very soon being extremely unhappy). Once Jinnah/Muslim Leaguge began to play the Islam-in-danger card, it was critical that their bluff be immediately called.

It was not the same thing as, say, Christians, or Sikhs or Buddhists asking that their rights be protected in post-independence India.

(2) True, you would find many, many Muslims working closely with Congress leaders. Who can ignore Frontier Gandhi himself (even if we ignore all the deobandi types - for good reason)? After all, Congress leaders were not delusional to believe that they had signficant Muslim support for a long time.

But here I would make a point that many other Hindus and you, sadna, are likely to disagree.

Once the cry of Islam-in-danger goes up, and is accepted/promted by a reasonably viable group of Muslims, all bets are off. Muslims who wish to cooperate with non-Muslims BECOME IRRELEVANT to intergroup dynamics, no matter how capable, sincere, genuine, or how many in number they are.

So when Jinnahi is called the SOLE SPOKESMAN, it is not meant (as Hindus tend to mistakenly believe) that no Muslims supported the Congress. But that those Muslims who supported the Congress were IRRELEVANT. These Muslims are or were irrelevant because they were/are no good at fighting the Islam-in-Danger charge levelled against non-Muslims.

In any such sole-spokesperson type situation (which is essentially of one side using naked force to get its way) no honorable or fair dialogue can take place. Nor should it have been attempted/tried by Gandhi-Nehru, except in that they were following their own 'dharma'. That is fine - and one respects that - but logically, one can also say that they could not have succeeded. Nothing they could have realistically given through negotiation (without hurting themselves irretrievably) that could have satisfied the sole spokesperson.

"Negotiating" in such a situation is sheer craziness, IMO. And, if the idea was to honor and save people like khan Gaffar Khan, the great man got shafted, badly, anyway!

(Probably, the difference is: You believe (and you have a lot to support your view, which I greatly respect) that Jinnah would not have succeeded in grabbing power/upper hand among Muslims without the British support. I suspect that once Jinnah gave out the rallying cry of Islam in danger, evoked the dream of mythical Islamic paradise in waiting, a oaradise that was all things to all Muslims, and had mobilized the support of a large enough group of Muslim League followers to propagage and enforce his views among Muslims and against non-Muslims, he was unstoppable in any Muslim-non-Muslim interaction. Had the British not supported him and given him the partition, he would have (intentionally or not) enforced it after independence, probably after even greater bloodshed (if he lived, which of course, at that time, no one could have foreseen). So long as he played the "Islamist" against Hindus, he would have had none to match him in his appeal to Muslims, with British help or without it.

dost-mittar
In the period 1919-1938/9

1. Myriad and multiple organisations, representing Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Scheduled Caste interests did indeed sit down and try to work the communal problem, multiple times holding multiple all-parties conferences and other conferences. The Muslim League even split into two the mid 1920s into a Punjab faction and another faction.

2. Hindus and Sikhs did indeed have organisations representing themselves only in this period. At the 1930? First Round Table Conference in London, for example, the Congress was absent but the Hindu Mahasabha was present.

I look forward to your seeking out and finding out what precisely happened during all those discussions and conferences in that period and why a communal solution could not be found.

After 1938-39, the British supported Jinnah as the sole spokesman of the Muslims and ignored all other Muslim parties and All-Party Muslim conferences dissenting with him(except the Unionists whom the British needed to run their Army recruitments for WW II).

Durga Das writes in 'India from Curzon to Nehru and After', "The India Office and the Viceroy were now agreed on building up Jinnah as their Crescent Card to neutralise the Congress challenge. This was manifest from Sikander Hayat Khan's disclosure to me that the Viceroy, on instructions from the Secretary of State, had enjoined upon him and Fazlul Haque[of Bengal] not to undermine Jinnah's position as "leader of the Muslim community.". This happened towards the end of 1939, when Jinnah had taken up an uncompromising attitude and the Muslim Premiers of Punjab and Bengal were under pressure from some of their followers "to disown Jinnah or cut him down to size.""

I also look foward to your reading about what were Jinnah's demands on the Congress and British in this period.

My only request to you is please don't go by Wolpert's approach of looking at Jinnah's purported emotions as the sole measure of the opposite parties's positions.

India's constitution was not going to be written for the sole purpose of pleasing or placating one man Jinnah as has been the underlying premise of Wolpert and other Britishers. United India's constitution was to be about how different Indians would share power long after the nationalist leaders were dead, so please actually look at what were actually the various negotiation positions of various parties on their own merits and not on whether Jinnah agreed with those positions or not.

