On the Importance of Reclaiming Chowk
Aniruddha Shankar April 20, 2005
#203 Posted by harish_hyd on May 4, 2005 5:38:05 am
#200 by Yasser
[If you carry a laptop all the time how is it that you are unavailable after 7 pm PST/7 30 pm IST or on Weekends...]
Comprehension problems, eh? Not surprising, considering the pressure you are under to prove your lies. But this is what I said.
``The only reason I don`t use it at home is that I don`t have the energy to do so after spending nearly 10-12 hrs with it at work.``
[As I do possess a laptop ... I know that it does work as well from home as from my office. Do you not have internet at home?]
Wow! That`s news. Unlike an unemployed lawyer like you, I don`t want to have anything to do with a computer on weekends after spending more than 60 hrs on it during the week. Instead, my nephew and niece get to play with it. Get that, knucklehead?
[About the discussion... I see you are winding down after seeing for yourself that Gandhi the HIndu fanatic was openly calling for violence ....]
Is this an admission of the fact that Muslims started the violence, because you didn`t comment on the extract you smartly tried to pass off thinking that no one would notice?
[According to Richard Grenier of the ``Commentary`` a jewish magazine... Gandhi ENDORSED violence praising the Hindus for murdering Muslims...]
Who is this man? Was he a contemporary of Wolpert, who saw it and told it like it happened? No? He was just commenting on the movie Gandhi? Ha! Ha! What a pathetic state you are in that you have to quote a sorry website. This is the clearest sign that you are losing it man. You`ll have to find a more credible source than this. I`m feeling sorry for you that all the sources you put up have pointed the accusing finger at Jinnah, while none of them have blamed Gandhi.
[Only a shameless Gandhian (a.k.a a Hindu fanatic akin to Atilla the Hun) would ask for Jinnah`s statement given that both Gandhi and Patel (two great leaders of the Congress Party) were calling for looting murder and arson of Muslims.... while Jinnah was calling for an end to fratricidal war....]
Calling an end? Despite the fact that you are ``foreign educated`` I’m afraid you have serious comprehension problems. Jinnah merely ``condemned the fratricidal war``. You know the difference between ``condemning`` and ``calling for an end``, don`t you? Or do you want me to explain? Looks like you’ve lost your marbles.
[Muslims might have been aggressors in so much as they forced Hindus to close their shops but it was Hindus who went violent destroying murdering raping and killing Muslims with COMPLETE endorsement of Mr Gandhi and Mr Patel... two fanatical bigoted Hindus.]
Very funny. So you`re now interpreting authentic news reports for us? What next? Will you rewrite history? Don`t bother, that has already happened in Pakistan.
[Thank you for discussing with me... when I started I had much more respect for Gandhi, but now I realize how cowardly, bigoted and hypocritical your father of the nation was... no doubt in no small measure an influence on your life.]
Is this an admission that you know much less about South Asian history and Partition than you actually bragged about when you began? Thanks for admitting that you were ignorant. But by the time this debate ends, you`ll be much more knowledgeable. But you will be broken too, to the point that you`ll have to spend the rest of your life in an ``assylum``. I`m already already seeing signs of that.
[If you carry a laptop all the time how is it that you are unavailable after 7 pm PST/7 30 pm IST or on Weekends...]
Comprehension problems, eh? Not surprising, considering the pressure you are under to prove your lies. But this is what I said.
``The only reason I don`t use it at home is that I don`t have the energy to do so after spending nearly 10-12 hrs with it at work.``
[As I do possess a laptop ... I know that it does work as well from home as from my office. Do you not have internet at home?]
Wow! That`s news. Unlike an unemployed lawyer like you, I don`t want to have anything to do with a computer on weekends after spending more than 60 hrs on it during the week. Instead, my nephew and niece get to play with it. Get that, knucklehead?
[About the discussion... I see you are winding down after seeing for yourself that Gandhi the HIndu fanatic was openly calling for violence ....]
Is this an admission of the fact that Muslims started the violence, because you didn`t comment on the extract you smartly tried to pass off thinking that no one would notice?
[According to Richard Grenier of the ``Commentary`` a jewish magazine... Gandhi ENDORSED violence praising the Hindus for murdering Muslims...]
Who is this man? Was he a contemporary of Wolpert, who saw it and told it like it happened? No? He was just commenting on the movie Gandhi? Ha! Ha! What a pathetic state you are in that you have to quote a sorry website. This is the clearest sign that you are losing it man. You`ll have to find a more credible source than this. I`m feeling sorry for you that all the sources you put up have pointed the accusing finger at Jinnah, while none of them have blamed Gandhi.
[Only a shameless Gandhian (a.k.a a Hindu fanatic akin to Atilla the Hun) would ask for Jinnah`s statement given that both Gandhi and Patel (two great leaders of the Congress Party) were calling for looting murder and arson of Muslims.... while Jinnah was calling for an end to fratricidal war....]
Calling an end? Despite the fact that you are ``foreign educated`` I’m afraid you have serious comprehension problems. Jinnah merely ``condemned the fratricidal war``. You know the difference between ``condemning`` and ``calling for an end``, don`t you? Or do you want me to explain? Looks like you’ve lost your marbles.
[Muslims might have been aggressors in so much as they forced Hindus to close their shops but it was Hindus who went violent destroying murdering raping and killing Muslims with COMPLETE endorsement of Mr Gandhi and Mr Patel... two fanatical bigoted Hindus.]
Very funny. So you`re now interpreting authentic news reports for us? What next? Will you rewrite history? Don`t bother, that has already happened in Pakistan.
[Thank you for discussing with me... when I started I had much more respect for Gandhi, but now I realize how cowardly, bigoted and hypocritical your father of the nation was... no doubt in no small measure an influence on your life.]
