Tilak and Gokhale

`ylh, such a keep-at-arms-length policy has not served Pakistanis well. Institutionally, the masses still donot have a real say inPakistan, am I right and do you see any connection? The inevitable point at which self-rule begins in earnest has been put off repeatedly in Pakistan using the same excuse repeatedly : that the masses indulge in ruinous populist sentiment inimical to `broader` national interests. `

Sadna on the contrary in Pakistan, every ruler has feared the Mullah street power. Eventhough Mullahs will never win any seats but they have enough street power in Urban constituencies to bring the entire country to a stand still.

Pakistan was created at a time, when the leadership did not particularly think Islam was in opposition to the western democratic system. Hence there was never really an effort to create a `secular` identity after Jinnah`s death.

Pakistani leaders still spoke of Modern liberal and democratic identity, but allowed lip service to Islam, and the Islamic identity starting with Liaqat Ali Khan. It could have worked, had the two staunch secularists, Ghulam Muhammad and Justice Munir not come down so hard on the Islamists, which created a major rift between the relatively secular leadership of ML and the Islamists themselves.

Bhutto was the first real leader after Jinnah who had public support, but Bhutto helped unleash the Islamic element into Politics of Pakistan. This Islamic element had uptill now been sidelined by the fact that it had been opposed to the creation of Pakistan. Jinnah`s rallying cry was `Muslim Nationalism` and `Muslim as an ethnic idea` in the 1939-46 period much like how Bosnian Muslims form an ethnic or national group, or how Turk nationalism revolved around Muslims of Anatolya. The emphasis in the Islamic element had always been Islam as a universal brotherhood and system of the world. They had opposed the creation of Pakistan, because to them, it was their duty to convert the rest of India to Islam. Secondly the Islamic Element, led by fanatics and fundamentalists felt that in Pakistan their importance would be lost (as time and electoral process has shown to some extent) since fundamentalism feeds off of insecurity. With Zia`s rule this fundamentalist element was unleashed into politics once again. The Kashmir issue has helped it sustain ever since.

Macgupta,

Thanks for exposing ylh lying. What else can he do?

if i may, please

.......... after speed-reading through 222 posts i would like to summarize our position :

``...we made Pakistan because we had to, and because there was to be no compromise because from Gandhiji to Veersavarkar, we had a line of hinduvtists in different shades. Hence Pakistan was made, and now Pakistan is here to stay, and we shall defend our sovereignty and our state till eternity.``

....... now if someone from the wrong side can summarize the devil`s position, we can put this issue to bed and go back to discussing kashmir and phallic worship ..... jay ?

Here, ylh, you want ammunition to attack India with, go ahead, plenty of good stuff here :

http://www.maoism.org/misc/india/india.htm

Oh, and where did the material about Gandhi`s reaction to Harilal`s conversion come from ?

-Arun Gupta

Sadna

Sorry, I meant to cite the source I dont know why its not there. Well here is one source, but I know there as many as 15 other sources that I have read it in...

`J Coatman `India in 1928-29`, Government Publication Calcutta page 128

Another source was Bose`s article on the Muslim League and its History. This article is amongst the collection published all together in ..

`Mohammed Ali Jinnah, maker of modern Pakistan. Edited with an introd. by Sheila McDonough.`

Lexington, Mass., Heath [1970]

This article makes it clear that Jinnah repeatedly took a position for Joint electorates.

Jinnah was always opposed to seperate electorates as principle but saw it as a necessary demand which the Congress should meet...

Agha Khan says :

`Who then was our doughtiest opponent in 1906? A distinguished Muslim barrister Mohd Ali Jinnah... he said that our principle of seperate electorate was dividing the nation itself and for nearly a quarter of a century he remained our most inflexible critic and opponent.`

MR Beg In different saddles New Dehli Asia Publications 1967

Wolpert also quotes Jinnah in 1930s saying that personally he was opposed to the seperate electorates... Zamir Akram echoed this recently at Yale when I posed the question of joint electorates for Pakistan.

Well, ylh, one should not quote Goebbels about Jews; and between Goebbels and generally truthful people, there is still a wide spectrum of mendacity.

