Open Letter To Dina Wadia

Urstruly,

I dont kno if u r speaking the truth but seriously the scumbag Gandhi was he would do such a thing. ^E(WE^WE*(WE^E) why could not we have Jinnah as PM of India (AFTER PARTITION mind u) compared to these scumbags Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Kripalani, Bose and these other bunch of congress bastards.

Regards
Sanatani

Shrimant Ras,

very weell said. Gandhi in my opinion was and is a scumbag, may god rot his family

Regards
Sanatani

This is mostly for Mantolives:
Thanks a lot for the great story about your grandfather, and about meeting Dina.
I enjoyed it very much. Yet, I`m asking myself, you seem like good friends with Shaukat Ali and Musharraf. Would you happen to know, to what degree do they obey the orders of Uncle Sam? What`s not common between those two ``leaders``, versus Iqbal and Jinnah?

When time stood still


By Yusuf Salahuddin

An encounter with Dina Wadia leaves the grandson of Allama Iqbal speechless.

I was dining with friends at my home when Shaukat Aziz, the finance minister, mentioned to me that the Quaid-i-Azam`s daughter and her family were due to visit Pakistan during the Pakistan-India cricket series. I could hardly believe that. The rest of the dinner passed in a haze while I wondered what it would be like to meet this remarkable lady.

I grew up in a family where stories of the Quaid were often narrated and listened to in rapt attention. I never had the opportunity of meeting the great man himself, even though he seemed omnipresent in our house.

My maternal grandfather, Allama Mohammad Iqbal, gave the vision of Pakistan and when the Mr Jinnah left Congress and settled down in England, it was he who convinced the Quaid that a separate homeland for Muslims was absolutely necessary. The Allama also convinced the Indian Muslims that the Quaid was the only one who could achieve it. It is quite simple really - had there been no Quaid, there would have been no Pakistan. When they met for the last time at Allama Iqbal`s house shortly before his death in 1938, Iqbal told his son that a gentleman would come to see him that day and that he should be well-dressed and look for an opportunity to get his autograph. Dr Javed Iqbal relates the story in his book Zinda Road. He went into the room where he was sitting. After wishing the great leader, he requested him for his autograph. While signing the book, the Quaid asked him if he wrote poetry like his father did to which he replied in the negative. The Quaid then asked him what he wanted to do when he grew up. The young man didn`t have an answer to that. Mr Jinnah then asked Allama Iqbal why was his son was silent, to which the poet said: ``He is looking at you for advice.``

On my father`s side, our first contact with the League began as far back as 1906 when the League was not a political party but a movement of like-minded people. During the second session in Karachi, my grandfather`s younger brother and cousin attended as representatives of our family. By that time, our family had already started a movement on the lines of Sir Syed to educate underprivileged Muslims in the Punjab. A group of well-to-do Muslims donated their time, money and property for this cause and my great, great grandfather, Mian Karim Buksh, was made life vice-president. It was this institution that built the Islamia College, Railway Road, Islamia College Civil Lines and Islamia College for Women, along with other educational institutions and orphanages. The Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam, as it came to be known, would hold an annual congregation of Muslims from all over India every year. Smaller sessions were held at the Haveli Baroodkhana which hosted dignitaries such as Altaf Hussain Hali, Deputy Nazir Ahmed, Maulana Shaukat Ali and Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar. It was this platform that the Quaid used to address the Muslims of Punjab for the first time. And in 1940 when the Pakistan Resolution was passed, the Quaid entrusted my grandfather, Mian Aminuddin, with the task of organizing and holding the meeting. Mian Aminuddin was chairman of the `pindal committee.`

Coming back to the present, the possibility of seeing the Quaid`s daughter in this same haveli moved me beyond words. I didn`t know very much about Dina Wadia other than that she was a private person. I had only read one interview of hers which was done for a documentary by my friend Sophie Swire during the 50th independence celebrations of India and Pakistan. I could clearly see her father in her. I once asked my late mother-in-law, Begum Iftikharuddin, who knew both Jawaharlal Nehru and the Quaid closely, what was the difference between the two. She said that Nehru had an undeniable presence which one felt the moment he entered a room, but when the Quaid walked in, his presence was simply electrifying. I wondered if his daughter had the same kind of personality.

I met Mr Jinnah`s grandson Nasli Wadia and his sons, Ness and Jay, at my house on the evening of March 24 at a party hosted by my son, Jalal. I told Nasli of my overwhelming desire to meet his mother.

The next day, Nasli called to tell me that they were postponing their departure to Karachi and that he would be happy if I joined him and his mother at a chic cafe in the walled city where they were to dine with their friend Shaharyar Khan and his family. After the initial excitement died down, I noticed that Nasli, who had all the amenities of the State Guest House at his disposal, had called me from his own mobile phone. It was typical of what one had heard of the Quaid.

I arrived early at the cafe and was there to watch Ms Wadia walk in. I was stunned by her resemblance to her father. Everyone who sees her for the first time is struck by her remarkable likeness to her father. Shaharyar Khan was kind enough to ask me to sit next to her. When I was able to speak, the first thing I said to her was: ``Ma`am, you have done a great honour to us by coming to Pakistan.`` To which she replied: ``I`m happy to be here but you really must thank Shaharyar. It was on his invitation that I am here.``

A smorgasbord of Lahori specialities was relentlessly delivered to our table. Though I was apprehensive of the assault on her taste buds, she tried a bit of everything and was gracious in praising the food. She then spoke highly of the ambience of the Old City and the Badshahi Masjid. She told me that she had visited my grandfather`s grave earlier that day. I felt somewhat guilty for monopolizing the guest of honour, but I couldn`t help speaking to her. I talked about her father and she listened with great interest. One could clearly see that she loved her father very much. It was amazing not only how closely she looked like her father, she also spoke like him. We were sitting near the stairs leading up to the rooftop and people came and went past us now and again. Out of these people, three women spotted Dina and hesitantly made their way over to her. One tried to speak, but was clearly choked up. After apologizing profusely for interrupting the dinner, she said: ``I don`t have words to speak to you. God bless you.``

As we were leaving the cafe, I met my old friend Haroon Rashid with his family. I introduced him to Ms Wadia and said his grandfather, Sir Abdul Rasheed, was the first chief justice and swore in the Quaid as the first governor-general of Pakistan. Confusing Haroon`s name with the Haroon family, she said, ``Of course I know the Haroon family, they were friends of my father.`` Or maybe she knew his aunt was from the Haroon family. The genuine emotion was overwhelming and I had to take a minute to compose myself before asking her if she would do me the honour of visiting my home. She agreed and I can say without reservation that that was the greatest moment of my life.

I have in the past had the good fortune of entertaining dignitaries, celebrities and heads of states, all of which paled into insignificance when compared with this experience. We all made our way over to my house where I showed her the pictures I had of her father and our families. She looked at all of these pictures with great affection, particularly at one of ``Auntie Fatima``, pictured with my mother when she visited the Allama house in 1951. She looked at the pack of cigarettes which I was holding, and said: ``Stop smoking. It`s not good for your health.``

``I am trying to, Ma`am,`` I said. ``Well stop it then, I am ordering you,`` she said firmly.

After the haveli, we went for dessert to a restaurant. She invited me to sit in her car, making queries about the landmarks as we passed them by, particularly Data Darbar, the facade of which she admired. The restaurant was, as always, abuzz with young Lahoris enjoying an evening out. There was a large contingent from Lums and some students, on recognizing her, came forward to ask if they could shake her hand.

She graciously shook hands and spoke to them, wishing them luck. It was heartening to see such reverence in the eyes of Pakistan`s so-called disrespectful youth. I don`t think anyone who met Ms Wadia will ever forget her. I opened the door of the car and said goodbye. She kissed me on both cheeks and held my hand firmly. It was an inexplicable sense of reassurance and comfort, this contact with the Quaid`s living link. A small crowd had gathered outside her car. A boy on the street tried to approach her but was stopped by a policeman. ``No, no,`` she roared, in her father`s voice, ``let him come``, and motioned towards him. Like her father, she disliked police escorts and the attendant fanfare. In awe-truck silence, the boy came to the car where she took his hand, in her usual style with both hands. The people standing around him also followed. There was complete silence as I saw, for the first time ever, a group of Pakistanis forming an orderly queue and waiting for their turn to shake hands with her.

The car rolled away and the evening was at an end. As I stood there and watched her go, I could not help saying to myself: ``Thank you, Shaharyar Khan, you have served your country well but surely this was your greatest achievement and thank you, General Pervez Musharraf, for giving her the honour and respect she so deserves. Goodbye, Ma`am, and God bless you. Come back soon, this is the home of your father and you remind us so much of him.

It was over as soon as it had begun, this unimaginable encounter, the most magical evening of my life.

Harimau,

I am not sure what you are referring to and how it is supposed to deflate me. The demand for Pakistan pre-dates Jinnah and that is precisely why Muslim League had taken it up as a unifying slogan in 1940, and as a bargaining counter. My view is certainly different from what you are assuming it to be...

