Open Letter To Dina Wadia

Nakhok #75: The Urdu/Bengali part is correct. The rest is all Indian propoganda. Much like the propoganda that convinced Indians that they would be met with knife carrying assassins if they ever visited Pakistan. Hence, their being, ``overwhelmed`` at finding Pakistanis to be normal human beings, during this cricket series......

I will not argue with you, on subjective topics, because nothing I will say will convince you, since you are making a subjective comment. If you think Jinnah was worse than Mossulini, by all means, continue thinking that. In fact, why not raise it to Hitler? Or to Modi?

As I stated earlier, the leadership of Jinnah is to be judged by Pakistanis (both East and West Pakistanis). Not by Indians. Just like the leadership of Dravid is to judged by Indian players, not by Pakistani players. If he gets his way and wins, perhaps the Pakistani players will not like his leadership. But that is immaterial.

``Hats off to the East Pakistanis who had the sagacity to see thru Jinnah`s duplicity.``

You may be surprised to find that Jinnah is still quite popular with many Bangladeshis. More popular than Nehru and Gandhi. Infact the center of the whole separation from India and creation of Pakistan was centered and initiated in East Pakistan (and in UP). The areas of West Pakistan were brought in, after the fact. Bengalis wanted to separate from India, more than any group of Muslims in India. Why do you thinnk that was?

Interestingly, in every cricket match I see, between India and Pakistan, the Bangladeshi crowd is overwhelmingly on Pakistan`s side. I have always wondered why. Even Ravi Shastri commented on this, once. So, perhaps you are trying to be holier than the pope.

``Nehru and Gandhi had both tried their best to stop communal riots.``

Gandhi tried his best. As did Jinnah. Nehru did not. Had Nehru agreed to the Cabinet Mission for federated united India, a lot of violence would have been avoided. Surely, you agree with that. Nehru wanted it all his way. Everyone was on the same page, except him. So Pakistanis separated. They weren`t fools hoodwinked by Jinnah. They sincerely did not feel secure with India. Specifically the ones in UP, who would have been a minority amongst Hindus.

I would encourage you to read Wolpert`s book on Nehru. Gandhi himself was fed-up with Nehru, towards partition time. Here are some excerpts:

```Though he never sought conventional power or any job in India`s` government, Gandhi had waited within earshot of Nehru and Patel, hoping that they might invite him to replace Lord Mountbatten. It seemed gallingly inappropriate to Gandhi for this British royal naval person to remain the ceremonial head of independent India....Were Gandhi India`s governor-general now, he could easily have launched another summit with his old friend Jinnah. Together they might have been able to agree on a formula to stop the slaughter - Gandhi`s most passionate aspiration.....Mountbatten was quite ready to let the old man....take over as India`s governor-general.....But Nehru...rejected the idea of having Gandhi as his governor-general even more vehemently than he`s vetoed Gandhi`s Jinnah `scheme` a year earlier.` ``

```Despite the ever-growing gulf that divided their ideologies, Gandhi and Jinnah deeply respected each other`s virtues and remarkable strengths.```

````I have described Jawaharlal as the uncrowned king,` Gandhi told his prayer meeting on June 3...`One who lives in a palace cannot rule the Government.` He said it directly to Nehru as well, every time they met...But none of Delhi`s rulers listened any longer to the, `ravings` of an old `fool,` though not so long before most of them had considered a, `saint.`...Some old friends, seeing how disgusted and distressed Gandhi was, urged him to launch Satyagraha against Nehru`s Raj, but he refused...`I would not carry out any agitation against that Institution.`”

```about Pakistan`s share of British imperial sterling assets.” “Since mid-August, Nehru and Patel had continued to resist releasing Pakistan`s 550 million rupees owed from partitioned British imperial balances. These were to have been released by India three months earlier but remained locked inside New Delhi`s treasury vault.”