Mahatma Gandhi has had one of the most open lives of any public figure of this century. A large portion of his life he was living in ashrams or other set-up where privacy is at a minimum. His own writings, speeches, letters etc., occupy over 100 volumes. The people who were around him have written about him. And there has been enormous scholarly research about him.

It therefore takes an extreme breed of naivete or dishonesty to misrepresent Gandhi. Many people do possess one or the other. Anyone who wants to attack India usually ends up denigrating Gandhi, so central is he to India of the twentieth century. So you will find these attacks from Marxists, Dalit extremists, Khalistanis, Hindu-rightwingers etc., some of which may seem very scholarly. A little cross-checking, extremely easy to do because the volume of Gandhiana available will help one avoid obvious mistakes.

The Mahatma was far from perfect. But a rational discussion of Gandhi is not possible with the information you present.

And remember -- arguing that X showed poor judgement is very different from X was duplicitous.

I happen to be familiar with the 100 volumes of Gandhi because in 1990-92 I did an extensive search for an alleged quote that Gandhi said about the Babri Masjid ( I never did find it; it can be found only in VHP publications).

After this homily, this nice piece :

http://members.aol.com/bfgmuc/rahim.htm

-Arun Gupta

I was just browsing through archives, searching some old articles... and I realized what a better place chowk was, until a few of our friends from across the border brought their reactionism to this site.

I was just browsing through archives, searching some old articles... and I realized what a better place chowk was, untill a few of our friends from across the border brought their reactionism to this site.

jnteuc

thanks for sharing that letter of Gandhi (on his son`s conversion) with us. Truly did bring out his greatness of spirit.

To the person (nameless?) who quoted Gandhi on Islam, thank you too.

Truth said it well, I think, when s/he said that great men come with idosyncracies, and Pankay when hementioned `eveolution` of the great soul. Indeed, part of the problem many of us might have is the expectation of perfection from our heroes, rather than see them as the striving, often tortured souls that they are, which lead them to their exalted positions.



Yasser, I still think you might have a point viz. Gandhi`s repsonsibility for the break up, but for heaven`s sake, no need to go on a smear campaign, EVEN IF others have done that to Jinnah.

Think of how Jinnah himself might have handled the situation. (hint: dignity that is above petty skirmishes -- even those intiated by others)

rgds,

PM

An Indian external affairs ministry spokeswoman told reporters: ``We don`t buckle to pressure from anyone. There was no pressure. It was our own decision. (YLH adds) we are Gandhians, we get slaugtered man woman and children. Our homes are given to the conquerors but we dont give up our souls.`

Since Indians have evaded the issue in their propaganda campaign on this board.... let me once again remind them what my issues were... sorry about the repost... I dont have the time, like `friend` does for example to compare the sizes of Gandhi and Jinnah`s male organs... (though I doubt that any logical person would see any controversey in the result of that debate.. I suggest instead of indulging chowkies in this indecent debate, you should pose this question Gandhiji`s grand nieces)

GANDHIJI and HIS ROLE AS A COMMUNALIST:

First of all, I dont have the specific quote right now, but Gandhi`s reaction to his son`s conversion is well known. That Macgupta is

now trying to mislead everyone on this board by countering this

statement shows a mischieviousness on his part which I dont

know why or how he achieved. Gandhi`s reaction to his son`s

conversion is as clear as is the fact that Jinnah made Pakistan.

Macgupta is well aware of this fact but he wishes to lie about it,

and thats quite alright. Its not my loss.

Now coming to Gandhi`s role in communalism...

a) CASTE SYSTEM:

First of all we will examine his views on Caste system...

Gandhi`s most famous CASTE quote :

`Varnashram is inherent in human nature and Hinduism has simply

reduced it to a science. It does attach by birth. A man cannot

change his Varna by choice.`

(C.Sankaran Nair, Gandhi and Anarchy, Madras, Tagore and

company 1922 Page 68)

Vithalbhai Patel moved a Bill against Caste system in 1918, which

was supported tooth and nail by Mohammed Ali Jinnah. But my

dear friends what was the great Mahatma`s reaction to it? He

opposed it.

