With Never a Lamentation

160: they were looking towards Muslims for leadership.

Not really. For instance, you needn't have applied for the position. ;-) And the figurehead they picked, he was nearly soiling himself when asked.

Re: # 155

Fuzair

One doesn't learn these things in schools or madrassas. One learns by putting two and two together. The matter is simple common sense.

The 1857 mutiny in British army was initiated by Hindu soldiers. The Muslim soldiers joined in later, probably not even in Meerut. But as the mutiny turned into the War of Independence, the UNDISPUTED fact remains that regardless of the soldiers and Indian civilian freedom fighters all rallied around Muslim Emperor; they were looking towards Muslims for leadership. Mughal General Bakht Khan and Bahadur shah Zafar did whatever they could to lead the masses. Whether they were effective or not, is a separate discussion. The fact remains that British saw Muslims as a bigger threat to themselves than Hindus.

Yes, I agree that there existed a great power vacuum after Aurangzeb and someone had to fill it - be it British. I am not going to point to the blatant attrocities that British committed against the local population for the next 3 and half years when every road coming out of Delhi had crosses with corpses hanging from them all the time.

But it was the systematic destruction of the general Muslim population in the next 2 to three decades. A group of people who ruled that great country for one thousand years suddenly found themselves competing with Dalits for the morsels that society was throwing at them. This is absolute chutiya argument that Muslims did not like to go to schools and therefore they remained behind. It does not happen in any society. Today people sell their kidneys to get their children into better schools and have better opportunity in life.

This vicious propaganda is created by those mirasis and jamadars who were serving british and british were installing them as new Muslim nobility. If you look into the history of every mamdot, tiwana, khan, and nawabzada today you will find out they used to suck british cock at sometime not to mention clean after their horse shit.

Re: # 158

yeah, but what bug has crawled up yours. Anything wrong with that?

#131: instead they viewed it as an opportunity to attain equality and equity in the polity that British had stripped them of.

Ye-es. When in minority these guys need 'equity'. When in majority (as in Pakistan), they want 'democracy'. Convenient!

#155: The British saved the Muslims of South Asia.

Who or what did they need saving from ? And did any of this make the slightest difference to the average Abdul in the street ?

Urstruly (#153),

Apparently you can add nothing more to the discussion … hence your usual knee-jerk reaction. Note that the constitution has declared it illegal for an Ahmadi to pray to Allah. You should think this over and hang your head in shame.

As for Abu Jehal – he vehemently opposed the followers of a man who claimed to be a prophet of Allah Almighty. And so did Maudoodi. Both men readily supported violence as means to achieve their goals and persecute people for their faith. In both cases, the people of faith refused to give up their prophet or their faith in Allah, the Quran, or the kalima. The pattern is identical ...

So my guess is that if Abu Jehal was alive today, he’d readily relate to Maudoodi …

RE: Urstruly #131

Do you actually know any Indian history outside of what is taught in Deobandi madrassahs? The British did not destroy muslim power in India. The Mughal Empire self-destructed after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707: a series of succession wars and weak Padishahs that were their Vizier's puppets destroyed Muslim power in India. Delhi was sacked by the Persians and the Afghans--both Muslims; or are you going to argue that they were secretly working for the HEIC?

The Mahrattas, despite their loss at the Third Battle of Panipat, were THE sovereign power in India until the HEIC defeated them in 1818. Their loss at 3rd Panipat merely saved modern day Afghanistan from being ruled by them; it did not destroy their power. BTW, they also sacked Delhi.

Hyderabad and Bengal were peripheral powers, not sovereign; Awadh was also a de facto Mahratta tributary; IIRC, all three paid tribute to the Mahrattas. And don't forget Sikh rule of the Punjab.

The British saved the Muslims of South Asia. The only possible hope of Muslim revival was Tipu Sultan.

Dear Urstruly,

Must you resort to this kind of hogwash after showing us that you are a thinking man.

Re: # 150 sattar

Sometimes the best things in the life are free e.g. Quadianis have got constitutional parity in the state of Pakistan and they didn't even had to break a sweat for it. If Abu Jehl were alive today, his eyes would have welled up with tears thinking that his progeny has finally got what he died fighting for.

C,

Yes... that was a very acrimonious exchange between Wavell and Gandhi and Nehru... I particularly enjoyed Gandhi and Nehru's plea "But we are lawyers".. coming from two gentlemen whose legal practice was not their best selling feature.

It is a pleasure to find someone who is actually aware of what they are talking about.

Y.,

In my opinion there was no AIML or Crown interpretation. The CMP proposed something that was quite clear. And then they are on record explaining it as well.

There is an amazing quote by the G-man when Wavell was trying to get him to accept the CMP in it’s entirety. I believe, W. Made pretty much the same point you make, that the Cab Miss. agrees with the League about grping. G. then said (not an exact quote, it’s from memory) something to the effect of, “That does not matter in the least. What the cabinet mission plan means is not what the cabinet mission thinks it means but what the Int Governmet thinks it means” :)

And guess who controlled the Int Governmet?

The grouping clause in the CMP was quite clear... it allowed for any province to opt out after the constitution was framed. So it would be as voluntary ... to quibble over it meant that the other party i.e. Congress was never serious about an honest compromise.