Is this an admission that you know much less about South Asian history and Partition than you actually bragged about when you began? Thanks for admitting that you were ignorant. But by the time this debate ends, you`ll be much more knowledgeable. But you will be broken too, to the point that you`ll have to spend the rest of your life in an ``assylum``. I`m already already seeing signs of that.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#202 Posted by MantoLives on May 4, 2005 4:50:11 am
And just a few more direct questions:
1) What possible motives could the American Jewish Committee have against Gandhi? You described them as a propaganda website.
2) Please inform me what a Toshiba top of the line Laptop costs? I got one as a gift last year and since I am not into these toys I might not know its exact worth... and is it true that your Laptop stops working on the weekends ? If all Laptops do that please do inform me why doesn`t mine shut down/hibernate...
#201 Posted by MantoLives on May 4, 2005 4:25:50 am
Re: # 200
You can be convinced all you want ... but late Richard Grenier, unlike your propaganda websites, was actually an acclaimed author, writer and movie critic... Ofcourse anything that contradicts your bigoted world view is ``propaganda`` right?
As for my schools... One was British and the other was hybrid British-American... The only history of Pakistan I was exposed to was the London University UCLES O Levels text... and the Longman`s text for Modern World History for A Levels. This is precisely why I reject apologetic nationalist histories of both India and Pakistan .... which by the way completely support each other... as one tries to cover up the faults of Nehru and Gandhi and the other tries to reinvent Jinnah as some sort of Modern Moses leading the Muslims to the promised land.
Both are rubbish and BS... which is why I use my own head and primary sources (something you sadly are unaware of which is why you worship that Hindu fanatic bigot Gandhi).
-YLH
You can be convinced all you want ... but late Richard Grenier, unlike your propaganda websites, was actually an acclaimed author, writer and movie critic... Ofcourse anything that contradicts your bigoted world view is ``propaganda`` right?
As for my schools... One was British and the other was hybrid British-American... The only history of Pakistan I was exposed to was the London University UCLES O Levels text... and the Longman`s text for Modern World History for A Levels. This is precisely why I reject apologetic nationalist histories of both India and Pakistan .... which by the way completely support each other... as one tries to cover up the faults of Nehru and Gandhi and the other tries to reinvent Jinnah as some sort of Modern Moses leading the Muslims to the promised land.
Both are rubbish and BS... which is why I use my own head and primary sources (something you sadly are unaware of which is why you worship that Hindu fanatic bigot Gandhi).
-YLH
#200 Posted by MantoLives on May 4, 2005 4:17:31 am
Re: # 199
If you carry a laptop all the time how is it that you are unavailable after 7 pm PST/7 30 pm IST or on Weekends... As I do possess a laptop ... I know that it does work as well from home as from my office. Do you not have internet at home?
About the discussion... I see you are winding down after seeing for yourself that Gandhi the HIndu fanatic was openly calling for violence ....
Let me quote that part again (Remember this was the time Jinnah was condemning the fratricidal war ... aka war between brothers).
Gandhi`s role in Calcutta riots...
According to Richard Grenier of the ``Commentary`` a jewish magazine... Gandhi ENDORSED violence praising the Hindus for murdering Muslims...
http://eserver.org/history/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
``And suddenly Gandhi began endorsing violence left, right, and center. During the
fearsome rioting in Calcutta he gave his approval to men ``using violence in a
moral cause.``
Only a shameless Gandhian (a.k.a a Hindu fanatic akin to Atilla the Hun) would ask for Jinnah`s statement given that both Gandhi and Patel (two great leaders of the Congress Party) were calling for looting murder and arson of Muslims.... while Jinnah was calling for an end to fratricidal war....
Muslims might have been aggressors in so much as they forced Hindus to close their shops but it was Hindus who went violent destroying murdering raping and killing Muslims with COMPLETE endorsement of Mr Gandhi and Mr Patel... two fanatical bigoted Hindus. And to think this dude tried to portray himself as a Saint... and duped even Jinnah ... who had ordered Pakistan`s flag half mast in mourning at this Hindu fanatic`s death and three days of programming by Radio Pakistan...
Thank you for discussing with me... when I started I had much more respect for Gandhi, but now I realize how cowardly, bigoted and hypocritical your father of the nation was... no doubt in no small measure an influence on your life.
-YLH
If you carry a laptop all the time how is it that you are unavailable after 7 pm PST/7 30 pm IST or on Weekends... As I do possess a laptop ... I know that it does work as well from home as from my office. Do you not have internet at home?
About the discussion... I see you are winding down after seeing for yourself that Gandhi the HIndu fanatic was openly calling for violence ....
Let me quote that part again (Remember this was the time Jinnah was condemning the fratricidal war ... aka war between brothers).
Gandhi`s role in Calcutta riots...
According to Richard Grenier of the ``Commentary`` a jewish magazine... Gandhi ENDORSED violence praising the Hindus for murdering Muslims...
http://eserver.org/history/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
``And suddenly Gandhi began endorsing violence left, right, and center. During the
fearsome rioting in Calcutta he gave his approval to men ``using violence in a
moral cause.``
Only a shameless Gandhian (a.k.a a Hindu fanatic akin to Atilla the Hun) would ask for Jinnah`s statement given that both Gandhi and Patel (two great leaders of the Congress Party) were calling for looting murder and arson of Muslims.... while Jinnah was calling for an end to fratricidal war....
Muslims might have been aggressors in so much as they forced Hindus to close their shops but it was Hindus who went violent destroying murdering raping and killing Muslims with COMPLETE endorsement of Mr Gandhi and Mr Patel... two fanatical bigoted Hindus. And to think this dude tried to portray himself as a Saint... and duped even Jinnah ... who had ordered Pakistan`s flag half mast in mourning at this Hindu fanatic`s death and three days of programming by Radio Pakistan...
Thank you for discussing with me... when I started I had much more respect for Gandhi, but now I realize how cowardly, bigoted and hypocritical your father of the nation was... no doubt in no small measure an influence on your life.
