V. S. Naipaul

Ref Romair #99

[Of course. There is no doubt about that. He was obviously only pushing the interests of his own extended community. In the initial part of his career, that community was all of India. Eventually, it became just the Muslim community.....]

And finally, it became Just Jinnah. It was Jinnah for Governor-General, Jinnah the Constitutionalist who would give orders to his servile Prime Minister, Jinnah whom the masses would obey, blah, blah, blah.

As for the Muslim community, we all know how the East Bengalis got the shaft right from the beginning when Urdu was imposed on them and then their province was raped economically by West Pakistan for 24 years. As for the West Pakistanis, we all can see how they got raped and continue to get raped by the Pak Army.

With leaders like Jinnah, the people of Pakistan don`t need enemies. But that didn`t prevent Jinnah from making a few more and long-lasting ones at that.

Ref Romair #95

[Jinnah was a Muslim. He always said he was.....I am not sure whether he had issues with his daughter marrying a Parsi. From what I have read, he did. And considering the fact, that she moved out of his life, and never came to Pakistan, she had issues with him, as well.]

Is there ANYONE who did not have issues with Jinnah? With the exception of the Muslim League toadies?

[As for the creation of Pakistan, I have always felt that Nehru`s refusal of the Federation idea, was a mistake.]

Sardar Patel said it best: it was necessary to cut off the gangrenous limbs. Just what doctors really do to save the life of the patient.

And if you think the spread of madrassahs, drugs and Kalashnikovs isn`t gangrene, I would like to know what your definition of systemic septicemia of the body politic would actually qualify for that term.

[Hence I have no issues with the creation of Pakistan......]

Hey, we don`t either. Take your country and shove it.

[I, now hope, that the Sub-Continent, someday, ends up like the European Union, i.e. a free trading block of semi-united provinces, with a joint currency, but independent govts., with any province having a right to separate or join politically.]

Yeah, it will end up like the EEC which refuses to admit Turkey. Why? Because Turkey is a Muslim country. The only good union I can think of is Nepal, India, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and maybe Myanmar. You guys need to look to the Genghis Khans of Central Asia to provide you leadership... forget that wet dream about leading the nations of Central Asia.

[I think once Kashmir gets some sort of an independence, that may happen......]

I will vote for Kashmiri independence... for Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas. You could keep voting for an independent Kashmir Valley but I don`t think your vote would count any more than it counts in Pakistan.

[Once again, another problem with Nehru`s stamp on it....]

True. Patel would have nipped the problem in the bud. In fact, he even offered Kashmir in return for non-interference in Hyderabad. But Jinnah couldn`t see straight. If Patel had been PM instead of Nehru, you guys would have been driven out of Muzaffarabad.

dost-mittar #98: ``Here I would just limit myself to saying that Jinnah was no messiah speaking on behalf of the downtrodden of India but of his particular community.``

Of course. There is no doubt about that. He was obviously only pushing the interests of his own extended community. In the initial part of his career, that community was all of India. Eventually, it became just the Muslim community.....

Romair:
We have moved far from Naipaul to Jinnah to BJP. We have discussed that topic before and will probably do it again on another occasion. Here I would just limit myself to saying that Jinnah was no messiah speaking on behalf of the downtrodden of India but of his particular community.

Romair #92
You blame Nehru for not accepting federation as defined in the Cabinet Mission Plan and hence forcing the Partition of India.

On the contrary, the Muslim League and Jinnah made it clear they accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan as only a step closer towards a sovereign Pakistan. Quotes from speeches in the June 5-6 meeting of the Muslim League here, for example:
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2003-daily/29-12-2003/oped/o3.htm

What Jinnah said

``... Let me tell you that Muslim India will not rest content until we have established full, complete and sovereign Pakistan. And I repel with all the emphasis that I can command the arguments and the reasons and the way in which the Mission has mutilated the facts for no other purpose except to please and appease the Congress. (Cries of ‘shame, shame’)``

``In fact the foundation and the basis of Pakistan are there in their own scheme. (Hear, hear.)``

