Tilak and Gokhale

To be read in conjunction with my earlier post about the subject:

Upman,

So the purpose behind your posting those selective quotes (interestingly enough only Indians are allowed to selectively quote) is to prove that Jinnah was non-secular and an Islamist. Ironically enough, as Sadna, said this thesis would find more support in Pakistan and than in India itself. A great number of your countrymen who are well read on the subject will oppose that thesis in good conscience.

However, let us take the example of Kemal Ataturk for a moment to illustrate what I am trying to say. That Ataturk was a secularist is an undeniable fact of History, and I am sure we are in agreement on this. Please read this completely to understand the argument.

In 1919 Mustapha Kemal Ataturk said at Erzurum :

`Islam is the most rational of all religions. It is a natural religion, which is completely compatible with Modernity, Progress and National interest. Islam is a religion that enjoins upon its followers the pursuit of education...... Islam is a rational and natural faith.`

In an interview with a French Journalist Hours before the fall of the Khilafat, Ataturk said

`The Islam I profess has nothing against reason or progress, or the concept of a republic. This nation has a second religion, the religion of superstition.`

and then he said in response to the question will Turkey have a state religion he said

`Yes it has one. The Mohammeden religion, but difference of opinion is allowed by the Mohammaden Religion.`

Quotes from `Andrew Mango`s `Ataturk` pg 274-275 and various other pages. Also from Ataturk`s famous Six day speech which runs over 700 pages and was sent as a gift from Ataturk`s Party secretariat to the Alexandar Library Rutgers University in 1929. There are many such quotes in the abovementioned books...

Ataturk maintained that Islam was totally compatible with Democracy and secularism.. similarities between Jinnah`s words that you have quoted and Ataturk`s words are amazing (Jinnah had described Ataturk as the ideal Muslim Leader).. Now let us analyze... there are two conclusions that I as a student of History draw..

1) Ataturk and Jinnah, to an extent believed that Islam was compatible with Modernity, Secularism and Democracy.

2) They presented their agenda of Modernity, secularism etc, within the context of Islam because they were aware that this was the only way they will have their illiterate masses faithful to Islam to go along with their Modern Progressive agendas.

Had Ataturk not invoked Islam, Turkey would not have been a free republic. His war against the Greeks was called a Jihad and an Islamic Holy war, and let us not forget that he himself was a Gazi, the victorious warrior of Islam. Had he spoken of Modernity, without the garb of Islam, there would be no Free Turkey, and he would be forgotten as the child of the Young Turks Revolution. This doesnot take away from his vision of Turkey as a Modern Secular State.

Similarly, had Jinnah not talked Islam (though he never spoke of the theology, but always of Political and Cultural ties of Islam) there would have been no Pakistan. His constituency the Muslims of South Asia would have remained disunited, some supporting the Congress and others going after the rabid Mullahs who wanted a United India so that unlike Turkey, they would still have political power of the masses. Indeed, it on the record that Maudoodi had feared another Turkey and often referred to Jinnah as a second Ataturk as Islamists still see him in the same light today.

http://www.khilafah.org/cdrom/Political%20Analysis/Pakistan/Magazine/k96dec_j.pdf

veeresh #272
Good question
My answer is it was the first significant demonstration of ``us vs them`` by anyone on the subcontinent where ``them`` were the British and ``us`` were those the British called ``natives``.

The subcontinent had till then, an endemic ``problem`` of not being able to distinguish us vs them in any coherent geographic/ethnic/religious/political sense. I am not saying that was bad or good, I`m just saying thats how it was.

So I suspect it was the imported ``us vs them`` attitude of the British foisted on the ``natives`` which led to an answering response from the ``natives`` and many elements of this ``us vs them`` jelled together in the incident of 1857.

shammi #126 You know my position on this: the Kashmir dispute is not worth even one life, Indian or Pakistani. The land will always be there regardless of which side of the border it is, but the lives are gone forever. The Pakistan military is under pressure from within Pakistan (see recent articles by Irfan Hussain and Ayaz on Dawn for example) to get it`s act together and come down hard on the religious groups in Pakistan that support such activities in Kashmir. The Indian government should do the same I think, while at the same time stressing that India has no intention of enveloping Pakistan (thus allaying fears of those who think that you are ``either a part of India, or against India`` and so chose the latter course).