-YLH
#199 Posted by harish_hyd on May 4, 2005 3:47:24 am
I must hand it to you Mr. Yasser. Your persistence would touching, if it were not so blatantly dishonest. You continue to act smart, but forget that some people can actually look up the links and use it to prove your lies. You said ``Gandhi`s goons`` started the violence. Later you admitted that there was confusion as to who started it. But like the Wolpert book and Time report earlier, even this link proves otherwise. This extract is from the very link you provided. I know even this will not put your doubts to rest, but it should be enough to convince the rest of Chowkies that you are a habitual liar (I won`t call it congenital), and a poor one at that.
``Although Muslims were initially the aggressors both parties contributed equally to the destruction of Calcutta``.
I have provided three different sources that all blame the Muslim League for starting the violence. What have you done other than throw wild allegations at the Congress? Like I said before, even a Madarssah student is amenable to reason, but not you, who claim to have never studied in a Paki school (I`m convinced even this is a lie).
PS: There is such a thing called a laptop. Not sure if you know what it means, but in a layman`s words, it is a mobile computer. I carry it all the time. The only reason I don`t use it at home is that I don`t have the energy to do so after spending nearly 10-12 hrs with it at work. Being poor :-), I could not afford the regular desktop PC, so I bought this. But then, I found it to be more expensive than the 486 that you use.
``Although Muslims were initially the aggressors both parties contributed equally to the destruction of Calcutta``.
I have provided three different sources that all blame the Muslim League for starting the violence. What have you done other than throw wild allegations at the Congress? Like I said before, even a Madarssah student is amenable to reason, but not you, who claim to have never studied in a Paki school (I`m convinced even this is a lie).
PS: There is such a thing called a laptop. Not sure if you know what it means, but in a layman`s words, it is a mobile computer. I carry it all the time. The only reason I don`t use it at home is that I don`t have the energy to do so after spending nearly 10-12 hrs with it at work. Being poor :-), I could not afford the regular desktop PC, so I bought this. But then, I found it to be more expensive than the 486 that you use.
#198 Posted by harish_hyd on May 3, 2005 9:46:58 pm
# Various by Yasser
Man, it looks like you couldn`t sleep the whole of the night under the pressure of proving your lies right. So, you`ve been digging up dirt on Gandhi from propaganda sites. I`m worried you might have a heart attack. But you would have done well if you had looked for Jinnah`s statement that called for restraint from Muslims. But no, you won`t. Because you know there isn`t one.
I can see you are frightened, frustrated, and desperate to get the better of me, and so the need to resort to personal attacks about my supposed `poverty` (I had a hearty laugh). You have gone berserk accusing Gandhi of molesting his nieces (may or may not be true). Conversely, the fact that Jinnah lived with his sister can be construed as an incestuous relationship between the two. But no, I won`t stoop to your level by accusing the old crook of incest. My argument is confined to his role in the Direct Action Day.
My poverty has nothing to do with this argument, but the fact that you brought it up shows that you are facing from an acute paucity of solid arguments. As a wise man said, ``Sometimes it is better to remain silent and let people wonder if you are a fool, than open it and remove all doubt.`` I would have still thought you were smart if you hadn`t opened your mouth. But it`s too late now, and the cat is out of the bag. Ha! Ha! Ha!
Man, it looks like you couldn`t sleep the whole of the night under the pressure of proving your lies right. So, you`ve been digging up dirt on Gandhi from propaganda sites. I`m worried you might have a heart attack. But you would have done well if you had looked for Jinnah`s statement that called for restraint from Muslims. But no, you won`t. Because you know there isn`t one.
I can see you are frightened, frustrated, and desperate to get the better of me, and so the need to resort to personal attacks about my supposed `poverty` (I had a hearty laugh). You have gone berserk accusing Gandhi of molesting his nieces (may or may not be true). Conversely, the fact that Jinnah lived with his sister can be construed as an incestuous relationship between the two. But no, I won`t stoop to your level by accusing the old crook of incest. My argument is confined to his role in the Direct Action Day.
My poverty has nothing to do with this argument, but the fact that you brought it up shows that you are facing from an acute paucity of solid arguments. As a wise man said, ``Sometimes it is better to remain silent and let people wonder if you are a fool, than open it and remove all doubt.`` I would have still thought you were smart if you hadn`t opened your mouth. But it`s too late now, and the cat is out of the bag. Ha! Ha! Ha!
#197 Posted by MantoLives on May 3, 2005 8:55:19 am
Re: # 195
While this Harish Hyd character asks for statements from Jinnah ... it turns out that Gandhi, the Hindu fanatic, was openly calling upon Hindus to kill Muslims...
Gandhi`s role in Calcutta riots...
According to Richard Grenier of the ``Commentary`` a jewish magazine... Gandhi ENDORSED violence praising the Hindus for murdering Muslims...
http://eserver.org/history/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
``And suddenly Gandhi began endorsing violence left, right, and center. During the
fearsome rioting in Calcutta he gave his approval to men ``using violence in a
moral cause.``
This article also reveals that Gandhi was loved nude massages from young nubile girls ... some of them goris... others native... According to Freudian theory.... Gandhi loved these nude massages...
While this Harish Hyd character asks for statements from Jinnah ... it turns out that Gandhi, the Hindu fanatic, was openly calling upon Hindus to kill Muslims...
Gandhi`s role in Calcutta riots...
According to Richard Grenier of the ``Commentary`` a jewish magazine... Gandhi ENDORSED violence praising the Hindus for murdering Muslims...
http://eserver.org/history/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
``And suddenly Gandhi began endorsing violence left, right, and center. During the
fearsome rioting in Calcutta he gave his approval to men ``using violence in a
moral cause.``
This article also reveals that Gandhi was loved nude massages from young nubile girls ... some of them goris... others native... According to Freudian theory.... Gandhi loved these nude massages...
