Tilak and Gokhale

Jagdeep

This article might not, because that was not the intention but the following books might. Political science definitions of nation include same language religious customs and common education. Hence being a `nationalist` is totally divorced from being a secularist, aspiring for a state where people are equal regardless of religion caste or creed. Ataturk is an accepted secularist, but his Turk Nationalism was based on Muslims of Anatolya. Even the exchange of population between greece and Turkey were on religious lines.

With that said Jinnah devoted most of his life to the cause of `Hindu Muslim Unity`. It was not Gandhi who was known as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, it was Jinnah.

There are no efforts on my part to portray anyone as a secularist or anything else. I given you the facts, simple pure facts, ... it is upto you to decide who was what. As Patrick French said in his book Liberty or Death Jinnah maintained his secularism unlike Gandhi who never was a secularist.

1)Secular And Nationalist Jinnah : Ajeet Javed Singh 1998 New Dehli

2)Verdict on India : Beverley Nichols

3)Jinnah the creator of Pakistan : Hector Bolitho

4)Jinnah of Pakistan: Stanley Wolpert

5)Mohammed Ali Jinnah: Sarah Heath

6)Jinnah the Sole Spokesman : Ayesha Jalal

7)The Great Divide: By HV Hodson

8)Nehru: A tryst with Destiny: Stanley Wolpert

9)A New History of India: Stanley Wolpert

10)Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah S Gopal Bandopadhya

11)8 Muslim Lives: Raj Mohan Gandhi (grandson of your beloved)

12)The Emergence of Pakistan: Ch. Muhammad Ali

13)Pathway to Pakistan: Ch. Khaliquzzaman

14)Pakistan or Partition of India: BR Ambedkar

15)Jinnah: Speeches and statements : SM Burke

16)Jinnah Speeches and Statements: Jamil ul din

PS For the last time, Indians should learn the difference between :

1) State and Nation

2) Secularism and Multiculturalism

Mr Jinnah needs no approval for his secularism(admitted by Indians themselves though), his spirit of fairness and justice (though admitted even by Gandhi), his honesty and integrity (admitted by all his opponents), his commitment to Hindu Muslim Unity from 1906-1937, and his eventual struggle for justice and fair play for the Muslims and South Asia. These are historical facts.

Only people devoid of proper historical knowledge,

and critical understanding of political science definitions of nations and states, will say that he was not. He was all of the above.

My dear spineless Shammi

You say,``My sympathy for you stems from your dispassionate writing.

``

The greatest lie ever spoken. For the myopic people like you, here is a para that he had written. And dont come back to tell people that it was written in response to Indian namecalling. Check the previous posts on that board and you will get your answer. Reading you, I remember a famous comment made during the emergency of 1975,``YOU WERE TOLD TO BEND AND YOU STARTED CRAWLING``.

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=ikhalil_may2601&n=40#reply208

``Ultimatum TO THE INDIANS and GANDHIANS:

I am going to warn you all now, because I have had it with your twisting of words, and your fantastic visions of history which have no grounds in History.

I can assure people like Upman etc, that even with the orientalist Garbage like Freedom at Midnight by Collins, which a) is not banned in Pakistan

b) I have read many times, a strong enough case can be made presenting Gandhi in his true light as a revivalist freak (two words which i heard being spoken about Gandhi not by a Pakistani, but a staunch Indian Nationalist, Secularist Hindu from India).

I warn you that if you people dont stop trying to provoke us by insulting Jinnah by suggesting that Gandhi was better than or a peer of Jinnah, I will denude Mr Gandhi`s true legacy and make it abundantly clear where this naked Brahmiacharya stood on things.

You have been warned! and y`all know I have a resource of books to fall back upon and totally strip your Bapu of his dignity in the annals of History, ... that we let you perpetuate these myths is our generosity.

``

So this article really managed to get the Indians squeak in their moles. Gosh, now that`s a test of truth: its got to ouch!

BTW, once the `jalan` stops please note that the aim of the article was to outline the greatness of the two men in molding of the Congress`s structure, maintaining its universal appeal. Now it is true that things did turn around when Gandhi came, he had a different way of approaching things. That was a by-product of the facts. If you cannot accept it, that`s your tradition, I personally expect you to go crying around that the writers attempt was to malign Gandhi`s holiness.

