Muslim League’s Politics (1937-1947)

Manto/YLH

Congratulation on your approaching wedding !

If the purpose of these series is to improve understanding through dialogue about the events that led to Partition - maybe there needs to be articles on several other areas important at the time, in their OWN context, not in relation to the League ... such as the Congress Movement, the Gandhian/Satyagraha Movement, the RSS movement, The Indian National Army, the Dalit/Harijan movement etc.

Another area is not what the political leaders were saying or doing at the time, but what was the common public’s perception of each of these players within and without their core supporters (and who these were). For example did the core Muslim League following understand and support Jinnah`s secular ideals, what was their understanding of the ``Two Nation Theory`` ?

There also needs to be a clear understanding of nature of the British Colonization of India (and the rest of the Empire) and what it meant for British India/ Great Britain and the World.

P-Mishra...

Nothing in my new positions is in anyway a contradiction to my earlier positions... You on the other hand have stuck to your narrowminded, in the closet fanaticism.


Nasah

The major difference ofcourse is that one was based on a `minority` nationalism, and the other is based on a majority nationalism. The slogan of the Pakistan Christian Congress is also to organize Christians as a solid voting block. I think the organization of the Christian Congress might actually do Pakistan a lot of good... should we compare them to the Hindutvists as well?

Fairness... please be a little fair... have you heard of a guy named Pothan Joseph? He was a syrian christian, secularist, and a staunch Indian Nationalist .... he was also the first editor of the `Dawn` Newspaper, Muslim League`s mouthpiece ... his reason: the Projection of minorities to fight Hindu nationalism.

-YLH

Ref dionysus #203

[What about Tamil, Malayalam and the South Indian Dravidian languages, did they evolve out of Sanskrit too??? If not, does this affect your lil theory at all? Of course not! Since when have the HYPER-DELUSIONAL let a poor little thing like a `fact` get in the way of a good wank-fantasy.]

If you have any clue about South Indian culture and languages, other than the fantasy taught in Pak high schools, you wouldn`t say this.

South Indian languages such as Malayalam, Telugu and Kannda are admixtures of Sanskrit and Tamil. As the culture and religion spread to South India, the languages were heavily influenced by Sanskrit.

If you look at the script in which Telugu and Kannada are written, they resemble Sinhala and Thai for the simple reason that all these languages derived their written form from Pali.

The only language that has the least admixture of Sanskrit is Tamil but even it is not free from Sanskrit words. Common words like `seegram`, ``sramam`, `kashtam` used even in villages by illiterate folks betray the penetration of Sanskrit into interior Tamil Nadu several centuries back.

As to religious observances, the South Indians have historically been builders of massive temples and extremely observant of the Hindu religion.

I am not surprised that you use history selectively. Germany was unified in 1870 by Bismarck and Italy in 1870 by Mazzini but India came together as a single administrative entity under the British in 1858 but you are willing to concede nationhood to Germany and Italy but not to India. Similarly, you are willing to concede Belgium as a single nation though it speaks Flemish and French. the UK as a nation though it speaks English, Welsh and Gaelic but not India.

You are following that fool Jinnah in your arguments. It is Pakistan that has no single unifying language: it speaks Sindhi, Balochi, Seraiki, Punjabi, and Pushtu but you tout Urdu, a language of the 18th century, as the language of Pakistan. Were there no people living in Pakistan before Urdu showed up?

What is the single ethnicity of Pakistan? Is a Punjabi the same as a Sindhi? Would you want to be classified as an Afghan or Baloch?

By your arguments, Pakistan is an even better candidate for dismemberment than India.

By the way, Philip Mason points out in his book that till the Punjab was irrigated in the 1870s, the land was considered a desert and after the irrigation canals were build land was distributed to Muslims in Punjab. Otherwise, there would have been not many Muslim landholders in Punjab and with that goes your claim to be a Punjabi.

WHat can one say about a bird brain who believes that ``nation concept has existed since the beginning of time``? In spite of the fact that the modern nation concept originates from 17th and 18th century Europe?