#196 Posted by MantoLives on May 3, 2005 8:20:15 am
Re: # 195
Confirmed by http://britains-smallwars.com/India/Verge.html
Confirmed by http://britains-smallwars.com/India/Verge.html
#195 Posted by MantoLives on May 3, 2005 7:39:30 am
Another bit of evidence that Hindus started the violence in Calcutta:
http://www.stnews.org/archives/2004_july/news.html
August 16 In 1946, large-scale riots broke out in Calcutta, India, when the Muslim League declared a “Direct Action Day” and instructed all Muslims to stop working and join them in demanding Pakistan be recognized as a country. The riot began when Hindu shopkeepers who were forced to close their shops retaliated by blocking the league’s procession. Violence lasted for almost a week and resulted in several thousand deaths and lasting hostility between Hindus and Muslims throughout India.
This league procession also had women and children.... which were butchered by the Congress Bigots...
http://www.stnews.org/archives/2004_july/news.html
August 16 In 1946, large-scale riots broke out in Calcutta, India, when the Muslim League declared a “Direct Action Day” and instructed all Muslims to stop working and join them in demanding Pakistan be recognized as a country. The riot began when Hindu shopkeepers who were forced to close their shops retaliated by blocking the league’s procession. Violence lasted for almost a week and resulted in several thousand deaths and lasting hostility between Hindus and Muslims throughout India.
This league procession also had women and children.... which were butchered by the Congress Bigots...
#194 Posted by MantoLives on May 3, 2005 4:52:53 am
My dear Harish-Hyd,
After lying abusing and insulting me on this board as well (simply because you never had an argument) it looks like you have beat a retreat with your tail between your legs as usual... and would probably try to bring up the subject on another board to save face.
One point I`d like to make ofcourse ... is about the ``Wolpert`` issue. I haven`t quoted him for 3 years so only an idiot would claim I`ve done an about face on him.
However only a few weeks ago you were urging me to read ``Ambedkar`` for balanced history to open my mind and here you are saying that his views don`t count? Tell me why should we take your word on Gandhi/Jinnah/Nehru and not Ambedkar`s whose is a primary account and who is after all a ``Harijan`` who revealed Gandhi`s bigotry very well...
Ah well looks like you`ve beat the retreat... but don`t worry... I will be putting up a lot on the issue in coming days and weeks... and you can make a fool out of yourself anew!
Regards
-YLH
After lying abusing and insulting me on this board as well (simply because you never had an argument) it looks like you have beat a retreat with your tail between your legs as usual... and would probably try to bring up the subject on another board to save face.
One point I`d like to make ofcourse ... is about the ``Wolpert`` issue. I haven`t quoted him for 3 years so only an idiot would claim I`ve done an about face on him.
However only a few weeks ago you were urging me to read ``Ambedkar`` for balanced history to open my mind and here you are saying that his views don`t count? Tell me why should we take your word on Gandhi/Jinnah/Nehru and not Ambedkar`s whose is a primary account and who is after all a ``Harijan`` who revealed Gandhi`s bigotry very well...
Ah well looks like you`ve beat the retreat... but don`t worry... I will be putting up a lot on the issue in coming days and weeks... and you can make a fool out of yourself anew!
Regards
-YLH
#193 Posted by MantoLives on May 3, 2005 2:51:37 am
Re: # 191
More personal attacks... I see.
My conscience is clear. I have not lied. I gave you Jinnah`s statement. It wasn`t good enough for you. Nothing will be because your the educational system is severely lacking. Your entire premise is illogical I am afraid. It was the Hindus killing Muslims and you know it by now... your secular Congress leaders were found gloating about it... about more Muslims being killed.
Now I see that you have no answers... you are jumping from argument to argument. You are putting up articles that contradict your ideas... you are correcting English spellings (to think a Cold caller...) ... you are hiding behind Gandhi the Movie... But you are NOT answering the questions... because you know it by now that you don`t have a case, a point or any logic.... meanwhile your poverty wrinkly mother India was molested and abused by that black people hating racist bigot and crook ``Mahatma`` Gandhi (who molested his grand nieces as well apparently) a thousand times... and you are still bending over for him instead of working hard and making something of yourself (considering that you don`t have a computer at home, I am guessing you are poverty stricken... )
Had you really thought you had won ... you would have left this argument. But you can`t because you know you have been caught with your pants down and what we see isn`t that pretty.
-YLH
More personal attacks... I see.
My conscience is clear. I have not lied. I gave you Jinnah`s statement. It wasn`t good enough for you. Nothing will be because your the educational system is severely lacking. Your entire premise is illogical I am afraid. It was the Hindus killing Muslims and you know it by now... your secular Congress leaders were found gloating about it... about more Muslims being killed.
Now I see that you have no answers... you are jumping from argument to argument. You are putting up articles that contradict your ideas... you are correcting English spellings (to think a Cold caller...) ... you are hiding behind Gandhi the Movie... But you are NOT answering the questions... because you know it by now that you don`t have a case, a point or any logic.... meanwhile your poverty wrinkly mother India was molested and abused by that black people hating racist bigot and crook ``Mahatma`` Gandhi (who molested his grand nieces as well apparently) a thousand times... and you are still bending over for him instead of working hard and making something of yourself (considering that you don`t have a computer at home, I am guessing you are poverty stricken... )
Had you really thought you had won ... you would have left this argument. But you can`t because you know you have been caught with your pants down and what we see isn`t that pretty.
-YLH
#192 Posted by MantoLives on May 3, 2005 2:40:19 am
Re: # 190
Compare the article quoted ... to my article : ``Muslim League`s Politics 1937-1947`` that I wrote two years ago... Now either given your below average language skills you don`t quite understand my view of history... or you`ve just thrown an axe on your own foot by quoting the article...