I do agree that once upon a time I used to like him. I liked what he had to offer for co-existence and world peace, until it occurred to me that his plea for humanity had been marinating either on his personal idea of Divine (Hinduism- something common to only the Hindus of India) or on the dream to move the masses. He ought to be given credit for having the ability to influence, and to manipulate, it is a means to an end. I do give him that credit. However everything Gandhi is becomes insignificant and dispensable when I read of Jinnah. And that is plain simple truth. If anyone has a problem with it, they should understand that Gandhi`s ``nice`` ``pious`` and ``hole-iness`` has cost another group dearly. It has cost my people dearly. That cost was a choice whose alternative was to live as second class citizens whose children sing, ``bande mataram`` and marry Hindus in attempt to mimic ever hit Indian film.

And that was unacceptable to us. I speak only for Pakistanis. Weather Gandhi comes on the cover of times permanently, even if he is reincarnated as the Himalayas, he will be what he is, his actions and their results go with him. I am very happy that you have a proliferator of nudity, self-depravation, and civil disobedience as the father of the nation. What you think he has achieved I think he stumbled upon. How long can one group stay suppressed? Unluckily for you Indians, the lack of proper leadership yielded to the Gandhi kind, as the only one left to lead you. Sheep! That`s what you are.

Now Rsaxena, you can come to Pakistan and we`ll give you a special dose of BURNOL. Till then, dwell in your lower-than-dirt surrounding.

I tend to agree with Shammi, that Cabinet Mission Plan would have been the best solution to the constitutional and communal Problems of India.

Jinnah when presiding over the All India Students in 1937 Conference had invited Nehru to speak, which Nehru had accepted. Jinnah started off, with a very generous introduction of Nehru. Nehru too responded acknowledging Jinnah`s many services to the nation, but then he descended into a `verbiage` against what he believed were `communalists`. Jinnah had hoped before the meeting, that Nehru and Jinnah would sit down and discuss the potent communal problem, chalking out a plan to achieve the same kind of Hindu-Muslim Unity that he and the elder Nehru had achieved in Lucknow along with Tilak. Alas, Nehru`s aggressive stance, and his arrogance left him no choice.

Historians credit Jinnah with atleast 5 more attempts to come to terms with Nehru on the communal issue. They also credit Jinnah for accepting the cabinet mission plan.

Nehru`s actions, unlike Macgupta would have us believe, motivated by his desire to be rid of Jinnah and the Muslim league, played no small role in taking the issue to the point of no return.

-YLH

ylh: #74,

i am not going to argue with u here. i haven`t got the time right now and nor the inclination as i am neck deep with my work.

but if u have eyes, why don`t u go back to sarwari`s board and see where have u given me quotes, sources and other information. all u have mentioned is that for a country of 1 bn like us, the coverage we get is pathetic....and also u have mentioned that u have no time. other than that nothing.

``You have admitted yourself, that you are a soldier in this cyber war. Here we have ladies and gentlemen a clear admission of guilt. I dont come here for cyber wars. Only you do. Thats why you are so blinded as to ask me for facts when all I have ever done is provide facts.``

AT LEAST I HAVE THE COURAGE TO ADMIT WHO I AM...DO HAVE THE COURAGE TO ADMIT THAT U R A HYPOCRITE?????

and anyway...i always wanted to be a soldier....if not a real soldier, then a cyber soldier would have to do!!!

RSaxsena: #58

``If you`re sick of reading this useless crap over and over again, give me a Hell Yeah.``

HELL YEAH!!!!!

devkant

YLH# various posts

If you are desperate to identify a place for Jinnah, perhaps he will go in the category of TejBahadur Sapru etc. People who were not opposed to independence and who supported independence movement only WHEN they could. They didn`t cross the line if their own vested interests were threatened. And if they did cross once in a while, it was only when their interest were at stake.



Jinnah`s ultimate goal in life was to become ``governor general``. It didn`t matter to him if it was Hindustan, Pakistan, moth-eaten Pakistan or Timbuktu. He knew that he was dying. So engrossed was he with the pursuit of his life mission that he didn`t plan for the future of his Pakistan. He didn`t create (and didn`t allow) any second rung of leadership. He showed his dictatorship traits when he called supporters of Bengali traitors. Don`t advertise his love of constitutional methods for not taking part in ``satyagraha``. If that was the case, he should have called for a petition to British rather than calling for direct action. And if he really believed in his own call for direct action, he should have led from front, rather than sitting in his palatial houses. But no, he was more interested in making sure that he becomes governor general.