Ref Shah2 #178

[Harami why should Indian muslim be governed by Soodi Arabias law and not INDIAN constitution]

Why should Indian Muslims demand to be governed by Sharia, which is an Arab tribal law instead of India's civil code?

[Even in India whether hindu or Muslim deserves punishment commisurate to crime and street justice which is coupled with rascism and hatred of the religion and community the criminal is associated with]

The guy was caught stealing and got beaten up. Nowhere do the news reports say that the mob asked him for his name and religion and beat him up for being Muslim. He was beaten up for being a thief, plain and simple.

If common criminals get away by paying bribes or calling on their connections, the population eventually gets fed up and you end up with street justice. Bein Muslim does not exempt a man from the mob's fury but that would be hard for you to understand. For 1000 years you did this to the Hindus even when there was no justification. So, even if the mob beat up the thief only because he is Muslim, deal with it.

sadna#188:

You are partly correct in representing my stance. After reading the material posted by you on UP, I think that Jinnah had a point when he said that the Congress Muslims could only represent the Congress viewpoint, just as President Kalam could only represent Indian viewpoint, though being a Muslim. I think there should have been two responses to Jinnah (don't know what actually happened). One, ML was not the only organization representing Muslims, so JUH, Ahrar, Khudai Khidmatgaar, etc. should have also been included in resolving the communal questions. By the same token, the Congress could not represent the Hindu or Sikh viewpoints, so communal organizations representing them should also have been part of the equation. I think Hindus and Sikhs lost out because they did not have anyone representing their exclusive interests. If this had been followed, one of two things would have happened: Either the communal issue would have been discussed frankly and resolved, Or no resolution would have been found and we would have had a clean break a la Greece and Turkey. Either solution would have been better in my view and not caused the continued bitterness between the two countries and the continued communal tensions in India.

DM#181
No doubt India is chaotic. So is any democratic country. Differences of opinion will lead to some chaos in a democracy. I think an authoritarian and regimented rule like in Singapore is feasible for a state the size of Bombay. It will never work in a large pluralistic society/country.

I was referring to your lauding of the Pakistani generals. They have not brought about any uniformity or shall we say Singaporean society in Pakistan. And for all practical purposes leaving aside the religious differences Pakistanis are not very different from us Indians. I'm afraid any attempt by the military/dictatorship will devolve into the same chaos.

I am not a great fan of Singapore anyway nor of China.

The point is whether we have the time to work through the myriad problems that any fledgling democracy will face. Most of the European nation states took about 200 years to get it to a working model. Will we have the time? Or will we do better, or worse. -)

kaalchakra
The way I see it is that given a political tussle over the future constitution of India and Hindu-Muslim relations, there is a big difference between the different views.

1. dost-mittar blames Nehru-Gandhi for not capitulating to Jinnah and many Muslims' vision of the Muslim minority holding a veto over the majority in other words, Congress becoming a Hindu organization whose legislative majority would submit to Muslims veto. This surrender he thinks was necessary political reality.

2. You fault Nehru-Gandhi for not having an aggressive combative stance and language against Muslims and a more aggressive identification with the Hindus. This aggresiveness you think is a necessary political reality.

3. Others including myself who think Nehru did the right thing to remain positive and constructive in all situations, ie, neither to surrender to a Muslim veto nor aggressively opposed to Muslims and thereby more aggressively identify himself with interests of the Hindu community.

This positive but constructive approach as distinctive from capitulation or identification with only one community's interests which is often mistaken as passiveness (by Hindus) and sneakiness(by Muslims) is I personally think a necessary political reality.

Gandhi was in the category 3 but was invariably mistaken as espousing 1 or 2. Where Muslims took him as espousing 1 while accusing him of espousing 2 is where the damage occured. The same thing happened to Nehru after independence.

KaalChakra#183:

I sometimes feel like a GhanChakra while reading your posts, so I am not quite sure if your assessment is quite correct. I do feel that India is a soft state but not because it treats its minority softly (it doesn't!). It is a soft state as all kinds of terrorists, including the police, can operate here with virtual impunity. It is a soft state as its laws are more breached than respected. It is a soft state because it allows criminals, murderers, rapists and racketeers to participate in the electoral process, both directly and indirectly.

As for Muslims, I think that they have been suffering at the hands of both friends and foes. Their friends have encouraged a ghetto mentality in them while their foes do not mind climbing over their dead bodies to sit on raaj singhasan.