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002564&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1
Muslim League’s Politics (1937-1947)
Yasser Latif Hamdani
September 7, 2003
Lessons in Minority Politics
`` I must record my own belief , that any attempt to establish the reign of Hindu numerical majority in India will never be achieved without a civil war... The muslims numbering 90 million.. the word `minority has no relevance or sense when applied to masses of human beings numbered in many scores of millions`
(Winston Churchill, December 13th 1946 at House of Commons)
`Muslim League cannot agree to the partition of Bengal and the Punjab. It cannot be justified historically, economically, geographically, politically or morally. These provinces have built up their respective lives for nearly a century`
(M.A. Jinnah, the President of the Muslim League, Mid May 1947, in a letter to Lord Mountbatten)
1: Background of Partition
1.1 The origins of the Two nation theory
On the Muslim side the first articulation of the two nation theory came from the famous Muslim modernist, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, who decided after the experience of Urdu-Hindi controversy of 1867 that Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations, and were like two eyes of India, who should have sovereign parity. When Congress was founded by A O Hume (1885), Sir Syed Ahmed Khan persuaded most of the Muslims not to join the Congress Party because he felt the Muslims were not ready educationally socially, and politically to face the Hindu community in the mainstream of politics yet. He was supported in these views by other Muslim modernists of the time like Syed Ameer Ali.
The two nation theory finally reached a culmination in the form of the separate electorates which were demanded by a delegation of the Muslim elite, and intelligentsia in their meeting with Viceroy Minto. Lord Curzon`s partition of Bengal was also on the same lines. Partition of Bengal was annulled due to Swadeshi movement.
1.2 A Brief History of the All India Muslim League
The All India Muslim League was founded in 1906 with the express purpose of safeguarding Muslim interests in a united India. Like the Congress Party, it started off as a party loyal to British Government. By 1913, the League was persuaded by Mohammed Ali Jinnah of the Congress Party to abandon its pro-British stance and assume a stance which was more in line with the Congress. He was unable however to budge the league on its stance on separate electorates. In 1916 Mohammed Ali Jinnah managed to bring together the League and the Congress on one platform working together for the Independence of India. During the Khilafat Movement and the non-cooperation movement, the League became sidelined when Gandhi led Congress went over the league and made alliances with the Khilafat Conference and Jamiat-e-ulema-Hind, two radically Islamic organizations agitating for the safeguard of the Islamic institution of Khilafat.
By 1928 there were two factions of the Muslim League... Pro-British faction lead by Sir Muhammad Shafi and the Pro-Congress faction led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah. After Jinnah`s brief exit from all India politics in 1931, the League virtually ceased to exist. By 1935 the beleaguered leaguers were clamouring for Jinnah to come back. In 1935 Jinnah emerged out of his self-imposed exile to reorganize the league. With the exit of Shafi, Jinnah had a free hand, and from 1935-1937 Jinnah and the League were the staunchest supporters of the efforts of the Congress Party inside and outside the central legislative body.
1.3 A Brief History of the Pakistan idea
1930 in Allahabad, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal presiding over the league session, first gave the idea of a Muslim state in the northwest of India within or without the British India. He was clearly talking about an autonomous Muslim Province within the union. This idea had hitherto been unarticulated, but it was already there in many different forms. The demand for autonomy had always been there in the North West, and Iqbal was only giving it a more concrete picture. Iqbal`s concern was clearly the Muslim Majority areas, and not the muslims in Hindu majority areas. Hence Iqbal`s view was in contradiction to the officially stated League position.
By 1933 Rahmat Ali, a student at Cambridge University, came out with an eccentric scheme which he called `Pakistan : Our Fatherland`. Later that year he tried to enlist Mohammed Ali Jinnah, then in England, for this cause. Jinnah dismissed this idea as a mere dream, earning forever the wrath of Ch. Rahmat Ali.
2. League`s transformation
2.1 The elections of 1937
The first elections held under the Government of India act 1935 saw Congress emerging as the majority party. It won 711 out of total of 1585 seats, and could form government in 5/11 provinces without the support of any party. Out of these 711 seats only 26 seats were Muslim seats, thereby increasing Congress`s reliance on local Hindu leaders, which allowed for their agenda to be imposed on the Congress.
Muslim League on the other hand did well on the Muslim seats in the Hindu Majority provinces winning 29 out of 35 seats in the UP. The league however couldn`t do well against the regional parties in Muslim Majority areas.
2.2 Congress and the League
The Congress refused to come to an arrangement with the Muslim League, choosing instead Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind for partnership through Azad. This was a death blow to the League and its leadership who were at this point decidedly pro-Congress. On 22nd December 1939, League and its allies, the Scheduled Caste Federation and Justice Party of the Tamil Nadu, celebrated the day of deliverance from Congress rule.
Nehru-Jinnah Correspondence is especially vital in this regard. Nehru had mocked the League as an elitist organization and asked Jinnah to `depend on the league`s inherent strength`. Jinnah had responded in kind informing Nehru that from now on he would only depend on his inherent strength. As a Historian rightly observed:
``More than Iqbal, it was Nehru who charted a new mass strategy for the League, prodding and challenging Jinnah to leave the drawing rooms of politics to reach down to the hundred million muslims... There was ofcourse only one possible way for the league to stir that mass, to awaken it and lure it to march behind Muslim leadership``
2.3 Muslim League and the Muslim Majority Areas
The League leadership had realized through experience with Congress, that in order to make good on its claim of representation of South Asian Muslims, it would need to rally the Muslim Majority areas behind it. In order to do that it required a slogan which would be vague enough to bring an overwhelming mass of the Muslim majority areas behind the league. Jinnah started by luring the regional politicians into his fold. First came Sikandar Hayat of Punjab, and soon to follow him was FazlulHaq of Bengal. Soon the regional parties who had defeated the league in the elections were ready to come under the league`s banner.