Jinnah is not even near to Tilak, Gokhale and Gandhi.

The very best thing to happen to Muslims in the subcontinent was the creation of Pakistan. It is Pakistan which is the only repository of what was Islam in the subcontinent. Muslims in India, while ethnic Indians, in secular India, they are refered to as a minority, that is, their religion is their ethnicity or nationality.

Altaf Husain says that today the population of India would include a larger number of Muslims, if Pakistan had not been created. Yes it would, but they would still be a despised minority. A fifth coloum for a alien civilization of invaders.

YLH

Congratulations on a very well written and unbiased piece.

It is said that history is written by the victors. I can`t speak for Pakistan, but it is certainly true of India. History was written by the Congress wallahs, with the assistance of the socialists. Now, it is the rightwingers who are revising history, and the Congress/Comrades are yelling bloody murder. Who knows, history may be revised once again, and India will have the maturity to look at Jinnah in the face, warts and all, and come to a truer more unbiased opinion about him.

The only issue I have is with your assertion that the moderates would have won their freedom much sooner had they been the ones in charge. First of all, Hindsight is 20/20 and secondly it was the radicals who actually converted the freedom movement into a mass movement. Amit (Post# 4) Ofcourse, the question of the effectiveness of the mass movement is open to debate. Its my opinion that had the moderates retained power, we may have won our freedom later, but it would have been a qualitatively better freedom ie the politics of mass agitation would not have infected the Indian political scenario to the extent it actually did.

Amit (Post #4) also makes a valid point about Gandhi`s intentions regarding his alliance with the Khilafat movement. His intentions were probably noble, but then again, the road to hell are oaved with good intentions.

On a lighter vein, when the Indians treat every word/action of Gandhi as part of the Holy Grail, its less to do with their being ardent Gandhians, and more to do with the fact that he is an Indian symbol, just like the Ambassador car. I learnt this the hard way when i told a dirty joke regarding Gandhi and Nehru at a mixed gathering of Indians and Pakistanis, and the Indians gave me hell for insulting our ``great leaders``. On subsequent recitations, I substituted Nehru for Jinnah. The Pakistanis were happy that I being Indian was insulting Jinnah and the Indians were happy that I was insulting Jinnah more than Gandhi.

The point is all leaders, past and present, are human. The best way to humanize them is to caricaturize them. Helps keep them in perspective

Cheers

Stuka

Dost mittar,

`My impression was that Tilak was the founder of the Hindu revivalist movement-didn`t he revive

the banner of Shivaji and the Ganesh Chaturthi parades to galvanise the hindus`

Yes Tilak was a Hindu revivalist, but he did not exploit the Congress forum for his revivalism. On the Congress forum he was a secular leader.

`Did he have any role in the shudhi movement? Didn`t Veer Savarkar and Dr. Headgwaar (founder of the RSS) consider Tilak their mentor?`

As far as the Shudhi movement, I am not sure of the fact that he did or didnt. Veer Savarkar might say that Tilak was his leader but the political solutions, and final desires were considerably different. One major difference, that as a compromise, just like Jinnah (who was also personally opposed to seperate electorates) Tilak accepted Seperate electorates to preserve Muslim culture, and allay Muslim fears. Gandhi is looked upon as a mentor and a leader by people like Macgupta, who are actually in reality teaching the doctrine of Hinduvta, would you consider Gandhi an extremist Hinduvtist? Similarly, certain people on this board look upon Gandhi as a `secularist` even though Gandhi made it clear many times that `religion` was his inspiration and his focus and hence there could be no secular struggle or secular education. I can understand, why Tilak being a devout Hindu could be mixed up for a Hinduvtist, and Gandhi being a multiculturalist be mixed up with a secularist.

`What were Jinnah`s views about Tilak`s bend towards Hindu revivalism? Will appreciate if you could throw some light on these questions. And

finally, how could you write an article about Tilak without quoting his most famous words,``Freedom is my birthright and I shall have

it`` (Swaraj mera janam-siddh adhikaar hai).`

To the best of my knowledge Jinnah had great regard for Tilak as a National leader, and he continued to take the lead from him. Especially, we know of Jinnah`s hostile reaction to Tilak`s humiliation at the hands of Lord Wellingdon.