Another famous quote was then uttered by the great Mahatma

`the seeds of swaraj can be found in Caste system different castes

are like different sections of a military division.`

(Dr BR AMBEDKAR `Gandhi or Gandhism`, Jullunder, Bheema

Patrika Publications, 1970 Page 128)

Then on page 152 of the above mentioned book we find the

following quote :

`To the Shudra who only serves (the high caste) as a matter of

religious duty and who will never own any property, who indeed as

no ambition to own anything, is deserving of many obeisances ..

the very God will shower down flowers on him`

So here we have Gandhi and his benevolent stance on Caste

system completely EXPOSED!

Now about MUSLIMS:

Gandhiji`s views on Intermarriage, Interdining between Hindus and

Muslims (Keep in mind that this man is trying to propound the

theory that Hindus and Muslims are one nation)

He says :

`Prohibition against intermarriage, and interdining is essential for

the rapid evolution of the soul`

and then if you read on you will find this GEM:

`(Just) like we perform the act of answering the call of nature in

seclusion so also the act of taking the food should be done in

seclusion`

(BR Ambedkar`s book Gandhi or Gandhism)

This is in sharp contrast to that communalist Jinnah, who for the

major part of his life believed in intermarriage and interdining, and

even when he opposed his daughter`s marriage publicly, it is quite

probable that she had his blessings in private, as Jinnah used to

love his grandchildren. But hey, Jinnah was a mere communalist

wasnt he?

Some other GEMS by Gandhi on Communal relations:

`My own experience confirms that the Musalman as rule is a bully,

and Hindu as a role is a coward. As a Hindu I am more ashamed

of Hindu Cowardice than Muslim bullying` (Young India May 29th

1924)

Wow, this man really loved Muslims.

And it is an accepted fact that `shudhi and Sanghtan` movements

were instrumental in breaking the thin fabric of Unity ... so let us

now examine Gandhi`s role in that

Gandhiji, the great non communal Mahatma says :

`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is

entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity`

(Young India January 6th 1927)

Gandhi`s famous comments about the role of Religion in Politics:

`Politics divorced from Religion is like a corpse only fit to be buried`

Bandopadhya `Social and Political Thought of Gandhi, Calcutta,

Allied Publishers

Gandhi was totally opposed to `secularism` as the word means in

the dictionary. Ofcourse in India the definitions are warped!

I assure my chowkwallah friends that I can show them 5 times

more the quotes by Gandhi showing his true communal face.

Indeed, I wish India best of luck to be a great secular state, but

following Gandhi`s creed wouldnt take you there.

There are people here who make needless comments, and who

make big claims. They call my work `cut n paste` history. Kindly

show me where any of the works I have put up I have cut and

pasted from?

They also claim that they can bring Pakistani sites claiming

Jinnah was an Islamist, yet they havent been able to. These

people have no shame no sense of decency. The blatant and

absolutely obnoxious lying that has been done, and the

continuous propaganda that has been unleashed by certain

Indians on this board is sad.

One can feel happy however, that there are many Indians out there

who do not put up with this re writing of history, this revisionism.

As a Pakistani I salute them for sticking by the cause of realistic

and accurate History.

DOWN WITH REVISIONISM!

A TRUE `GANDHIAN` COUNTRY

Nothing will be more to Pakistan`s advantage if India did become a Gandhian Country ... to do so it will have to do the following...

1) Ban Secular Education

2) Ban IT projects

3) Ban Hospitals

4) Ban Modern Medicine

5) Institute Ram Rajya

6) Give up its Constitution

7) Undo what Nehru did

8) Undo Commercialization

9) Ban TV Cable Film Industry

10)Institute Village Economies

11)Ban industries

12)Ban Science

13)Create the Kingdom of God by bringing in the theocrats from all religions according to their proportions in the population of India.

14)Disband the Indian Army, Airforce and Navy

15)Let freedom fighters/Militants/terrorists kill Indians men women and children. Indians will give up their freedom and their lives but will not give

their souls.

I hope you do become a Gandhian Country. But then my friend Prem wont be very happy. :)

Anamika,

I am glad that you find such faith in Gandhiji. However, every coin has two sides. That is precisely why, after studying Gandhi for a while, and closely, I dont see the truth that one sided version of Macgupta etc keep harping about.