2.4 The Lahore Resolution
League`s transformation was complete in 1940 when it adopted Iqbal`s slogan of separate Muslim majority state(s). The two men who moved this resolution were the new entrants into the League, Sikandar Hayat and FazlulHaq. The Lahore Resolution presented a vague demand which did not specify the nature of the Muslim majority state(s). No references were made to Islam, and the issue presented was a cultural one instead of a religious one. Needless to say this resolution was in contradiction to the stated objective of the league as it did not aspire to solve the problems of League`s real constituents, the Muslims in Hindu Majority areas.
The name Pakistan was imposed on the League by the Congress press, and the League leadership after initial protestations accepted it.
2.5 League`s Rejection of C R`s formula
C R Gopalachari`s formula which virtually gave Muslim League Pakistan was rejected by the League leadership . This seemed to suggest that League`s interest lay elsewhere, and not in the creation of Pakistan.
3. Endgame Partition
3.1 Elections of 1945-1946
Elections of 1945-1946 saw Muslim League sweep the Muslim vote. The turn around was miracle in the Muslim Majority areas. In Sindh and Bengal the league had enough seats to form ministries of their own. In NWFP and Punjab it still turned out to be the largest single party, but was upstaged in the assembly by coalition ministries of Congress/Khudai khidmatgars in NWFP, and the Unionist Party in Punjab.
Having won 445 out of a total 490 Muslim seats, the League was now able to lay exclusive claim to speaking for the Muslims of India.
3.2 Cabinet Mission Plan
In view of the election results of 1946 the British Government dispatched a high level Cabinet Mission to look into a workable plan which was acceptable to the two major parties of India i.e. Congress and the League. After its deliberations with the League and the Congress it presented a series of proposals which included the `grouping scheme`. The grouping scheme allowed for a three tiered federation between Hindu and Muslim provinces, with the center only keeping issues of Defence/Foreign, Currency and communication with itself.
This plan was accepted by the Muslim League at Jinnah`s insistence, and provisionally accepted by the Congress Party. However in July of 1946 Nehru dropped a bombshell when he declared that the Congress was not bound by any agreements and that it would decide the fate of India in the constituent assembly itself. This forced Jinnah to back out of his ealier agreement on the basis of the Cabinet Mission plan. Wavell`s letter to Pethick Lawrence is revealing:
``The strong reaction by Gandhi to my suggestion that Congress should make their assurance about the grouping categorical shows how well justified Jinnah was to doubt their previous assurances on the subject. It is to my mind convincing evidence that Congress always meant to use their position in the interim Government to break up the Muslim League and in the constituent assembly to destroy the grouping scheme which was the one effective safeguard for the muslims`
(Wavell to Pethick Lawrence, Mansergh, Transfer of power Page 323)
3.3 Direct Action Day
For the first time in an uncharacteristic move, Jinnah called for a nationwide civil disobedience by the Muslim League. The league had till then never resorted to unconstitutional means, but as Jinnah put it , the British and the Congress had long held the gun to their head, and now they had forged a pistol too. For a law abiding constitutionalist like Jinnah, the civil disobedience was in of itself a pistol as is apparent by his statement which clearly calls for a non-violent peaceful mass civil disobedience movement. Some historians have tried to liken the analogy to physical violence, but their claim is unfounded.
For the most of the cities, especially where Jinnah was physically present, the direct action day on 16th August 1946, remained peaceful, but in Calcutta horrible violence broke out between Hindus and Muslims. The Congress Press tried to blame this on the League and its Bengali leader Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy.
Wavell`s letter to Pethick Lawrence suggested that there was `no satisfactory evidence to that effect` and that `appreciably more Muslims were killed than Hindus` in the Calcutta riots. Had it been organized on purpose by the Muslim league ministry clearly, that wouldn`t have been the case.
3.5 Defeat of Muslim League`s strategy
Muslim League and its leadership had hoped that by keeping the Pakistan demand vague, and by using the veto, the League will be able to bring Congress to accede to their demands at the center, thereby coming to a final settlement with the League with respect to the future of the Muslims within the Indian Union. Muslim League`s hopes were dashed by the Viceroy`s partition June 3rd Plan. Jinnah had initially refused, but Mountbatten made it clear to him that either he accepted the partition plan or picked up his cards and left. The next morning, Jinnah, hesitantly nodded, and what happened afterwards is history.
Pakistan did not fulfill Muslim League`s agenda. Its real constituents were the Indian Muslims, whose problems Pakistan didn`t solve. Hence Muslim League`s strategy failed, and Jinnah was handed a Pakistan he never wanted.
Footnote: I want this to be first in a series of articles by Pakistanis and Indians to unemotionally reconsider the events of that very important decade in our history which seem to blur our judgement when it comes to making decisions in the present.
Compare the article quoted ... to my article : ``Muslim League`s Politics 1937-1947`` that I wrote two years ago... Now either given your below average language skills you don`t quite understand my view of history... or you`ve just thrown an axe on your own foot by quoting the article...
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002564&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1
Muslim League’s Politics (1937-1947)
Yasser Latif Hamdani
September 7, 2003
Lessons in Minority Politics
`` I must record my own belief , that any attempt to establish the reign of Hindu numerical majority in India will never be achieved without a civil war... The muslims numbering 90 million.. the word `minority has no relevance or sense when applied to masses of human beings numbered in many scores of millions`
(Winston Churchill, December 13th 1946 at House of Commons)
`Muslim League cannot agree to the partition of Bengal and the Punjab. It cannot be justified historically, economically, geographically, politically or morally. These provinces have built up their respective lives for nearly a century`
(M.A. Jinnah, the President of the Muslim League, Mid May 1947, in a letter to Lord Mountbatten)
1: Background of Partition
1.1 The origins of the Two nation theory
On the Muslim side the first articulation of the two nation theory came from the famous Muslim modernist, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, who decided after the experience of Urdu-Hindi controversy of 1867 that Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations, and were like two eyes of India, who should have sovereign parity. When Congress was founded by A O Hume (1885), Sir Syed Ahmed Khan persuaded most of the Muslims not to join the Congress Party because he felt the Muslims were not ready educationally socially, and politically to face the Hindu community in the mainstream of politics yet. He was supported in these views by other Muslim modernists of the time like Syed Ameer Ali.
