Muslim League’s Politics (1937-1947)

...........sorry for the interruption, but after reading through all this crap i still don`t see the point in discussing the reasons behind partition .......... first of all, as someone else pointed out, i don`t know why they call it ``partition`` to start with........... because, as far as i know, india never was a nation state - it always consisted of a bunch of principalities run by despotic rajas and maharajas kept in line by the even more despotic muslim emperor in delhi ..............sure we can go back to the maurya empire - but even then it was an ``empire`` and not a nation by any stretch of imagination ............even today i don`t see anything a sideways head wagger from hanumanland has in common with a babbling babu from bihar ............. trust me, i know plenty of these guys, and i find it incredible that these fools actually think they are part of the same nation - it is truly amazing! ............. the pakis, inspite of their differences, seem to be more of a nation than these clowns ........four semi-literate neem-pagal pakis from the four provinces of pakistan can carry on a conversation in urdu, whereas these guys, from the cursed side of the border, have to either resort to english, or simply stare at each other while they pick lice ................ but it is still amazing how, in fifty years, the horrible hindoos have managed to form the idea of a nation based on a second class (non-revealed) religion with a veneer of secularism and democracy ............. on the other hand, we, armed with god`s original and authentic work in arabic, are still arguing over how to wash our posterior and the LFO ........

.............. sorry, ylh............ carry on, you are doing a fine job ..........

Stuka:

I think the source is in Lt. Gen. Sir Francis Tuker`s autobiography, ``While Memory Serves.`` He was the last British GOC Eastern Command. Here is a link to a chapter of his book, http://sourcebook.fsc.edu/history/tuker.html (althugh its not the chapter where he proposes his ``solution``). Tuker was one of the last of the Pukka Saabs of the Empire (contrasted to the slime that was Mountbatten--although he did carry out his brief well) and one of those who felt that whatever good the British might have done in India was negated by the manner in which they left.

BTW, as events were to prove, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh were not stable democracies and they in no way negated the main thesis of ``No middle class, no democracy.`` Perhaps now one can argue that with a little bit of luck, even countries with no real middle class can muddle through in the democracy sweepstakes. Perhaps, in the case of India, even though the middle class is proportionally quite small, it is very large in absolute terms and can provide a large enough pool.

Sarwar # 82

Zakaria`s point of view is on spot. I feel the same way if you read my posts down the line.

We should not be defensive to listening to an objective diagnosis. It helps in coming to terms with ourselves better. And then it is much easier to find the cure.

There is no eternal truth or eternal lie. Time moves on and realities and perceptions change. We all see the confused discomfort that Pakistan finds itself now. Sticking jealously to the conventional point of view - an outcome of a different time and a different environment is counter productive.

The name of the game is to be flexible enough to revise, change, adapt, adjust and move along with the times. Forget living in the past - only learn from it.

Urstruly #85,

Urstruly, I am afraid that despite your impassioned plea, Hindus have lost the last
shred of humanity and are now openly advocating killing Muslims as and when they
see fit. In fact, the various cow-urine drinkers are contemplating using Muslim blood
instead - it being so much cheaper. I am truly sorry to tell you that your valiant
efforts to re-humanize them through chowk posts have been in vain.

Condolences, my friend.

Urstruly #85

Yawn. If Hindus and Muslims cannot live together maybe you should invite 100 million plus of your brethen to come to Pakistan.

stuka, sigalph235:
Without taking anything away from the Bangladeshi democracy, I believe that for it to take true hold, Bangladeshi political leaders (i.e. the two `sautens`) have to learn to accept the verdict of the people. For several years now, whichever party loses elections has boycotted the parliament and resorted to hartals to try to bring the govt. to a halt. This has to end.

HisExcellency #81: Wolpert seems to have a great like for Gandhi. Almost to the level of considering him a saint. He seems to have a great amount of respect for Jinnah, and a great admiration of his skills - calling him the best lawyer in the British Empire. And a subtle (and in many cases not so subtle) dislike for Nehru. I have gone through his Gandhi and Jinnah book, and am going through his Nehru book.