I guess the nicest thing you can say about someone who combines such an abysmal arrogance and ignorance is to call them a doofus. I have heard much harsher terms to describe such people. Even by the standards of Chowk extremism, our friend doofus/dionysios stands apart in his silliness.

I quess ylh in his earlier avatar as a jinnah-bhakt might also qualify. But whatever else he seems to have moved on to a broader position....

I still remember the pre-partition crummy slogan of the Muslim League: Muslim hai tau Muslim League meiN aa --

now in 2003 there is another (pre-partition) slogan -- Hindu hai to Hindutva meiN jaa --

soooo -- what else is NEW in the land of Buddhiman Bhuddhas/Buddhus...

Ref Mantolives #223

[Communist Party of India, which was many things but not communal, came out in complete support of the Pakistan demand... its reasons were again non-communal]

Excuuuuse me... would one of those reasons be redistribution of land from the feudals to the peasants as promised by Jinnah?

The less said about the Communist Party of India and its role as the handmaiden of Russia and China the better.

Ref Maasanamuthu aka soysauce #207

[I just got back from a trip to india.]

Specifically Tamil Nadu, right? Or is it Dravida Nadu?

[Gandhiji is a subject of derision among the younger crowd. He is outdated.....]

I presume Gandhiji was an object of worship by Father Big Man and The Great Intellectual who used to call him the tool of imperialists.

[He was a fool and a simpleton who would have given india away. Whether I have read him or not is irrelevant.]

That is right. If you were to follow Gandhiji`s advice, you would have demanded a meritocracy in Tamil Nadu as opposed to the caste-based politics of the last 80 years. Of course Gandhi is irrelevant to you. I am sure you paid Rs. 2000 to buy Doctor Artist Leader`s ``Tholkappiyam`` instead of buying Gandhi`s autobiography.

[It`s interesting that you have pointed to gandhian movements that are on the very margins of today`s india struggling to stay ``relevant`` as evidence of Gandhiji`s influence.
You have some unrealistic impressions about what`s going on. I suggest you stay in touch with the old country.]

Yes; right now there is a move afoot to build a temple to Jayalalitha, the current chief minister of Tamil Nadu. Tamils who belong to the Self-Respect Movement who have spent their entire lives fighting the Brahminical domination of India are now putting up a temple to a Brahmin woman, an honor which they have not bestowed on Father Big Man, the Great Intellectual or Doctor Artist Leader.

I wonder if the statue of Jayalalitha would have her sari also carved in granite as part of the atatue. In that case, would it be a particularly thin version so that it can better represent the wet-sari scenes of Tamil movies? Would the temple music be ``Ottakatthai kattikko``, a song that you still refuse to translate for the Chowk readership?

Have you started writing out 108 names for the Goddess JJ? Would they be the names of the characters she has played in various movies or would they be things like `Puratchi Thalaivi`, `Kaaval Deivam`, etc., by which all Self-Respecting Tamils currently address her?

At least, the method of worship would not significantly change; people of all ages would be falling down in prostration in front of her statue just as they do in front of her now.

Ref Doofus #205

[rsridhar #192 ``Who the fukc are you to assume what south indians are going to feel? I am a south indian and i do not feel bad. ``

That`s because you are a well-trained and well-behaved little Dravido-Shudra boy. I congratulate stuka and your Aryan masters for training you well.]

Actually, you are wrong. Sridhar is a Brahmin of Tamil Nadu.

You might want to say those words about Dravido-Shudra boy to Soysauce aka Inji-kari-kuzhambu.

Yours in the interests of verity,

Harimau

W.R.T point 2 ... Jinnah actually rebuked Gandhi`s optimistic claim that Jinnah was trying to form a non-communal minorities front against the Congress... apparently he saw that as an attempt to wean away the Muslim vote from the League by that consummate politician :)

dost mittar,

Thankyou for your wishes on my promotion :) Lakshmi certainly has brought me luck even before she entered my house ...

