Why We Need Islamization of Science
Kamran Meer February 25, 2005
#556 Posted by MantoLives on March 19, 2005 11:59:31 am
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=66264
In an Earlier League
We will have come to terms with our history when we can honestly reckon with figures like Jinnah,
Of all the figures of the nationalist movement who had a decisive influence on shaping the destiny of the subcontinent, Jinnah remains amongst the most enigmatic and least understood. A brilliant lawyer and legislator, he often found himself in political negotiations whose outcome he could not control. By modern standards a resolute liberal and secularist, he laid the foundations of a state that has found it difficult to transcend its religious identity. He was, as Nehru described him, an elitist, but one with great concern for extending the franchise. He was instrumental in creating a sense of corporate identity amongst Muslims, yet he dissociated himself from theology and the Khilafat. He had obvious disdain for Gandhi, yet got along well with Tilak whom he so ably defended. He once defined Swaraj as Hindu-Muslim unity. He changed his position on separate electorates many times and ultimately founded a state that represented both his triumph and his defeat.
Ian Wells gives an account of Jinnah’s politics up till the 1930s, before he became associated with the idea of Pakistan. He clearly charts the trajectory of Jinnah’s early political career describing him as a liberal constitutionalist of sorts, a disciple of Morely in political philosophy and Gokhale in political strategy. Wells does not dwell much on Jinnah’s later ideas. His rendering of Jinnah’s early career will shed little light on the vexed question of what exactly Jinnah was all about during the 1940s. Did Jinnah want unified representation for Muslims, within a loose Indian union as Jalal controversially claimed? Or had his position become sufficiently radical to brook no other alternative than Partition?
If Wells is correct then this is perhaps the wrong question to ask. Too much of Indian history is written backwards. It takes outcomes for granted and then tries to figure out who was responsible. But perhaps we need to open up new vistas in the intellectual history of the period. It is more accurate to say that all the major figures of the period, Gandhi, Jinnah, Ambedkar, Nehru, and Savarkar, had strong convictions. But few of them had any clear idea of what the grand experiment they were undertaking would look like. They were constantly improvising positions in light of events and changing circumstances. And the final political outcomes often exceeded the power and grasp of any single one of them. To read through even Well’s simplistic narrative is to be reminded of how vexed the question of Muslim representation was from the early part of the 20th century. Once it was admitted that deviation from one person one vote was warranted for the protection of the interests of minorities, the question became: what counts as adequate protection? One-third or one-fourth guaranteed representation at the Centre? Veto power for minorities at the Centre? The truth is there never was any real stable answer. Any position was liable to create a political backlash. One-third reservation and some Hindus would argue that too much had been given away. One-fourth and some Muslims would argue that too little had been secured. The backlash to any position would in turn generate a further backlash. The Hindu Mahasabha’s reaction to Jinnah’s proposals seems gradually to have radicalised him, in turn unleashing another round of reactions. This vicious circle found its ultimate denouement in Partition, an outcome nobody apparently wanted, but no one could prevent.
Even though Wells’ book does not add too much to our existing stock of knowledge about Jinnah, it is useful to read Jinnah’s early politics without the final result clearly in view. He gives a clear account of some crucial episodes in the evolution of Jinnah’s politics: Khilafat, Minto-Morley Reform, Poona Pact, the rise of Gandhi. Wells ought to have placed Jinnah’s changing positions in a wider political context. There are glaring omissions. For instance, Wells scarcely discusses Jinnah’s defence of Tilak, and much more could have been said on how Hindu- Muslim relations were constituted in the period he discusses.
But the book will help readers get past the stern looks and encrusted reputation that, amongst other things, makes Jinnah so unapproachable to most Indians. It presents a Jinnah who is neither an opportunist, nor a fanatic, but a leader negotiating his way through changes in politics that were not easy to fathom. It is fair to say that we will have come to terms with our history, not when we understand figures like Gandhi and Nehru, but when we can honestly reckon with figures like Jinnah and perhaps Savarkar. In Jinnah’s case in particular the shadow he cast on Indian history is immeasurably more complicated than our simplistic depictions of him allow us to acknowledge. At least Wells had reminded us of how much we still don’t understand about the key figures of modern Indian history.
In an Earlier League
We will have come to terms with our history when we can honestly reckon with figures like Jinnah,
Of all the figures of the nationalist movement who had a decisive influence on shaping the destiny of the subcontinent, Jinnah remains amongst the most enigmatic and least understood. A brilliant lawyer and legislator, he often found himself in political negotiations whose outcome he could not control. By modern standards a resolute liberal and secularist, he laid the foundations of a state that has found it difficult to transcend its religious identity. He was, as Nehru described him, an elitist, but one with great concern for extending the franchise. He was instrumental in creating a sense of corporate identity amongst Muslims, yet he dissociated himself from theology and the Khilafat. He had obvious disdain for Gandhi, yet got along well with Tilak whom he so ably defended. He once defined Swaraj as Hindu-Muslim unity. He changed his position on separate electorates many times and ultimately founded a state that represented both his triumph and his defeat.
Ian Wells gives an account of Jinnah’s politics up till the 1930s, before he became associated with the idea of Pakistan. He clearly charts the trajectory of Jinnah’s early political career describing him as a liberal constitutionalist of sorts, a disciple of Morely in political philosophy and Gokhale in political strategy. Wells does not dwell much on Jinnah’s later ideas. His rendering of Jinnah’s early career will shed little light on the vexed question of what exactly Jinnah was all about during the 1940s. Did Jinnah want unified representation for Muslims, within a loose Indian union as Jalal controversially claimed? Or had his position become sufficiently radical to brook no other alternative than Partition?
If Wells is correct then this is perhaps the wrong question to ask. Too much of Indian history is written backwards. It takes outcomes for granted and then tries to figure out who was responsible. But perhaps we need to open up new vistas in the intellectual history of the period. It is more accurate to say that all the major figures of the period, Gandhi, Jinnah, Ambedkar, Nehru, and Savarkar, had strong convictions. But few of them had any clear idea of what the grand experiment they were undertaking would look like. They were constantly improvising positions in light of events and changing circumstances. And the final political outcomes often exceeded the power and grasp of any single one of them. To read through even Well’s simplistic narrative is to be reminded of how vexed the question of Muslim representation was from the early part of the 20th century. Once it was admitted that deviation from one person one vote was warranted for the protection of the interests of minorities, the question became: what counts as adequate protection? One-third or one-fourth guaranteed representation at the Centre? Veto power for minorities at the Centre? The truth is there never was any real stable answer. Any position was liable to create a political backlash. One-third reservation and some Hindus would argue that too much had been given away. One-fourth and some Muslims would argue that too little had been secured. The backlash to any position would in turn generate a further backlash. The Hindu Mahasabha’s reaction to Jinnah’s proposals seems gradually to have radicalised him, in turn unleashing another round of reactions. This vicious circle found its ultimate denouement in Partition, an outcome nobody apparently wanted, but no one could prevent.
Even though Wells’ book does not add too much to our existing stock of knowledge about Jinnah, it is useful to read Jinnah’s early politics without the final result clearly in view. He gives a clear account of some crucial episodes in the evolution of Jinnah’s politics: Khilafat, Minto-Morley Reform, Poona Pact, the rise of Gandhi. Wells ought to have placed Jinnah’s changing positions in a wider political context. There are glaring omissions. For instance, Wells scarcely discusses Jinnah’s defence of Tilak, and much more could have been said on how Hindu- Muslim relations were constituted in the period he discusses.
But the book will help readers get past the stern looks and encrusted reputation that, amongst other things, makes Jinnah so unapproachable to most Indians. It presents a Jinnah who is neither an opportunist, nor a fanatic, but a leader negotiating his way through changes in politics that were not easy to fathom. It is fair to say that we will have come to terms with our history, not when we understand figures like Gandhi and Nehru, but when we can honestly reckon with figures like Jinnah and perhaps Savarkar. In Jinnah’s case in particular the shadow he cast on Indian history is immeasurably more complicated than our simplistic depictions of him allow us to acknowledge. At least Wells had reminded us of how much we still don’t understand about the key figures of modern Indian history.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#555 Posted by MantoLives on March 15, 2005 4:06:36 am
Re: # 554
Talking specifically about the ban....
Death threats are issued all the time every where... so what?
Talking specifically about the ban....
Death threats are issued all the time every where... so what?
#554 Posted by ballukhan on March 14, 2005 9:43:31 pm
``.........it turns out that the story about Meera being fined originated from the Press Trust of India. Pakistan Government said very clearly that it has nothing to do with it.... and that Meera is free to work any where she wants.
It turns out that Mahesh Bhatt might have been behind the whole thing.............``
That is to say the LeT goons were inspired/asked by Mr.Bhatt to give those threatening statements??
It turns out that Mahesh Bhatt might have been behind the whole thing.............``
That is to say the LeT goons were inspired/asked by Mr.Bhatt to give those threatening statements??
#553 Posted by MantoLives on March 11, 2005 11:41:26 am
Re: # 552
Rsidhar... I am afraid that while on paper you are correct in your assessment of Pakistan i.e. a theocratic state with a Military dictator... you will find the reality quite different from this assessment. Pakistan is neither an Iran nor a totalitarian state. A simple visit to Pakistan will prove that much.
As for your assessment of Pakistan`s failure... Stephen Cohen also talks about the Indian leaders` frustration and even obsession with seeing Pakistan fail. He also says that they in their own fit of anger blame America. Now whatever the merit of that argument, one has to play with the hand that it has been given. America doesn`t love Pakistan any more than it loves India... India actually is a bigger market for them... but it is the way we have played a poor hand ... in the game of Bluff... that we have forced the American hand. Pakistanis are good poker players.... have you played poker with any Pakistani?
I suggest that instead of just believing what the media tells you... make informed decisions and statements. Every country has its problems... but let us call a spade a spade. There is a deliberate effort on the part of some in the India media to distort the reality. Let me give you an example.... I work for the Daily Times... I have been looking into this whole Meera Business... it turns out that the story about Meera being fined originated from the Press Trust of India. Pakistan Government said very clearly that it has nothing to do with it.... and that Meera is free to work any where she wants.
It turns out that Mahesh Bhatt might have been behind the whole thing.
Rsidhar... I am afraid that while on paper you are correct in your assessment of Pakistan i.e. a theocratic state with a Military dictator... you will find the reality quite different from this assessment. Pakistan is neither an Iran nor a totalitarian state. A simple visit to Pakistan will prove that much.
As for your assessment of Pakistan`s failure... Stephen Cohen also talks about the Indian leaders` frustration and even obsession with seeing Pakistan fail. He also says that they in their own fit of anger blame America. Now whatever the merit of that argument, one has to play with the hand that it has been given. America doesn`t love Pakistan any more than it loves India... India actually is a bigger market for them... but it is the way we have played a poor hand ... in the game of Bluff... that we have forced the American hand. Pakistanis are good poker players.... have you played poker with any Pakistani?
I suggest that instead of just believing what the media tells you... make informed decisions and statements. Every country has its problems... but let us call a spade a spade. There is a deliberate effort on the part of some in the India media to distort the reality. Let me give you an example.... I work for the Daily Times... I have been looking into this whole Meera Business... it turns out that the story about Meera being fined originated from the Press Trust of India. Pakistan Government said very clearly that it has nothing to do with it.... and that Meera is free to work any where she wants.
It turns out that Mahesh Bhatt might have been behind the whole thing.
#552 Posted by rsridhar on March 11, 2005 9:49:01 am
re:#550 by Mantolives
``Had Azad lived longer till the declassification of the transfer of power papers... he would have realized that Nehru`s was a not a blunder but a calculated move. ``
Perhaps it was a calculated move. Perhaps not. History only records events, not intentions. But one thing is clear. Leaders like Nehru, Patel were eager to get on with the task of nation building. They truly believed that Pak would not survive long. Left to itself, it would not have but it benefitted from the Cold War and the generosity of America.