P.S. Kindly do answer the question`` Why is that every non-Hindu province in India has attempted separation, even at the cost of a lot of lives? All of them, could not have been motivated by Jinnah.

Fauji-loving Romair:

As I`ve said, it was Qaid-e-Azam`s mistake to not put together an institutionalized form of governance after independence. You are trying to use the last year of his life as a means of showing that `good` constitutional dictators are `o.k`. Read Urstruly`s post 63 that dismiss your contention that Qaid-e-Azam was a dictator.

Anyway, our concern is for today. Musharaf is the only dictator. NS and BB were elected. They have populist appeal and given a chance, lets not hold our breath wondering whether they will blow out Musharaf`s pipsqueak supporters like you by the millions. And that makes all the difference! You conveniently forget not to give a damn about this point.


Cheers!

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

One thing I think no one talked about is the `Greywolf` part. This one is going to bite the air marshall really bad.

In 1932, in Hampstead during a stroll, Jinnah picked up H C Armstrong`s work `Greywolf`, on the life of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of Turkey. He identified so intensely with the life of Ataturk that it was all he talked about for a few days, so much so that the 13 year old Dina Jinnah started calling him `Greywolf`. On one occasion Jinnah remarked to Fatima that if he had as much power as Ataturk, he would modernize India`s muslims the same way. Later on under Jinnah`s leadership, one annual day was set aside to the memory of the great Turk ... called `Kemal Day`. Throughout the Pakistan Movement, Ataturk and Turkey were presented as the ideal leadership for muslims, just as Iqbal had done so earlier. Ofcourse in my opinion, Jinnah`s vision of Pakistan was that it would be more democratic than the Turkish variety, as Jinnah was not a military leader like Ataturk, but civilian and lawyer trained in the British tradition ....



-YLH

Romair at # 81:

``P.S. Kindly do answer the question`` Why is that every non-Hindu province in India has attempted separation, even at the cost of a lot of lives? All of them, could not have been motivated by Jinnah.``

You will never get this answer from anyone. All those who did not belong to the Hindu faith who started in favour of unity finally got disenchanted.

I encourage all Chowkies to read this link:

Clich here to read an excellent article by CNN.

``In 1906, Jinnah joined the All India Congress. In 1913, while still serving in the Congress, he joined the Muslim League, prompting a leading Congress spokesman of the day to call him the ``ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.`` With time, that would change. ``

Quaid-e-Azam and Iqbal both started pro-Hindu-Muslim unity.

Not that Jinnah needs any patronization... but since certain biased individuals are putting up lies on this board here are a few more to go with the earlier quotes in the last post:




Nelson Mandela, Ex-South African President

To see Ali Jinnah`s Museum is a source of tremendous inspiration for all those who have struggled against all forms of racial oppression. (Nelson Mandela had come to Islamabad in 1995 and had insisted on including Karachi as a destination to visit Jinnah`s Grave and his house in Karachi where upon reaching he drove straight to the Quaid`s Mazar)

On another occasion he said:

`Every sight related to Leader Ali Jinnah is a source of inspiration`.

(Impact Internation 1995 : 47)

---

Bill Clinton the US President:

(I am) A committed friend who will stand with the people of Pakistan as long as you seek the stable, prosperous, democratic nation of your founder`s dreams. More than half a century ago, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, shared that vision as he addressed Pakistan`s constituent assembly. ``If you work together``, he said, ``in a spirit that everyone of you is first, second and last a citizen with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.`` Pakistan can have a future worthy of the dreams of the Quaid-e-Azam. If you choose that future, the United States will walk with you. I hope you will make that choice. And I pray for our continued friendship, for peace, for Pakistan

---

The Time Magazine Editorial (Unlike Mr. Nakhok, I am not just quoting one line from one Opinion article)

Mr. Jinnah was something more than Quaid-i-Azam, supreme head of the State, to the people who followed him; he was more even than the architect of the Islamic nation he personally called into being. He commanded their imagination as well as their confidence. In the face of difficulties which might have overwhelmed him, it was given to him to fulfil the hope foreshadowed in the inspired vision of the great Iqbal by creating for the Muslims of India a homeland where the old glory of Islam could grow afresh into a modern state, worthy of its place in the community of nations. Few statesmen have shaped events to their policy more surely than Mr. Jinnah. He was a legend even in his lifetime.