Upman,

I hope you will read my last post. Also kindly next time, show your `sources` which you have pathetically failed to do in the past.

-YLH

And Bharatiya Muslim here is one of your own, a respected member of the chowk community writing on Jinnah

http://www.rediff.com/style/aug/25farz.htm

Pankaj 256

Point taken. However, kindly control your own people too, because, I have not retaliated without no reason. Even as you wrote your post, Upman was accusing Jinnah being a theocrat because Jinnah said ` We do not mean any ill. The foundation of our Islamic code is that we stand forliberty, equality and fraternity.`

-YLH

bhartiya musalman #268, 270,

...i completely agree with most of what you say, including an offer in the near future to muslims in pakistan originally from india to return...things may not be as improbable as it sounds now..already Altaf Hussein and others have called Partition the biggest blunder in history..the temporary re-allocation of resources such a move will entail will more than be compensated by the reduction of expenditure in kashmir (as the issue will naturally lose steam)and in combating other ISI activities...it would also have the beneficial effect of correcting the rightward tilt indian polity is nowadays getting (so one can expect some resistance from that end)..

...the part i disagree with is your impression of b`desh...i think, when compared to pak., they have better sorted out their priorities and inspite of numerous natural and other disasters, they are doing reasonably well....also- being Bengalis (muslim or hindu), they are less prone to the jingoism or delusions that is the trademark of pakistan......

btw- welcome to chowk...i`m sure your perspective here will be very useful here...

Dear All



I request all, especially the Indian interactors to desist from making any such comments that can be even remotely construed as a personal attack. Such comments not only divert the attention from more substantial issues, they present the concerned people in poor light. I have said it before and I will say it again, ``ad hominem`` is the surest way to undo your cause.

Sincerely

Dear Pakistanis,

We were told earlier on this board that because Jinnah said ` We do not mean any ill. The foundation of our Islamic code is that we stand for liberty, equality and fraternity.` he somehow favored Hijab.

Ofcourse the picture here does a lot to confirm this logical assertion ...

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P009&Pg=9

-YLH

Dost mittar,

I want to remind you sir, that I did not start the attack on Gandhi. Jay, and other Jinnah bashers on this site have made a habit to bash Jinnah, and accuse him of things that he hasnt done.This smear propaganda campaign was started by Indians.

I do not have qualms with spirituality and use of religion to exhort the goodness of man. However, the only objection I have is that Gandhi ji let the cat out of the bag, which brought communalism into the forefront. His constituency was Hindu and Muslim, not Hindu alone. Jinnah, when a National leader, never used any Islamic vocab.

If he was to make a statement as a Muslim leader

`We do not mean any ill. The foundation of our Islamic code is that we stand for liberty, equality and fraternity.`

to show his constituency which was Muslim in 1938 that there was no incompatibility between secular democracy and Islam, is that such a bad thing? Whether he did a good job of convincing them or not is besides the point.

I merely used statements by Gandhi and used them. Some of what Gandhi said was horrific. Especially his views on caste system etc. His use of `ram rajya` even if with good intentions did play a big role in isolating the Muslims ... this much is accepted by `Freedom at Midnight` by Collins and Lapierre, a book Upman never tires in quoting.

-YLH

Bharitiya Muslim aka Imran Zulfikar,

Kindly donot address me as Bhai or any such thing.

Just because I am a Muslim, doesnt make me and you a bhai.... and frankly I cannot call a person who speaks of fascist concepts like `Greater India` as a bhai. Besides the only Bhai in India I have is my friend Prem Bodagala from Bangalore, whose views on this board are very clear from his interact as Kabuliwallah.

Anyone who reads history is well aware that had Jinnah remained in the Congress Party with Gandhi, he would have gone down in History as the `Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity`, and one of the greatest fighters of freedom in India. Instead he didnot waver on principles.

He was offered knighthood, titles andGovernorships as early as 1919. The Provincial governorship was offered to him in 1931 but he stuck by his principles and did not take it. He was offered prime ministership by Gandhi, Wavell, Bose, and Mountbatten. Surely the first Prime Ministership of India would have left him in history a greater place than as a Muslim seperatist.