``Six years ago the position of the Musalmans was such that they would have been wiped off. In every walk of life the Musalmans have suffered and are suffering now, I want to say, put an end to this suffering and for us there is no other goal except the establishment of Pakistan. May be, obstacles will be put in our way but nothing is going to make us flinch or falter to any way or budge by a hair’s breadth from doing everything in our power to reach our goal and establish Pakistan.`` Dawn: June 06, 1946

The June 6 Muslim League resolution `accepting` the Cabinet Mission Plan


``...That notwithstanding the affront offered to the Muslim sentiments by the choice of injudicious words in the preamble of the Statement of the Cabinet Mission, the Muslim League having regard to the grave issues involved, and prompted by its earnest desire for a peaceful solution, if possible, on the Indian constitutional problem, and inasmuch as the basis and the foundation of Pakistan are inherent in the Mission plan, by virtue of the compulsory grouping of the six Muslim Provinces in Section ‘B’ and ‘C’ is willing to cooperate with the constitution-making machinery proposed in the scheme outlined by the Mission in the hope that it will ultimately result in the establishment of complete sovereign Pakistan and in the consummation of the goal of independence for the major nations, Muslims and Hindus and all the other people inhabiting this vast sub-continent.``

``The Muslim League also reserves the right to modify and revise the policy and attitude set forth in this resolution at any time during the progress of deliberations of the constitution-making body or the Constituent Assembly or thereafter, if the course of the events so require, bearing in mind the fundamental principles and ideals herein before adumbrated to which the Muslim League is irrevocably committed.``

(end quotes)


The Cabinet Mission proposal was essentially a proposal for a man A to live with another two men B and C in the same house, while handing B and C each a huge meat knife, saying `B and C, whenever you feel like it, please kill me(A) and cut this house to pieces.`.

The proposal was aimed at reducing none of MLeague and Jinnah`s options for Pakistan yet forcing Indians of all shades into eternal appeasement of one party, the Muslim League under eternal threat of the new nation`s dismemberment.

Nehru would have been crazy to accept such an arrangement. If Nehru was the one who ultimately rejected such a untenable arrangement, long live Nehru!

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

fuzair #94: I would partially agree.

I think the true defintion of a cultural Muslim is someone like Tariq Ali, who declares himself to be culturally a Muslim, but religiously an athiest. He is not a Muslim. According to his own statements, he is an athiest. However, he spends a great deal of time, writing about Islam, its history, its current affairs. And a great deal of time defending many Muslim causes.

Jinnah was a Muslim. He always said he was. He could have easily said he wasn`t, like Tariq Ali. However, like most of us, he did not practice it to the book. In that sense, we are all like that. I am not sure whether he had issues with his daughter marrying a Parsi. From what I have read, he did. And considering the fact, that she moved out of his life, and never came to Pakistan, she had issues with him, as well.

As for the creation of Pakistan, I have always felt that Nehru`s refusal of the Federation idea, was a mistake. The British and Gandhi did not, ``call`` Jinnah`s bluff. They agreed. It was Nehru who disagreed. I don`t think he was, calling`` a bluff. I think he was sure that Pakistan was not a viable entity. He thought it was quickly collapse, so he felt no need to agree to any kind of federation.

Hence there was no option left, from any side, other than Pakistan`s creation. Pakistan, however, did not collapse. In fact, it prospered (by South Asian standards) and even surpassed a much more developed India in Human Development standards.

I think an independent Sub-Continent should have started out like Canada, with the Muslims like the Quebecans, i.e. part of a federation willingly, but with enough clout to separate if they saw BJP type parties rising. Since the Hindus were the majority, I have always felt it was their responsibilty to ensure such a federation. They didn`t do it. Hence I have no issues with the creation of Pakistan......

I, now hope, that the Sub-Continent, someday, ends up like the European Union, i.e. a free trading block of semi-united provinces, with a joint currency, but independent govts., with any province having a right to separate or join politically. I think once Kashmir gets some sort of an independence, that may happen......Once again, another problem with Nehru`s stamp on it....

Romair,

Jinnah and BenGurion were culturally Muslim and Jewish, respectively. They did not view their primary identity as being determined solely by their ostensible faith. Jinnah`s view of his faith was akin to that of an Edwardian Englishman: of course he is Anglican, may go to Church on certain occasions (not that there is any evidence of Jinnah going to a masjid more than once a decade or so) and would get very upset if his daughter was to marry a Roman Catholic or a Jew. However, no good Edwardian Englishman lived his life by the ``Book.`` He was not concerned with ensuring that his life was lived according to some retrogressive interpretation of what it meant to be a `good` Christian.

Jinnah`s view was that, to some extent, Muslim was an ethnicity not a professed faith. Like all ethnicities, its boundaries and exact definitions are pretty vague but we know it when we see it. He was an ethnic nationalist, not a communal one.

In any case, all this discussion is nonsense. Its pretty clear that Jinnah never actually wanted a Pakistan as such. It was a bargaining ploy to get more concessions out of the
British and the Congress. They called his bluff.

Regards.

Apropos all the brain damage due to cultural and religious head bashing and intellectualizing, here`s something close to home:

WEEP FOR AUGUST IS HERE AGAIN

By Rashid Mughal

Just yesterday not very long ago
I was a sanguine and happy son
proud of my noble heritage
rooted in the soil of Hindustan

Today I am sad not happy to say
I love my India – or my Pakistan

Who knows what made my people
in Indus Valley cradle of civilization
home of the brave to embark
on a personal odyssey by dhow
in 1894 across the seven seas
to a land and people unknown
golden links there to bind
with open hearts and open minds

They left behind the lush valleys
their homes and fields in the Punjab
at the behest of Britannia to build
the Iron Snake in the hinterland
of East Africa teeming with its own
heartbeat exotic flora and fauna
the famed man-eaters of Tsavo
in the fabled Dark Continent

I am not a proud Indian my brother
Nor a patriotic nationalistic Pakistani
I am not half Indian half Pakistani
Nor all your ideas of patriotism
I am not any of your opinions of me

On August 14 and on August 15
I am sad when I see the mad rejoicing
patriotism and political sloganeering
professing hate as if the madness
and infighting that created the two nations
by spilling so much blood was something
to celebrate then or now as you mark
a meaninglessly racist republic day

How we forget that ten million lives
were uprooted lost or destroyed
in the mad frenzy and mayhem
in the nationalistic ritual of killing
by the Brahmin and the Mussulman
and followers of Nanak and Christ

Over generations my soul’s melted
in the crucible of time transformed
my niggardly self transcending
into a simple citizen of the world
I don’t wish to be reminded today
of ancient glories or old rivalries
of olden histories or golden days

I propose a toast to our insanity
to weep for August is here again
weep my brother weep for we’ve
a tragedy bigger more gruesome
than the holocaust can’t you see
the star-spangled angel of death

Weep you animal weep you beast

Make this August a wailing wall
for humanity to visit and repent

© 2003 Rashid Mughal

Dost-mittar #89: ``Then how do you explain non-religious Jinnah or Ben Gurion founding Israel or Pakistan, or a Savarkar starting the hindutva movement?``

I don`t know about Ben-Gurion and Savarkar, but Jinnah was not non-religious. He openly declared himself to be a Muslim. He was not a practicing Muslim, by some standards. But then again, neither am I. I pray once a day, as opposed to five times a day. That does not make me non-religious, or a non-Muslim, or a semi-Muslim. As far as I know, the only requirement for being a Muslim in Islam is the first Kalama. Pretty simple. After that you are part of the club. You become 100% Muslim, and remain one, even if you don`t fast for a single day, drink the whole day, and gamble away all your money.

``I did not bookmark that particular surah but, if you insist, I will try to search for it when I get back in Ottawa.``

Yes, I would appreciate that. Then we can finally have a real discussion on Islam. Instead of debating Ulemas and Naipauls and what they say about Islam.

``Suffice it to say that, whatever the underlying cause, people were roused on the basis of religion and Panjab and Bengal were partitioned on that basis alone.``

I do not agree. In fact, Punjab did not support Pakistan till the mid-40s. The people who mainly supported Pakistan and created it, were in UP and Bengal. Those in majority Muslim states like NWFP were quite secure, since they were in the majority, and hence did not vocally demand independence. It is only those in minority populations, who felt they need more security. If it was religion alone, then the majority Muslim populations would have been on the forefront.