Ref Goebbels of India #166

[Good. Now we`re getting somewhere. You`re a self-admitted b!got (surprise!) and a misogynist.]

As I have said before, you really need to stick to words of one syllable. Also, you might want to get that hole in your head fixed so that not all the air will leak out.

[.... but you probably are too old a dog to learn new things.]

Not at all. I am learning new definitions daily from you and from Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion.

Here are some of the things I have learnt recently:

Rational Atheism: Calling Hindu gods fake but staying silent on Allah.

Secularism: Calling all Hindus thieves with a bishop and a mullah by one`s side (Karunanidhi in a public meeting in Chennai)

National Unity: ``I have called for freedom for oppressed people, with a flag for Pakistan in one hand and a flag for Dravidastan in another as early as 1937``. (Karunanidhi addressing an election meeting in a Muslim-plurality area, wearing a skull-cap. This should deflate Manto alias Yasser Latif Hamdani, who has been claiming all along that it was Jinnah who finally switched over to demanding a separate Pakistan around 1946. Hey, here is a guy who has been unwavering in his support of Pakistan! Karunanidhi would have been 13 years old in 1937 and just learning to jerk off but the Maasanauthus and the Abdullahs of Tamil Nadu buy this bullcrap.)

http://www.dawn.com/2004/04/09/op.htm#3

What happened to Quaid`s dream?


By M.H. Askari


Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s daughter, Ms Dina Wadia, on her first visit to Pakistan since her father`s death, recorded a somewhat intriguing observation in the visitors book at his mausoleum: ``This has been very sad and wonderful for me. May his dream for Pakistan come true.``

What her son, the successful Indian industrialist, Nusli Wadia, had to say made her observation sound even more poignant. He wrote in the visitors` book: ``My dream to come here has been fulfilled; I will come back to see his dream come true.``

Both used the future tense in the context of the Quaid`s dream. Their observations had a touch of scepticism, almost as if the Quaid`s dream of Pakistan had yet to materialize. Of course, both also expressed the hope that there will be a day when the Quaid`s dream would actually come true.

Could it be that like the American scholar and academician, Professor Robert Laporte, writing on the occasion of Pakistan`s 50th anniversary, they too felt that Pakistan after five decades ``is still in the making, still striving to find a stable and effective form of government``?

Most western observers are deeply impressed by India`s ancient civilization and by the mystique of the Hindu religion, but they tend to look upon Pakistan as something of an upstart state, with an identity not easy to define.

In any case, it is also only realistic to assume that an extremely short visit amid all the excitement of the resumption of cricketing ties between India and Pakistan could hardly be an occasion for a visitor to properly comprehend Pakistan`s identity and ethos.

The sad fact that Ms Dina Wadia had little personal exposure to her father`s hopes and aspirations and may not have been able to form a realistic perception of his vision can also not be altogether ruled out.

However, there is also the fact that Pakistan over the past 56 years has moved farther and farther away from the Quaid-i-Azam`s dreams. With the feudals dominating the affairs of Pakistan and an elite class arrogating to itself the right to be the rulers, what Mr Jinnah said at the Delhi session of the All-India Muslim League in April 1943 seems to have been forgotten, even though this contained one of his earliest enunciations of the raison d`etre of Pakistan.

The Quaid in his presidential address had said: ``Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense by a system which is so vicious that it is difficult to reason with them; the exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood.

They have forgotten the lessons of Islam. Greed and selfishness have made these people subordinate to the interests of others to fatten themselves. Do you realize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day? If that is the idea of Pakistan I would not have it...``

In the course of a talk to Muslim League workers in Calcutta in March 1946, he again expressed the same sentiments, and said: ``I am an old man and God has given me enough to live comfortably at this age. Why should I run about and take so much trouble... Not for the capitalists surely... In 1936 (during the Bengal famine) I saw the abject poverty of the people.... In Pakistan, we will do all in our power to see that everybody can get a decent living...``

Unfortunately, when Pakistan came into being it had no economic programme, mainly because in the years preceding it the Quaid was too busy fighting a political battle and obviously had no time to draw up a blueprint for the future economic system of Pakistan. The situation has become only progressively worse since then.

There has also been a similar apathy towards the need to provide Pakistan with a democratic system. To this day, the prerogative to rule over the destiny of the people continues to be exercised by an exclusive elite class, comprising mainly of the landlords and capitalists whom the Quaid, years before Pakistan came into existence, had totally rejected. Landlords and capitalists are well entrenched at the helm and the situation does not seem likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Even though the intelligentsia, particularly those among them who are influenced by western ideas, tend to be critical of the ``narrow religious base`` on which Pakistan was founded, there is amongst them a consensus that the Quaid himself had a broad, deeply secular, and liberal outlook.

He expected that Pakistan would not develop into a parochial, chauvinistic state. He even hoped that with the achievement of Pakistan, Muslims would cease to be Muslims and Hindus would cease to be Hindus, not in the matter of their religious faith but in their role as citizens of the same state, and that ``religion would have nothing to do with the business of the state.`` However, in Pakistan society has evolved in exactly the reverse direction.

It is not altogether improbable that even during the short time that she spent in Pakistan, Ms Dina Wadia might have noticed the conspicuous place that religion has come to occupy in the day-to-day life of the people and its dominating part in the running of the people`s life and the affairs of the state.

Mr Jinnah`s ``pluralistic view of Pakistani society`` virtually no more features in the people`s thinking. General Ziaul Haq provided a constitutional basis for this change. In the words of Professor Anita M. Weiss of the Oregon State University, ``the pluralistic perspective was definitely discarded in 1979 when President Mohammad Ziaul Haq`s administration left no question that some interpretations of Islam were to wield unprecedented influence in the state.``

Ms Dina Wadia could not but have noticed the innumerable banners and profuse wall-chalkings as evidence of this phenomenon even when she made her brief journey from the airport to the Quaid`s mausoleum and that perhaps may have prompted the thought in her mind which was expressed in her observations at the Quaid`s tomb.

She may also have noticed the media debate over the inclusion or deletion of some verses of the Holy Quran in or from school textbooks even for subjects like biology.

Tribal traditions too have been a strong influence in the conduct of the daily life of the people. For quite a large section of the people living under the tribal system, even abominable and criminal traditions such as karo kari have come to be sanctified.

The only redeeming factor is that quite a substantial section of the younger people in many parts of Pakistan is beginning to question all this. It has been pointed out that the question of declaration of one`s religious beliefs, for instance, should have nothing to do with the issuance of national identity cards.

What is extremely deplorable and totally contrary to the Quaid`s thoughts on the ethos of Pakistan are the painfully sharp ethnic and cultural differences that which one encounters almost at every step.

It has been said that ethnic crises and regional divisions have perpetually threatened the unity and security of Pakistan. The breaking away of East Pakistan in 1971 may have been an extreme phenomenon but there are deep feelings of deprivation and of being exploited in provinces such as Sindh and Balochistan.

The North-West Frontier has always had an ``uneasy relationship`` with the centre. In parts of the Frontier, Islamist parties have managed to virtually sideline the law of the land. The Baloch have fought regular wars with the security forces of the centre.

If Ms Wadia felt like a stranger in Pakistan as she found it, in contrast to what may have been her impressions of how her father visualized the state of Pakistan, her prayer that her father`s dream may ultimately come true may have been a genuine and spontaneous reaction.

What she saw, even if she did not stay here long enough to see a great deal, could not have been anything like the Muslim homeland of her father`s dreams. Even if she grew up in a broken home, she could not have been a stranger to her father`s liberal, secular, progressive and broadminded view of life and society.

An addition to my post 169 addressed to Mohar11.

What do you think about the `Quit India` Movement of the Congress Party?


Here is what Dr. Ambedkar, the father of Indian Constitution, writes about the Quit India resolution:


``This Quit India Resolution was primarily a challenge to the British Government. But it was also an attempt to do away with the intervention of the British Government in the discussion of the Minority question and thereby securing for the Congress a free hand to settle it on its own terms and according to its own lights. It was in effect, if not in intention, an attempt to win independence by bypassing the Muslims and the other minorities. The Quit India Campaign turned out to be a complete failure.

It was a mad venture and took the most diabolical form. It was a scorch-earth campaign in which the victims of looting, arson and murder were Indians and the perpetrators were Congressmen. Beaten, he started a fast for twenty-one days in March 1943 while he was in gaol with the object of getting out of it. He failed. Thereafter he fell ill. As he was reported to be sinking the British Government released him for fear that he might die on their hand and bring them ignominy. On coming out of gaol, he found that he and the Congress had not only missed the bus but had also lost the road.``

An addition to my post 169 addressed to Mohar11.

What do you think about the `Quit India` Movement of the Congress Party?


