The ANP Challenge

Harish,

"Gandhi in his misguided belief that he could appeal to a wider Muslim audience tried to cultivate the Muslim clergy by supporting the Khilafat movement"

We are trying to see Gandhi's actions through the prism of our time. We have had multiple paradigm shifts since the days of partition. It amounts to be charlatanic on our part to analyse a past decision without taking into the considerations the factors Gandhiji&Co would have chosen among the many. Gandhi&Cos decisions might have given results that are not acceptable in the current paradigm but the question is did Gandhi&Co take a decision to harm people.

The outcome of a decision the present generation desires and the aspirations of a long gone generation could not have been identical. Our present aspirations or the present ideas could have been an anachronism for the people of Gandhi's times.

When Gandhi could withdraw agitations just because he didn't approve of ChauriChaura, which the decision's outcomes presented themselves in his times, wouldn't he thought about the support for the Khilafat movement. Gandhi&Co would have gone by the covariates and the hypothetical results they could deduce out of decisions.

OTOH it is very different for being indecisive...you don't get bricks as well as bouquets.

Dada,

Maulana was the true rep of Indian Muslism and everybody knew it. A for him being a fundoo, it's only laughable. He's religious but not a fundoo.

He was the education minister of free India but he never imposed any religious education. There's Humayun Khan from East Bengal who succeeded Maulana as the Ed minister of free India; he too followed the path of Maulana. Prof Nurul Hasan of yesteryears too followed the great path of Maulana.

There's a diff btw religious Muslims and fundoos is very clear.

VRV sahib,

(Yasser does hate G/N/Gh coz they came in the way of Jinnah's Nizam in the whole of Indian Subcontinent. )

MAJ (pbuh) had no intention of imposing his "Nizam" all over India, he wanted a Pakistan only (incl whole of Bengal and Punjab). It was Azad types who wud have wanted to impose a Nizam -e-Mustafa over whole of India.

(but the moment he realized it was going nowhere)

He withdrew support becuase of the Chauri Chaura act. Not becuase Khilafat was going nowhere.

(At no time did Gandhi espouse violence or support any kind of violence - even in the heyday of the Khilafat agitation. I think you already know his stance on the Chauri Chaura killings. )

It was good that he eschewed violence at Chauri Chaura but what about the Moplah rebellion what made him keep his mouth mum. Maybe he had read some of Maulana Urstruly's fatwas that Muslim violence against idolators is right!!!

Regards

#691 by majumdar

It wud be fair enough to accept MKG's role also.

Gandhi in his misguided belief that he could appeal to a wider Muslim audience tried to cultivate the Muslim clergy by supporting the Khilafat movement, but the moment he realized it was going nowhere, he withdrew support. It may have been a foolish move but by no means a malicious one. At no time did Gandhi espouse violence or support any kind of violence - even in the heyday of the Khilafat agitation. I think you already know his stance on the Chauri Chaura killings. That was pretty much his stance throughout.

OTOH, Jinnah openly consorted with the communalists, playing up the differences (Hindus worship cow, Muslims eat it etc.) between the two communities at every given opportunity. He created paranoia amongst the Muslims masses by saying yoking Hindus and Muslims would result in civil war.

Maybe the answer is simple. He had none. He was merely being honest.

There are enough sources that blame Jinnah and the Muslim League for the DAD violence. If you go through the link I posted a couple of days back, you can see for yourself.

Dada,

I tell u the truth. Yasser does hate G/N/Gh coz they came in the way of Jinnah's Nizam in the whole of Indian Subcontinent.

He's Jinnah's prick extraordinaire!

Further to 694 (Zee),

Dari-speaking means that u r not a Gangaram but a blue-blooded Persian.

VRV sahib,

695

You are right. There were Momins with interests in progressing towards the modern world and there were others who wanted to live as per 7th century Arab norms. The same divisions exist today.

The point is MKG/INC chose to consort with the second types than with the first types. That is YLH's gripe.

Of course it cud be very well argued that the Type 2 Momins were right and Type 1 Muslims were wrong all along.

Regards

In just one day Yasser took this board towards 700 posts. Yasser the hoenybum, u never disappoint urself.

Majumdarda,

There're different hues in Indian history of that period. Muslims were not minorities at that time. They're equally represented in every field of life (no quota). Even in pre-Jinnah period Indian Muslims were prominent in promoting the cause of Indian Independence.