You are absolutely right... I should have mentioned Tilak`s most favorite quote.

I often argue with Hindu Indians who say Muslim Indians are ``Muslims first, Indians second`` that it is a worthless debate since the order of love is unimportant, the important thing is to love. Now ylh is arguing that Gandhi was ``Hindu first, Indian second`` as if that is a crime.

Secularism, Mr YLH, deals with how the state, through state officials, deals with its citizens. It has nothing to do with the ordering of an individual citizens loyalty to country and faith. This is the most pointless and negative energy discussion that pervades Indo-Pak discussions all the time.

Some Pakistanis insist on loyalty to Islam before a loyalty to their country and some Indians insist on a loyalty to their country before their religion. Both are wrong. It is ultimately an individuals birth right to define his loyalty in any order, or further, to refuse to impose any sequencing on the loyalty and just be loyal to both.

When religion and state are in conflict, you get a tricky situation but that was irrelevant in the Gandhi-Jinnah debate since both expected a secular state with the same issues of conflict between Sharia and state law (Hindu and Christian law really dont exist in any significant way).

Yasser:

What is the intent behind .....? The Same question that I had asked earlier. I heard different viewpoints but I am not going to consider them at the moment. I want to hear from ``YOU`` as you spend time in writing such pieces. So, please clarify.

S h`U`k R `U`N

ALBERT EINSTEIN ON GANDHIAN METHOD OF NON-VIOLENCE

``http://www.san.beck.org/WP22-Einstein.html``

Einstein worked with the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists to educate people about the dangers of atomic war and the necessity of effective world government. By 1949 the Soviet Union had atomic weapons, and the United States had begun working on the hydrogen bomb. Einstein`s prophecy that the cold war would threaten democratic principles in the United States came to pass with the operations of the House un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). He recommended that intellectuals use Gandhi`s method of non-cooperation by refusing to testify. Einstein believed that Gandhi held the most enlightened political views and that his method of non-violent revolution is the only way of bringing peace to the world on a supranational basis. With this method the small countries together could become a decisive factor in the world. Nevertheless he felt that a responsible statesman would not use Gandhi`s methods unilaterally until there had been a period of transition .

In the last week of his life Einstein collaborated with Bertrand Russell on a manifesto concluding with a resolution to be presented to a world convention of scientists which read:

In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purposes cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.

SOME OF THE FAMOUS QUOTES OF/ON GANDHI

Gandhi continues what the Buddha began.

In the Buddha the spirit of love set itself the task of creating different spiritual conditions in the world; in Gandhi it undertakes to transform all worldly conditions.``

Albert Schweitzer

``Nonviolence is the law of our species

as violence is the law of the brute.

The spirit lies dormant in the brute,

and he knows no law but that of physical might.

The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law -

to the strength of the spirit.``

Mahatma Gandhi

``If man will only realize

that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust,

no man`s tyranny will enslave him.``

Mahatma Gandhi

``There can be no inward peace without true knowledge.``

Mahatma Gandhi

``Science of war leads one to dictatorship pure and simple.

Science of nonviolence can alone lead one to pure democracy.``

Mahatma Gandhi

``For self-defense, I would restore the spiritual culture.

The best and most lasting self-defense is self-purification.``

Mahatma Gandhi

Reply #: 53

Amit

``

I believe that in their hearts, both hindus and muslims know that they can peacefully coexist. Otherwise, we would have seen communal holocausts for the past 1000 years.

``

-- Amit, don`t know if you are stupid or just plain dumb to make the above remark. Granted, there is no point in brining up the past, but come on, have you not heard about the horrendous holocausts that were perpetrated on the hindus ?

Do you know why the Hindu Kush mountains are called so ? Do you know the amount of death and destruction that was done in the name of islam ?

Please don`t deny histroy to appease a particular sect of people. Real friendship comes from accepting ones fault and then starting anew. Perhaps this is why japan apologized to Korea for the war atrocities by Japenese soldiers on the Korean civilians. This is why its illeagal in Germany to claim that the Jewish holocaust did not happen.

So please, please do not make sure naive statements.