Coming to the topic at hand .. here are a few things I`d like to bring to your attention ... sorry if this is a repitition:

1) Jinnah was able to get the support of the scheduled castes, because he had been fighting for their rights in the parliament way before he took on the cause of Pakistan. J N Mandal was with Jinnah, with the blessings of B R Ambedkar his leader.. this is also from the letter. I don`t know what part you are referring to though.

2) Please do look over what parties constituted the `day of deliverance` on 22nd December 1939, which forced Gandhi to note rather optimistically something along the lines of Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah is trying to make a front of all minorities.. and that is a positive development because this means that India will have two parties... the agitation was attended by Muslims, Hindus , Sikhs and Christians.

3) M C Rajah, the leader of the scheduled castes, had called Jinnah the savior of all minorities there to defend them against upper caste Hindu domination. This again was way before he tried to break `your ranks` so to speak.

4) The famous `Muslim League Legislators` jalsa consisting of the Muslim League winners in 1946 elections also included smaller regional and communal parties, including One G.Singh from Akali. I will give you the details of this later...


5) I asked you before... when Jinnah was not trying to make Pakistan but rather trying to be the spokesman of Muslims in united India... did he really need to overtly woo the Hindus.. yet he did woo the Non-Muslims..

6) Once 1946 rolled around, and Jinnah saw that something might happen on those lines.. he did woo the Hindus and the Sikhs... if this was only partially successful... is that his fault.. waisay I hope you know `non-muslim` is not exclusive to Hindus and Sikhs.

7) Yes indeed it was one professor Dutta... i don`t know if he was the Physics professor.. but he is on the record to have come out in favor of the Pakistan demand.

8) Jinnah had won over people like Cornelius.. and as Khushwant Singh points out in his book, almost won him over as well. Khushwant Singh smashes the assertion that Jinnah didn`t see any role for non-muslims to pieces in his autobiography... that was something you had claimed.. and you had unfairly accused Mr. Singh of it as well. (Now veeresh will start off in another diatribe against Singh).

9) Your analogy with Palestine is absurd for many other reasons as well other than the one you yourself have pointed out. A whole article can be written about this. But I think it is suffice to say that PLO doesn`t need any jewish alliance to form a government in 2 major provinces of their state... I am not talking of any idealism... the Muslim League did make cross communal alliances .. this was a practical necessity


10) I am not entirely sure of what you might wanna prove one way or the other by repeating the same old same old everytime we go down this topic. I have always admired your understanding of history, but this seems futile. Are we debating Jinnah`s personality? or his politics? or the politics of the League? or whether Pakistan is rooted in a communal demand? There is no express statement of purpose of your debate.

Manto:[Various posts]

First of all, congratulations on your well-deserved promotion. As hindus would say, Lakshmi has brought you luck even before entering your house:-)

Now to the subject matter. Why do we end up at the same unpleasant place? I would readily concede that you have studied this subject more intensively and extensively. In my case, they are more of impressions based on readings done a long time ago, some hazy personal impressions and close personal contacts with ordinary folks who lived through that period, which for them was a horrible time. With this preamble, I would add this wrt what you have said:
The Role of Communists. You are basically correct. I have read very little as to why the communists took their particular stance. For understandable reasons, Indian communists would rather forget about that chapter of which they are not very proud and have never tried to explain their stand, even when challenged and provoked to do so. They certainly couldn`t have used Marx to justify their stance, as he believed in dividing people along class rather than along religious lines. Other than that, I think no hindu or sikh Panjabi communist stayed back in Pakistan. BTW was this Prof. Dutta a Physics professor. I remember reading a physics text by one Prof. G.L.Dutta. If he was the same person, he was an Arya Samaji and I am very surprised that he supported Jinnah.

JNMandal: It is well known that Jinnah sought the support of the scheduled caste hindus. It was generally perceived (correctly in my opinion but I am not going to fight over it) by the Hindus as an attempt to exploit their grievances to break their ranks rather than a genuine attempt to seek Hindu support for his cause. The same about his unsuccessful attempt to seek the support of Master Tara Singh. I did not read Mandal`s complete letter posted at chowk recently but I think he did mention therein how he supported Jinnah at the risk of being viewed a traitor by his community.