Others:

I can assure you that I have read Gandhi went on a fast of silence after hearing of his son`s conversion. However, I can see where this is heading. Now every single Indian on this board will re affirm his faith in Gandhi ji. This has a chilly resemblence to what the Islamic Society Members at Rutgers University did, after I exposed the misdeeds of ISRU.

It is a mischievious attempt to divert the entire issue to Gandhi`s reaction to his son`s conversion. The guy was an awoved hindu, and his statements especially those condoning casteism, and segregation of religious entities are well known to everyone.

Again I have not quoted any Pakistani authors. All the authors I have quoted are Indian.

Dear Dost Mittar G:

``Rsaxena:

Islam and Roman Catholic religions are very rational in insisting upon conversion before marriage, even if it`s only a conversion of convenience. Your American friend`s conversion may be fake, but after he dies, he will leave Muslim children, thus contributing to the long-term growth of the Ummah. That`s why Islam does not insist that a non-muslim woman marrying a muslim change her religion, but the opposite is not permissible; it is assumed that the children will take the religion of the father.

This is not a criticism of Islam but an admiration of the institutional checks and balances in it for self-preservation.``

Aap Kee Observation was incomplete. Just thought I will point it out.

Regards.

ylh #215
Good, now there is some coherence.
Firstly you quote Jinnah :
```I am personally against the seperate electorates but a majority of Muslims are for it, so it should be done to allay their fears``

Can you cite when and where he said this? Wolpert shows this was not always the case(that a majority of Muslims were for separate electorates).


Freedom and empowerment comes from changes in attitude, not merely in change of rules. Change of rules without change of attitudes in those being ruled and those ruling merely leads to different masters but the same exploitation. I believe that was at the root of mass involvement encouraged by Gandhi.

Any way whether Pakistan was inevitable is now an irrelevant point, you would agree? So no point berating anyone now.

Moving on:
``1) Hindu Muslim Unity could only have been maintained if masses were not involved in Politics before self rule was achieved. Had there been self rule, Muslim and Hindu leaders could have instituted reforms from the top which would have sunk a united national ideology, and by now we would have a Unified secular Indian National identity.``

ylh, such a keep-at-arms-length policy has not served Pakistanis well. Institutionally, the masses still donot have a real say in Pakistan, am I right and do you see any connection? The inevitable point at which self-rule begins in earnest has been put off repeatedly in Pakistan using the same excuse repeatedly : that the masses indulge in ruinous populist sentiment inimical to `broader` national interests.

IMO, its worth looking at the Constitution and how to put its provisions to a test of Jinnah`s intent AND broadbased public opinion, which will stand it in good stead, so that `self-serving` changes to this are clearly seen to be so.

Dear Veeresh

True, the India of today where violence is the law of the day is as far from Gandhian priciples as one could think of. Alas the majority of Indians never understood Gandhi for what he was. The fundamental Gandhian spirit of practicing before preaching has long been eschewed. People pay their lip-service to Gandhi and sing Ramdhun every year on Gandhi Jayanti, without imbibing the ``essential Gandhian spirit``.

What is this ``essential Gandhian spirit``. It took another great scientist Einstein to realise the depth of his thought, utopian as his thoughts were(acc to some people). I see him(Gandhi) as an experimentor busy trying out his ideas in the laboratory of this social world, constantly correcting his hypothesis, and thereby ``evolving`` into a state of closer union with ``truth``. As a human, he made mistakes. He lied to his parents once in childhood, was so overcome with lust that he temporarily neglected his duty of being by the deathbed of his dying father. He also ate meat and that too without the consent of his parents just to find out ``what is there in meat that causes Englishmen to be so strong``. This streak of experimentation is evident to anyone who studies his life closely. But his greatness was rooted in ``honesty of his purpose`` as a true experimentor to find out truth, that inevitably lead him to the right concepts though after a bit of stumbling. We as Indians, should strive to revive the Gandhi within us, that spirit of experimentation with our ideas, a capability to suffer for what we think as truth without violence. Words were not his forte, action was his domain. Let us break the mould of our own making and venture outside with fresh ideas/worldview(not necessarily Gandhian). In the words of Rabindranath Tagore, let not our creativity be suffocated in the ``dreary desert of dead habit``.

Sincerely