Here is what Dr. Ambedkar, the father of Indian Constitution, writes about the Quit India resolution:


``This Quit India Resolution was primarily a challenge to the British Government. But it was also an attempt to do away with the intervention of the British Government in the discussion of the Minority question and thereby securing for the Congress a free hand to settle it on its own terms and according to its own lights. It was in effect, if not in intention, an attempt to win independence by bypassing the Muslims and the other minorities. The Quit India Campaign turned out to be a complete failure.

It was a mad venture and took the most diabolical form. It was a scorch-earth campaign in which the victims of looting, arson and murder were Indians and the perpetrators were Congressmen. Beaten, he started a fast for twenty-one days in March 1943 while he was in gaol with the object of getting out of it. He failed. Thereafter he fell ill. As he was reported to be sinking the British Government released him for fear that he might die on their hand and bring them ignominy. On coming out of gaol, he found that he and the Congress had not only missed the bus but had also lost the road.``

bongdongs,

It is really sad that people don`t read this book. This is an honest attempt to consider the pros and cons of Pakistan ... it traces the roots of conversion of the muslim leaders like Jinnah from Hindu-muslim unity to muslim separatism, the limitations of the muslim leadership, and explores the question of settlement. He conclusively puts the case for Pakistan and the case against it... and in doing so rises above the typical pakistan is evil pakistan is evil chorus that others at that time were raising.


The whole book needs to be read completely... including the next chapter on National frustration , that outlines why leaders like Jinnah and Barkat Ali, who were staunch Indian Nationalists and advocates of Hindu Muslim unity were driven into the fold of the muslim separatists.

---

Pakistan and the Malaise Chapter xii National frustration ii



``How complete the revolution is can be seen by reference to the past pronouncements of some of those who insist on the two-nation theory and believe that Pakistan is the only solution of the Hindu-Muslim problem. Among these Mr. Jinnah, of course, must be accepted as the foremost. The revolution in his views on the Hindu-Muslim question is striking, if not staggering. To realize the nature, character and vastness of this revolution it is necessary to know his pronouncements in the past relating to the subject so that they may be compared with those he is making now.

A study of his past pronouncement may well begin with the year 1906 when the leaders of the Muslim community waited upon Lord Minto and demanded separate electorates for the Muslim community. It is to be noted that Mr. Jinnah was not a member of the deputation. Whether he was not invited to join the deputation or whether he was invited to join and declined is not known. But the fact remains that he did not lend his support to the Muslim claim to separate representation when it was put forth in 1906.

In 1918 Mr. Jinnah resigned his membership of the Imperial Legislative Council as a protest against the Rowlatt Bill. 98[f.54] In tendering his resignation Mr. Jinnah said :

`` I feel that under the prevailing conditions, I can be of no use to my people in the Council, nor consistently with one`s self-respect is cooperation possible with a Government that shows such utter disregard for the opinion of the representatives of the people at the Council Chamber and the feelings and the sentiments of the people outside. `` In 1919 Mr. Jinnah gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee appointed by Parliament on the Government of India Reform Bill, then on the anvil. The following views were expressed by him in answer to questions put by members of the Committee on the Hindu-Muslim question.

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.

After the Congress accepted non-co-operation, civil disobedience and boycott of Councils, Mr. Jinnah left the Congress. He became its critic but never accused it of being a Hindu body. He protested when such a statement was attributed to him by his opponents. There is a letter by Mr. Jinnah to the Editor of the Times of India written about the time which puts in a strange contrast the present opinion of Mr. Jinnah about the Congress and his opinion in the past. The letter 99[f.55] reads as follows :—.

`` To the Editor of `` The Times of India ``

Sir,—1 wish again to correct the statement which is attributed to me and to which you have given currency more than once and now again repeated by your correspondent ` Banker `in the second column of your issue of the 1st October that I denounced the Congress as ` a Hindu Institution `. I publicly corrected this misleading report of my speech in your columns soon after it appeared ;.but it did not find a place in the columns of your paper and so may I now request you to publish this and oblige. ``

After the Khilafat storm had blown over and the Muslims had shown a desire to return to the internal politics of India, the Muslim League was resuscitated. The session of the League held in Bombay on 30th December 1924 under the presidentship of Mr. Raza Ali was a lively one. Both Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Mahomed Ali took part in it. 100[f.56]

In this session of the League, a resolution was moved which affirmed the desirability of representatives of the various Muslim associations of India representing different shades of political thought meeting in a conference at an early date at Delhi or at some other central place with a view to develop `` a united and sound practical activity `` to supply the needs of the Muslim community. Mr. Jinnah in explaining the resolution said 101[f.57] :—

`` The object was to organize the Muslim community, not with a view to quarrel with the Hindu community, but with a view to unite and cooperate with it for their motherland. He was sure once they had organized themselves they would join hands with the Hindu Maha Sabha and declare to the world that Hindus and Mahomedans are brothers. ``

The League also passed another resolution in the same session for appointing a committee of 33 prominent Musalmans to formulate the political demands of the Muslim community. The resolution was moved by Mr. Jinnah. In moving the resolution, Mr. Jinnah 102[f.58] :—

``Repudiated the charge that he was standing on the platform of the League as a communalist. He assured them that he was, as ever, a nationalist. Personally he had no hesitation. He wanted the best and the fittest men to represent them in the Legislatures of the land (Hear, Hear and Applause). But unfortunately his Muslim compatriots were not prepared to go as far as he. He could not be blind to the situation. The fact was that there was a large number of Muslims who wanted representation separately in Legislatures and in the country`s Services. They were talking of communal unity, but where was unity ? It had to be achieved by arriving at some suitable settlement. He knew he said amidst deafening cheers, that his fellow-religionists were ready and prepared to fight for Swaraj, but wanted some safeguards. Whatever his view, and they knew that as a practical politician he had to take stock of the situation, the real block to unity was not the communities themselves, but a few mischief makers on both sides. ``

And he did not thus hesitate to arraign mischief makers in the sternest possible language that could only emanate from an earnest nationalist. In his capacity as the President of the session of the League held in Lahore on 24th May 1924 he said 103 [f59] :—

`` If we wish to be free people, let us unite, but if we wish to continue slaves of Bureaucracy, let us fight among ourselves and gratify petty vanity over petty matters. Englishmen being our arbiters. ``

In the two All-Parties Conferences, one held in 1925 and the other in 1928, Mr. Jinnah was prepared to settle the Hindu-Muslim question on the basis of joint electorates. In 1927 he openly said 104[f.60] from the League platform :—

`` I am not wedded to separate electorates, although I must say that the overwhelming majority of the Musalmans firmly and honestly believe that it is the only method by which they can be sure. ``

In 1928, Mr. Jinnah joined the Congress in the boycott of the Simon Commission. He did so even though the Hindus and Muslims had failed to come to a settlement and he did so at the cost of splitting the League into two.

Even when the ship of the Round Table Conference was about to break on the communal rock, Mr. Jinnah resented being named as a communalist who was responsible for the result and said that he preferred an agreed solution of the communal problem to the arbitration of the British Government. Addressing the U. P. Muslim Conference held at Allahabad on 8th August 105[f.61] 1931 Mr. Jinnah said :—

`` The first thing that I wish to tell you is that it is now absolutely essential and vital that Muslims should stand united. For Heaven`s sake close all your ranks and files and slop this internecine war. I urged this most vehemently and I pleaded to the best of my ability before Dr. Ansari, Mr. T. A. K. Sherwani, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr. Syed Mahmud. I hope that before I leave the shores of India I shall hear the good news that whatever may be our differences ; whatever may be our convictions between ourselves, this is not the moment to quarrel between ourselves.

`` Another thing I want to tell you is this. There is a certain section of the press, there is a certain section of the Hindus, who constantly misrepresent me in various ways. I was only reading the speech of Mr. Gandhi this morning and Mr. Gandhi said that he loves Hindus and Muslims alike. I again say standing here on this platform that although I may not put forward that claim but I do put forward this honestly and sincerely that I want fair play between the two communities. ``

Continuing further Mr. 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.

`` Therefore I am for a settlement and peace among the Muslims first; I am for a settlement and peace between the Hindus and Mahommedans. This is not a lime for argument, not a time for propaganda work and not a time for embittering feelings between the two communities, because the enemy is at the door of both of us and I say without hesitation that if the Hindu-Muslim question is not settled, I have no doubt that the British will have to arbitrate and that he who arbitrates will keep to himself the substance of power and authority. Therefore, I hope they will not vilify me. After all, Mr. Gandhi himself says that he is willing to give the Muslims whatever they want, and my only sin is that I say to the Hindus give to the Muslims only 14 points, which is much less than the ` blank cheque ` which Mr. Gandhi is willing to give. I do not want a blank cheque, why not concede the 14 points ? When Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru says: `Give us a blank cheque ` when Mr. Patel says : ` Give us a blank cheque and we will sign it with a Swadeshi pen on a Swadeshi paper ` they are not communalists and I am a communalist ! I say to Hindus not to misrepresent everybody. I hope and trust that we shall be yet in a position to settle the question which will bring peace and happiness to the millions in our country.

`` One thing more I want to tell you and I have done. During the lime of the Round Table Conference,—it is now an open book and anybody who cares to read it can learn for himself—I observed the one and the only principle and it was that when I left the shores of Bombay I said to the people that I would hold the interests of India sacred, and believe me—if you care to read the proceedings of the Conference, I am not bragging because I have done my duly—that I have loyally and faithfully fulfilled my promise to the fullest extent and I venture to say that if the Congress or Mr. Gandhi can get anything more than I fought for, I would congratulate them.

`` Concluding Mr. Jinnah said that they must come to a settlement, they must become friends eventually and he, therefore, appealed to the Muslims to show moderation, wisdom and conciliation, if possible, in the deliberation that might take place and the resolution that might be passed at the Conference. ``

As an additional illustration of the transformation in Muslim ideology, I propose to record the opinions once held by Mr. Barkat Ali who is now a follower of Mr. Jinnah and a staunch supporter of Pakistan.

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. ``

In 1928 there was formed a Nationalist Party under the leadership of Dr. Ansari. 107[f.63] The Nationalist Muslim Party was a step in advance of the Jinnah wing of the Muslim League and was prepared to accept the Nehru Report, as it was, without any amendments—not even those which Mr. Jinnah was insisting upon. 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. In 1931 there was held in Lahore the Punjab Nationalist Muslim Conference and Mr. Barkat Ali was the Chairman of the Reception Committee. The views he then expressed on Pakistan are worth recalling 109[f.65] Reiterating and reaffirming the conviction and the political faith of his party, Malik Barkat Ali, Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Conference, said :

`` We believe, first and foremost in the full freedom and honour of India. India, the country of our birth and the place with which all our most valued and dearly cherished associations are knit, must claim its first place in our affection and in our desires. We refuse to be parties to that sinister type of propaganda which would try to appeal to ignorant sentiment by professing to be Muslim first and Indian afterwards. To us a slogan of this kind is not only bare, meaningless cant, but downright mischievous. We cannot conceive of Islam in its best and last interests as in any way inimical to or in conflict with the best and permanent interests of India. India and Islam in India are identical, and whatever is to the detriment of India must, from the nature of it, be detrimental to Islam whether economically, politically, socially or even morally. Those politicians, therefore, are a class of false prophets and at bottom the foes of Islam, who talk of any inherent conflict between Islam and the welfare of India. Further, howsoever much our sympathy with our Muslim brethren outside India, i.e., the Turks and the Egyptians or the Arabs,—and it is a sentiment which is at once noble and healthy,—we can never allow that sympathy to work to the detriment of the essential interests of India. Our sympathy, in fact, with those countries can only be valuable to them, if India as the source, nursery and fountain of that sympathy, is really great. And if ever the lime comes, God forbid, when any Muslim Power from across the Frontier chooses to enslave India and snatch away the liberties of its people, no amount of pan-lslamic feeling, whatever it may mean, can stand in the way of Muslim India fighting shoulder to shoulder with non-Muslim India in defence of its liberties.

`` Let there be, therefore, no misgivings of any kind in that respect in any non-Muslim quarters. I am conscious that a certain class of narrow-minded Hindu politicians is constantly harping on the bogey of an Islamic danger to India from beyond the N.-W. Frontier passes but I desire to repeat that such statements and such fears are fundamentally wrong and unfounded. Muslim India shall as much defend India`s liberties as non-Muslim India, even if the invader happens to be a follower of Islam.

`` Next, we not only believe in a free India but we also believe in a united India—not the India of the Muslim, not the India of the Hindu or of the Sikh, not the India of this community or of that community but the India of all. And as this is our abiding faith, we refuse to be parties to any division of the India of the future into a Hindu or a Muslim India. However much the conception of a Hindu and a Muslim India may appeal and send into frenzied ecstasies abnormally orthodox mentalities of their party, we offer our full throated opposition to it, not only because it is singularly unpractical and utterly obnoxious but because it not only sounds the death-knell of all that is noble and lasting in modern political activity in India, but is also contrary to and opposed to India`s chief historical tradition.

`` India was one in the days of Asoka and Chandragupta and India remained one even when the sceptre and rod of Imperial sway passed from Hindu into Moghul or Muslim hands. And India shall remain one when we shall have attained the object of our desires and reached those uplands of freedom, where all the light illuminating us shall not be reflected glory but shall be light proceeding direct as it were from our very faces.

`` The conception of a divided India, which Sir Muhammad lqbal put forward recently in the course of his presidential utterance from the platform of the League at a time when that body had virtually become extinct and ceased to represent free Islam—I am glad to be able to say that Sir Muhammad lqbal has since recanted it—must not therefore delude anybody into thinking that it is Islam`s conception of the India to be. Even if Dr. Sir Muhammad lqbal had not recanted it as something which could not be put forward by any sane person, I should have emphatically and unhesitatingly repudiated it as something foreign to the genius and the spirit of the rising generation of Islam, and I really deem it a proud duty to affirm today that not only must there be no division of India in to communal provinces but that both Islam and Hinduism must run coterminously with the boundaries of India and must not be cribbed, cabined and confined within any shorter bounds. To the same category as Dr. lqbal`s conception of a Muslim India and a Hindu India, belongs the sinister proposals of some Sikh communalists to partition and divide the Punjab.

`` With a creed so expansive, namely a free and united India with its people all enjoying in equal measure and without any kinds of distinctions and disabilities the protection of laws made by the chosen representatives of the people on the widest possible basis of a true democracy, namely, adult franchise, and through the medium of joint electorates—and an administration charged with the duty of an impartial execution of the laws, fully accountable for its actions, not to a distant or remote Parliament of foreigners but to the chosen representatives of the land,—you would not expect me to enter into the details and lay before you, all the colours of my picture. And I should have really liked to conclude my general observations on the aims and objects of the Nationalist Muslim Party here, were it not that the much discussed question of joint or separate electorates, has today assumed proportions where no public man can possibly ignore it.

`` Whatever may have been the value or utility of separate electorates at a time when an artificially manipulated high-propertied franchise had the effect of converting a majority of the people in the population of a province into a minority in the electoral roll, and when communal passions and feelings ran particularly high, universal distrust poisoning the whole atmosphere like a general and all-pervading miasma,—we feel that in the circumstances of today and in the India of the future, separate electorates should have no place whatever. ``

Such were the views Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali held on nationalism, on separate electorates and on Pakistan. How diametrically opposed are the views now held by them on these very problems ?

So far I have laboured to point out things, the utter failure of the attempts made to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity and the emergence of a new ideology in the minds of the Muslim leaders. There is also a third thing which I must discuss in the present context for reasons arising both from its relevance as well as from its bearing on the point under consideration, namely whether the Muslim ideology has behind it a justification which political philosophers can accept.


Ambedkar continues:


Many Hindus seem to hold that Pakistan has no justification. If we confine ourselves to the theory of Pakistan there can be no doubt that this is a greatly mistaken view. The philosophical justification for Pakistan rests upon the distinction between a community and a nation. In the first, place, it is recognized comparatively recently. Political philosophers for a long time were concerned, mainly, with the controversy summed up in the two questions, how far should the right of a mere majority to rule the minority be accepted as a rational basis for government and how far the legitimacy of a government be said to depend upon the consent of the governed. Even those who insisted, that the legitimacy of a government depended upon the consent of the governed, remained content with a victory for their proposition and did not cane to probe further into the matter. They did not feel the necessity for making any distinctions within the category of the `` governed ``. They evidently thought that it was a matter of no moment whether those who were included in the category of the governed formed a community or a nation. Force of circumstances has, however, compelled political philosophers to accept this distinction. In the second place, it is not a mere distinction without a difference. It is a distinction which is substantial and the difference is consequentially fundamental. That this distinction between a community and a nation is fundamental, is clear from the difference in the political rights which political philosophers are prepared to permit to a community and those they are prepared to allow to a nation against the Government established by law. To a community they are prepared to allow only the right of insurrection. But to a nation they are willing to concede the right of disruption. The distinction between the two is as obvious as it is fundamental.. A right of insurrection is restricted only to insisting on a change in the mode and manner of government. The right of disruption is greater than the right of insurrection arid extends to the secession of a group of the members of a State with a secession of the portion of the State`s territory in its occupation. One wonders what must be the basis of this difference. Writers on political philosophy, who have discussed this subject, have given their reasons for the justification of a Community`s right to insurrection 110[f.66] and of a nation`s right to demand disruption. 111[f.67] The difference comes to this : a community has a right to safeguards, a nation has a right to demand separation. The difference is at once clear and crucial. But they have not given any reasons why the right of one is limited to insurrection and why that of the other extends to disruption. They have not even raised such a question. Nor are the reasons apparent on the face of them. But it is both interesting and instructive to know why this difference is made. To my mind the reason for this difference pertains to questions of ultimate destiny. A state either consists of a series of communities or it consists of a series of nations. In a state, which is composed of a series of communities, one community may be arrayed against another community and the two may be opposed to each other. But in the matter of their ultimate destiny they feel they are one. But in a state, which is composed of a series of nations, when one nation rises against the other, the conflict is one as to differences of ultimate destiny. This is the distinction between communities and nations and it is this distinction which explains the difference in their political rights. There is nothing new or original in this explanation. It is merely another way of staring why the community has one kind of right and the nation another of quite a different kind. A community has a right of insurrection because it is satisfied with it. All that it wants is a change in the mode and form of government. Its quarrel is not over any difference of ultimate destiny. A nation has to be accorded the right of disruption because it will not be satisfied with mere change in the form of government. Its quarrel is over the question of ultimate destiny. If it will not be satisfied unless the unnatural bond that binds them is dissolved, then prudence and even ethics demands that the bond shall be dissolved and they shall be freed each to pursue its own destiny.