Editorial: The Times (London)
13 September 1948

---

Ofcourse it is quite possible that they are all on Pakistan`s payroll.

ABOUT LEADERSHIP STYLES

This is a digression, brought on about by the discussion on Quaid-e-Azam`s leadership style. He was a `constitutional democrat`, soemone points, and that is the next best thing.

IMHumbleO, there is a time and place for various leadership styles. At one given time, a certain style may be right. At a later stage in history, it may no longer be relevant. That doesn`t make the past flawed.

Leadership evolves over stages. Based on the simple management theory, I could likely categorize QEAzam as a BENEVOLENT AUTOCRAT. Good for his time when subcontinental Muslims needed an iron-fist leader who will `sell their ideas to them`. Today, we may need first-level of democratic leadership - nothing as evolved as in the most democratic nations, but the first step towards it. Though I believe PK society may still need a transitionary period leadership style which starts with autocracy and dictatorship, but is participatory, and leads towards establishing democracy. It was hoped that Mush will do the same.

Anyhow, let`s spare a moment to study the various leadership styles, their evolution, and try to understand that they evolve over time and with evolution and maturity of people.

Check out this link:


http://www.srds.ndirect.co.uk/leader01.htm#g970515c

It is a sad reflection on our state of affairs educationally that Jinnah is being attacked by someone who is motivated wholely by their bias and hatred and not by any factual evidence, and Romair is confronting it with his own rather mediocre understanding of partition instilled by the weird history taught in local schools. Much has been said in the past on this issue on chowk, but it is all futile. Those who are close minded will never be open to new ideas.

Nakhok,

I strongly suggest instead of regurgitating the fanatical anti-Jinnah myths that you have been taught .... read some history. Jinnah was described by the Indian High commissioner as the `Protector General of the Hindus`.... you think even one of your own was lying? Perhaps if you read Hodson`s famous `The Great Divide` you would see how absolutely and completely wrong you are.

Your analogies are an indication of an inherent bigotry that has become the hallmark of revisionist historians. Thank God there are enough historians in India who still speak the truth and don`t continue to lie in the manner people like you are accustomed to... in any event your claim that only Hindus were killed by Musims and Nehru stopped the massacres in East Punjab is the BIGGEST lie yet. Both sides suffered tremendous losses. According to the Times of London 5.5 Million Muslims fled India to come to Pakistan and some 3 million Hindus fled Pakistan. Out of 200 000 or so ( as per H V Hodson`s book) casualties, clear the larger loss was that of the muslims... that was after the logical result of the larger numbers fleeing India. According to most international observers, especially Roger Stimson, the BBC Correspondent, Howard Donowan, DCM at the American Embassy Dehli and H V Hodson the communal trouble in Pakistan was quelled as early as mid November but in India it continued till much later due to the inaction. This inaction is attributed to Sardar Patel by Foreign Historians and Pakistani Historians ... on Mountbatten by Jinnah and some Indian Historians.



In any event the 500 posts that you have put up on this board are nothing but absolute lies and more lies and I have a feeling you know it well...

