Open Letter To Dina Wadia

Montolives and Romair:

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

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

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

Rozaiba..

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

-YLH

Romair...

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

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



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


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

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

-YLH

Mohar11

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

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

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

-YLH

---

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

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

Here are a Few excerpts...


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


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




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

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

---

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

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

ahmadzai #131: ``I am amazed at the level of knowledge you have on Quaid-e-Azam.``

My knowledge of Jinnah, and of other issues, is limited. That is why I almost always rely on direct quotes/surveys etc. to make a point. In fact, I have certain issues with individuals who feel they have a lot of knowledge about important issues and people, like Islam, Jinnah etc. My whole argument is that such people need to be kept at bay.

You will notice an interesting similarity amongst individuals who claim great knowledge of religion, and those who claim great knowledge of important historical personalities like Jinnah. They do so, always, to push an agenda or an argument, which they themselves may not be able to push through, with logic.

The common characteristics of, ``mullahs``are:

- They feel they are the only ones who understand Islam. While everyone else is an idiot on the subject
- If you provide them with a direct quote from the Quran, that contradicts them, they will try to confuse the issue by relying on five pieces of indirect quotes from uncredible sources
- The genuinely consider themselves to be the, ``defenders`` of Islam. And are always on the forefront of any debate on Islam, trying to act as its sole protector.
- The ridicule the education that anyone else has, related to Islam, considering their own education to be superior
- The have a small list of individuals (maulvis, sufis, and off-springs) whom they, ``worship,`` with respect to Islam
- They will not allow any arguements against their own interpretation of Islam. Nor are the willing to entertain any facts that point to something that discredits their arguments
- If someone tries to point out any inconsistency in their argument, they will resort to anything to discredit the person who disagrees with them - including character assassinations, fabricated lies, etc.

Tragically, during this whole process, they genuinely feel, they are doing a good deed, and that even if a majority of the poeple don`t agree with them, they have a right to push ahead with their agenda anyways.

Now, apply these characteristics onto the individuals who obssess with Jinnah, much like the mullahs who obssess with religion:

- They feel they are the only ones who understand Jinnah. While everyone else is an idiot on the subject
- If you provide them with a direct quote from an authorative piece of research, they will try to confuse the issue by relying on five pieces of indirect quotes from uncredible sources
- The genuinely consider themselves to be the, ``defenders`` of Jinnah. And are always on the forefront of any debate on Jinnah, trying to act as his sole protector.
- The ridicule the education that anyone else has, on Jinnah, considering their own education to be superior
- The have a small list of individuals (daughter, grandson etc.) whom they, ``worship,`` with respect to Jinnah
- They will not allow any arguements against their own interpretation of Jinnah. Nor are the willing to entertain any facts that point to something that discredits their arguments
- If someone tries to point out any inconsistency in their argument, they will resort to anything to discredit the person who disagrees with them - including character assassinations, fabricated lies, etc.

Tragically, during this whole process, they also genuinely feel, they are doing a good deed, and that even if a majority of the poeple don`t agree with them, they have a right to push ahead with their agenda anyways.

Thus, I have always felt that Islam and Jinnah have, unfortunately, turned into punching bags for people proving their own arguments and pushing their own agenda. Tell a maulvi, with credible facts, that Islam does not propose a Shariah, and he will call you names, and will strangle you. Tell a Jinnah-owner, with facts, that that there are contradictions and uncertainities in Jinnah`s stances (and speeches and philosophies) on religion and secularism, and he pushed one, on one occassion (marrying a parsi himself) and the other on other occassions (breaking off relations with his daughter for marrying outside Islam) and he will call you names, and try to strangle you, as well.

Yes! YLH or Manto

Opportunist is a strong word. I should not have used it. Your sighting Gandhi in Khilafat movement is accurate too.

Jinnah was just mindful of the situations at hand and acted on them like many other politicians do and that includes Gandhi too.

Jinnah became more than just ``any`` politician when he was able to get Pakistan from colonialists.

Romair...

``That is why I almost always rely on direct quotes/surveys etc. to make a point. ``

No you don`t... you actually put up your own interpretation of Wolpert`s interpretation. Despite my repeated appeals you haven`t found the courage to quote direct quotes from the `Jinnah Papers`... Let us not mislead other people. Refer to post 129.... as far as debate on agendas go... your accusations are pathetic and indicative of the fact that you don`t have a viable argument.