V

While it is necessary to admit that the efforts at Hindu-Muslim unity have failed and that the Muslim ideology has undergone a complete revolution, it is equally necessary to know the precise causes which have produced these effects. The Hindus say that the British policy of divide and rule is the real cause of this failure and of this ideological revolution. There is nothing surprising in this. The Hindus having cultivated the Irish mentality to have no other politics except that of being always against the Government, are ready to blame the Government for everything including bad weather. But time has come to discard the facile explanation so dear to the Hindus. For it fails to take into account two very important circumstances. In the first place, it overlooks the fact that the policy of divide and rule, allowing that the British do resort to it, cannot succeed unless there are elements which make division possible, and further if the policy succeeds for such a long time, it means that the elements which divide are more or less permanent and irreconcilable and are not transitory or superficial. Secondly, it forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British even by the worst of his enemies.

Ambedkar goes on:

it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.


What is then the real explanation of these tragic phenomena, this failure of the efforts for unity, this transformation in the Muslim ideology ?

The real explanation of this failure of Hindu-Muslim unity lies in the failure to realize that what stands between the Hindus and Muslims is not a mere matter of difference, and that this antagonism is not to be attributed to material causes. It is formed by causes which take their origin in historical, religious, cultural and social antipathy, of which political antipathy is only a reflection. These form one deep river of discontent which, being regularly fed by these sources, keeps on mounting to a head and overflowing its ordinary channels. Any current of water flowing from another source however pure, when it joins it, instead of altering the colour or diluting its strength becomes lost in the main stream. The silt of this antagonism which this current has deposited, has become permanent and deep. So long as this silt keeps on accumulating and so long as this antagonism lasts, it is unnatural to expect this antipathy between Hindus and Muslims to give place to unity.

Like the Christians and Muslims in the Turkish Empire, the Hindus and Muslims of India have met as enemies on many fields, and the result of the struggle has often brought them into the relation of conquerors and conquered. Whichever party has triumphed, a great gulf has remained fixed between the two and their enforced political union either under the Moghuls or the British instead of passing over, as in so many other cases, into organic unity, has only accentuated their mutual antipathy. Neither religion nor social code can bridge this gulf. The two faiths are mutually exclusive and whatever harmonies may be forged in the interest of good social behaviour, at their core and centre they are irreconcilable. There seems to be an inherent antagonism between the two which centuries have not been able to dissolve. Notwithstanding the efforts made to bring the creeds together by reformers like Akbar and Kabir, the ethical realities behind each have still remained, to use a mathematical phrase, which nothing can .alter or make integers capable of having a common denominator. A Hindu can go from Hinduism to Christianity without causing any commotion or shock. But he cannot pass from Hinduism to Islam without causing a communal riot, certainly not without causing qualms. That shows the depth of the antagonism which divides the Hindus from the Musalmans.

If Islam and Hinduism keep Muslims and Hindus apart in the matter of their faith, they also prevent their social assimilation. That Hinduism prohibits intermarriage between Hindus and Muslims is quite well known. This narrow-mindedness is not the vice of Hinduism only. Islam is equally narrow in its social code. It also prohibits intermarriage between Muslims and Hindus. With these social laws there can be no social assimilation and consequently no socialization of ways, modes and outlooks, no blunting of the edges and no modulation of age-old angularities.

There are other defects in Hinduism and in Islam which are responsible for keeping the sore between Hindus and Muslims open and running. Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defeat of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.

The real explanation of the ideological transformation of the Muslim leaders is not to be attributed to any dishonest drift in their opinion. It appears to be the dawn of a new vision pointing to a new destiny symbolized by a new name, Pakistan. The Muslims appear to have started a new worship of a new destiny for the first time. This is really not so. The worship is new because the sun of their new destiny which was so far hidden in the clouds has only now made its appearance in full glow. The magnetism of this new destiny cannot but draw the Muslims towards it. The pull is so great that even men like Mr. Jinnah have been violently shaken and have not been able to resist its force. This destiny spreads itself out in a concrete form over the map of India. No one, who just looks at the map, can miss it. It lies there as though it is deliberately planned by Providence as a separate National State for Muslims. Not only is this new destiny capable of being easily worked out and put in concrete shape but it is also catching because it opens up the possibilities of realizing the Muslim idea of linking up all the Muslim kindred in one Islamic State and thus avert the danger of Muslims in different countries adopting the nationality of the country to which they belong and thereby bring about the disintegration of the Islamic brotherhood.112 [f68] With the separation of Pakistan from Hindustan, Iran, Iraq, Arabia, Turkey and Egypt are forming a federation of Muslim countries constituting one Islamic State extending from Constantinople down to Lahore. A Musalman must be really very stupid if he is not attracted by the glamour of this new destiny and completely transformed in his view of the place of Muslims in the Indian cosmos.

So obvious is the destiny that it is somewhat surprising that the Muslims should have taken so long to own it up. There is evidence that some of them knew this to be the ultimate destiny of the Muslims as early as 1923. In support of this, reference may be made to the evidence of Khan Saheb Sardar M. Gul Khan who appeared as a witness before the North-West Frontier Committee appointed in that year by the Government of India under the chairmanship of Sir Dennis Bray, to report upon the administrative relationship between the Settled Districts of the N.-W.F. Province and the Tribal Area and upon the amalgamation of the Settled Districts with the Punjab.


-YLH

It is unfortunate that when YLH quotes Ambedkar most people wont bother to read
http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan

a reading of:
PART IV : PAKISTAN AND THE MALAISE, Chapter XI : Communal aggression
would be of interest to folks here.

mohar11,


You claim that Jinnah was an opportunist... I think this is an entirely wrong position owing to the mythology you ascribe to the man. I have already proved in various posts and most recently 167 why are you wrong in your arguments wrt Direct Action Day and Jinnah`s change of heart... allow me to quote again Dr. Ambedkar and H V Hodson...

H V Hodson writes:

``One thing is certain, it was not for any venal motive that he changed. Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self seeking. He could be bought by no one and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weathercock, swinging in the wind of popularity or changing his politics to suit the chances of the time. He was a steadfast idealist, as well as a man of scrupulous honour.`` (Page 39 , The Great Divide)

Similarly Dr. B R Ambedkar, Pakistan or Partition of India:

At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah

( An online version of the same can be found on Ambedkar.org ... its called pakistan or partition of India. http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan/40E2.Pakistan%20or%20the%20Partition%20of%20India%20PART%20IV.htm )



Dr. B R Ambedkar is the father of the Indian constitution, and H V Hodson was the advisor to the viceroy of India. H V Hodson also wrote the famous book `Pakistan or Partition of India`.. Clearly from their testimony it is clear that Jinnah could hardly be called an opportunist... not by any stretch imagination. Clearly Jinnah always stood up for the underdog... be it the Indians fighting for self rule, muslims fighting for communal safeguards, or minorities post 14th August in Pakistan. This is the view his contemporaries and adversaries took.



Whether I worship Jinnah or not is not the point. I gave you very valid arguments, sources and facts. You couldn`t negate even one of them. Now you are simply hiding behind self righteous and indignant declarations. You were overcome with the irrational urge to prove to me basically that everything about Pakistan and especially its founding father is wrong. When asked to base your assertions on facts and sources, you failed miserably. Now you have ignored the direct questions I posed to you again and again. So desperate were you to prove your point, that you even started calling Gandhi a moron... your entire thing is full of contradictions...

Granted that Kuldip Nayyer or A G Noorani don`t have a monopoly on truth... though it doesn`t take too many brain cells to note that both Nayyer and Noorani are helluva lot better as scholars than the excerpts that you quoted half of which didn`T really support your contention and the other half were merely misrepresentation.... in your estimate then every one from H M Seervai, Ajeet Javed of JNU, Dr. Ambedkar (the father of your constitution), Khushwant Singh, to H V Hodson. is a moron. None of them share your view.

I didn`t start this argument and I will not finish it. I am not in the business of convincing people of anything. But if someone makes outrageous statements like the one you made, then he will be countered with facts and that is exactly what I have done. If you want to convince me otherwise of Jinnah... come up with some valid facts... answer the questions I have asked. I am atleast not going to take your word for it.

-YLH

PS: While your excerpts were neither scholarly nor factual... I didn`t discard them as you claim. I answered every single one of them in my post 167. Perhaps you will rise above this opportunism of your own.

Manto

I am not bent on winning the argument - that`s NOT important to me. Because unlike you, I don`t worship any of these guys we call national ``leaders`` and put on pedestal as heroes. So even if I loose the argument - it would not shatter no long-held beliefs that you cling on to for your life.

Like I said - Gandhi was a mor0n to support Khilafat Movement in which unwashed masses went crazy for nothing killed each other. The buck stops at his door - I hold him personally responsible for such outrageous political chicanery ....I also I give him immense credit for very good things he did for the nation and society.

Similarly - I give Jinnah credit for good things he did - being a uniter (rather a divider) at the beginning of his career. But I will haul him over coals ( metaphorically speaking of course) for his transgressions and what I consider serious demagoguery that he practiced later on.

My aim was to set the record straight and point out the facts as I see them .... without any bias that comes natuaral to you because of your un-restrained hero-worship. For you - Jinnah can do no wrong. For me - he did quite a few ``wrongs`` - he took too many u-turns on his basic principles for expediency.

You discarded my sources as just ``opinion`` pieces ... not ``scholarly`` enough. I don`t agree with that. Nobody has a monopoly on truth. Not even Kuldip Nayar or AG Noorani or whoever else you keep quoting ad nauseam.

Before I sign off - let me just summarize two basic points on which I was trying to set the record straight.

1. Too many policy reversals on part of Jinnah - which points to opportunistic nature of the man.

2. Communal Politics using violence as a means ( Direct Action Day ) - It was designed to precipitate a complete polarization, using violence if necessary. It was ``unleashed`` - as many have observed - with that purpose in mind. It trigerred, as expected, violent riots which claimed thousands of lives. Who is responsible for those deaths? Where does the buck stop? Right at the doors of the ``leadership`` who trigerred it. That includes Jinnah and others of the communal party called Muslim League.

I think I have presented some powerful evidences supporting these two claims. I am not sure if that would convince a die-hard Jinnah-worshipper like you - but I tried my best.

Mohar11,

It seems to me that you have made this a matter of ego. You want to prove your point by hook or crook. It seems that what is clearly right or wrong doesn`t matter to you anymore... winning this argument is all that you care about. Falling short you resort to name calling. I must say the way you are arguing is becoming more desperate by the minute. Not only have you quoted net websites some of them by people with little knowledge and lot of ideology, but even there most of them don’t seem to say what you seem to be saying.

While I have quoted Primary Sources (Like Wavell`s Diary, Jinnah Papers, Blitz Newspaper etc) and authentic texts by well known historians, you are quoting websites and opinion based articles. I can quote 100 articles of the sort that you are quoting, but I would rather not.

I quoted H M Seervai, Khushwant Singh, Dr. B R Ambedkar, Raj Mohan Gandhi, H V Hodson, M S M Sharma, Kuldip Nayyar, A G Noorani, etc… all historians of Great repute and prestige… I could have quoted excellent writers like Ayesha Jalal but I relied completely on Indians of great integrity and fame… you on the other hand have quoted nothing but net drivel…


This is what you have quoted from:

1) thehindubusinessline,
2) http://www.geocities.com/hindoo_humanist/directact.html
3) http://www.mkgandhi.org/students/story4.htm
4) aljazeerah.info/
5) http://www.indianest.com/opinion/0022.htm
6) http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0297/0208.html

All of these are opinion based pieces and will not be considered works of any academic value… still I will humor you and answer your ‘excerpts’ so to speak :


The first ‘excerpt’ you have put up from Mushahid Hussain does not suggest that Jinnah or the Muslim League was responsible… yes Jinnah was determined to show muslim street power, and he showed it all over India, in Dehli, Lahore, Bombay, Karachi, Lucknow also… and all of those cities remained peaceful.

The second ‘excerpt’ you’ve put up proves that there was a Direct Action day on which riots broke out. It doesn’t suggest that anyone premeditated it as you suggest.

The third excerpt from ‘Hindu Business line’ is nothing but a concocted lie. We have reports from Wavell’s office, twice as many Muslims died as hindus died… anticipating disturbances, the Hindus were well armed and they used their arms. If the holocaust was premeditated somehow by the league, then they did a really bad job of it…. Because they ended up losing twice as many people.

The fourth excerpt tells us nothing new. We know that the direct action day happened… we also know that it was peaceful through out India except Calcutta, which ironically enough was Hindu majority, and amazingly enough more muslims died there. This is a blatant opinion piece… and is second guessing history.

The Fifth excerpt is the product Indian nationalist mythology. I have never come across the said quote of Jinnah that you are quoting in bold and red. No where in Jinnah papers, or speeches or any newspaper record of Jinnah do we find this statement. Please do quote a credible source for once… you have quoted it from another website.


The sixth excerpt uses the word ‘inadvertently’… contrary to what you are claiming. The ‘Time’ says : ‘The protest was supposed to be peaceful’… because that is what Jinnah had repeatedly declared. It was peaceful throughout India, especially in the places that Jinnah himself was present… do you deny this? This brings us to the original issue that why did ‘Blitz’ newspaper of Bombay, the mouth piece of the Congress praised the Direct action day a masterly anti-british move if what you say is true.

The Seventh excerpt does not have any facts. It is an opinion expressed by someone called ‘Hindoo Humanist’ … do you really want me to respond to this?

The eighth excerpt clearly is not talking about direct action day … tell me how does saying ‘Jinnah proved himself to be a strategist of rare caliber’ prove your point?

You still have evaded direct questions…

1) Why hasn’t any credible historian (not HVK.org, Hindubusinessonline, or aljazeerah) accused Jinnah of direct action day violence? Why haven’t Biased historians like Lapierre and Collins accused him either?
2) Why didn’t violence break out in Muslim Majority cities on 16th August , where Muslims were in great numbers and better organized especially where Jinnah himself was present? Why was a simple civil disobedience movement observed all over India?
3) If Direct Action Day was anti-hindu and not anti-british as you say, why did the Congress’s mouth piece ‘The Blitz’ the next day praised Jinnah for leaving constitutional ways, and becoming full fledge anti-british revolutionary?
4) If Jinnah was tainted with violence as you say, why did the Indian constituent assembly passed a resolution of mourning at his death, declaring it a great tragedy for the Indian subcontinent?
5) Why do sane and reasonable Indians like H M Seervai, Khushwant Singh, and Kuldip Nayyar continue to absolve him of this charge that has been leveled against him by only the most fanatical Pakistan-bashers as an after thought?
6) What is that lot of stuff that you have read on Jinnah?

For other questions you haven’t answered … refer to my previous posts.

I strongly suggest that instead of arguing for the sake of arguing, please read something credible for once. I am not interested in a pissing match or a match of personal attacks.

-YLH

re: Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT)
Here is the article that says it all:
AIT, as it had existed for more than a century, is being buried by the historians. Url:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=jain%2Fjain35%2Etxt&writer=jain
Begone, AIT.
You sucked big time while you lasted.
Sridhar

#164
[Let`s see. Were you to say `that nigger Condi Rice..,` would you not be a b!got because it was directed at one person only and not all black people?]

Not at all. I have referred to Colin Powell as the (White) House Nigger.


Good. Now we`re getting somewhere. You`re a self-admitted bigot (surprise!) and a misogynist. I only hope you will learn not to see your female relatives as ``cumbuckets`` but you probably are too old a dog to learn new things.

Ref Maasanamuthu #152

[Let`s see. Were you to say `that nigger Condi Rice..,` would you not be a b!got because it was directed at one person only and not all black people?]

Not at all. I have referred to Colin Powell as the (White) House Nigger.

[Of course you might feel ``cumbucket`` is not an offensive reference to a female.]

I intend to be offensive about Sonia, just as I intend to be offensive against you and other hypocrites.

Now that you seem to want to jump in and share your thoughts about issues I raise, how about this?

Are only Hindu gods fake or is Allah also fake? The Chowk readership wants to hear from a Rational Atheist (``secularist``).

Romair:

In reply to your posts:

AGAIN you refuse to acknowledge the fact that countries like Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico- ALL had America supporting them by: opening its markets to its products, POURING in investment, AND providing UNLIMITED credit. EACH ONE OF the countries you mentioned were blessed with the above support in the face of a COMMUNIST threat. I pointed out before, the threat of terrorism is no where near the threat of communism. That is why Pakistan is offered next to nothing. It DOES NOT have free access to America market. And European markets are slapping tarrifs on Pakistani products and reducing quotas. American or any foreign investment IS NOT pouring in- FOREIGN INVESTMENT HAS BEEN DECREASING UNDER MUSHARAF (it`s less than half of what it was this time last year). It DOES NOT have easy access to credit like the others did.

Thus, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Musharaf will do for Pakistan what far more capable elected or dictatorial leaders did for Malaysia, Mexico etc. So please stop embarassing yourself with Fareed Zakaria.

The point you need to realize is that AUTOCRATIC rulers DID NOT help countries like Malaysia and Mexico develop. Rather these countries, because the communist threat was so great, were given unlimited economic benefits in every way possible, and THUS were able to do miracles for their people.

You are turning economics, history and rationale on its head becuase you are a fauji lover.


AGAIN whereas there is a POSSIBILITY for a people to rise against those like NS who may try to crush or abuse an electoral process, THERE IS NEXT TO NO RECOURSE TO PEOPLE TO RISE UP WHEN FACED WITH FAUJIS WITH GUNS pointed at them. I would have found the shariah law passed through parliament detestable- but would have found it to have legitimacy- whereas those you support don`t. Those you support are usrupers. Yes it is shameful BB doesn`t hold elections in her own party. Many of NS`s policies were shameful. Yet, BB and NS ARE STILL THE ONLY CONTENDERS FOR STATUS OF NATIONAL LEADERS. Allowed to return and contest free and fair elections, BB would win hands down. But of course we know that nationwide popular support doesn`t mean anything to you. Because you are a fauji and faujis have guns and that is their only ticket to power.

Institutions develop through conflicts. They are not handed down by God. In immature democracies, there are bound to be conflicts over control between institutions. The conflict is a better sign then seeing Faujiz take over the country with guns.

Cheers!

//.... Minorities are always more assertive... the Majorities always have to be magnanimous. ....//

Manto - I have to say this - I know you won`t like it. This statement is bogus and idiotic. I think you are just making up such statements to support your argument.

Minorites should never be assertive - rather be cooperative. An ``assertive`` minority always brings backlash - which is no good for any society. I don`t think you would ask Shia/Ahmedi/Hindu minroties in Pakistan to be ``assertive``. They wouldn`t survive a day - if they do so. Majority will be magnanimous only when the Minorites are cooperative.( In case of pakistan - even that is far-fetched. The minorities just take it lying down - even then there is no repsite for them. )

Any case - Muslim League and Jinnah were beyond ``assertive`` - they were aggressive to the point that they considered themselves holding all the cards. They never considered how the common hindu feels about them and their policies. Just like you - they thought the hindus just HAVE to give in - rhetorically called ``magnanimous``.

Direct Action Day completed the polarization. It was designed to do so using violence. It was the last thread that broke the proverbial camel`s back.

+++
excerpts:

An otherwise confirmed constitutionalist, Jinnah declared on the occasion of Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946, that ``today we have bid goodbye to constitutional means`` when he decided to unleash Muslim street power to achieve his goal.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/July/23%20o/Leadership%20must%20have%20moral%20authority%20too,%20Mushahid%20Hussain.htm

+++

In protest, the Muslim League had observed a Direct Action Day in August. They called it Jihad. Riots broke out on that day in Calcutta. More than 5000 persons were killed and more than 15000 were injured.

http://www.mkgandhi.org/students/story4.htm

++++

. Only those suffering from memory loss would have forgotten Jinnah`s Direct Action Day call on August 16, 1946, which led to the organised massacre of 12,000 Hindus in Calcutta and presided over by his Muslim League lieutenant, the Bengal chief minister H. S. Suhrawardy.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2002/03/12/stories/2002031200111300.htm

++++

Jinnah who was approached by Nehru but refused to co-operate, was bitterly critical of what he described as ‘the Caste Hindu Fascist Congress and their henchmen who sought to dominate and rule over the Mussalmans ....... This bitterness boded ill at a time when exemplary restraints were necessary to pull the country through a critical period. The ‘Direct Action Day’ that was celebrated by the Muslim League on August 16 touched off a chain reaction of violent explosions, which in the succeeding 12 months shook the country.

http://library.thinkquest.org/26523/mainfiles/lifehistory19.htm

++++


Calcutta became the scene of the most brutal violence in what became known as the great `Calcutta killings`. Within 72 hours, more than 5,000 people died, at least 20,000 were seriously injured, and a hundred thousand residents of Calcutta City alone were left homeless. As Jinnah remarked ``If not a divided India, then a destroyed India``. More violence followed as the rioting spread to the rural areas of Punjab and the Ganges valley.

http://www.indianest.com/opinion/0022.htm

+++

In August, Jinnah unleashed- perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not-an
ugly sample of the horrors to come. Opposed ....he
designated the 18th day of Ramadan as ``Direct Action Day.`` ``Though
direct,`` TIME reported, ``the action was supposed to be peaceful.
But before the disastrous day was over, blood soaked the melting
asphalt of sweltering Calcutta`s streets.

http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0297/0208.html

++++

http://www.geocities.com/hindoo_humanist/directact.html

Mr. Jinnah in a statement issued from Bombay on September 11, 1946 offered to the Hindus the choice between creating Pakistan and forcing a Civil War in the country.

+++

Jinnah proved himself a strategist of a rare caliber and outmaneuvered the Congress, causing an insoluble deadlock that led directly to the plan of 3 June 1947,

http://www.asiasource.org/society/mohammadalijinnah.cfm

Rozaiba #136: The Future of Freedom:

---

The gist of my argument has been that screwed up democratic systems can, and have produced dictators, i.e. Constitutional dictators, who have been bad for their countries, as in Pakistan. And that, economic growth and liberalization of societies, lack of feudalism etc. are pre-requisites of democracy. Elections after elections, in such systems just create more problems, and only strengthen the feudal dictators....which is why the feudals are the biggest supporters of such elections.....

The crux of your argument is , that anyone who passes through any kind of electoral process cannot be a dictator, and should be allowed to, ``do anything he wants.`` At the very least, this point is debatable. Which, for some reason, you are unwilling to get into.

We have already debated how BB is the, ``elected`` lifetime Chairperson for life, of one of the largest political parties in Pakistan. This should be enough to prove my point, or at least, to prove that it is not idiotic. However, I will provide you with some more references.

Farid Zakaria is an editor of Newsweek. He is considered one of the most knowledgeable individuals on international policy, in the USA - the country which is one of the mother of the democratic system. He is a bit of an, ``Uncle Tom`` on some issues, on my opinion, but his depth of knowledge is extremely impressive. Far more than yours and mine (perhaps less than yours, since you seemed to have, ``seen the light.`` But definitely more than mine, since I haven`t seen the light yet). He has authored a very popular best-seller, titled, ``The Future of Freedom.`` This book has been called, ``A work of tremendous originality and insight.`` by the Washington Post. This book was, ``a national bestseller, including extended stays on the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.``

If you have authored something more impressive, or have better credentials, do let me know.

Following is Publisher`s Weekly`s review of the book:

``Democracy is not inherently good, Zakaria (From Wealth to Power) tells us in his thought-provoking and timely second book. It works in some situations and not others, and needs strong limits to function properly. The editor of Newsweek International and former managing editor of Foreign Affairs takes us on a tour of democracy`s deficiencies, beginning with the reminder that in 1933 Germans elected the Nazis. While most Western governments are both democratic and liberal-i.e., characterized by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic rights-the two don`t necessarily go hand in hand. Zakaria praises countries like Singapore, Chile and Mexico for liberalizing their economies first and then their political systems, and compares them to other Third World countries ``that proclaimed themselves democracies immediately after their independence, while they were poor and unstable, [but] became dictatorships within a decade.`` But Zakaria contends that something has also gone wrong with democracy in America, which has descended into ``a simple-minded populism that values popularity and openness.`` The solution, Zakaria says, is more appointed bodies, like the World Trade Organization and the U.S. Supreme Court, which are effective precisely because they are insulated from political pressures. Zakaria provides a much-needed intellectual framework for many current foreign policy dilemmas, arguing that the United States should support a liberalizing dictator like Pakistan`s Pervez Musharraf, be wary of an elected ``thug`` like Venezuela`s Hugo Chavez and take care to remake Afghanistan and Iraq into societies that are not merely democratic but free.`` (www.amazon.com)

Do read the book. At the very least, read parts of it, so we can debate the issue.

The other option is, of course, for you to state: ````Fareed Zakaria, Washington Post, Best Seller, ``HA-HA-HA! Now to your fascination with BEST SELLERS.`` ``What the hell do these guys know, I will tell you what Javed Miandad said on the issue, and how Wasim Akram replied.....BEST SELLER, in comparison to what.....My english literature professor told me that BEST SELLERS by Newsweek Editors are bogus.....Fareed Zakaria loves faujiz.....you will see the light.``

I think I have provided you with enough credible references/poll results. With the hope that you will provide me with the same (you have yet to provide me with one), rather than repeating the above paragraph.....

In the next reply, I will provide you with the text of the 15th Amendment (Shariah Bill) to show you how NS was about to become a Constitutional dictator (something you stated was impossible to do, since he was elected. And since he was elected, according to you, he had the right to do anything he wanted........

Looking forward to arguments, with credible references, from your side, rather than emotional outbursts......

Romair...

``When I provide you facts about Jinnah``

You don`t provide facts about Jinnah... you provide your own point of view based on a very sketchy job of reading Stanley Wolpert`s book... Now... throw back some more insults... You still haven`t responded to any content...

Rozaiba #136: You have stated the following:

``PEW POLLS: HA-HA-HA!
Now to your fascination with PEW POLLS. You know, if the favorable rating for Musharaf is today at 86 percent, that is a significant drop from April 2002. Back then it stood at 98 PERCENT!!! ``

Your argument is again ridiculous. I provided you results from a Pew Research Poll. To the best of my knowledge there was no Pew Poll on the referendum. Yet for some strange reason, you have attached the two. Once again, because you have no information to counter the facts.

Did the Pew Research group provide the figure of 98%? I don`t think so. I never linked the two. So why are you once again, letting your imagination run wild. When I provide you facts about Jinnah, you talk about Musharraf. When I provide you information from a poll on one subject, you talk about an unrelated subject with which Pew Research had nothing to do, i.e. referendum....Please debate the point.

If you would like to discuss the referendum, separately, as usual I would be more than happy to. I think it was a ridiculous idea. And I think the results were fabricated. The govt. itself even admitted to it.

``NS had the majority, he could do anything he wanted. He had every right. However, only idiots would assume that he could make himself a life-long ruler.``

I fail to understand your arguments insisting that, anyone who has the majority, can, ``do anything he wanted.`` The whole democratic process is designed to control this, not support it. You seem to support Constitutional dictatorship. Yet are unwilling to admit it.

I would be greatly interested in your views on BB being lifetime, ``elected`` head of PPP and NS`s Shariah Bill. Funny, you didn`t point to BB being lifetime chairperson of her party. Evne though that was one of my example. You conveniently avoided that. Is she an idiot?

NS was about to pass the Shariah Bill. Please read the text. It would have turned Parliamentary democracy on its head. Have you even read it? It was through the NA, and would have gone through the Senate, had the coup not occured. What are your views on the Shariah Bill? It was bill specifically designed to undo pariliamentary democracy, yet was passed by the parliament.

``Bhutto also won by a landslide in 1977, but even he was set to compromise with the opposition. The lesson learnt (or not learnt) was that when you come to power by the ballot process, you cannot use those power to crush the process.``

Hmm. Interesting. Were you alive in 1971? If you read some history, you will realize that a guy named Mujeeb should have come to power by the ballot. He had a much larger vote base than Bhutto. He had some parties in West Pakistan, that were ready to support him, also. The military is an unconstitutional dictatorship, and we all accept that. But even Yahya was ready to make him the PM of Pakistan. After all, it held the elections (which are still considered the fairest ever held, hence Mujeeb`s victory was legitimate).

What was Bhutto`s reaction to Mujeeb being PM? Bhutto wasn`t even in power by the ballot, and he was able to easily crush the process. And conveniently end up as the PM. Do you recall any comments about, ``breaking legs`` by Bhutto. Even if we assume the military to be a partner in crime, what justifications do you have for Bhutto`s ignoring the Constitution, which should have allowed Mujeeb to the head. Wasn`t the Constituitional process crushed by him?

NS came to power by the ballot, and crushed the process. Who was opposing him? No one. He gagged the legislatures. Bought off and split the Judiciary, and fired the executive (President). The guy was able to storm the Supreme Court, and get away with it, and then appoint his partner in crime, a judge, as the President.

What were you doing at that time? I assume you were trying to explain to everyone how NS was not a Constitutional dictator. And how, ``NS had the majority, he could do anything he wanted. He had every right.``

``About my queries to you, please refer to post 66. I don`t care to write them down again.``

I will request you once again to list your questions clearly. And I will directly answer them in one reply. Why do you get so flustered, when someone challenges you directly? You stated I would not answer your questions, and I am saying I will. Now you are scared to ask them. I didn`t understand the questions in #66. Kindly list them in a complete and clear form.

``one day, romair will see the light.``

I hope I never see the light. Life is a learning process. Anyone who is convinced, especially at a young age, that he has seen the light, turns into a single-minded fanatic, who can never argue facts. Such individuals become self-righteous ideologues.....like yourself....regardless of how many facts are provided to you, you will never change your mind....you only get into debates to change the other person`s mind.....never your own....and when you cannot argue facts, you start linking them to topics, which have nothing to do with the original debate.....

Rozaiba #136/137: ``Unfortunately the reality is that even a mute, mentally handicapped begger on a wheel-chair high on opium will draw more votes than Musharaf. And you know it too. That`s why you are so happy with the status quo.``

If there is such an individual, who is financially honest, I will definitely vote for him, myself, over Musharraf, and over anyone else. In fact, I am all for average people coming to power in Pakistan. That is why I oppose the status quo screwed up political system (which you seem to adore). Unlike yourself, who is bent upon being ruled by the feudal elite, I am not an apologist for BB and NS. So hopefully, this will lay to rest, another imaginary allegation of yours.

Having said that, I will still vote for, and support Musharraf over BB and NS (and over the maulvis). That is my right. If you don`t like it. Too bad. But please, once again, I request you to not make assumptions about anything related to me. They all seem to come out to be false.

Now to your reply. As usual, no facts, no answers to my questions, no statistics. Infact, now that I have requested you to list your questions, you are even unwilling to do that.
I am not sure what else I can offer you. I have given you polls from credible organizations, I have asked for direct answers to my questions. I am willing to answer any question you ask. Yet you keep coming up with emotionalisms.

Mohar 11

You still haven`t answered very direct questions that I asked you.... sad. Neither have you shared with us the `lot of stuff` you`ve read about Jinnah. Your desperation is now showing. You are quoting half sentences and lines out of context to prove your points.

I strongly suggest you read H M Seervai`s book on the transfer of power. Maybe that will put your biases to rest. In case you don`t know who H M Seervai is .... He was a Justice in the Indian Supreme Court and a great man of integrity who wrote a great book on Jinnah in 1990 which managed to put some what of a stop on the Jinnah-bashing that people like you are sadly accustomed to. And H M Seervai is not the only Indian to hold this view.... other great Indian authors and historians who don`t agree with a lot of what you are saying are Khushwant Singh, Kuldip Nayyar, Raj Mohan Gandhi, Ajeet Javed, Anil Seal, Farrukh Dhondi, Jaffer Qureshi, A G Noorani, M J Akbar etc


``Manto man - you are loosing your edge - the quality of your arguments are deteriorating by day. First you put up the most absurd argument that Jinnah was justified in communal politics because he was a minority. Now I see more gems in your post #143 . ``

The arguments are there for everyone to see... and so are yours. Minorities are always more assertive... the Majorities always have to be magnanimous. I have already quoted from Atlee and other observers who credits Jinnah for overcoming communal trouble and anti-Hindu and Anti-Sikh violence with great resolve and determination. As the leader of the majority he became the greatest hope of the minorities, unlike the man you are comparing with him.


//...Jinnah had called for Civil Disobedience, taking a leaf out ...//

Civil Disobedience?? So what happnened to the ``principle of constitutionalism`` ?? Very conveniently sacrificed at the altar of opportunism ..... or is that called pragmatism ??? One more u-turn by Jinnah, the ``constitutionalist`` - don`t you think? Any case - Civil Disobedience against who? Not against the British - that`s for sure. They were his buddies, his benefactors. So obviously the so called ``Civil Disobedience`` was directed against hindus. What was Jinnah thinking when he ordered his version of ``Civil Disobedience``? Didn`t he know that it will inevitably end up in clashes amongst hindus and muslims? I mean - anybody could guess THAT!! ``


Ans:


Still it is amazing that despite what you say

1) No historian not even biased ones like Collins and Lapierre blame him for it...


2) The Riots happened in a Hindu majority city, where Jinnah himself wasn`t even present but didn`t happen in Muslim majority cities or cities like Dehli and Bombay, where Jinnah himself was present. I find it surprising that if what you say is true ... despite Jinnah`s presence in Dehli, the Dehli Muslim Leaguers peacefuly observed the Direct Action Day strike as did the rest of India ... something is not making sense here.


3) The Facts of the Calcutta riots speak for themselves... the Report to Wavell for example is very clear that the retaliation that two times as many Muslims died in that conflict on 16th August than Hindus ... some 4000 to 2000 approximately... and that armed groups of Hindus were ready to counter any eventuality, and fearing the worse they unleashed hell on Muslims. Either the Muslims were really stupid and sissy or the Hindus were heroic supermen ...

4) Jinnah`s calls through out were clearly of non-violent civil disobedience, and he spel