In my opinion, if Jinnah wanted the support of Hindus or Sikhs, he would have had to do it at a much earlier stage and would have never accepted a highly suggestive name of the land of the pure for his new country (but then he might not have been able to rally the troops for his cause, either!). In defense of Jinnah, it would have been futile for him to seek the assistance of Hindus or Sikhs during 1946 or 1947. Even as a child, I remember the bitter poison in the air. The level of trust between the two communities was similar to what you see between the jews and the Palestinians today. It would have been like Arafat seeking the support of jews for his cause. Hindus then did not view Jinnah any different from how jews view Arafat today (even though Jinnah never wielded a gun in his life).

Ralph,

Is there a particular reason you have tried to deteriorate make this perfectly good board into a stupid india-pakistan match?

``Pakistan was made for Muslims, not for Islam.``

``Pakistan was made because Islam is so different from Hinduism. Pakistan was born the day first person converted to Islam. So all Muslims living in India are our brother moles there.``

``There was no India. So no partition took place.``

``Thank Allah (not Khuda) partition took place. Look how evil Hindus are mistreating our mole brothers who are, after all, their brothers who shouldn`t get too brotherly with Hindus. If this confuses you, don`t begin thinking. Allah (not that interloper Khuda) knows best why things make sense or why they don`t.``

``Pakistan was made because India began to ignore Urdu - the sweet and melodious Islamic language. All Indian Muslims always took pride in Urdu as their language. Sindhi, Punjabi, Balochi, Pushto are not Muslim languages. See how we are teaching our children that Urdu is their language - which it is - so they don`t start producing literature in their own languages - which are not their languages.``

``Indians are so bad. They don`t encourage a language that was a common heritage of Hindus and Muslims. How very very sad. Thank Allah we have made it our national language so those un Islamic languages can be put in their place. Don`t you know Urdu was the Islamic language. Hindus were also Muslims. Remember, sochana mana hai. You should be very fearful of the wrath of Allah - the most beneficient, the most reasonable, the most.....``

``Pakistan was made for Sindh. So Bangladesh was attached by mistake. Kashmir will be a bonus. We were asking for Hyderabad, and what else not, only to humor ourseves. If we could get a whole country by bluffing, why didn`t we have a right to Hyderabad as a joke?``

``Kashmir should be made independent. So we and our kind-hearted mujahids can swallow it using religious rhetoric and Arab money.``

``Kashmir is Pakistan`s jugular vein. Don`t forget that Pakistani rivers orginate there. We can`t leave our rivers in Kafir hands. Arrest any Kashmiris who raise a voice for an Independent Kashmir inside Pakistan. But don`t forget to talk like parrots about Kashmiri independence when you are in the US or Europe. After all, these Americans and Europeans are our mai baap who will get us the Kashmir candy. But do remember to abuse their ma baap in our newspapers.``

``Bangladeshi`s are our brothers. Are you very sure West Pakistanis thought of them differently before Bangladeshis were forcibly separated (by you know who) from the country to which they are mistakenly attached. Brother Muslim, forget what happened. It never did. If it did we will be sorry when we are in Bangladesh. Now let`s gang up against the Big Bad Enemy who forced your separation from us, the 5000 year-old people and culture of Sindhistan.``

``We kicked their arse for 600 years.``

``Hindus invent history to justify their inherent hatred of Muslims. Muslim rulers were rulers who had nothing to do with us as Muslims. Anyway, Muslims rulers treated Hindus as brothers and equals. Wait...strike out `brother.` That train of thought will cause intolerable stomach problems.``

``India killed a million Kashmiris. Those bomb throwers, who are our brave mujahids - thank Allah (not Khuda) for their brave and noble deeds against Hindu oppression) - are actually Hindus disguised as Muslims. These horrible Hindus! Dear Allah-the most beneficient, the most merciful - send them to hell.``

....What a sorry sorry mess....Jinnah who created Pakistan single handedly would have been proud. But Jinnah never did. It was Nehru.

(Don`t blame Ralph for any untruths in my post. I am not Ralph. I am merely using his account for today.)