I must say that you have given us quite a glimpse of your intellectual calibre... Let me say this once again... Jinnah`s marriage whether to a parsi, christian, hindu or muslim is irrelevant to his secularism. ... Only some one who is complete novice in political science will make such arguments... and you have proved yourself one.


When we talk of Jinnah`s secularism/pluralism/non-theocraticism ... we speak of all the times he declared Religion to be a personal faith of an individual , promised Equality, Fraternity and Justice to all citizens of Pakistan Regardless of religion caste or creed and his promise Pakistan shall not be a theocracy to be run by priests with a divine mission ....


Ofcourse this line of argument is beyond you... and you will rather indulge in pathetic Name calling and Personal attacks of the worst kind.



Ahmadzai...

Thank god ... I live in my country Pakistan where I push Jinnah`s agenda of Equality Fraternity Justice and Fairplay...

-YLH

You can come up with a billion hypothetical situations Romair, I remain steadfast of my statements about the supremecy of electoral process and institutional independence as the only things worth supporting. Yes, they are feudal infested, yes, they are corrupt and anything else you can imagine. But there, people have a choice and there is a possibility of progress. We all know elections are messy.

As an advice, quit wasting time in hypothesis. 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. 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. It`ll crush you. OR, Faujiz will crush you as they see an opening to usrup the rights of civilians once again.

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

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!!! That is by how much he won the REFERENDUM!!!! And not just some random poll, but an ACTUAL VOTING PROCESS!! Even I participated there. Of course I was among the 2 percent who opposed him. Yeah, I guess I am in the minority. I feel so small. Everybody loves Musharaf. The guard outside the high school loved him so much, he showed me three stamps on his hands- showing that he had voted `YES for Musharaf` THREE times at three different polling stations! We both had a good laugh. Too bad you weren`t there. I know you would have voted for Musharaf till your whole body was covered with stamps verifying you had voted.

Let`s talk about these `favorability` ratings. I think you would not like my econometrics teacher. He always emphasized the point `COMPARED TO WHAT!`

99.9 percent of Pakistanis would hold a favorable view of Imran Khan. I live in a low-class constituency. The PTI candidate was from the lower class as well. We all liked him. Not a single person was agianst him. Yet, he was a miserable failure. PTI needs charismatic candidates. Not `mamma`s favorite son` candidates. But that`s another story. If Musharaf is so sure of himself, and YOU are so sure of his popularity, why doesn`t he run for elections? If he wins in even ONE constituency in Pakistan (except ISB as most those people are living in another world), I`ll whole-heartedly say that yes, Musharaf is indeed great. I`d become his supporter. Life-long supporter.

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. Speaking of status quo- THIS IS the status quo. Where NO INSTITUTION is allowed to develop. YOU ARE THE STATUS QUO! (albeit with residencein Canada).

manto:

one day, romair will see the light. i am very confident of this.

Wonderful... Romair is calling Jinnah papers an `uncredibe` source... what ever that means. Talk about `skewed` sense of fairness.

Wolpert`s book is the perhaps one of the best books written on Jinnah... but that does`t mean he couldn`t make mistakes. Wolpert admits that his interview request was declined and the information he used on Jinnah`s family was that which was provided by secondary sources and not primary sources.... Remember in 1982... Jinnah papers hadn`t even been declassified... they were only declassified during the last decade, and there are still papers that haven`t been declassified for God knows what reason.


Wolpert`s brilliant book was my starting point... since I read it in mid 1999 I have explored Jinnah`s life in great detail, whether that is considered a crime by Canadian Airmarshals or not I don`t care... Jinnah of Pakistan by Wolpert remains my favorite book, but over time I found many small mistakes which are not in line with the Primary Sources. That doesn`t take away from the fact that Wolpert`s book is a gem... but one should always have more than one point of view... Why is this simple fact lost on Romair... One will never know... but since he considers Wolpert such an authority on stuff... here is a report by Agha Khan University`s newsletter on his lecture on Jinnah....

``GUEST LECTURE SERIES
Stanley Wolpert on Jinnah`s Vision of Pakistan
To commemorate the 125th birth anniversary of the founder of the nation, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, AKU invited world-renowned historian Professor Stanley Wolpert from the University of California, Los Angeles, to speak on ``Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s Vision of Pakistan``. The lecture was organised as part of the University policy of broadening the education of its students, faculty and staff, by giving them an opportunity to benefit from interaction with national and international distinguished speakers.