Yes, I agree. The word ‘voluntary’ was not appropriate.

Anyway, the Congresses’ fear (I leave it to you to decide whether it was legit or not) was that Grp C’s constitution would be framed in such a way which would—-by fiddling with voting rules, gerrymandering et al—-make sure that Assam got a govt which was sympathetic to the League. This gvt would then, of course, never leave Grp C. For all you know GRP C might end up leaving Delhi instead! In '46, of course, Congress controlled Assam. Hence the before/after constitution quibble.

But yeah, if an “honest compromise” is defined as the spirit of the CMP, then obv the Congress were not interested--it did not suit their needs. They only kept up with the parleys because (and this is squarely HMG’s fault) Cripps and Co. did enough shaitani to lead the Congress to believe that, somehow, they could grab control of the Interim govt, which obv turned out to be a false hope.

Urstruly (#100),

Your post raises some more aspects of the partition debate and how one picks sides.

Your contention that ullema may be considered “key” in partition discussion … has some validity in a sense that Pakistan came into being despite their best efforts. They occupy the debit side of the ledger, while Jinnah and Ahmadis are on the credit side.

There may be truth to your claim that Maudoodi/ullema were against partition as they felt it would weaken Muslim clout. I am in no position to say what was in Maudoodi’s heart, but consider this:

One may also validly argue that Abu Jehal was also trying to protect the clout of Meccans … whose financial and political interests were tied to worshipping of the 360-odd idols in kabba. He arguably saw Muhammad as a brash idealist, whose idea of one invisible god threatened the basis of kabba and idol worshipping … and the lucrative trade it attracted.

There is a good chance that if Abu Jehal has lived to see Fall of Mecca, he too would be converted and joined the new faith. Abu Sufian did.

It seems that the ullema went overboard in vilifying Jinnah and the idea of Pakistan, with references like kaffir, kaffiristan, paleedistan, etc. Of course, it was a no-brainer to join Pakistan after partition was a done deal. Here’s another aspect of the issue:

According to Munir Report, Majlis-e-Ahrar too resisted partition, and upon partition, became a defunct group with no relevance. In order to revive their political future, their leaders sought and found a rallying cause - persecution of Ahmadis.

So how did your ullema came to serve this new found Muslim country? By starting a witch-hunt of the very people who contributed to forming it in the first place. The irony is hard to miss …

And to complete the parallel, note that Abe Jehal too was considered a great scholar of his time.

Dear Clark,

"Anyway, it would have been pretty dumb for the Congress to accept the AIML's/the Crown's interpreteation of the CMP. Would hardly have suited their interests "

Actually ... that statement betrays both a rather deep understanding of CMP negotiations as well as responsibility.

In my opinion there was no AIML or Crown interpretation. The CMP proposed something that was quite clear. And then they are on record explaining it as well. Congress' interpretation of the grouping clause was rather erroneous from a legal perspective. What is more that it amounted to taking out the essential feature that was vital and sine qua non to AIML's acceptance. You are right- in the end Jinnah came in even without parity in the interim cabinet.

In my opinion this closes the case altogether. The rest are just excuses as to why it was not in AICC's interest.


"(just as volutary grouping did not suit the AIML's interests)."

The grouping clause in the CMP was quite clear... it allowed for any province to opt out after the constitution was framed. So it would be as voluntary ... to quibble over it meant that the other party i.e. Congress was never serious about an honest compromise.

dost_mittar #141

"Here, the situation was the opposite. The Muslim landlords, who had supported the British against the Sikhs, were amply rewarded and their progeny still owns large junks of the Punjab land..."

The Muslim landlords were close allies of the Sikhs with whom they shared Jatt ethnic ties, read Khan Bahadur Sahibudin Virk's pro-Sikh statements for just one example. The Muslim Landlords, and some Sikh Chiefs, were in fact rewarded for helping the British put down the Indian mutiny. Most of them were already big landowners before British rule and they were rewarded by the British with patronage and favour, not lands.

"and is still ruling Pakistan"

Not a single one of the Muslim feudal families of British Punjab plays a significant role in national politics in modern Pakistan.

leveller:

Areyou my "real" Pakistani bhateeja?

Yes, I do think that Jinnah would have accepted less than parity, which is why I wrote that post to Malik saab.

However, I have changed my postion re. the CMP after I was told about the poison pill contained in it in the form of the option to leave after a trial period. I can see why Nehru was held over coals in the Congress (most vociferously by a leftist Muslim) and had to issue a retractory statement.

Dear malik,

:) I don't want you to accept anything I say. I am glad you are reading and hopefully will draw your own conclusions.

The issue of "Muslim nationalism" is best explained by the Salariat theory. As for the Lahore Resolution, the "states" is of no significance to me ... It is autonomous and sovereign that is significant. Furthermore it will help you to realize that Muslim League won strongest in regions that are now in India. Muslim nationalism was a consociationalist response and the "results" you speak of have little to do with it but very different factors.

About Bhagat, Jinnah spoke in his defence and as for Ghalib - well I am not sure why his pension is an issue for any one. Iqbal mian was a pensioner too.

I am actually planning on writing a detailed article on Lahore Resolution. Hope you'll read it.