Let me also remind you that Jinnah had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946, and it was Nehru and the Congress Party who rejected it.

Now, there are many faults with Pakistan, as there are with India, .. but these will one day go away.. we will persevere and we will survive.

Coming to your accusation about Pakistan being an Arab Wannabe state? Well sir, nothing in Pakistan will give you that impression. On the contrary, we the Pakistani Nationalists have completely opposed such endeavors by anyone. Any new comer on chowk should read, and see the views completely before opening his mouth. My views, and Ideas are very clear about this.

Finally, Indian Muslims are to blame for themselves. They were told categorically by Jinnah to be loyal to India as their state in 1947. To him it was clear, that the Minorities of Pakistan had to be loyal Pakistani citizens, and Minorities of India had to be loyal Indian citizens.

You decry the two nation theory, which was a fact.

Pakistan`s creation put TNT to rest, but the fact that you still speak in terms of `Jinnah divided the Muslims of South Asia`

You write :

`-INDIAN MUSLIMS: A Muslim community in India that is largely impoverished and whose plight is worsened by the arrogance of Pakistan`

Was Pakistan`s arrogance, when Jinnah asked Muslims of India to be loyal to India? If the TNT is not alive in India, why should Pakistan`s arrogance be such a problem for you?

Pakistan was the logical end of the TNT within Pakistan, as Jinnah made it very clear that in Pakistan, everyone will be Pakistani, not Hindu or Muslim... `In time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims not in a religious sense but in a political one`.

In India, Bharatiyah Muslims still decry their `lack of strength`, and their divided community. One would imagine, that 50 years after partition, you would think in terms of India and not in terms of the Muslim community and how it would been stronger in `Greater India`. There are two reasons for this ..

1) Genuine Discrimination against Muslims in Modern India

2) Inability of Indian Muslims to come to terms with the national identity of India

Every objective Historian is well aware of the politics of the so called `Nationalist` Muslims of India. `Nationalist` Muslims were religious Mullahs priests etc, who wanted Muslims to remain in a United India, so that they could play on the insecurities of Muslims, and hence feed fundamentalism.

Here is a repost of Kabuli`s post

`ike I said before, liked it...black or white history should be purged...the black past of the Congress, both Hindu and Muslim must be exposed to the world...these so called `nationalist` muslims stayed in India not for India but for their religion...their agenda needs to be exposed...the Congress parroting bandar

babus need to be exposed...directly or indirectly you are doing a service to India...thanx`

How true!

The nationalist Muslims, the Ahrar Party, the Deobandis (forerunners of the Taliban) and the Jamaat e Islami etc, supported Gandhi because they thought in Pakistan, Muslims would become lax and less fundamentalist as compared to India where a Hindu Majority will keep them at their feet.

Indeed, as an International student I have never met a Pakistani International student female with a Hijab, and I have never met an Indian Muslim International Student female without a Hijab.

So kindly look at the picture of the founder of Pakistan with the Women`s national Guard ... and see for yourself how `arab wannabe` we are :

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P009&Pg=9

Indeed, one of the paradoxes of Partition other that Jinnah`s own former role as a champion of Hindu Muslim Unity, is that the Moderate progressive Muslims supporter the Pakistan Movement while the fundamentalists like Ahrar, Ataullah Shah Bukhari, the Deobandi Ulema, and the Jamiat e Ulema Hind, Jamaat e Islami and Maudoodi threw their lot in for the United India.

The only notable religious leader to support the Muslim League was Agha Khan, and we know how religious he was. Usmani was the other one but his jamiat e Ulema Islam was not a major force.

-YLH

Upman,

I hope you read this POST completely and try to understand instead of just going in your attack.

It is clear that you are going on a rampage without even trying to understand.

Whether or not you have qualms with Jinnah`s two nation theory, you cannot accuse of him of the things that you have, as a matter of fact your insinuations would be shot down by your own countrymen, as they always are. So go ahead deceiving yourself.Jinnah had made it very clear that Pakistan would not be a theocracy, and that its citizens will have equal rights.

You dont see the fundamental difference between Gandhi and Jinnah. Gandhi was laying claim in the 1920s to the leadership of Muslims and Hindus, but he used Hindu Philosophy. When Jinnah was laying claim to the leadership of Hindus and Muslims, he didnot use the Islam.