Ambedkar was clearly wrong if he believed that division of a country on the basis of religion would solve all problems. Pak today is a theocratic state with nothing much to be proud of. It just above manages to survive. If Pakis consider this as an achievement, i do not know what to say.
Sridhar
``Had Azad lived longer till the declassification of the transfer of power papers... he would have realized that Nehru`s was a not a blunder but a calculated move. ``
Perhaps it was a calculated move. Perhaps not. History only records events, not intentions. But one thing is clear. Leaders like Nehru, Patel were eager to get on with the task of nation building. They truly believed that Pak would not survive long. Left to itself, it would not have but it benefitted from the Cold War and the generosity of America.
Ambedkar was clearly wrong if he believed that division of a country on the basis of religion would solve all problems. Pak today is a theocratic state with nothing much to be proud of. It just above manages to survive. If Pakis consider this as an achievement, i do not know what to say.
Sridhar
#551 Posted by MantoLives on March 11, 2005 4:32:18 am
Re: # 549
Why would the Congress want to be rid of the Muslim majority provinces?
Please read Hormansji Seervai`s classic ``Partition of India: Legend and Reality``.
Why would the Congress want to be rid of the Muslim majority provinces?
Please read Hormansji Seervai`s classic ``Partition of India: Legend and Reality``.
#550 Posted by MantoLives on March 11, 2005 3:31:19 am
Harish,
Let me make some points to you that will hopefuly bring some order to our discussion.
1) About the historians, you keep denouncing all historians as Jinnah worshippers. Ironically none of the historians I have quoted are Pakistanis or can be described as Jinnah worshippers.. but then I am sure you will denounce Raj Mohan Gandhi as well, because he holds a similar view of Jinnah. Please do inform me which book or author you think is a balanced one.
2) About Ambedkar: I posted his quote to counter your assertion about Jinnah`s opportunism. Ambedkar doesn`t agree clearly. As for this book... it shows the case from both sides.. Please find the excerpt below for yourself and see it. Ambedkar was an ally of Jinnah when this book was written, and his aim and objective was to impress upon the Congress to come to settlement ... because Jinnah, who had previously been a staunch Congress Ally even in the league, was ready for one. A fair reading of the book will prove this ...
3) The point about H M Seervai went above you as well. H M Seervai was an Indian who blames Nehru and Patel for partition. You claimed it was the Paki psyche. Last I checked Pakistanis thought Jinnah was the conquering hero who won Pakistan... a view as distorted as yours.
4) As far as I know Mir Qasim was the 4th Nawab of Bengal after Mir Jaffar (the traitor to Sirajuddaulah) ... he was famous for the Battle of Buxar.
5) You are right about fools being fanatical... but they are not convincing, for I would have accepted your claims had that been true.
6) The logic of my position is shared by many Indian writers and historians, including may I add, Azad the great Indian leader (with identical religious views as Maulana Mohamed Ali btw) . Azad blames Nehru`s blunder for partition in his book ``India wins freedom``... though he is no fan of Jinnah`s. Had Azad lived longer till the declassification of the transfer of power papers... he would have realized that Nehru`s was a not a blunder but a calculated move.
Also from Ambedkar`s book:
Compare with this dark vista, the vista that opens out if India is divided into Pakistan and Hindustan. The partition opens the way to a fulfilment of the destiny each may fix for itself. Muslims will be free to choose for their Pakistan independence or dominion status, whatever they think good for themselves. Hindus will be free to choose for their Hindustan independence or dominion status, whatever they may think wise for their condition. The Muslims will be freed from the nightmare of Hindu Raj. Thus the path of political progress becomes smooth for both. The fear of the object being frustrated gives place to the hope of fulfilment. Communal settlement must remain a necessary condition precedent, if India, as one integral whole, desires to make any political advance. But Pakistan and Hindustan are free from the rigorous trammels of such a condition precedent and even if a communal settlement with minorities remained to be a condition precedent it will not be difficult to fulfil. The path of each is cleared of this obstacle. There is another advantage of Pakistan which must be mentioned. It is generally admitted that there does exist a kind of antagonism between Hindus and Muslims which if not dissolved will prove ruinous to the peace and progress of India. But, it is not realized that the mischief is caused not so much by the existence of mutual antagonism as by the existence of a common theatre for its display. It is the common theatre which calls this antagonism into action. It cannot but be so. When the two are called to participate in acts of common concern what else can happen except a display of that antagonism which is inherent in them. Now the scheme of Pakistan has this advantage, namely, that it leaves no theatre for the play of that social antagonism which is the cause of disaffection among the Hindus and the Muslims. There is no fear of Hindustan and Pakistan suffering from that disturbance of peace and tranquillity which has torn and shattered India for so many years. Last, but by no means least, is the elimination of the necessity of a third party to maintain peace. Freed from the trammels which one imposes upon the other by reason of this forced union, Pakistan and Hindustan can each grow into a strong stable State with no fear of disruption from within. As two separate entities, they can reach their respective destinies which as parts of one whole they never can.
Ambedkar`s book is a good supporting argument for H M Seervai`s view.
Let me make some points to you that will hopefuly bring some order to our discussion.
1) About the historians, you keep denouncing all historians as Jinnah worshippers. Ironically none of the historians I have quoted are Pakistanis or can be described as Jinnah worshippers.. but then I am sure you will denounce Raj Mohan Gandhi as well, because he holds a similar view of Jinnah. Please do inform me which book or author you think is a balanced one.
2) About Ambedkar: I posted his quote to counter your assertion about Jinnah`s opportunism. Ambedkar doesn`t agree clearly. As for this book... it shows the case from both sides.. Please find the excerpt below for yourself and see it. Ambedkar was an ally of Jinnah when this book was written, and his aim and objective was to impress upon the Congress to come to settlement ... because Jinnah, who had previously been a staunch Congress Ally even in the league, was ready for one. A fair reading of the book will prove this ...
3) The point about H M Seervai went above you as well. H M Seervai was an Indian who blames Nehru and Patel for partition. You claimed it was the Paki psyche. Last I checked Pakistanis thought Jinnah was the conquering hero who won Pakistan... a view as distorted as yours.
4) As far as I know Mir Qasim was the 4th Nawab of Bengal after Mir Jaffar (the traitor to Sirajuddaulah) ... he was famous for the Battle of Buxar.
5) You are right about fools being fanatical... but they are not convincing, for I would have accepted your claims had that been true.
6) The logic of my position is shared by many Indian writers and historians, including may I add, Azad the great Indian leader (with identical religious views as Maulana Mohamed Ali btw) . Azad blames Nehru`s blunder for partition in his book ``India wins freedom``... though he is no fan of Jinnah`s. Had Azad lived longer till the declassification of the transfer of power papers... he would have realized that Nehru`s was a not a blunder but a calculated move.
Also from Ambedkar`s book:
Compare with this dark vista, the vista that opens out if India is divided into Pakistan and Hindustan. The partition opens the way to a fulfilment of the destiny each may fix for itself. Muslims will be free to choose for their Pakistan independence or dominion status, whatever they think good for themselves. Hindus will be free to choose for their Hindustan independence or dominion status, whatever they may think wise for their condition. The Muslims will be freed from the nightmare of Hindu Raj. Thus the path of political progress becomes smooth for both. The fear of the object being frustrated gives place to the hope of fulfilment. Communal settlement must remain a necessary condition precedent, if India, as one integral whole, desires to make any political advance. But Pakistan and Hindustan are free from the rigorous trammels of such a condition precedent and even if a communal settlement with minorities remained to be a condition precedent it will not be difficult to fulfil. The path of each is cleared of this obstacle. There is another advantage of Pakistan which must be mentioned. It is generally admitted that there does exist a kind of antagonism between Hindus and Muslims which if not dissolved will prove ruinous to the peace and progress of India. But, it is not realized that the mischief is caused not so much by the existence of mutual antagonism as by the existence of a common theatre for its display. It is the common theatre which calls this antagonism into action. It cannot but be so. When the two are called to participate in acts of common concern what else can happen except a display of that antagonism which is inherent in them. Now the scheme of Pakistan has this advantage, namely, that it leaves no theatre for the play of that social antagonism which is the cause of disaffection among the Hindus and the Muslims. There is no fear of Hindustan and Pakistan suffering from that disturbance of peace and tranquillity which has torn and shattered India for so many years. Last, but by no means least, is the elimination of the necessity of a third party to maintain peace. Freed from the trammels which one imposes upon the other by reason of this forced union, Pakistan and Hindustan can each grow into a strong stable State with no fear of disruption from within. As two separate entities, they can reach their respective destinies which as parts of one whole they never can.
Ambedkar`s book is a good supporting argument for H M Seervai`s view.
#549 Posted by shishapa on March 11, 2005 12:47:39 am
# 547
Manto,
You say in # 547,
``it was the Congress that had decided to be rid of the Muslim majority provinces... instead of accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan``
Why would Congress decide to be rid of Muslim majority provinces? I do not think Congress anti-Muslim!
Afterall Congress, by not wanting partition, was willing to live with those same Muslim majority provinces without changing demographics in unpartitioned India!
Perhaps there should have been two Cabinet Mission Plans, one for India, one for the
two Muslim Majority provinces. May be then Congress would have accepted the
Cabinet Mission Plan and nothing would have got partitioned, neither India nor
Punjab and Bengal.
Anyway, this is my last note on this topic. I will read your reply if you decide to.
Manto,
You say in # 547,
``it was the Congress that had decided to be rid of the Muslim majority provinces... instead of accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan``
Why would Congress decide to be rid of Muslim majority provinces? I do not think Congress anti-Muslim!
Afterall Congress, by not wanting partition, was willing to live with those same Muslim majority provinces without changing demographics in unpartitioned India!
Perhaps there should have been two Cabinet Mission Plans, one for India, one for the
two Muslim Majority provinces. May be then Congress would have accepted the
Cabinet Mission Plan and nothing would have got partitioned, neither India nor
Punjab and Bengal.
Anyway, this is my last note on this topic. I will read your reply if you decide to.
#548 Posted by harish_hyd on March 11, 2005 12:39:58 am
#546 by Mantolives
[I have come across ignorant people who have argued without any logic... but I never seen such self righteousness coupled with illogical ignorance.]
But I have come across one…that is you.
[Permanent Black Publishers in New Delhi have published yet another book by a foreign author Ian Bryant Wells... I suppose now he will become a worshipper as well.]
I will not argue on this point because in your last post, you were very clear about writers who had a different opinion of Jinnah. Whether they claimed that they weren’t historians or not, you sure do not consider them as historians.
[Atleast think before you write, instead of constantly giving us proofs of your ignorance coupled with stupidity.]
The more I read your posts, the more I am convinced of the saying which goes something like this “The greatest tragedy on the Earth is that the wise are not forceful enough about their beliefs, while the fools are very convincing and fanatical”.
[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.]
As if I didn’t know that you would selectively pick passages that cast Jinnah in a flattering light. Here is what the very same Ambedkar said about Jinnah’s mad pursuit of Pakistan in the very same book that you recommended to me. In effect Ambedkar called him insane.
“Must there be Pakistan because the Musalmans are a nation ? It is a pity that Mr. Jinnah should have become a votary and champion of Muslim Nationalism at a time when the whole world is decrying against the evils of nationalism and is seeking refuge in some kind of international organization. Mr. Jinnah is so obsessed with his new-found faith in Muslim Nationalism that he is not prepared to see that there is a distinction between a society, parts of which are disintegrated, and a society parts of which have become only loose, which no sane man can ignore. When a society is disintegrating—and the two nation theory is a positive disintegration of society and country—it is evidence of the fact that there do not exist what Carlyle calls `` organic filaments ``—i.e., the vital forces which work to bind together the parts that are cut asunder. In such cases disintegration can only be regretted. It cannot be prevented. Where, however, such organic filaments do exist, it is a crime to overlook them and deliberately force the disintegration of society and country as the Muslims seem to be doing. If the Musalmans want to be a different nation it is not because they have been but because they want to be. There is much in the Musalmans which, if they wish, can roll them into a nation. But isn`t there enough that is common to both Hindus and Musalmans, which if developed, is capable of moulding them into one people ”.
[As for your cop out about Gandhi using the word ``Mahatma``... Gandhi clearly enjoyed it and had no objections to it. So my comment is in no way close to the collossal blunder that you committed.]
Ha! Ha! Looks like I caught you on the wrong foot. Never mind, we all make mistakes, and so I accept yours.
[Last I checked H M Seervai didn`t change his citizenship to Pakistan before he passed away. He remained one of India`s leading commentators on History, Politics and Law. Now how does he become a Pakistani is beyond me... ]
This is a clear sign of a man who has lost his way. You are running around in circles without making any sense.
[No... my ideas based on logic and history does not require endorsement from you. ]
This has to be the joke of the day for me. Jinnah never wanted Pakistan.. that is logic? Sure.
[No... this is why you should read some History.]
You mean the doctored Paki history of which you have proved such an eminent student? Or the Paki history which teaches that the history of Pakistan begins when Sindh was invaded by Mir Qasim?
[I have come across ignorant people who have argued without any logic... but I never seen such self righteousness coupled with illogical ignorance.]
But I have come across one…that is you.
[Permanent Black Publishers in New Delhi have published yet another book by a foreign author Ian Bryant Wells... I suppose now he will become a worshipper as well.]
I will not argue on this point because in your last post, you were very clear about writers who had a different opinion of Jinnah. Whether they claimed that they weren’t historians or not, you sure do not consider them as historians.
[Atleast think before you write, instead of constantly giving us proofs of your ignorance coupled with stupidity.]
The more I read your posts, the more I am convinced of the saying which goes something like this “The greatest tragedy on the Earth is that the wise are not forceful enough about their beliefs, while the fools are very convincing and fanatical”.
[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.]
As if I didn’t know that you would selectively pick passages that cast Jinnah in a flattering light. Here is what the very same Ambedkar said about Jinnah’s mad pursuit of Pakistan in the very same book that you recommended to me. In effect Ambedkar called him insane.
“Must there be Pakistan because the Musalmans are a nation ? It is a pity that Mr. Jinnah should have become a votary and champion of Muslim Nationalism at a time when the whole world is decrying against the evils of nationalism and is seeking refuge in some kind of international organization. Mr. Jinnah is so obsessed with his new-found faith in Muslim Nationalism that he is not prepared to see that there is a distinction between a society, parts of which are disintegrated, and a society parts of which have become only loose, which no sane man can ignore. When a society is disintegrating—and the two nation theory is a positive disintegration of society and country—it is evidence of the fact that there do not exist what Carlyle calls `` organic filaments ``—i.e., the vital forces which work to bind together the parts that are cut asunder. In such cases disintegration can only be regretted. It cannot be prevented. Where, however, such organic filaments do exist, it is a crime to overlook them and deliberately force the disintegration of society and country as the Muslims seem to be doing. If the Musalmans want to be a different nation it is not because they have been but because they want to be. There is much in the Musalmans which, if they wish, can roll them into a nation. But isn`t there enough that is common to both Hindus and Musalmans, which if developed, is capable of moulding them into one people ”.
[As for your cop out about Gandhi using the word ``Mahatma``... Gandhi clearly enjoyed it and had no objections to it. So my comment is in no way close to the collossal blunder that you committed.]
Ha! Ha! Looks like I caught you on the wrong foot. Never mind, we all make mistakes, and so I accept yours.
[Last I checked H M Seervai didn`t change his citizenship to Pakistan before he passed away. He remained one of India`s leading commentators on History, Politics and Law. Now how does he become a Pakistani is beyond me... ]
This is a clear sign of a man who has lost his way. You are running around in circles without making any sense.
[No... my ideas based on logic and history does not require endorsement from you. ]
This has to be the joke of the day for me. Jinnah never wanted Pakistan.. that is logic? Sure.
[No... this is why you should read some History.]
You mean the doctored Paki history of which you have proved such an eminent student? Or the Paki history which teaches that the history of Pakistan begins when Sindh was invaded by Mir Qasim?
#547 Posted by MantoLives on March 10, 2005 11:48:33 pm
Re: # 543
This again runs counter to history... it is an established fact the vast majority of the killings happened in the East Punjab plains. Please do check up on it.
As for ``vivisecting``... had you read the book that I suggested, you would see clearly that it was the Congress that had decided to be rid of the Muslim majority provinces... instead of accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan... which was on the table even in May 1947 when Nehru rejected it one last time.
Even Azad, no admirer of Jinnah, accepts this in his book.
This again runs counter to history... it is an established fact the vast majority of the killings happened in the East Punjab plains. Please do check up on it.
As for ``vivisecting``... had you read the book that I suggested, you would see clearly that it was the Congress that had decided to be rid of the Muslim majority provinces... instead of accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan... which was on the table even in May 1947 when Nehru rejected it one last time.
Even Azad, no admirer of Jinnah, accepts this in his book.
#546 Posted by MantoLives on March 10, 2005 11:41:03 pm
Re: # 545
I have come across ignorant people who have argued without any logic... but I never seen such self righteousness coupled with illogical ignorance.
Now to you Harish.. historians like Ainslee Embree, and Indian experts like Seervai... have become Jinnah worshippers to you. Permanent Black Publishers in New Delhi have published yet another book by a foreign author Ian Bryant Wells... I suppose now he will become a worshipper as well.
Atleast think before you write, instead of constantly giving us proofs of your ignorance coupled with stupidity. I have read Ambedkar more than you have clearly. Perhaps I should recommend two books ``Pakistan or Partition of India`` or ``Gandhi and Gandhiism`` both by Dr. Ambedkar. Had you really read Ambedkar... you would not be saying the nonsense you are. If Ambedkar is an authority to you... consider the fact that he called Jinnah the most incorruptible and self less leader in India...