He seems to go out of his way to show that Gandhi, himself, had given up on Nehru by the time partition roled around. Gandhi’s, “no one listens to me” quote, in this regard, is quite interesting. Nehru apparently wanted to start a militant freedom movement, and Gandhi seems to have his hands full trying to stop Nehru from doing that. And he mentions that Gandhi and Jinnah actually had quite a bit of respect for each other (which isn’t how their relationship is shown by some other historians/movie makers).

My views tend to map Wolpert. Perhaps because I primarily use him as the impartial third party source to the history of that time. I think had the reins of Congress been in the hands of Gandhi and not Nehru, during the key pre-partition days, South Asia would have been a completely different place. Either a joint loose federation of India and Pakistan would have occurred, with combined defence and currency. Or even if a separation would have occurred, Gandhi would have solved the Kashmir issue on a plebescite (his quotes on this are very straightforward and clear). He actually wanted to solve the problem, and Nehru would not let him.

I read somewhere that Jinnah actually bought land for vacations in India, and was planning to use it after the partition. So his views of post-partition did not include a violent relationship that eventually developed over Kashmir. On the whole, I would have to say that Gandhi was good for India and for South Asia (including Pakistan). Jinnah was good for Pakistan, and indifferent for South Asia (after the partition, since Pakistan was not in the driver’s seat). Nehru was good for India, at least at the social level, if not at the economic level. But he was terrible for South Asia, as a whole.

I don’t know why Gandhi didn’t assert himself more during the time of partition, over Nehru, politically, since every Indian (including Nehru) called him Bapu.

HE:

``But large rural populations, low literacy levels and low GDP per capita have invariably been inconducive to stable democracy. ``

How do you explain India, Bangladesh, South Africa, Sri Lanka etc?

His Excellency

``Most of the Hindu complaints against Muslim rulers emanate from Aurangzeb`s era. Incidentally, he fought against his own brother Dara Shikoh for the same religio-political reason. ``

True. History could have been different if Dara Shikoh won. What compounded Hindu grievences was that Muslims glorified Aurangzeb more so than Akbar.

Sigalph:

``If you are referring to Muslim majority countries, the list includes two more: Mali and Bangladesh. Still, 3 out of 55 is a very pathetic score which should trigger some serious and brutal self-criticism of Islamic ethos as they know it. ``

Funny thing was that a lot of people were convinced that Democracy iwas dead in Bangladesh, especially during Ershad`s time. Rremarkable how Bangladesh came around.

#77 by Inquirer

++
1. Muslim politicians wanted restoration of Mughal rule after thet departure of the British
++

Jinnah belonged to a middle class Khoja family, not a Syed, Mughal or landed family like Sikandar Hayat, Sir Hidayatullah, Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan or the Nawabs who founded Muslim League in 1905. Since AIML was primarily a one-man show, Jinnah`s ideology became the ideology of AIML.

In fact, for most of his political career MAJ opposed feudals and only allied with them in 1937 as a political strategy. By 1941, he had already sidelined feudals within the AIML.

Therefore, your assertion is not true. The AIML wanted a progressive, democratic state-- not a monarchy. If the AIML wanted a monarchy, it would have supported the Khilafat Movement (it did not!).

++
2. Hindus were not willing to be enslaved by the modern day moghuls again.
++

This is true to quite an extent. Because of their disunity, divisive caste system and inexperience in modern warfare, the Hindu rajas were no match for invading Central Asian and Arab forces. Once in power, these Muslim rulers largely marginalized the Hindu majority.

Perhaps the only Muslim ruler who understood the importance of sharing power with Hindus was Akbar. After fighting the Rajputs for some time, Akbar made peace with the Raja of Rajhasthan (Mansingh) and appointed him his Prime Minister. Moreover, he married Mansingh`s daughter to cement the alliance. But later Mughals especially Aurangzeb believed in the fundamentalist ideal of mixing religion with politics.

Most of the Hindu complaints against Muslim rulers emanate from Aurangzeb`s era. Incidentally, he fought against his own brother Dara Shikoh for the same religio-political reason.

Having suffered under Mughal rule, it was therefore understandable for the Hindu population to mistrust Muslims.

However, mistrust does not always lead to partition. In democratic societies, the process of debate, political alliances and power-sharing erodes mistrust gradually. Through a process of give-and-take and appeasement, the majority community can always accomodate the minority community.