The two nation theory finally reached a culmination in the form of the separate electorates which were demanded by a delegation of the Muslim elite, and intelligentsia in their meeting with Viceroy Minto. Lord Curzon`s partition of Bengal was also on the same lines. Partition of Bengal was annulled due to Swadeshi movement.
1.2 A Brief History of the All India Muslim League
The All India Muslim League was founded in 1906 with the express purpose of safeguarding Muslim interests in a united India. Like the Congress Party, it started off as a party loyal to British Government. By 1913, the League was persuaded by Mohammed Ali Jinnah of the Congress Party to abandon its pro-British stance and assume a stance which was more in line with the Congress. He was unable however to budge the league on its stance on separate electorates. In 1916 Mohammed Ali Jinnah managed to bring together the League and the Congress on one platform working together for the Independence of India. During the Khilafat Movement and the non-cooperation movement, the League became sidelined when Gandhi led Congress went over the league and made alliances with the Khilafat Conference and Jamiat-e-ulema-Hind, two radically Islamic organizations agitating for the safeguard of the Islamic institution of Khilafat.
By 1928 there were two factions of the Muslim League... Pro-British faction lead by Sir Muhammad Shafi and the Pro-Congress faction led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah. After Jinnah`s brief exit from all India politics in 1931, the League virtually ceased to exist. By 1935 the beleaguered leaguers were clamouring for Jinnah to come back. In 1935 Jinnah emerged out of his self-imposed exile to reorganize the league. With the exit of Shafi, Jinnah had a free hand, and from 1935-1937 Jinnah and the League were the staunchest supporters of the efforts of the Congress Party inside and outside the central legislative body.
1.3 A Brief History of the Pakistan idea
1930 in Allahabad, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal presiding over the league session, first gave the idea of a Muslim state in the northwest of India within or without the British India. He was clearly talking about an autonomous Muslim Province within the union. This idea had hitherto been unarticulated, but it was already there in many different forms. The demand for autonomy had always been there in the North West, and Iqbal was only giving it a more concrete picture. Iqbal`s concern was clearly the Muslim Majority areas, and not the muslims in Hindu majority areas. Hence Iqbal`s view was in contradiction to the officially stated League position.
By 1933 Rahmat Ali, a student at Cambridge University, came out with an eccentric scheme which he called `Pakistan : Our Fatherland`. Later that year he tried to enlist Mohammed Ali Jinnah, then in England, for this cause. Jinnah dismissed this idea as a mere dream, earning forever the wrath of Ch. Rahmat Ali.
2. League`s transformation
2.1 The elections of 1937
The first elections held under the Government of India act 1935 saw Congress emerging as the majority party. It won 711 out of total of 1585 seats, and could form government in 5/11 provinces without the support of any party. Out of these 711 seats only 26 seats were Muslim seats, thereby increasing Congress`s reliance on local Hindu leaders, which allowed for their agenda to be imposed on the Congress.
Muslim League on the other hand did well on the Muslim seats in the Hindu Majority provinces winning 29 out of 35 seats in the UP. The league however couldn`t do well against the regional parties in Muslim Majority areas.
2.2 Congress and the League
The Congress refused to come to an arrangement with the Muslim League, choosing instead Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind for partnership through Azad. This was a death blow to the League and its leadership who were at this point decidedly pro-Congress. On 22nd December 1939, League and its allies, the Scheduled Caste Federation and Justice Party of the Tamil Nadu, celebrated the day of deliverance from Congress rule.
Nehru-Jinnah Correspondence is especially vital in this regard. Nehru had mocked the League as an elitist organization and asked Jinnah to `depend on the league`s inherent strength`. Jinnah had responded in kind informing Nehru that from now on he would only depend on his inherent strength. As a Historian rightly observed:
``More than Iqbal, it was Nehru who charted a new mass strategy for the League, prodding and challenging Jinnah to leave the drawing rooms of politics to reach down to the hundred million muslims... There was ofcourse only one possible way for the league to stir that mass, to awaken it and lure it to march behind Muslim leadership``
2.3 Muslim League and the Muslim Majority Areas
The League leadership had realized through experience with Congress, that in order to make good on its claim of representation of South Asian Muslims, it would need to rally the Muslim Majority areas behind it. In order to do that it required a slogan which would be vague enough to bring an overwhelming mass of the Muslim majority areas behind the league. Jinnah started by luring the regional politicians into his fold. First came Sikandar Hayat of Punjab, and soon to follow him was FazlulHaq of Bengal. Soon the regional parties who had defeated the league in the elections were ready to come under the league`s banner.
2.4 The Lahore Resolution
League`s transformation was complete in 1940 when it adopted Iqbal`s slogan of separate Muslim majority state(s). The two men who moved this resolution were the new entrants into the League, Sikandar Hayat and FazlulHaq. The Lahore Resolution presented a vague demand which did not specify the nature of the Muslim majority state(s). No references were made to Islam, and the issue presented was a cultural one instead of a religious one. Needless to say this resolution was in contradiction to the stated objective of the league as it did not aspire to solve the problems of League`s real constituents, the Muslims in Hindu Majority areas.
The name Pakistan was imposed on the League by the Congress press, and the League leadership after initial protestations accepted it.
2.5 League`s Rejection of C R`s formula
C R Gopalachari`s formula which virtually gave Muslim League Pakistan was rejected by the League leadership . This seemed to suggest that League`s interest lay elsewhere, and not in the creation of Pakistan.
3. Endgame Partition
3.1 Elections of 1945-1946
Elections of 1945-1946 saw Muslim League sweep the Muslim vote. The turn around was miracle in the Muslim Majority areas. In Sindh and Bengal the league had enough seats to form ministries of their own. In NWFP and Punjab it still turned out to be the largest single party, but was upstaged in the assembly by coalition ministries of Congress/Khudai khidmatgars in NWFP, and the Unionist Party in Punjab.