---

Here is what Dr. B R Ambedkar, the father of Indian constitution, leader of the Dalits, and a CONTEMPORARY of Jinnah, had to say about him:


``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.``

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

---

H V Hodson was the constitutional advisor to the Viceroy of India 1941-1942... H.V. Hodson says on Page 39 of his book `The Great Divide` in the chapter `Two Great personalities`


``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.``

---

Sarat Chanderbose, the leader of the Congress Forward Bloc and the brother of Subhas Chanderbose

``Mr. Jinnah was great as a lawyer, once great as a Congressman, great as a Leader of Muslims, great as a world politician and diplomat, and greatest as of all as a man of action. By Mr. Jinnah`s passing away, the world has lost one of the greatest statesmen and Pakistan its life-giver, philosopher and guide.``

---

M C Rajah, the leader of the scheduled castes and made this comment in 1941:

``All religions hold that God sends suitable people into the world to work out his plans from time to time and at critical junctures. I regard Mr Jinnah as the man who has been called upon to correct the wrong ways in which the people of India have been led by the leadership of Mr Gandhi. Congress took a wrong turn when it adopted wholesale the non cooperation programme of Mr Gandhi and assumed an attitude of open hostility towards Britain and tried to infusew the minds of people a spirit of defiance of law and civil disobedience more of less thinly veiled under a formula of truth and non violence. Moreover by Mahatmafying Mr Gandhi it appealed to the idolatorous sperstition of the Hindus, thus converting the religious adherence of the Hindu section of the population to the Mahatma into political support of his non cooperation movement.While this strategy was of some avail in hustling the British Government to yield more and more it divided the people into Hindu and non hind! u sectionsIn these circumstances a man was needed to stand up to congress and tell its leaders that their organization however powerful numerically and financially doesnot represent the whole of India. I admire Mr Jinnah and feel grateful to him because in advocating the cause of the Muslims he is championing the cause of all the classes that are in danger of bein crushed under the steam roller of the caste Hindu majority, acting under the inspiration and orders of Mr Gandhi `` (25th December 1940, 9 months After the Pakistan Resolution, Seen here are Scheduled castes of India)

---

Gandhi

Jinnah is incorruptible and brave.

---

Sarojini Naidu Poetess of India, Bulbul-e-Hind, and a contemporary of Jinnah

a sincerity of purpose and the lasting charm of a character animated by a brave conception of duty and an austere and lovely code of private honour and public integrity... Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s attenuated form is a deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance. Somewhat formal and fastidious, and a little aloof and imperious of manner, the calm hauteur of his accustomed reserve but masks, for those who know him, a naive and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman`s, a humour gay and winning as a child`s. Pre-eminently rational and practical, discreet and dispassionate in his estimate and acceptance of life, the obvious sanity and serenity of his worldly wisdom effectually disguise a shy and splendid idealism which is of the very essence of the man.

---

Nehru Congress Leader, contemporary of Jinnah, and the first Prime Minister of India

The old Advocate of Unity, Mr. M.A.Jinnah, ... was advanced than his colleagues, and stood head and shoulders above them.

---

I have recently acquired the `Jinnah Papers`, and it is very clear on many issues:

1) Jinnah envisaged a modern democratic non-theocratic liberal pluralistic State.

2) After partition Jinnah`s maximum effort was at restoring communal harmony in Pakistan. He is praised by the Time, The Times of London, BBC`s Roger Stimson, and H V Hodson for restoring law and order before the authorities in New Dehli could.

3) It is clear from the correspondence and deliberations in the UN in November and December of 1947 that there was a deliberate attempt by the Indian Government especially the Congress backed Mountbatten to play down the communal trouble in Subcontinent where as Pakistan saw the communal trouble as an engineered attempt to destroy Pakistan at inception.

Why did Indian Government want to play it down at that critical juncture... we will never know.

-YLH

``#88 by Mantolives on April 3, 2004 7:06am PT

It is a sad reflection on our state of affairs educationally that Jinnah is being attacked by someone who is motivated wholely by their bias and hatred and not by any factual evidence, and Romair is confronting it with his own rather mediocre understanding of partition instilled by the weird history taught in local schools. Much has been said in the past on this issue on chowk, but it is all futile. will never be open to new ideas. ``

Manto,

I sneaked in. No. Your people are A OK. Very decent. Open minded and yes some what mypo. But. Far.. far more hospitable.