What complicated the communal problem in India was lack of democracy. The British ruled India like an occupying power with little disregard for political, economic and human rights. Indian district magistrates and Police officials enjoyed extensive powers, that their counterparts back in the UK could never imagine. While British judicial system and Police largely upheld civil liberties back in UK, in India (and other colonies) the entire system treated the local population with brute force only. e.g. General Dyer`s genocide of Sikh and Muslim civilians in Jallianwala Bagh; chopping the fingers of cotton yarn spinners; etc.

To destroy the local industry and stay the economic top-dog, the British imposed stupendous taxes on Indian goods. Goods produced in one part of India had to pay a series of local taxes, octroi and duties to reach another part of India. In fact, certain items (such as textiles) were so heavily taxed, that it was cheaper to import these from Manchester to Karachi, than to ship them from Bombay to Karachi.

Moreover, the British Viceroys and Governors enjoyed vast discretionary powers. Power was concentrated in the hands of government officials. All economic, cultural, foreign and education policies were draftd by unelected officials who were answerable to Viceroy, but not to the local political forces. The British used their discretionary powers to create a system of patronage. Those who danced to their tune got lands, honorary titles and lucrative trading permits.

This divide-and-rule policy coupled with lack of democracy... created a situation in which Muslims and Hindus began to blame each other for their woes. Since there was mistrust in the air already, British policy of patronizing one party at the cost of other... polarized society. There were complaints and fears on both sides. But there was no dialogue, no way to clear the mistrust.

IMHO, the situation demanded large heartedness from both sides, but especially the Congress since it was the larger party. Unfortunately, Nehru had many qualities, but large-heartedness was not one of them.

#84 by sigalph235

Most Muslim majority countries were European colonies 50-80 years ago. Although literacy rates have improved considerably since independence, they are still low compared with most Western democracies.

In a landmark article written in 1959, the sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset demonstrated that there was an extremely high degree of empirical correlation between stable democracy, economic development, urbanization and education. This article was titled Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy and appeared in ``American Political Science Review Vol. 53``. Another paper written by Deane E. Neubauer for ``American Political Science Review Vol. 61``
explored this topic in detail. It was titled Some Conditions of Democracy.

Both papers argue that an urban, educated middle-class population are necessary for stable democracy. A causal relationship has never been established. But large rural populations, low literacy levels and low GDP per capita have invariably been inconducive to stable democracy.

#85, urstruly: It is quite possible that there were some stupid and rabid Hindus who thought that winning electoral seats gave them right to ride rough shod over Muslims. That must have contributed to the aggravation of conditions leading to inevitability of partition of India. You have to remember that democracy was a foreign concept to most of the Hindus in 1937.
But in 1947 there was a qualitative change in India. During last fifty years the population of Muslims has tripled while rest of India has only doubled. If you are a Pakistani then you may have been kept in dark but the power of one Muslim vote is far more than that of one Hindu vote. The political record for Muslims speaks for itself. There is no discrimination. Thus your last paragraph shows your ignorance.
In contrast, in Pakistan the Hindu population has been driven down from 15 % to 2 %. No Hindu can vote against a Muslim candidate. Until Musharraf came the constituencies were kept separate to keep the Hindus down. That may have not changed any yet. While there may be radical Hindus in India who discriminate against Muslims they do so illegally and a redress is available to any Muslim. In Pakistan a Hindu is OFFICIALLY discriminated against and brutally kept down by raising the spectre of Muslim hoodlums.

It is true that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan advised Muslims to stay away from Congress, but I do not agree with Yaser that he did so because he was comparing Muslims with Hindus. On the other hand Sir Syed advised Muslims to stay away from politics because after 1857 they were made the underdogs. They suffered the British wrath in the post 1857 years in the form of massacres and mass confiscation of property and businesses. Unless yasser has some evidence that suggets otherwise, I will consider it his personal opinion and not a historical fact.

As a matter of fact Muslim League remained a non-entity even long after the Khilafat Movement (1920s). Hindus and Muslims also participitated equally in Gandhis Sovrage (self-rule) movement during that time. Quadi-e-Azam, Allama Iqbal, Ali Brethren, Hasrat Mohani and several others were staunch Cogressites and proponents of Hindu Muslim unity.