During his talk, Professor Wolpert highlighted the Quaid`s leadership, quoting from his book the decisions Jinnah had taken at critical junctures in the history of the Muslims of South Asia. He illustrated to the audience the importance Jinnah placed on education, economic uplift and political training.

In a hall packed with people from all walks of life, Prof. Wolpert reaffirmed the Quaid`s vision of Pakistan as a secular Muslim welfare state, and urged the people of Pakistan to work towards the realisation of this vision. ``

http://www.aku.edu/university/publications/newsletter3.1/

---

My wife had the opportunity of meeting Wolpert at the `Kashmir Conference` in Washington DC... his views on Jinnah are identical to ours.

So Whose Agenda is a Wolpert pushing???

Like I said before... only someone who is completely a novice in political science will think that who Jinnah did or didn`t marry has something to do with his secularism or lack thereof.

-YLH

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

rozaiba...

You are an optimist :)

//...Nor can he be compared to Advani because of the simple reason that while Jinnah was championing minority`s cause Advani is the champion of the majority`s cause...//

Manto - come on man - you can do better than this .... this is the lamest excuse I have ever heard from any Jinnah-worshipper.

++++

//... he became the Protector General of the Hindus and all the Hindu MPs of the Pakistan Constituent assembly ...//

``Protector General of the Hindus`` ....... Couldn`t they come up with a more pompous title than this?? I mean - what was Jinnah running there - a mughal durbar? ....... What else do you think those Hindu ``MP``s could do? ..... Call Jinnah`s bluff and get executed by a mob ..... which could then be called ... Direct Action Platoon?

+++

//..if championing the cause of his community makes Jinnah opportunistic... then what do you call Gandhi`s support for the extremely regressive and backward Khilafat Movement which brought religion into politics ..Remember Jinnah, and even Iqbal stood completely aloof from the mass Khilafat movement.//

I call it worse than opportunistic. It was stupidity of highest order .... it was political chicanery of the worst kind. It was good to know that Jinnah didn`t take part of that madness - I will give him the credit for that.

But that doesn`t absolve Jinnah from his political opportunism. like they say - two or more wrongs donot make anything right.

PS:

You didn`t read the rest of the post... you didn`t share with us the `lot of stuff` you have read on Jinnah... nor did you respond to my question as to why a lot of writers, authors and historians from your own country don`t share the view that you are unfortunately posting... a view that is shared by the more extreme amongst the Paki-bashers.

Nor did you care to comment on the excerpts from B R Ambedkar`s book which trace a conversion route of Jinnah so to speak.

Mohar,

I must give you credit for atleast being fair ... and ascribing political chicanery to the Hindu supporters of Gandhi. Rest of your response however proves my earlier point... instead of explaining why my arguments are wrong you have simply resorted to name calling. A mind set on bias can`t be changed.

The point I made earlier is that when Jinnah was in the majority and in power his conduct was not as a champion of his community but as the protector of minorities as was required at that time... not so with Advani, though I really hope he reinvents himself. He was never a champion of a minority and his stance has hardly moved since he has been in power...

As for Jinnah`s role after 1947... I refer to Prime Minister Atlee... he was a self avowed admirer of the Congress and an opponent of Jinnah... yet he admits on a few occasions that the Jinnah led Government was able to quell communal trouble by coming down hard on it much faster than the Indian dominion. Similarly I am open to discussion about the direct action day of 16 th August 1946... no historian of any repute or ill repute ... even those anti-Pakistan like Collins and Lapierre have laid the blame of that day at Jinnah`s feet... for the obvious reasons how can you blame Jinnah, a politician hundreds of miles away for disturbances in a Hindu majority city where according to most Police reports more muslims died than hindu.

Direct Action Day was celebrated through out India in all places like Dehli, Lahore, Karachi, Bombay (where young Zulfi Bhutto was put in charge of the students), yet none of the other cities where Jinnah himself was present erupted in violence. Jinnah had called for Civil Disobedience, taking a leaf out of his opponent`s book, and the Congress newspaper Blitz actually came out in praise of it because to them Jinnah had finally adopted the measures of popular struggle instead of constitutional advance that he had remained committed to all through out his life.


Calcutta killings are often blamed on Suhrawardy... no doubt he had planned an organized strike, but I doubt that even Suhrawardy, who was himself a man of peace and later Gandhi`s companion in Calcutta, could have imagined such consequences.

-YLH