You accuse Jinnah of saying

`liberty, fraternity and equality as enjoined upon us by Islam` (25th August)

Indeed, Jinnah was telling the Muslims that the Human and secular values of Libery, Fraternity and Equality are ingrained within their faith and hence it is their religious obligation to create a state where there is no discrimination. He was addressing a Muslim Majority state.

``Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood`` (21 February 1948)

I dont think you read the statement completely,

it says `Equality of Manhood`, again he is addressing a state which is predominantly Muslim.

``the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles`` (14 August 1948);

And what are those Islamic ideals and Principles.. which he has made very clear? Equality and Social Justice. Unlike, Gandhi`s faith, Hinduism, Islam doesnot have a caste system or inherent inequality between man.

As soon as Pakistan was made, the Islamists who had supported the Congress Party, including the Ahrar levelled the allegation that Jinnah was making the state UnIslamic. It was Political ploy.

Now whatever he said to the masses, in order to appease them and stop the madness of killing, we have to look at his actions.

Jinnah made it very clear that state itself would be a `democratic state with sovereignty resting with people regardless of religion caste or creed.`

If indeed, Taliban were to follow Jinnah`s abovementioned creed they would be great but they arent, and it shows a streak of deviousness, a madness on your part to accuse Jinnah the way you are.

Jinnah`s exhortations in the constituent assembley his opposition to a theocracy, and his appointment of ministers makes it abundantly clear what Jinnah`s real stance on things was ..

For Muslims the first most important feature is `law` and who did Jinnah appoint the Law minister in his Cabinet? Jogindranath Mandal.

Many times he vetoed the resolution by the constituent assembley and earlier by the league that `Pakistan should be an Islamic State.` He told Raja of Mahmoodabad to distance himself from the league for suggesting that Pakistan should be an Islamic State.

And then from your own quote :

[We do not mean any ill. The foundation of our Islamic code is that we stand for liberty, equality and fraternity.]

Again we see that Jinnah is addressing a Muslim constituency convincing them that the secular Human values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity

are ingrained within their faith. Fundamentalist today accuse Jinnah of being a greater traitor to Islam than Ataturk, because he justified his secular democratic values through the doctrine of Islam itself, whether he did a good job is debateable.

Again, show me one place when as a leader claiming

leadership of the Hindus and Muslims, Jinnah used any Islamic vocab or rhetoric? If Jinnah tried to create a Moderate nation by using Islam doctrine and tried to stop communal killings in Pakistan how is that a big crime.

And now to stupid and ridiculuous statement that you made

` he would have approved of Sharia courts, sunnah,

hadith, hijab etc.etc....`

We know from Historical evidence that he did not support the Sharia courts which went against his legal training. Sunnah to him was Social Justice and Equality for Man , and Hadith to him was relevant only if it supported the original thesis.

Now coming to Hijab

HERE I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE QUAID E AZAM FROM KARACHI IN 1948 ... WITH THE WOMEN`S NATIONAL GUARD... UPMAN KINDLY SEE FOR YOURSELF HOW MANY HIJABIS THERE ARE IN THIS PICTURE....ZERO ZILCH NONE SIFR SHOONAY

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P009&Pg=9

May be this picture was concocted by me?

Now let us quote from AG Noorani`s article Frontline April 7th 1995...

`AUGUST 17, 1947 was a Sunday.The Anglican Archdeacon had arranged for a special service of prayer and thanksgiving in the Holy Trinity Church inKarachi. He had also composed a special prayer in which the founder of thenew state of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, was mentioned. When Jinnah

heard of it, he asked that he might be allowed to attend the service, in state. He did. As Wilfred Russell remarked in his book Indian Summer,

Jinnah ``who knew only too well the orthodox fervour of many Muslims, might well have been taking a political risk in making this graceful and moving gesture to the Christian community of Karachi``.

and Jinnah on Blasphemy ... again the same article as above :

Jinnah sounded a warning: ``I thoroughly endorse the principle, that while this measure

should aim at those undesirable persons who indulge in wanton vilification or attack upon the religion of any particular class or upon the founders and prophets of a religion, we must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticisms of a religion, shall be protected.`` (emphasis added, throughout).