He wrote about Jinnah:
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.
http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan/40E2.Pakistan%20or%20the%20Partition%20of%20India%20PART%20IV.htm
Wait... is Ambedkar a Jinnah worshipper too?
And... Ambedkar called Gandhi a ``Hindu fanatic``... in one of his many books on the man.
So are you willing to accept these two views?
As for your cop out about Gandhi using the word ``Mahatma``... Gandhi clearly enjoyed it and had no objections to it. So my comment is in no way close to the collossal blunder that you committed.
Some more of your nuggets:
``Pardon me for the cliché, but this is typical Paki thinking.``
Last I checked H M Seervai didn`t change his citizenship to Pakistan before he passed away. He remained one of India`s leading commentators on History, Politics and Law. Now how does he become a Pakistani is beyond me...
``Man, are you so desperate that you would go to this length to extract an endorsement of your views from me?``
No... my ideas based on logic and history does not require endorsement from you.
``I just said it didn’t matter if the partition envisaged one or two states.``
No you said... the creation of Bangladesh negated the creation of Pakistan. If it didn`t matter your blundered in your post.
``India-Pakistan relations were doomed beginning from Jinnah, because here was a man who was so paranoid about Hindus that he wanted a separate nation. ``
No... this is why you should read some History.
``dismember India``
Whose paranoid?
-YLH
I have come across ignorant people who have argued without any logic... but I never seen such self righteousness coupled with illogical ignorance.
Now to you Harish.. historians like Ainslee Embree, and Indian experts like Seervai... have become Jinnah worshippers to you. Permanent Black Publishers in New Delhi have published yet another book by a foreign author Ian Bryant Wells... I suppose now he will become a worshipper as well.
Atleast think before you write, instead of constantly giving us proofs of your ignorance coupled with stupidity. I have read Ambedkar more than you have clearly. Perhaps I should recommend two books ``Pakistan or Partition of India`` or ``Gandhi and Gandhiism`` both by Dr. Ambedkar. Had you really read Ambedkar... you would not be saying the nonsense you are. If Ambedkar is an authority to you... consider the fact that he called Jinnah the most incorruptible and self less leader in India...
He wrote about Jinnah:
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.
http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan/40E2.Pakistan%20or%20the%20Partition%20of%20India%20PART%20IV.htm
Wait... is Ambedkar a Jinnah worshipper too?
And... Ambedkar called Gandhi a ``Hindu fanatic``... in one of his many books on the man.
So are you willing to accept these two views?
As for your cop out about Gandhi using the word ``Mahatma``... Gandhi clearly enjoyed it and had no objections to it. So my comment is in no way close to the collossal blunder that you committed.
Some more of your nuggets:
``Pardon me for the cliché, but this is typical Paki thinking.``
Last I checked H M Seervai didn`t change his citizenship to Pakistan before he passed away. He remained one of India`s leading commentators on History, Politics and Law. Now how does he become a Pakistani is beyond me...
``Man, are you so desperate that you would go to this length to extract an endorsement of your views from me?``
No... my ideas based on logic and history does not require endorsement from you.
``I just said it didn’t matter if the partition envisaged one or two states.``
No you said... the creation of Bangladesh negated the creation of Pakistan. If it didn`t matter your blundered in your post.
``India-Pakistan relations were doomed beginning from Jinnah, because here was a man who was so paranoid about Hindus that he wanted a separate nation. ``
No... this is why you should read some History.
``dismember India``
Whose paranoid?
-YLH
#545 Posted by harish_hyd on March 10, 2005 10:33:01 pm
#535 by Mantolives
[For a person who was untill yesterday confusing two very different South Asian leaders, you seem to speak like you are an authority... which is just sad.]
Ah, I was expecting just this. But let me refresh your memory too. In a letter to The Friday Times a couple of years back, you had accused Gandhi of bestowing upon himself the title of Mahatma, which I had to promptly refute in another letter to the editor. So much for your expertise on South Asian history!
Never mind, since you claim to be an expert on South Asian history, may I ask you how many books have you read other than your fellow Jinnah-worshippers Wolpert, Embree, and Seervai? I bet none. Perhaps you should read Ambedkar to get a different perspective.
[The Pakistan demand was a bargaining counter for parity at the center. It has been proved by the transfer of power papers and many researchers including Mr. H M Seervai, the constitution expert from India and a historian.]
However nicely you may try to put it across, the so-called ‘bargaining counter’ was at best a blackmail strategy Jinnah used to bully the Congress into meeting his demands. And please don’t again cite Wolpert, Embree, Seervai, and other so-called historians, but then, if we go by your opinion, those who didn’t praise Jinnah to the skies were not fit to be called historians. Just FYI, there are any number of them who wrote against Jinnah, Ambedkar being one of them, which of course you won’t bother about since you are so blinded by your worship of Jinnah.
[Also thanks for admitting that the creation of Bangladesh in no way was a negation of the so called Pakistan demand. Bangladesh was always envisaged in the original resolution as an independent entity.]
Man, are you so desperate that you would go to this length to extract an endorsement of your views from me? I just said it didn’t matter if the partition envisaged one or two states.
By the way, here is the map of Pakistan, as envisaged by Chaudhry Rehmat Ali.
[No responsible historian does that, be it Ainslee T Embree, Raj Mohan Gandhi, H V Hodson or Wolpert... ofcourse some journalese authors (mostly Indian) have their own way of looking at things, but then they never claimed to be historians.]
Again, like I said before, you hold the view that anyone who wrote contrary to what you have deluded yourselves into believing is not a historian. Difficult to argue with someone who is so fixated and will refuse to believe that Jinnah was as human as anyone else, and as prone to opportunism and errors of judgment like the rest of us.
[If at all you will find a scape goat it will be Nehru, Patel and Mountbatten who insisted on the partition of these provinces... creating the havoc.]