Neither you or your wife should ever think of visiting India. We are NOT even 10 percent hospitable. You better get prepared to get robbed.

I would have loved to a very nasty debate with you. But, I had a very limited visa and I do have a very tight schedule. If either/both of you ever come Mumbai please let me know. I will be as nasty and dirty to you as both of you think. I promise.

BTW. What is Kachhi Abadi?? What is Orangi?


Yogiraj Patil

PS

Chodo kal ki bateN. Kal ki Baat PooraNee.

Naye daur se likkhey Hum Mil kar nayee kahaaNee

Hum, HindoostaNee. Hum PakistaNee.... (Boy. I must be ...)

Yogiraj

Dear Yogi,

I am glad you enjoyed yourself in Pakistan.... if you ever sneak back again... please let us know ...


``Chodo kal ki bateN. Kal ki Baat PooraNee.

Naye daur se likkhey Hum Mil kar nayee kahaaNee

Hum, HindoostaNee. Hum PakistaNee``


The dream of two proud self respecting friendly and neighborly nations living side by side in South Asia is about to come true.


As for our coming to Mumbai... India is definitely one of our destinations in the coming few years... and we will want to see that nastiness... :)

-YLH

re: Jinnah`s legacy
Ultimately, a leader is judged by the legacy that he left behind. It is true that Jinnah did not live long enough but had he lived, would he have put in place a democratic, secular set up? I doubt it.
Jinnah became the unquestoned ruler of Pak, a kind of constitutional monarch for the time he lived in Pak. He made no attempts or left no guidelines for a transition to democrazy in Pak. Even his speeches are subject to so many interpretations. He might have wanted a truely secular Pak at peace with India but he did not leave behind that legacy.
Nehru on the other hand left a legacy of democrazy, secularism which is hard to bypass. If minorities in India today have a fighting chance, they need to be grateful to Nehru. He never became dictatorial even when he could have and set into motion a workable constitution which is respected even today in India.
In these respects, Jinnah does not even measure upto Nehru. Gandhiji towers over him.
Sridhar

re: Jinnah
Jinnah is an enigma. There is no doubt that he was incorruptible as Gandhiji himself had said about him. There is no doubt also about that indomitable spirit that kept going despite knowing that the end was near (few knew during 1947 that he was a dying man, dying slowly of T.B for which there was no cure in those days). Few can doubt that his heart was beating for the muslims of India.
The transformation of a man who swore by Hindu-muslim unity to one who felt compelled to fight for a seperate homeland for muslims is both an interesting and tragic story. I do not think it has much to do with the failure of Cabinet Mission Plan. It is much deeper than that. It has something to do with the disenchantment that he felt towards the way Congress was completely taken over by Gandhiji and used in a way that he did not like viz Gandhiji`s way of invoking religious symbolism into everything he did, his saintliness (which must have repelled the English educated, whisky drinking elite that he was and shared the same cynicism about Gandhi that his English masters did), his pacifism. More so, he must have been disturbed by the way Hindus responded positively towards Gandhiji`s call for ``satyagraha`` (truthful civil disobedience). He saw Gandhiji take the mantle of a mass leader while he was relegated to being a spokesperson for the muslims alone. The big blow therefore was to the ego of a patriot who must have once truely loved India but who realized (wrongly as events would prove later on) that there was no place for muslims to develop fully in India and that a free India would not give a good deal to muslims.
It is during times like these that one can gauge who is a good leader and who is truely great. Jinnah proved to be good leader for muslims. But in doing so, he had to sacrifice his ideals of patriotism, hindu-muslim unity by working for a seperate homeland. It was the acceptance of defeat. He was convinced that this hindu-muslim unity, though desirable and something to be cherished, may not be achievable.
A truely great leader never succumbs to the pressures from outside and does not sacrifice his ideals. That is why Jinnah is only remembered by the muslims. He is not remembered much outside Pakistan.
Gandhiji is remembered more outside India than within. This is because he bequeathed to the world values which cut across borders: peace, non-violence, peaceful use of force to protest against a subjugtor.
In those trying times when hindus and muslims were killing each other, Gandhiji put into practice what he had always preached: religous unity. This call for unity was not a mere intellectual exercise for him (as it was for Jinnah) but a spiritual one. He was ultimately a political saint who saw through the facade of religous divisions and saw unty in one God. To put his nonviolence into practice, he travelled all over the riot torn areas on barefoot and directly appealed to the masses to stop the carnage. By doing so, he must have saved thousands of hindu and muslim lives in places like Noakhali, calcutta, Delhi.
Like a child who clings to toys, he clung to his ideals of non-violence, peace, religous tolerance. The world around him might have changed but his ideals did not. He did not modify his core ideals to suit the new situation that was emerging out of partition. To the riot victims who had suffered, his advice was to make peace and not retaliate. To those who were refugees in Delhi and who had occupied houses of muslims, he adviced to vacate the houses immediately. If one reads about the last fast he took in Birla house, he literally compelled all war parties to the negotiating table. And it included the new Paki ambassador!
Sridhar