The hell actually brooke loose when hindu chauvnists started their hate filled shudhi movement i.e. to convert Muslims into Hindus by force, coercion and violence and Sanghtan Movement i.e. to create a militant outfit to impose Hindu political will upon Muslims by force.

What was Hindu Muslim Bhai Bhai in early 20`s turned Hindus and Muslims into blood thirsty hate-mongers by late 20s. The Hindu chauvinists turned bhai Muslim into Maleech (unclean) Muslim. The Maleech Muslim had no choice but to re-assert himself as Pak Muslim (clean), and it wasn`t long when leadres like Ch. Rehmat Ali and Allama Iqbal realized that the only way this maleech Muslim can be Pak again, if he has a place of his own - Paksitan - the land of clean and pure; where they would be safe from hindu chauvinists.

That was the birth of two nations theory. The congress government after 1937 election drove the final nail in the coffin when they imposed the hindu chauvinist agenda on Muslims. Muslims were forced to sing the song of hate ``bande matram`` that they loathed, and they were made to bow before hindu dieties in offices and schools - some secularism eh. That showed Muslims the pictures of days to come when British would have left.

Pakistan was inevitable. Hindu chavenism is that cancer - that gangerene that amputated ``sab se acha hindustan hamara``. Hindu chavinists are those buzzards - those vultures who chased the ``Hindustan ki bulbulaiN`` out into the valley of death. A hundred thousand human beings died; millions displaced. And look what they have turned India into - a mean lean genocidal machine where the blood of a human being if he happens to be a Muslim is cheaper than the cow urine. The pogroms that Hindu governments conduct against kashmiri and gujrati muslims is a case fit for International Court of justice and whole indian leadership deserves to be tried for crimes against humanity. All Hindus who have least bit of humanity left in them should realize that. The fact remains that hindu leadership is only able to show its face in the world community today because they favor western anti-Muslim imperialist agenda. Since the people who are mercilessly killed in India are Muslims, therefore, for west their blood is cheaper than water.

All hindus who have a shred of humanity left in them should realize that the cancer and the gangerene that ate away half of their country is alive, well and thriving. It has turned on the rest of the healthy tissue now. Cancer of hate is always blind; it cannot see what it is eating.

#79 by stuka

Thanks. I couldn`t find much material on the internet. I relied on the following books:

1. The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and Demand for Pakistan by Ayesha Jalal.

She details the pre-1931 pro-Congress anti-feudal politics of Jinnah. Jinnah`s transformation from `ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity` to disillusioned politician in 1929-1931 and then his departure from Indian politics in 1931-34 is also described.

Ayesha also traces Jinnah`s return in 1935 at the behest of Iqbal and Ahmediyya Jamaat, followed by internal squabbles in AIML. A reorganization campaign was launched by MAJ to sideline the feudal/landlord elements in AIML.

2. The Great Divide: Britain-India-Pakistan by H.V. Hodson dwells on the findings of Pirpur Report, Shareef Report and Fazlul Haq`s Report. Unfortunately, I couldn`t find the original reports so had to rely on Hodson`s commentary alone to reach my conclusions.

3. As for the political tug-of-war of between Jinnah and Nehru, you may refer to Stanley Wolpert`s Nehru: India`s Tryst with Destiny and Jinnah of Pakistan. In the latter masterpiece, Wolpert scrutinizes the Sikandar-Jinnah pact.

Here is something interesting about Nehru that Wolpert reveals: Nehru hated his father Motilal Nehru. When Gandhi joined Congress, Nehru practically adopted him as his father. He used to call Gandhi his baapu. Most historians believe that Nehru did this for symbolic reasons. This is incorrect. Actually, Nehru never enjoyed a good relationship with his father. For him, Gandhi was a father both ideologically and psychologically. Since Motilal and Jinnah belonged to the same generation and category of successful, constitutional lawyers. Jinnah reminded Nehru of his own father. Thus Nehru engaged in a cross-generation conflict of egos with Jinnah, just like he did with his own father.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts