Open Letter To Dina Wadia

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

Mohar11

Care to share what you`ve read as source material on Jinnah.... many of your own distinguished countrymen, people like Khushwant Singh, Ajeet Javed, A G Noorani, Kuldip Nayyar, Justice Seervai, Anil Seal, etc don`t agree with your assertions. The book Secular and Nationalist Jinnah not by a liberal Pakistani, but by a female Sikh professor from Jawaharlal Nehru University Dehli. While most of them don`t agree with the idea of Pakistan, they accept that Jinnah was no communalist, atleast not in the sense the word is used now. Nor can he be compared to Advani because of the simple reason that while Jinnah was championing minority`s cause Advani is the champion of the majority`s cause... Jinnah`s role when his community was the Majority is totally different... he became the Protector General of the Hindus and all the Hindu MPs of the Pakistan Constituent assembly while debating the objectives Resolution spoke consistently of Jinnah`s vision of Pakistan that was modern, pluralistic and non-theocratic.

As for opportunistic ... if championing the cause of his community makes Jinnah opportunistic... then what do you call Gandhi`s support for the extremely regressive and backward Khilafat Movement which brought religion into politics and though in the short term got Muslims behind Gandhi, but forever radicalized them in a political way? Remember Jinnah, and even Iqbal stood completely aloof from the mass Khilafat movement. Any political position thus can be described as opportunistic...

I am not asking you to worship Jinnah... but atleast make some sense in condemning him?

-YLH

---

Excerpts from B R Ambedkar`s Book .... it makes really interesting reading for those of you who are interested.... the father of Indian constitution accounts for Jinnah`s conversion to the Muslim cause. He explains that Jinnah was never a communalist but amongst the most forward looking muslims who have always supported the Congress every chance they got. He mentions that a lot of those clamoring for partition were at one time the most ardent advocates and nationalist... he says that ascribing opportunism to them as the Hindu Opinion does ... is WRONG...

http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan/40E2.Pakistan%20or%20the%20Partition%20of%20India%20PART%20IV.htm

Here are a Few excerpts...


Jinnah said: ``As to the most important question, which to my mind is the question of Hindu-Muslim settlement—all I can say to you is that I honestly believe that the Hindus should concede to the Muslims a majority in the Punjab and Bengal and if that is conceded, I think a settlement can be arrived at in a very short time. The next question that arises is one of separate vs. joint electorates. As most of you know, if a majority is conceded in the Punjab and Bengal, I would personally prefer a settlement on the basis of joint electorate. (Applause.) But I also know that there is a large body of Muslims—and I believe a majority of Muslims—who are holding on to separate electorate. My position is that I would rather have a settlement even on the footing of separate electorate, hoping and trusting that when we work our new constitution and when both Hindus and Muslims get rid of distrust, suspicion and fears and when they gel their freedom we would rise to the occasion and probably separate electorate will go sooner than most of us think.


When the Muslim League split-into two over the question of cooperation with the Simon Commission, one section led by Sir Mahommad Shafi favouring co-operation and another section led by Mr. Jinnah supporting the Congress plan of boycott, Mr. Barkat Ali belonged to the Jinnah section of the League. The two wings of the League held their annual sessions in 1928 at two different places. The Shafi wing met in Lahore and the Jinnah wing met in Calcutta. Mr. Barkat Ali, who was the Secretary of the Punjab Muslim League, attended the Calcutta session of the Jinnah wing of the League and moved the resolution relating to the communal settlement. The basis of the settlement was joint electorates. In moving the resolution Mr. Barkat Ali said 106 [f62]:—
`` For the first time in the history of the League there was a change in its angle of vision. We are offering by this change a sincere hand of fellowship to those of our Hindu countrymen who have objected to the principle of separate electorates. ``
Mr. Barkat Ali, who in 1927 was with the Jinnah wing of the League, left the same as not being nationalistic enough and joined the Nationalist Muslim Party of Dr. Ansari. How great a nationalist Mr. Barkat Ali then was can be seen by his trenchant and vehement attack on Sir Muhammad lqbal for his having put forth in his presidential address to the annual session of the All-India Muslim League held at Allahabad in 1930 a scheme 108[f.64] for the division of India which is now taken up by Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali and which goes by the name of Pakistan




Jinnah’s evidence to the Joint Select commitee
EXAMINED BY MAJOR ORMSBY-GORE.
Q. 3806.—You appear on behalf of the Moslem League— that is, on behalf of the only widely extended Mohammedan organisation in India ?—Yes.
Q. 3807.—I was very much struck by the fact that neither in your answers to the questions nor in your opening speech this morning did you make any reference to the special interest of the Mohammedans in India: is that because you did not wish to say anything ?

—No, but because I take it the Southborough Committee have accepted that, and I left it to the members of the Committee to put any questions they wanted to. I took a very prominent part in the settlement of Lucknow. I was representing the Musalmans on that occasion.
Q. 3809.—On behalf of the All-India Moslem League, you ask this Committee to reject the proposal of the Government of India ?—I am authorised to say that—to ask you to reject the proposal of the Government of India with regard to Bengal [i.e., to give the Bengal Muslims more representation than was given them by the Lucknow Pact].
Q. 3810.— You said you spoke from the point of view of India. You speak really as an Indian Nationalist ?—1 do.
Q. 3811.— Holding that view, do you contemplate the early disappearance of separate communal representation of the Mohammedan community ?—I think so.
Q. 3812.—That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you wish to do away in political life with any distinction between Mohammedans and Hindus ?—Yes. Nothing will please me more than when that day comes.
Q. 3813—You do not think it is true to say that the Mohammedans of India have many special political interests not merely in India but outside India, which they are always particularly anxious to press as a distinct Mohammedan community? —There are two things. In India the Mohammedans have very few things really which you can call matters of special interest for them—I mean secular things.
Q. 3814.—I am only referring to them, of course ?—And therefore that is why I really hope and expect that the day is not very far distant when these separate electorates will disappear.
Q. 3815.—It is true, at the same time, that the Mohammedans in India take a special interest in the foreign policy of the Government of India ?—They do ; a very,—No, because what you propose to do is to frame very keen interest and the large majority of them hold very strong sentiments and very strong views.
Q. 3816.—Is that one of the reasons why you, speaking on behalf of the Mohammedan community, are so anxious to get the Government of India more responsible to an electorate ?—No.
Q. 3817.—Do you think it is possible, consistently with remaining in the British Empire, for India to have one foreign policy and for His Majesty, as advised by his Ministers in London, to have another ?—Let me make it clear. It is not a question of foreign policy at all. What the Moselms of India feel is that it is a very difficult position for them. Spiritually, the Sultan or the Khalif is their head.
Q. 3818.—Of one community ?—Of the Sunni sect, but that is the largest; it is in an overwhelming majority all over India. The Khalif is the only rightful custodian of the Holy Places according to our view, and nobody else has a right. What the Moslems feel very keenly is this, that the Holy Places should not be severed from the Ottoman Empire— that they should remain with the Ottoman Empire under the Sultan.
Q. 3819.—I do not want to get away from the Reform Bill on to foreign policy.—1 say it has nothing to do with foreign policy. Your point is whether in India the Muslims will adopt a certain attitude with regard to foreign policy in matters concerning Moslems all over the world.
Q. 3820.—My point is, are they seeking for some control over the Central Government in order to impress their views on foreign policy on the Government of India ?—No.
EXAMINED BY MR. BENNETT
Q. 3853.—...........Would it not be an advantage in the case of an occurrence of that kind [i.e., a communal riot] if the maintenance of law and order were left with the executive side of the Government ?—1 do not think so, if you ask me, but I do not want to go into unpleasant matters, as you say.
Q. 3854.—It is with no desire to bring up old troubles that I ask the question ; I would like to forget them ?—If you ask me, very often these riots are based on some misunderstanding, and it is because the police have taken one side or the other, and that has enraged one side or the other. I know very well that in the Indian States you hardly ever hear of any Hindu-Mohammedan riots, and I do not mind telling the Committee, without mentioning the name, that I happened to ask one of the ruling Princes, `` How do you account for this ? `` and he told me, `` As soon as there is some trouble we have invariably traced it to the police, through the police taking one side or the other, and the only remedy we have found is that as soon as we come to know we move that police officer from that place, and there is an end of it. ``
Q. 3855.—That is useful piece of information, but the fact remains that these riots have been inter-racial, Hindu on the one side and Mohammedan on the other. Would it be an advantage at a time like that the Minister, the representative of one community or the other, should be in charge of the maintenance of law and order ?—Certainly.
Q. 3856.—It would ?—If I thought otherwise I should be casting a reflection on myself. If I was the Minister, I would make bold to say that nothing would weigh with me except justice, and what is right. Q. 3857.—I can understand that you would do more than justice to the other side; but even then, there is what might be called the subjective side. It is not only that there is impartiality, but there is the view which may be entertained by the public, who may harbour some feeling of suspicion ?—With regard to one section or the other, you mean they would feel that an injustice was done to them, or that justice would not be done ?
Q. 3858.—Yes; that is quite apart from the objective part of it ?—My answer is this: That these difficulties are fast disappearing. Even recently, in the whole district of Thana, Bombay, every officer was an Indian officer from top to bottom, and I do not think there was a single Mohammedan—they were all Hindus—and I never heard any complaint Recently that has been so. I quite agree with you that ten years ago there was that feeling what you are now suggesting to me, but it is fast disappearing.
EXAMINED BY LORD ISLINGTON
Q. 3892.—. ...... You said just now about the communal representation, I think in answer to Major Ormsby-Gore, that you hope in a very few years you would be able to extinguish communal representation, which was at present proposed to be established and is established in order that Mahommedans may have their representation with Hindus. You said you desired to see that. How soon do you think that happy state of affairs is likely to be realized ?—1 can only give you certain facts : I cannot say anything more than that: I can give you this which will give you some idea: that in 1913, at the All-India Moslem League sessions at Agra, we put this matter to the lest whether separate electorates should be insisted upon or not by the Mussalmans, and we got a division, and that division is based upon Provinces ; only a certain number of votes represent each Province, and the division came to 40 in favour of doing away with the separate electorate, and 80 odd—1 do not remember the exact number—were for keeping the separate electorate. That was in 1913. Since then I have had many opportunities of discussing this matter with various Mussulman leaders ; and they are changing their angle of vision with regard to this matter. I cannot give you the period, but I think it cannot last very long. Perhaps the next inquiry may hear something about it.
Q. 3893.—You think at the next inquiry the Mahommedans will ask to be absorbed into the whole ?—Yes, I think the next inquiry will probably hear something about it.
Although Mr. Jinnah appeared as a witness on behalf of the Muslim League, he did not allow his membership of the League to come in the way of his loyalty to other political organizations in the country. Besides being a member of the Muslim League, Mr. Jinnah was a member of the Home Rule League and also of the Congress. As he said in his evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, he was a member of all three bodies although he openly disagreed with the Congress, with the Muslim League and that there were some views which the Home Rule League held which he did not share. That he was an independent but a nationalist ,is shown by his relationship with the Khilafatist Musalmans. In 1920 the Musalmans organized the Khilafat Conference. It became so powerful an organization that the Muslim League went under and lived in a state of suspended animation till 1924. During these years no Muslim leader could speak to the Muslim masses from a Muslim platform unless he was a member of the Khilafat Conference. That was the only platform for Muslims to meet Muslims. Even then Mr. Jinnah refused to join the Khilafat Conference. This was no doubt due to the fact that then he was only a statutory Musalman with none of the religious fire of the orthodox which he now says is burning within him. But the real reason why he did not join the Khilafat was because he was opposed to the Indian Musalmans engaging themselves in extra-territorial affairs relating to Muslims outside India.”

---

How can such a man be called an opportunist?
-YLH

Romair...

You continue to accuse others of agendas... I have already made mine very clear... it is inspired by the life of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who fought for justice, equality and fair play.

What do you have against this `agenda`... and why do you continue to deny justice, equality and fairplay to millions of Pakistanis who are non-muslims? Why can`t a non-muslim Pakistani become the president of Pakistan, prime minister of Pakistan... why is he constantly made to feel like a second class citizen? When Jinnah promised him Equality, justice and fair play regardless of religion caste or creed? ... t why is the constitution stopping him? And why do people like you selectively attack those people who are trying to achieve that? What do you have against people fighting for minority rights... why do you keep denouncing them as secular fanatics, when they are only fighting for equal rights.
Being taught in a certain atmosphere , I can imagine that the word `secularism` bites you very hard in the unmentionables... would you rather we not called it secularism?



My agenda is Jinnah`s agenda!!!! It is the agenda of Equality, Justice and Fair play It is the agenda which drove a young barrister into politics... it is the agenda that transformed a young barrister into the advocate of Hindu muslim unity and the champion of self government... it is the same agenda that converted him to the struggle for the betterment of the largest community, and it is the same agenda that led him to create Pakistan? Now in that Pakistan, which he promised repeatedly again and again, throughout the Pakistan Movement and as the governor General of Pakistan, the same agenda has been turned upside down on its feet... Where is the Protector General of the minorities ? Why has his country let the minorities down?


Yes this is my agenda... it is no more jewish inspired than Jinnah`s agenda was in his day.

But what is your agenda... except condemning those demanding the reversal of theocratization as `secular fanatics`?

-YLH

Rozaiba..

Name-calling when Romair can`t come up with a good argument is his old style. As always Chowk staff is conspicious in their absence.

-YLH

Montolives and Romair:

I am amazed at the level of knowledge you have on Quaid-e-Azam. Choti moon aur bari baat, but may I suggest that using this knowledge kindly contribute articles on him in Pakistani and foreign newspapers written in a way so that our youth could relate to him and learn from him.

Romair: since you live in Canada (Toronto?) you must also try your hands with Canadian papers.

Montlives: I don`t know where you are posting from, but your style of referencing your research prolifically will bring lot of conviction amongst our younger folks. also, if you live in a foreign country, I request that you do make an attempt also to write in international papers.

Rozaiba #:

Following is a site which details this detailed Pew Survey in detail. It was a very detailed survey, covering many countries. Please read it in detail. Detail being a word, you need to concentrate on :-)

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796

After reading it, I hope you will be satisified, that your views are in a huge minority in Pakistan, and should thus, stop your yapping, and learn to respect the views of others. And not consider yourself to be the only patriotic Jinnah-loving-democracy-supporting-honest Pakistani in the world:

``Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf ... Pakistanis expressed highly favorable opinions of their president; 86% rate him favorably, and 60% view him very favorably, by far the highest rating of any leader in the survey.``

I quote again, ``by far the highest of any leader in the survey.`` Everyone from anti-establishment Cowasjee, to Ayaz Amir, to Najam Sethi, to Indian women etc. likes the guy. Their only complain being that he could do more. And that he should now let BB and Shahbaz Sharif back. They all agree he is scruplously honest, and has improved the economy, given more rights to women and minorities than any other leader. And apparently the rest of Pakistan agrees.

To quote a guy, who never likes any leader, including the head of his own party (Nawaz Sharif):

``Gen Musharraf has so much going for him. He has his qualities and, as has been noted time and again, he has presided over a remarkably tolerant dispensation.

No military figure, not even a political figure, has taken criticism the way he has, which is a great thing. He`s a smart man but someone who is refusing to rise above his circumstances. And refusing to take the risks which alone can give him true leadership status.``(Ayaz Amir, Dawn)

The only group that dislikes him are the mullahs and the PPP feudals (and you), i.e. the status quo powers (excluding the Army). Even the PPP feudals are more than happy to join him, however their illustrious leader BB, will not let them, until all her corruption is forgiven.

So please stop doubting other people`s integrity and patriotism. It is like a mullah doubting other people`s piety and faith. Its too self-righteous. So either provide me with some surveys and fact-based counter-arguments, or kindly stop your yapping.

P.S To ensure that you don`t think that the Pew Research Center has also been bought out by the faujiz, following is an intro to them:

``The Center is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for our polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes. Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), we are now sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts.`` (http://people-press.org/about/)

Rozaiba: With the hope that you will open your mind, and develop realistic view of the world. And realize that one could support someone, for reasons other than Army, religion, ethincity etc. Maybe peeple just support someone, because they think they are the best option in comparison with the other options.

According to your logic, the survey indicates that, ``everyone in Pakistan loves faujiz,`` in politics. Or maybe they just support a better govt. from a worse one, regardless of where it originated from.

Following is from Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/570208.cms)

``86 percent Pakistanis like Musharraf: Survey

WASHINGTON: At least 86 per cent of Pakistan`s citizens rate President Pervez Musharraf favorably, according to a survey carried out by the Washington-based Pew Research Center.

``Pakistanis expressed highly favorable opinions of their president,`` the director of the poll, Andrew Kohut, was quoted by the Dawn, as saying.

The survey further went on to say that most Europeans have no views about Musharraf and a third or more in each of the nine countries except Pakistan gave no opinion.

Views of Musharraf were more positive than negative in Turkey and were about evenly divided in Britain, the United States, Russia, and Jordan.

Negative opinion of Musharraf was strong in France, Germany and Morocco.

The Pew Research Center is a non-profit and non-governmental organization, which specializes in opinion surveys. Its reports are widely respected in Washington`s academic circles.

Majorities in every country surveyed except the United States viewed President George W. Bush unfavorably. The negative ratings ranged from 57 per cent in Britain to 85 per cent in both France and Germany.

Outside the United States, the support for Bush is the highest in Britain, 39 per cent. Six-in-ten had an unfavorable view of Bush in Russia and 67 per cent felt the same way in Turkey.``

correction #125: ``Even if he storms the Supreme Court like Jinnah`` should read,

``Even if he storms the Supreme Court like NS``

Rozaiba #113: I was expecting a list of questions, from you, that you wanted me to answer. Since you had stated, that I did not answer your questions. You have instead, continued with your childish name-calling.

You contradict yourself in your replies. You are willing to accept the centralization by Jinnah, of political powers, against ``PROCESS ORIENTED INSTITUTIONALIZATION.`` Yet you state that, ``no alternative to PROCESS ORIENTED INSTITUTIONALIZATION.`` It seems to me like your definition of PROCESS ORIENTED INSTITUTIONALIZATION, is just elections. As long as a person is a product of elections, they can do whatever they want, according to your definition. You had earlier stated, ``One who is a popular leader cannot be a dictator.``

Yet you then go on to state, ``you are correct Romair with respect to NS`s storming of Supreme Court.`` How can I be correct with respect to NS, when he was a popular leader. His govt. won an unprecendented, ``ahvy mundat`` in Pakistani politics. He was more popular than Bhutto, in terms of electoral power. Regardless of what he did to centralize power, he could not be a, ``constitutional dictator`` according to your definition. So why shouldn`t he be allowed to play with the Constitution. He was about to pass a Shariah Bill, centralizing authority, that would have given him Constitutional powers, similar to those that Jinnah held. According to your defintion, that should be allowed also, since he is popularly elected, and was only centralizing authority, like Jinnah did.

This is the contradiction in your argument. The contradiction exists because you are following different principles for Jinnah, and different ones for NS. If you open up your mind, you will realize that both were very popularly elected, yet both were Constitutional dictators. Since they wanted very centralized power. The only difference being that Jinnah was an honest and good one, and NS was a corrupt and useless one. One wanted control for the right reasons, and one wanted control for the wrong reasons.

``Anyone who is elected and abides by the electoral process is cool.``

Even if he storms the Supreme Court like Jinnah. Or centralizes power like Jinnah or NS? There is more to the political process than just the electoral process. What if tomorrow the assembly passes a law that Jamali is the Prime Minister for life? Would you support that? Do you support BB being the head of PPP for life? She has, after all, gotten that through an electoral process.

Rozaiba #113: ````Whereas it itches you (and it should) that NS would storm the Supreme Court, you find it a viable acceptable alternative to have the whole country stormed by fauji freaks.``

You are hypothesizing again. This is always an indication to me that you are out of arguments. But I will reply anyways....

Yes, it itches me that Nawaz Sharif stormed the Supreme Court. It also itches me that Jinnah centralized power. It itches me that Ayub Khan took over power. It itches me that Z.A. Bhutto did not allow Mujeeb to be the Prime Minister. It itches me that Bhutto declared Martial Law. It itches me that Zia took over power. It itches me that BB brought in her jiyala judges. And that she is the lifetime Chairperson of one of the two largest parties in power. And it itches me that Musharraf took over power and hasn`t left after three years.

I hope you now get the point. I apply the same principle to everyone. I don`t look at dictatorships, on the basis of people I like, or dislike, or whether they are civilian or military. A dictator is a dictator. And throughout my life I have seen nothing but dictators, in Pakistan. All political parties, (except religious parties) are run by unelected dictators. Hence, I have come to accept the fact that Pakistan will have dictators, until it achieves the pre-requisites of democracy, i..e economic growth, eduacation, lack of feudalism, etc. This stage will not be reached through the basketcase political system we currently have. That will only result in military, feudals or maulvis running the country. History has proven it. So if these are the only historical options we have, then, instead of living in a fairyland (like you do), I have accepted reality.

If election after election, under the current system, were the best way to get rid of feudal politics in Pakistan (I hope we both agree that feudalism is a major problem in Pakistani politics), then feudals themselves would not be the biggest supporters of elections under the current system. They would, obviously not support a system that would eventually get rid of them. They only support elections, under the current system, because they know it keeps them in power.

This does not, however, mean that the military or the maulvis are the answer. They are not.

It just means that one has to change ones criteria. So I use financial integrity, high economic growth, human rights etc. as my criteria for deciding between the dictatorial govts. who will be running us. I could care less if Musharraf was from the Army or not (I fail to understand why you keep bringing this up). He could be a maulvi or a labor leader for all I care. A Hindu, a parsi, a leftist. Or even from the Navy. I am just looking at his govts.` performance, vis-a-vis that of BB and NS and other electable options.

In my opinion, a govt. run by him, is a better option, than one run by BB, NS or maulvis. But not a better option than one run by people like Imran Khan. But the later has on chance in hell in forming a govt. I know since my family runs one or two of his campaigns. If there was even an iota of chance of poeple like him coming to power, I would not support Musharraf. However, I will do anything I can to ensure that we don`t suffer from BB and NS again.

Hopefully, the above will put an end to your broken-record yapping, about what I support and do not support......If you still feel, for some unknown reason, that I just support military rule, come hell or high-water, then I would like to ask you the following questions (hopefully, you will not take five replies to answer):

- Why do I then oppose Zia`s rule?
- What do I have to gain from supporting the Army? Are the paying my salary? Am I getting a pension? Am I in the Army?

Could it be, that I just support Musharraf`s govt., just because I consider it a better option than other possible govts., and that I am happy to see, for once, a progressive honest person at the helm. And that this has nothing to do with him being in the Army. Could it be that, according to a Pew Research people, the guy has an 86% popularity rating amongst Pakistanis.

It could be. If you only open up your mind, and stop relying on pre-conceived views about people.

ahmadzai #117: ``For example, I am saying, and I guess you are endorsing it, that we should forget about Jinnah`s liking or disliking for his daughter because that has no bearing on todays or future events.``

Kind of.

I don`t think we should forget about Jinnah`s liking and disliking for his daughter. I think we should study it objectively, as we should study other aspects of his life. However, we should not be beholden to his dislike or like for his daughter, nor for anything else he disliked or liked. We should not turn him into a prophet or a pir. And we should not run the country, now, based on his ahadith of fifty years ago. There is no way he could have predicted where Pakistan would be fifty years from his death. Did he even imagine, it would be two different countries?

We should consider him a man who did his job, against great odds. A hero. With all the shortcomings that other heroes have. We should study him, and ensure that no one is allowed to claim ownership of him, to extend their own political and social agendas (of secularism of Islamism). Much like people claim ownership of Islam, and use it to push their own agendas.

However, we should realize that he is dead now. And that his siblings and off-springs are normal human beings. Who may (Fatima Jinna) or may not be heroes and heroines. Most of them (Dina Wadia) are just normal human beings, living a life. One cannot consider their statements to be the barometers of what Pakistan should and should not do.

It is very dangerous to give VIP and hero status to individuals, who have done nothing to earn it. Even if they are the children of the country`s founders.

HP
//Jinnah as you said was just another politician who took advantage of the growing sentiments...If a politician is not an opportunist, he/she would never climb the corridors of power and .... How many saints have ever ruled a country? ... For Lots of Muslims and Pakistanis, he will always remain a hero. //

Exactly - That`s all I am saying. Jinnah is just another politician who took advantage of the situation .... and pandered to the general paranoia ... incited mob violence ( direct action day ) ... and played communal politics to perfection to get to power. There was no noble cause ... no ``fighting for underdogs``. There is no point white-washing his policies and second-guessing his motives and his compulsions or whatever.

Of course - Jinnah would be a hero for Pakistanis - just like Advani is a hero to Hindutva-vadis and others who are sick of what they feel is minority appeasement.

But that doesn`t change the basic fact - Both are demagogues of highest order. Both had clear choices - They could either pander to paranoia or they could try to bridge the divide. And they made their choices. And they should be acknowledged for that.

++++

//...the reality is that Pakistan is in existence and Jinnah got that for Muslims..//

Yep - Pakistan is in existence - it should continue to exist. Nobody in India wants it back. Because - you guys have your own belief system - that muslims are separate from everybody else. That is Jinnah`s legacy for you. So you guys have the right to practice your belief system and live it to the fullest glory of islamic civilization.

As logn as you really live and let live.

Harimau writes:
Aren`t you the guy who was willing to let a cum-bucket like Sonia become prime minister of India

The amount of misogyny in this statement is staggering. I really, truly hope you`re not around any little girls where you can do physical, psychological damage to them. Aren`t you the same guy who was sucking up to certain interactors on the Vagina Monologues thread, pretending to be enlightened?
There`s a reason why you aren`t married. Let`s hope it stays that way lest an innocent female should come to harm...

#119 by mohar11

This topic really does not interest me, still you’r saying “The RSS fanatics were at the fringe and had no mass following worth the name. They remained so at least 40 years after independence.” is in accurate.

Savarker was already on the scene and there were strong anti-Muslim currents within the body politics of the central provinces in India in the late 20s and early 30s.

An emerging Muslims middle class had gotten some education in the central provinces. (Central provinces-UP, CP, MP, and Bihar) They needed economic securities. Apparently, it was perceived by the Muslim middle class that somehow Hindus have become a hurdle in Muslims progress.

It were not Jinnah’s fears, it was the fear of the Muslims Middle class that that they are being marginalized that created the backbone of the Pakistan movement. Jinnah as you said was just another politician who took advantage of the growing sentiments. Jinnah always was more popular in the central India then he ever was in the eastern or western provinces of India. Incidentally, those provinces were Muslim dominated.

Manto’s contention is not wrong either. Jinnah did provide hope to many Muslims in India so dismissing him as just another opportunist is not accurate also. Every politician is an opportunist by nature. If a politician is not an opportunist, he/she would never climb the corridors of power and that is the single dream that drive politicians. How many saints have ever ruled a country?

The reason that Muslims demand got out hand from Congress was that Congress had to cater to the majority and sometimes the balancing act is not so successful. Had Congress acted on Muslim apprehensions or congress Muslims had paid more attention to what was going in the Muslim mind and communicated that to the congress leadership, things might have been different. But then…..who knows……

You and Manto can debate this all life long, still, the reality is that Pakistan is in existence and Jinnah got that for Muslims. For Lots of Muslims and Pakistanis, he will always remain a hero. Nothing can change that.

Manto
//..Like I said... I can`t change a mind set on bias... //

Well ... I can`t change your mindset either - your worship-jinnah-at-all-costs mindset.

See - We can both play this ``my-mindset-is-better-than-yours`` game. So Let`s just focus on the points - not on assumed ``mindsets``.

I have read as much as possible on Jinnah. Like I said .... there was no overwhelming evidence that muslims would be overrun by the majority community(they were 35% of the population - that`s a big ``minority``). Gandhi was the undisputed leader ... Nehru was secular to his bootstrap ... congress party was secular down to grassroots and had no rivals worth the name. The RSS fanatics were at the fringe and had no mass following worht the name. They remained so atleast 40 years after independence.

Jinnah`s fear of the majority was NOT founded on logic and the ground situation. His distrust of Gandhi and Nehru was unjustified.

Anycase - as I said - you should also look at the outcome and decide what is what. you can`t second-guess what was on Jinnah`s mind - nobody can.

Jinnah was a divider, his policy was communal.

PS:

Ataturk is important because Jinnah and Iqbal (accepted by many as Pakistan`s founding fathers) both mentioned him as their inspiration. (For Iqbal`s admiration of republican Turkey, please read the lecture `Movement in Islam` from the reconstruction of religious thought in Islam... there are letters in which Iqbal describes Ataturk and Jinnah as the ideal muslim heroes ) Ataturk created Modern Turkey, the first republic in the Islamic world, and the only truly secular state. Even the right wing self professed muslim democrats of Turkey swear by Ataturk and his great achievements, remaining true to the principle of secularism and republicanism. Muslim League used to celebrate Kemal Day in November of every year despite the protestations of the mullahs. The mullahs from Deoband denounced the league leadership as `Kemalists` on more than one occasion.

Perhaps not very clear to Romair... but Zia-ul-Haq`s admiration of Ghazali is inconsequential because the military dictator had nothing to do with the creation of Pakistan. Common sense isn`t very common after all.


On another note: Sadly Romair on this board due to his own lack of knowledge is determined to caricature Jinnah as he has been presented by the Indians and Paki-bashers like Mountbatten .... the emotionless and stiff constitutional dictator (whatever that means)... nothing could be the farthest from the truth... the picture that emerges if one looks the entire picture borrowing from various different books on Jinnah including Jalal`s, Wolpert`s, Bolitho`s , Akbar S Ahmed`s , Ajeet Javed`s, Sarojini Naidu`s, Kanji Dvarkadas`s, H V Hodson`s MC Chagla`s, G Allana`s, A G Noorani`s and through Manto`s fine piece `Mera Sahab`, and through Jinnah papers , is that of a very sensitive but reserved man, a great tactician but with a poor hand, a well intentioned politician humbled by forces greater than him, an honest man of great integrity and honesty, a loving father, a very loving husband though a failure at it, a liberal democrat, a steadfast idealist and a believer in supremacy of law and order, and a tenacious fighter, a man of tremendous will power.

Each of these, and not just few, go a long way explaining what Jinnah stood for...