Pardon me for the cliché, but this is typical Paki thinking. Nehru, Patel, et al were responsible for Partition, but not the man who led the movement for Pakistan? Try selling this snake oil to your fellow Pakis, because no one else is buying it.
[No wonder Pakistan-India relations are doomed... because people like you represent the future.]
India-Pakistan relations were doomed beginning from Jinnah, because here was a man who was so paranoid about Hindus that he wanted a separate nation. And after that demand was met, Pakis has tried for the last 60 years to dismember India through their “bleed India from a thousand cuts” strategy, and now we have peace-activist-par-excellence Manto, again blaming Indians for not wanting peace. Sigh!
[For a person who was untill yesterday confusing two very different South Asian leaders, you seem to speak like you are an authority... which is just sad.]
Ah, I was expecting just this. But let me refresh your memory too. In a letter to The Friday Times a couple of years back, you had accused Gandhi of bestowing upon himself the title of Mahatma, which I had to promptly refute in another letter to the editor. So much for your expertise on South Asian history!
Never mind, since you claim to be an expert on South Asian history, may I ask you how many books have you read other than your fellow Jinnah-worshippers Wolpert, Embree, and Seervai? I bet none. Perhaps you should read Ambedkar to get a different perspective.
[The Pakistan demand was a bargaining counter for parity at the center. It has been proved by the transfer of power papers and many researchers including Mr. H M Seervai, the constitution expert from India and a historian.]
However nicely you may try to put it across, the so-called ‘bargaining counter’ was at best a blackmail strategy Jinnah used to bully the Congress into meeting his demands. And please don’t again cite Wolpert, Embree, Seervai, and other so-called historians, but then, if we go by your opinion, those who didn’t praise Jinnah to the skies were not fit to be called historians. Just FYI, there are any number of them who wrote against Jinnah, Ambedkar being one of them, which of course you won’t bother about since you are so blinded by your worship of Jinnah.
[Also thanks for admitting that the creation of Bangladesh in no way was a negation of the so called Pakistan demand. Bangladesh was always envisaged in the original resolution as an independent entity.]
Man, are you so desperate that you would go to this length to extract an endorsement of your views from me? I just said it didn’t matter if the partition envisaged one or two states.
By the way, here is the map of Pakistan, as envisaged by Chaudhry Rehmat Ali.
[No responsible historian does that, be it Ainslee T Embree, Raj Mohan Gandhi, H V Hodson or Wolpert... ofcourse some journalese authors (mostly Indian) have their own way of looking at things, but then they never claimed to be historians.]
Again, like I said before, you hold the view that anyone who wrote contrary to what you have deluded yourselves into believing is not a historian. Difficult to argue with someone who is so fixated and will refuse to believe that Jinnah was as human as anyone else, and as prone to opportunism and errors of judgment like the rest of us.
[If at all you will find a scape goat it will be Nehru, Patel and Mountbatten who insisted on the partition of these provinces... creating the havoc.]
Pardon me for the cliché, but this is typical Paki thinking. Nehru, Patel, et al were responsible for Partition, but not the man who led the movement for Pakistan? Try selling this snake oil to your fellow Pakis, because no one else is buying it.
[No wonder Pakistan-India relations are doomed... because people like you represent the future.]
India-Pakistan relations were doomed beginning from Jinnah, because here was a man who was so paranoid about Hindus that he wanted a separate nation. And after that demand was met, Pakis has tried for the last 60 years to dismember India through their “bleed India from a thousand cuts” strategy, and now we have peace-activist-par-excellence Manto, again blaming Indians for not wanting peace. Sigh!
#544 Posted by Maharana on March 10, 2005 12:33:31 pm
Shishapa,
I think you are quite new here.
Let me inform you about a couple of things you may have already observed on chowk. It is hard for indians or pakistanis to accept the ground realities of their respective countries. This site merely becomes a way to posture, even if you come with the intenetion of asking anything with genuine interest.
On the issue of the origin of pakistan, secularism etc. you can debate this point to death, but will not get an honest reply due to the inability of people to look at their respective founding fathers as anything but human. The interpersonal dynamics and individual personalities of various leaders contributed more than anything else to the birth of paksitan.
The mask of any ideology given to justify this was meant to arouse the masses with the most common denominator. In our sub-continent, religion has been made just that. No illeterate mass falls for secularism. But don`t argue on that point, for, some pakistanis believe otherwise. For insecure pakistanis, this is the holy grail never to be touched or doubted. Confident pakistanis do not shy from admitting any such dichotomy. It does not threaten the existence of paksitan in their minds.
I`d rasied this observed Vs. so called intended destiny of paksitan because an expert from bihar raised something similar for the origin of bihar. Namely , that the formation of bihar was the result of british interference without any linguitic or other reason. All other states in india have a sense of nationalism for their respective states because they are based on languages and a unique history. This sense of uniqueness impels to a great extent, the formation of an identitiy within the indian union which can be recognised today. Before my pakistani friends jump pn this analogy, let me just add that, I`m not comparing todays pakistan with bihar in anything else except their sense of lack of clear direction and to some extent identity. It is a result of imposed ideology on the population, which finds no basis to be separate from U.P. in terms of language or culture.
Anyways, Good luck on your endeavor.
Adios
I think you are quite new here.
Let me inform you about a couple of things you may have already observed on chowk. It is hard for indians or pakistanis to accept the ground realities of their respective countries. This site merely becomes a way to posture, even if you come with the intenetion of asking anything with genuine interest.
On the issue of the origin of pakistan, secularism etc. you can debate this point to death, but will not get an honest reply due to the inability of people to look at their respective founding fathers as anything but human. The interpersonal dynamics and individual personalities of various leaders contributed more than anything else to the birth of paksitan.
The mask of any ideology given to justify this was meant to arouse the masses with the most common denominator. In our sub-continent, religion has been made just that. No illeterate mass falls for secularism. But don`t argue on that point, for, some pakistanis believe otherwise. For insecure pakistanis, this is the holy grail never to be touched or doubted. Confident pakistanis do not shy from admitting any such dichotomy. It does not threaten the existence of paksitan in their minds.
I`d rasied this observed Vs. so called intended destiny of paksitan because an expert from bihar raised something similar for the origin of bihar. Namely , that the formation of bihar was the result of british interference without any linguitic or other reason. All other states in india have a sense of nationalism for their respective states because they are based on languages and a unique history. This sense of uniqueness impels to a great extent, the formation of an identitiy within the indian union which can be recognised today. Before my pakistani friends jump pn this analogy, let me just add that, I`m not comparing todays pakistan with bihar in anything else except their sense of lack of clear direction and to some extent identity. It is a result of imposed ideology on the population, which finds no basis to be separate from U.P. in terms of language or culture.
Anyways, Good luck on your endeavor.
Adios
#543 Posted by shishapa on March 10, 2005 9:56:36 am
Re # 535
Mantoji,
I won`t have any more comments about the topic of Mr. Jinnah`s and Muslim League`s
motives till I read all the references you have mentioned.
But you say in # 535,
``The fact is no matter how you look at it.. the massacres of hindus muslims and sikhs happened because of the partition of Bengal and Punjab, to which Muslim League was opposed.``
Congress was opposed to the partition of India, Muslim League wanted partition of India
(after its efforts failed to avoid it as you say) but was opposed to the partition of Punjab and Bengal.
If one was insisting on vivisecting an entity A, why should then it mind other asking for vivisecting B and C?
What was so sacred about not vivisecting B and C after insisting about vivisecting A that was so sacred to other?
Do you think none of that followed partition had happened had Punjab and Bengal remained
united in Pakistan? Sindh, Baluchistan, NWFP were not divided. That did not prevent violence in those provinces and exodus of Hindus and Sikhs from these provices!
Mantoji,
I won`t have any more comments about the topic of Mr. Jinnah`s and Muslim League`s
motives till I read all the references you have mentioned.
But you say in # 535,
``The fact is no matter how you look at it.. the massacres of hindus muslims and sikhs happened because of the partition of Bengal and Punjab, to which Muslim League was opposed.``
Congress was opposed to the partition of India, Muslim League wanted partition of India
(after its efforts failed to avoid it as you say) but was opposed to the partition of Punjab and Bengal.
If one was insisting on vivisecting an entity A, why should then it mind other asking for vivisecting B and C?
What was so sacred about not vivisecting B and C after insisting about vivisecting A that was so sacred to other?
Do you think none of that followed partition had happened had Punjab and Bengal remained
united in Pakistan? Sindh, Baluchistan, NWFP were not divided. That did not prevent violence in those provinces and exodus of Hindus and Sikhs from these provices!
#542 Posted by MantoLives on March 10, 2005 7:01:48 am
Re: # 541
Shishpa... Like I pointed out you need to read H M Seervai`s book... or go through the 14 volumes of transfer of power papers... alternatively you can go through Ainslee T Embree`s ``Sources of Indian Tradition`` Volume 2 (Columbia University Press), to see what the aims and objectives of the league were after 1937 and why.
You bring up an interesting point about Hindus ... but Hindus did not form as far as I know any major majority area per se nor did they claim any ``qaumiat`` as the sikhs did. Please correct me if I am wrong. Remember Hindus were wedded to the idea of akhand bharat... Pakistan hadn`t figured into their calcutations.
Shishpa... Like I pointed out you need to read H M Seervai`s book... or go through the 14 volumes of transfer of power papers... alternatively you can go through Ainslee T Embree`s ``Sources of Indian Tradition`` Volume 2 (Columbia University Press), to see what the aims and objectives of the league were after 1937 and why.
You bring up an interesting point about Hindus ... but Hindus did not form as far as I know any major majority area per se nor did they claim any ``qaumiat`` as the sikhs did. Please correct me if I am wrong. Remember Hindus were wedded to the idea of akhand bharat... Pakistan hadn`t figured into their calcutations.
#541 Posted by shishapa on March 10, 2005 6:00:07 am
# 506
# 533
Manto,
In note #506, you say
``You clearly didn`t get the gist of the argument... Jinnah was after 1937 the spokesman of the Muslims.. but to represent them without any sectarian bias, his personal secularism was a great asset. ``
Is this not changing colour, i.e. before 1937 Mr. Jinnah represented all Indians regardless of religion, after 1937 he was representing only Muslims, and after Pakistan comes into existence, he was going to represent all Pakistanis regardless of religion?
# 533
Was such offer extended to Hindus as well? if not, why only Sikhs were considered for the offer, why not Hindus? Were not Hindus equal or perhaps more in numbers than Sikhs?
Or were there other considerations besides numerical strength?
# 533
Manto,
In note #506, you say
``You clearly didn`t get the gist of the argument... Jinnah was after 1937 the spokesman of the Muslims.. but to represent them without any sectarian bias, his personal secularism was a great asset. ``
Is this not changing colour, i.e. before 1937 Mr. Jinnah represented all Indians regardless of religion, after 1937 he was representing only Muslims, and after Pakistan comes into existence, he was going to represent all Pakistanis regardless of religion?
# 533
Was such offer extended to Hindus as well? if not, why only Sikhs were considered for the offer, why not Hindus? Were not Hindus equal or perhaps more in numbers than Sikhs?
Or were there other considerations besides numerical strength?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nkg: Re: # 346 Tahmed... Brahmins or... Muslim Ghettoisation
- ijaz_gul: arjun, while you waste time... Who Sold the Centrifuges?
- dost_mittar: Shahji: I make the same... Muslim Ghettoisation
- Shah2: Re: # 369 D.M. sb... Muslim Ghettoisation
- bubba: Re: # 375 Posted... Muslim Ghettoisation
- pinku: bubba, Hindu came from... Muslim Ghettoisation
- bubba: Re: # 310 Posted... Muslim Ghettoisation
- pinku: add to #371, another example:... Muslim Ghettoisation