Even till the last days, Jinnah (and Gandhi and British) were ready to accept a united India under a federation. Nehru vetoed it, and with that veto created Pakistan. If it was purely religion, why in the world would this idea have been floated. I think an initial federation, to test the waters, would have been the best solution. It would have given Muslims security, without resulting in the violence of partition. If total separation was required, it could have occured, later, in a more organized manner.

Nehru`s veto, as well as his insistence on Kashmir joining India, with or without a plebescite are the two decisions that are the basis of all the problems that India and Pakistan are faced with now, in my opinion. Had India followed Gandhi at that crucial stage, instead of Nehru, we would have all been in peace. Gandhi accepted the federation. And he accepted a plebescite in Kashmir, and even advocated it. He was, himself, fed up with Nehru, by that time. Jinnah and the British had accepted the federation and would have accepted a plebescite (or did accept one). Nehru was the maverick, who wanted everything, using diametrically opposing policies in different areas (ironically invading Hyderabad and asking for a plebescite in Junagarh).

In my opinion, Nehru was a great leader for India. But a terrible one for South Asia. Gandhi was (would have been) a great leader for both India and South Asia. Even though, Nehru was the most secular person, amongst the three - Jinnah, Gandhi and Nehru. Gandhi and Jinnah correctly predicted the rise of BJP. Nehru never had the vision to see that, or did not want to see it.

In any society, it is the responsibilty of the majority to ensure the minority feels secure. Not the responsbility of the minority to accept the majority rule, come hell or highwater. All minorities want to live with a majority, if they feel secure (like Muslims in Canada, or French in Canada, for that matter).

I think Indians always see the creation of Pakistan as purely a religious movement (not that there is anything wrong with that. In my opinion, people can demand a state on the basis of anything they want). But it wasn`t. Indians need to try to figure out why every province in India that has had a non-Hindu majority, has tried to successfully or unsuccessfully separate from India (NWFP, Baluchistan, Pakistan Kashmir, Indian Kashmir, Pakistan Punjab, Divided Bengal, Indian Punjab).

Pakistanis, including me, were and are genuinely concerned about a BJP type movement (it is a movement as much as a govt.) taking over India. Their fears have been proven true. I could think about living in a united India under Sonia Gandhi, but never under one with Advani heading it, or one that regularly alternated between the two.

If tomorrow, Muslims in India get so insecure by the BJP, that they want to separate once again, would that be a religious movement, or would that be an economic movement? Would it be the job of the Muslims to remain, ``integrated`` into India, regardless of circumstances. Or would it be the job of the majority to ensure they feel secure?

The answer to these questions will give you the answers to the creation/existence of Pakistan, as well as the answers to why Pakistanis do cling to their local heritage, while simultaneously feeling more comfortable as an independent country........

# 85

Not that they should have a state just because they were Muslims (if this were true they would be demanding one in Canada also).

Yes, they will. It is part of the baggage they carry everywhere.

Regards

Please delete #88 as it is a duplication of #87. Thank you.

Romair#85
````There is more to a religious identity than the holy book.``

Not really. ``

Then how do you explain non-religious Jinnah or Ben Gurion founding Israel or Pakistan, or a Savarkar starting the hindutva movement?

``Could you point me to these references, so I can comment on them.``
I did not bookmark that particular surah but, if you insist, I will try to search for it when I get back in Ottawa.

``Following is my guess: When Islam spread in India, it spread from a position of direct power, under the rule of Muslim kings. While when it spread in Arabia, it spread from a position of weakness. Hence, maybe, Muslims in Arabia, did not want to distinguish themselves, from the powerbrokers by giving themselves unique names. While in India, they deliberately wanted to distinguish themselves as Muslims, so as to get benefits from the ruling Mulsim hierarchy.``
You have just described how imperialism works!

``I have given so many examples pointing to the fact that people in Pakistan have not rejected their heritage``
A small proportion of converts retaining their caste identities does not prove that. Please refer to my post#32 for examples of what is meant by rejecting one`s identity.

`` I don`t think the separate nation idea had anything to do directly with heritage. Nor even with religion. It had specifically to do with economics. ``
I do not want to go over this subject which has been beaten to death on chowk. Suffice it to say that, whatever the underlying cause, people were roused on the basis of religion and Panjab and Bengal were partitioned on that basis alone.

Re: Various posts concerning Religious Tolerance

Regardless of what Any Good Book says, there cannot be religious tolerance because there`s a lack of common ground, even when we all hail from the same subcontinental stock.

Throughout history, religious differences have resulted in hatred, intolerance, and war.

We need not only good, old fashioned common sense but enlightened humour as well in order to analyze the problems of religion, the Hindu and the Muslim together.

It might help if we adopt, among our guidelines for such a discussion, an axiom such as ``Nobody knows everything about anything`` so that we can then listen to what another has to say, instead of being so full of ourselves that we cannot see the wood for the trees.

Can we come out of the thickets of doctrine and dogma and, with the last remaining dregs of human compassion in our soul, agree on the basic similarities among the great religious teachers rather than convert those into differences that divide us against the rest in the never-ending saga of Us versus Them both in the field of cricket and in the arena of nuclear war.

Hindu and Muslim are one, not two different animals or separate creatures. Each is killing his own kind.

It is the same thing in the Israeli-Palestinian issue (who is killing whom?)

Even animals don`t do that -- or is there a dog-eat-dog society?

Has it never occurred to you that a dog is, by far, Man`s best friend!

I am fortunate to have many Hindu friends none of whom thinks, speaks or writes like some of the folks on this forum who simply refuse to understand what ails them as so-called human beings.

However, we were trying to understand what happened to the genius of Naipaul with his incisive knowledge of history and why he went the way of all religion!

Can someone truly enlighten us? Will the real V. S. Naipaul please stand up?

Rashid Mughal

Re: Various posts concerning Religious Tolerance

Regardless of what Any Good Book says, there cannot be religious tolerance because there`s a lack of common ground, even when we all hail from the same subcontinental stock.

Throughout history, religious differences have resulted in hatred, intolerance, and war.

We need not only good, old fashioned common sense but enlightened humour as well in order to analyze the problems of religion, the Hindu and the Muslim together.

It might help if we adopt, among our guidelines for such a discussion, an axiom such as ``Nobody knows everything about anything`` so that we can then listen to what another has to say, instead of being so full of ourselves that we cannot see the wood for the trees.

Can we come out of the thickets of doctrine and dogma and, with the last remaining dregs of human compassion in our soul, agree on the basic similarities among the great religious teachers rather than convert those into differences that divide us against the rest in the never-ending saga of Us versus Them both in the field of cricket and in the arena of nuclear war.

Hindu and Muslim are one, not two different animals or separate creatures. Each is killing his own kind.

It is the same thing in the Israeli-Palestinian issue (who is killing whom?)

Even animals don`t do that -- or is there a dog-eat-dog society?

Has it never occurred to you that a dog is, by far, Man`s best friend!

I am fortunate to have many Hindu friends none of whom thinks, speaks or writes like some of the folks on this forum who simply refuse to understand what ails them as so-called human beings.

However, we were trying to understand what happened to the genius of Naipaul with his incisive knowledge of history and why he went the way of all religion!

Can someone truly enlighten us? Will the real V. S. Naipaul please stand up?

Rashid Mughal

#80 by jang is a crapload of assumptions. He is not reading what I am saying but what he wants to read, and his view appears jaundiced by prejudice.

Instead of looking at what the poem was all about, he chose to condemn the ``who`` whom he thinks he knows only too well. Little does he realize that I never was nor ever will be his opinion of me, just as no matter what I think of him, he would remain entitled to his opinion.

He concedes, of course, that there`s ``some seemingly even-handed stuff about Hindu-Muslim bhais, both being religious zealots, let bygones be bygones, etc.`` in my reasoning -- which, it must be said, is what he should dwell on more so that we can see the good in the bad, rather than dwell on the bad in the good.

When we are in denial, as Indo-Pakistani Hindus and Muslims obviously are, we naturally adopt the cat-versus-dog mentality. Can the Hindu and Muslim not co-exist in peace, love and unity with one another as my cat and dog do?

That`s something to think about when we are done with Naipaul.

Rashid Mughal