PS No library is complete without `Ayesha Jalal`

Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan presents a very interesting view... his observations are primarily supported by the `Chachnama`... ancient Arab chroniclers tell us of the two countries... `al-Sindh` and `Al-hindh`... Al Sindh was roughly the land along the Indus basin, and Al Hindh was the land beyond it. Aitzaz holds that the two partitions, 1947 and 1971 were the reaffirmation of `Al Sindh`s idependence`...

It is an interesting view... but it too has a number of problems with it... but it is certainly better than the `ideology` of the mullahs.

#154 by stuka
#155 by stuka

Thanks for your kind comments. My own collection of books is rather modest but I usually jot down important phrases and sections from books that I read in the library. Since you sound well-read, can you recommend a good book or two?? I would sure like to expand my collection. My favorites are Henry Kissinger`s Diplomacy, Wolpert`s Four-set series (Bhutto, Jinnah, Nehru, Gandhi) and Aitezaz Ahsan`s Indus Saga.

For those who don`t know him that well, Aitezaz Ahsan is one of the leading lawyers of Pakistan. He is considered the second-best lawyer in Lahore (after S.M.Zafar). Moreover, he is a prominent PPP politician and also served as Pakistan`s Interior Minister during Benazir`s first government. I know him personally as well since he is friends with my father.

Aitezaz`s masterpiece Indus Saga is an attempt to answer most of the questions raised about Pakistan`s nationhood and cultural identity. Some excerpts from that book may actually lift the fog even in this discussion.

At the outset, Aitezaz historically traces the existence of two separate civilizations in India: the Indus civilization and the Indic civilization. The former existed in the Indus basin, the latter in the Gangetic basin. All ancient civilizations came to existence in a river basin. When those rivers dried up, those civilizations also ceased to exist

Archeologists who dug up the ruins of Moenjodaro, Taxila, Harrappa and Wah compared the artefacts and architecture with that of Gangetic sites. There was a marked difference in sanitation, forms of sculpture, deities, symbolic language, etc. In short, it is now an established fact of archeology, that Indus civilization was neither an offshoot nor a cousin of the Indic civilization.

If you chart the historical course of Indus river (using inaccurate maps, unfortunately), you will find that at some point or the other, the Indus basin traversed through Kashmir, NWFP, Punjab, Sindh, part of Baluchistan on the Pakistani side. On the Indian side, all of Punjab, Haryana, UP and Rajhasthan were part of the Indus basin.

At some point, the Indus river began to shift course westward in north and eastwards in the South. The width of the river also shrank. The basin became smaller. The land gew less fertile especially in the south. Agricultural output of Indus basin began to diminish. From an agricultural civilization, the Indus civilization transformed into a trading and warrior civilization. The warrior qualities (or tendencies, if you may) of Indus civilization set it apart from the Indic civilization.

Indus civilization experienced continuous wars and power struggles than Indic civilization. Warrior-kings emerged for the first time in Indus civilization. Moreover, religious leaders were much more powerful in Indus civilization than the Indic civilization.

Once you grasp the meaning of this, there can be no doubts about the distinct cultural, historical and political heritage of Pakistanis. Modern-day India is just a continuation of the ancient Gangetic/Indic civilization. And Pakistan is just a continuation of the ancient Indus civilization.

Technically, both India and Pakistan are not nations, but civilizations. Nations have a common language, ethnicity, beliefs and history.

India and Pakistan have a shared history of only 500 years (Mughal, British periods)... and a distinct history of 4,500 years! The only common language of India and Pakistan is Urdu, which was actually formed as a combination of Sanskrit, Persian, Turkish, and Arabic. Hindi on the other hand is a Brahmannical language, and is certainly not spoken by all Hindus.

Even within these civilizations there are sub-civilizations or groups that have their own languages, customs and history. This is as much true of India as of Pakistan.

My conclusion: Both modern-day India and Pakistan are recent, man-made entities. Historically these two states existed as two civilizations, but there was never a concept of nations or political unity in India and Pakistan.

It is only outsiders who saw us as one people.