From `Dawn`s` archives we find Cowasjee`s articles

(Info for Upman Cowasjee is a Parsi)

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20000618.htm

I assure you that if you can somehow convince the Taliban to follow Jinnah`s creed it would be great... but for now, taliban and their supporter fundamentalist say the following about Jinnah

http://www.khilafah.org/cdrom/Political%20Analysis/Pakistan/Magazine/k96dec_j.pdf

-YLH

Re Bhartiya Musalman,

Dude, you are going to get a lot of abuse. But on the other hand, it is such a sheer delight to watch this space whenever YLH has one of his frequent brain aneurysms. To qoute good ole Fred Sanford, this is going to be ``THE BIG ONE.`` And the two resident cowards aka armchair jehadis--urstruly and ali1 are going to launch their electronic stringers at you.

:)

Re dost mittar et al

What`s up with you folks? You`re treating YLH as a future political leader. Right now, about the only person to pledge allegiance to his cause, whatever that may be, is Sarwari. But then in the parlance of the subcontinent, two people do make a political party. But s-h-i-t-, I keep forgetting, Pakistan is not part of the subcontinent/south asia. It is Turko/Persian/Arabic.

And just for the fun of it, have you ever asked a Turk what they share in common with the Arabs or the Iranians other than religion--or for that matter ask any of the other two groups about the commonalities?

Dear Yasser as author, & others in this message set, I respect all of you and your diverse opinions . . . please give me your honest opinion . . . were the events of 1857:-

a) The Great Mutiny.

b) The First Pakistani Freedom struggle.

c) The First Indian Freedom struggle.

d) A Hindu uprising against beef tallow in bullets.

e) A Muslim uprising against pork fat in bullets.

f) The Handing over from John Company to the Crown.

g) The Presenting of Colours to the Sikhh Light Infantry.

Thank you for your kind attention. Once I have the answer, let us go back further in history and find out if it was a Muslim navigator or a Hindu sea-guide who first brought the British to meet the Zamorin . . .

StudeBaker:

Hello Again :)

``I just want to make sure ,you seem to have changed your mind from the first post .Me think you are NOT in agreement with mr.YLHs obsession with JINNAH, really ...............Plz read my post again with view of innocent motives that i preach.:)))))))``

Now this was a little exciting and demanded immediate attention :) I meant the context of the post than `` Innocent Motives Walae StudeBaker.``

Yasser is not going for a college debate here. He has very valid points that he is bringing up and is countering what was assumed of Pakistan and its ex-leaders. I would also not categorize that in selective reading. Just thought I will clear up the fuzziness here.

I have been following this discussion off-and-on and am pretty clear on the intent of the writer.

My initial question was out of curiosity. It had nothing to do with the writer`s passion for Jinnah and/or obsession[as you pointed out and as I stated on some other board].

I read your thoughts on history and its aagaa and peechaa. So, now I have to say something here. I have come across quite a few interesting characters in recent years. I also have a bad tendency to analyze people for my own knowledge. Kind of having case studies :)- For the sake of information or knowlege or learning or interest or whatever :) Once upon a time, I came across a senior couple, who was very much into living in the past and ``param para``[Hindi - I hope I quoted it right.]kind of things. It was a strange combination. I can elaborate on strange, but I would not at this time. They were apparently content with their thought-process. Which is fine - great! But I think when you start emphasizing a lot on the past and the history, you have a tendency to stop growing and moving ahead...probably because your energies and mindset gets busy with things that happened in the history and you start taking a refuge in those events. In real life, I will regard that as regression than progression. In other words, you are hesitant to take a plunge and go and do things aside from what you`ve read or have known. By saying that I do not mean that you need to shun the message or any good points that you`ve captured, but you cannot dwell on the past incidents only. You cannot base your life and it`s challenges on them. Yes, `lessons learnt` are great reminders and important; but there is a lot more to life than just relying on lessons learnt. It is to go out and experience life; take on challenges and consider risks; weigh the pros and cons of those challenges and risks - this is a lot. It`s not a piece of cake! I have seen sustul-wajoodi[lethargy or lack of initiative] amongst people who start doing what I have mentioned earlier. That`s been my observation.


Now your turn, doc ?