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

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

#92 by rsridhar
//...Jinnah is an enigma....//

COme on - Jinnha was no enigma. As part of Congress - he was reduced a poster-boy for hindu-muslim unity. He wanted something more than that. His political ambitions was higher that that. So like any other politician ... he switched gear and played communal politics.

Just like Advani. His party had only two seats at one time. He found an opportunity ... switched gear and rest is history.

At the end of the day - Jinnah , like Advani - is a demagogue extraordinaire. But fools like YLH worhsip him as ``supporter of the underdog``.

Rozaiba #82: ``You are trying to use the last year of his life as a means of showing that `good` constitutional dictators are `o.k`.``

No, I am not. Please stop trying to put words into my mouth. I would make a similar statement, with or without anything Jinnah did. I do feel that good constituional dictators, for third world countries, unders certain situations, are ok. For this I use Southeast Asia, more as my model than anything else. But lets stop obsessing with this. OK Lets assume that what you say about everything in politics is correct, and everything I say is wrong, so we can get back to the original argument, i.e. was Jinnah a Constitutional dictator or not?

You are now stating the following:

``As I`ve said, it was Qaid-e-Azam`s mistake to not put together an institutionalized form of governance after independence. ``

What is this supposed to mean? Is this a Yes or a No. The question is simple. Based on the points listed below, was Jinnah a Constitutional dictator or not? Yes or No? Please stop trying to beat around the bush, and kindly answer in a Yes or No. In my opinion, anyone who does the following is a Constituitonal dictator, if they are elected through a Constitution, and a plain dictator, if they do not come in through a Constitution. Lets keep Musharraf, and BB, and everyone else out of it. And stick to the original debate.

I pointed out the following, from nakhok`s reference. I am listing them here again. Please do not ignore the points:

``1. When the time came, Jinnah opted to become the Governor General of Pakistan instead of Prime Minister because, under the Constitution, Governor General could give instructions to the Prime Minister.

2. Jinnah, after becoming Governor General, not only appointed the Prime Minister but himself chose and appointed all the members of the Cabinet.

3. He was the President of Muslim League, and did not relinquish party presidentship even after becoming the Governor General

4. Jinnah accumulated all power in him as the leader of the party, head of the administration and the State, a virtual dictator.

5. He even assumed authority to take care of the government`s Kashmir and Frontier Departments.

6. As a Governor General, he caused Legislative Assembly to endorse these additional powers.

7. He even presided over Cabinet meetings, unprecedented in parliamentary democracy.

8. He often, without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, instructed the Provincial Governors, Ministers and Departmental Secretaries. Parliamentary norms were not applicable to Jinnah.``

Do you think elected leaders should be allowed to do the above? And by doing the above, do they become dictators? This time, I am hoping you will answer the question in a simple Yes or No.....