Name a meeting in London (pre-Jinnah period) in support of India or her causes, u have several Muslim names in that meeting. This is what I saw in pre-Jinnah period news items on India (The Times archive)

Zeemax (640),

The Khans were not into this game of TNT nor they were actively encouraging riots and murders.

I understand that u lived there (NWFP) and u r a Dari-speaking family.

Whether u like it or not Jinnah was an established criminal in India. It's for the Yasser to counter this.

VRV sahib,

Re: 692

That is the thing that is different about the way of thinking of some of desi Momins. I wud have used "wrong" but afraid of Kaal bhai's danda, I am using "different" instead. They had no issues with Brits ruling over India and running it to the ground but they suddenly discovered that British India was dar-ul-harb 'cos the Brits removed a frikking retarded ruler of distant Turkey.

Regards

'Besides I suppose no religious scripture played a part in Maulana Azad's famous fatwa in early 1920s that India was Dar-ul-Harb and the Muslims should move to Afghanistan.'
(689)

Yasserbhai,

U r puting things are divorced from the context.

It's the time when WWI was goin on & Khalifa was abolished by the British who're also ruling India. Since India was ruled by the British it was decided that they shud follow the example of the times of prophet Muhammed. That's why they wanted to migrate to Afghanistan i/o living under British.

But the truth is that a few hundred ppl moved o/a that fatwa.

Harishbhai,

(storm was building up months before in advance)

It wud be fair enough to accept MKG's role also. First of all he brought all kind of obscurantists to the fore by starting the Khilafat movement. Surely you must be aware of the karnameys of the God fearing Moplahs of Kerala. And then equally suddenly he called off the NCM without even fully consulting his partners the Muslims. With the result that a huge amount of distrust was created between Hindus and Muslims. So you had a double whammy.

A roused Muslim population.
Distrust between Hindus and Muslims.

So is it MAJ' sole fault that Muslims and Hindus were sepaarted by walls of distrust and animosity.

There indeed was a storm but if you want to locate the energy source of that storm system you have to look elsewhere!!!

(I don't know what motive Nehru had for not speaking out,)

Maybe the answer is simple. He had none. He was merely being honest.

Regards

#686 by majumdar

A dishonest man does not indulge in dishonesty all the time. He is dishonest only to service some ulterior motive. These guys may not have been dishonest when they did not accuse MAJ (pbuh) becuase they may have realised that their claims wud fall flat.

Who is to determine when these "dishonest" men were honest and when they were lying? Nearly 60 years later, Jinnah is still haunted by accusations of having instigated violence. As I said before he may not have been directly responsible for all that went on, but by turning a blind eye when his cohorts were instigating Muslims, he must accept his share of the blame. It wasn't as if he was caught by surprise; there were warnings early on and the storm was building up months before in advance in the form of provocative speeches where leaguers threatened to shed blood; thundered that they were no believers in ahimsa; that the death and destruction they would wreak would put Hulaku Khan to shame etc.

Harishbhai, Now since u believe that MKG and JLN were honest men shud you not accept that they were honest in not implicating MAJ (pbuh)

I don't know about Nehru, but I believe Gandhi was honest to a fault. A man who speaks about his innermost (even intimate) feelings in his book cannot be anything but that. He may be guilty of many misadventures but no one can accuse him of malice. I don't know what motive Nehru had for not speaking out, but with respect to Gandhi, it could simply be because he was never known to speak out against any of his rivals in public. If Gandhi didn't blame Suhrawardy, the man widely believed to be behind the actual violence - going on to even live with him for a month to demonstrate that Hindus and Muslims could live with each other in peace, what makes you think he'd talk about Jinnah?

Re: # 687

Except that they took every opportunity to blame others like Suhrawardy.

Besides I suppose no religious scripture played a part in Maulana Azad's famous fatwa in early 1920s that India was Dar-ul-Harb and the Muslims should move to Afghanistan.
But then I suppose in India the title of religious zealotry is reserved for those irreligious gentlemen who take up the political causes of a community based on religious identity.

Mahatmas and Maulanas are exempt from such love.

Vengat,

MKG and Azad were indeed religous zealots of sorts, under the right circumstances Azad may have evolved into a full time jihadi. JLN wasn't a zealot, he was just an idiot who was fond of kissing commie and Islamist fundoo a***s.

Regards