Having won 445 out of a total 490 Muslim seats, the League was now able to lay exclusive claim to speaking for the Muslims of India.
3.2 Cabinet Mission Plan
In view of the election results of 1946 the British Government dispatched a high level Cabinet Mission to look into a workable plan which was acceptable to the two major parties of India i.e. Congress and the League. After its deliberations with the League and the Congress it presented a series of proposals which included the `grouping scheme`. The grouping scheme allowed for a three tiered federation between Hindu and Muslim provinces, with the center only keeping issues of Defence/Foreign, Currency and communication with itself.
This plan was accepted by the Muslim League at Jinnah`s insistence, and provisionally accepted by the Congress Party. However in July of 1946 Nehru dropped a bombshell when he declared that the Congress was not bound by any agreements and that it would decide the fate of India in the constituent assembly itself. This forced Jinnah to back out of his ealier agreement on the basis of the Cabinet Mission plan. Wavell`s letter to Pethick Lawrence is revealing:
``The strong reaction by Gandhi to my suggestion that Congress should make their assurance about the grouping categorical shows how well justified Jinnah was to doubt their previous assurances on the subject. It is to my mind convincing evidence that Congress always meant to use their position in the interim Government to break up the Muslim League and in the constituent assembly to destroy the grouping scheme which was the one effective safeguard for the muslims`
(Wavell to Pethick Lawrence, Mansergh, Transfer of power Page 323)
3.3 Direct Action Day
For the first time in an uncharacteristic move, Jinnah called for a nationwide civil disobedience by the Muslim League. The league had till then never resorted to unconstitutional means, but as Jinnah put it , the British and the Congress had long held the gun to their head, and now they had forged a pistol too. For a law abiding constitutionalist like Jinnah, the civil disobedience was in of itself a pistol as is apparent by his statement which clearly calls for a non-violent peaceful mass civil disobedience movement. Some historians have tried to liken the analogy to physical violence, but their claim is unfounded.
For the most of the cities, especially where Jinnah was physically present, the direct action day on 16th August 1946, remained peaceful, but in Calcutta horrible violence broke out between Hindus and Muslims. The Congress Press tried to blame this on the League and its Bengali leader Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy.
Wavell`s letter to Pethick Lawrence suggested that there was `no satisfactory evidence to that effect` and that `appreciably more Muslims were killed than Hindus` in the Calcutta riots. Had it been organized on purpose by the Muslim league ministry clearly, that wouldn`t have been the case.
3.5 Defeat of Muslim League`s strategy
Muslim League and its leadership had hoped that by keeping the Pakistan demand vague, and by using the veto, the League will be able to bring Congress to accede to their demands at the center, thereby coming to a final settlement with the League with respect to the future of the Muslims within the Indian Union. Muslim League`s hopes were dashed by the Viceroy`s partition June 3rd Plan. Jinnah had initially refused, but Mountbatten made it clear to him that either he accepted the partition plan or picked up his cards and left. The next morning, Jinnah, hesitantly nodded, and what happened afterwards is history.
Pakistan did not fulfill Muslim League`s agenda. Its real constituents were the Indian Muslims, whose problems Pakistan didn`t solve. Hence Muslim League`s strategy failed, and Jinnah was handed a Pakistan he never wanted.
Footnote: I want this to be first in a series of articles by Pakistanis and Indians to unemotionally reconsider the events of that very important decade in our history which seem to blur our judgement when it comes to making decisions in the present.
#191 Posted by harish_hyd on May 3, 2005 2:35:40 am
#187 by Yasser
[I`ve already proved your chronological order wrong!]
Oh really? Repeating a lie a thousand times is not going to make it true. You simply ignored the chronology and blabbered incoherently. Looks like the stress of proving your lies true is taking its toll on you. But then, as a wise man said, to cover up one lie, you have to utter a hundred lies. This is what is happening with you. Another lie added to your kitty.
[As you can see I never brought up Jinnah any where irrelevant... In a relevant article on the topic I will bring up Jinnah again.... as I did so on the second Manto letter as well.]
Let us see you repeat your lies again on any other board.
[You on the other hand brought him at the Wapsi board because you were looking for a face saving after being badly and shamelessly trounced on the stuka board.... I know that as usual you are about to exit with your tail between your legs.]
After being humiliated by having your lies exposed mercilessly, the only thing now you can take solace from is to claim an imaginary victory. Anything that makes you happy!
[However I will continue this as long as it takes... till you are taken to mad peoples` assylum.]
First of all its ``asylum`` and not ``assylum``. I think the letters I mark in bold are playing on your mind.
[There is no exit or retreat for you now.]
Ha! Ha! Ha! Come on. Prove that Jinnah issued a statment calling for restraint from the Muslim goons. You have the opportunity to shut me up forever. But wait! Jinnah never did such a thing. So how are you going to tie me up? Looks like at the end of this, you will be headed to the ``assylum``. But then, isn`t that your home?
[I`ve already proved your chronological order wrong!]
Oh really? Repeating a lie a thousand times is not going to make it true. You simply ignored the chronology and blabbered incoherently. Looks like the stress of proving your lies true is taking its toll on you. But then, as a wise man said, to cover up one lie, you have to utter a hundred lies. This is what is happening with you. Another lie added to your kitty.
[As you can see I never brought up Jinnah any where irrelevant... In a relevant article on the topic I will bring up Jinnah again.... as I did so on the second Manto letter as well.]
Let us see you repeat your lies again on any other board.
[You on the other hand brought him at the Wapsi board because you were looking for a face saving after being badly and shamelessly trounced on the stuka board.... I know that as usual you are about to exit with your tail between your legs.]
After being humiliated by having your lies exposed mercilessly, the only thing now you can take solace from is to claim an imaginary victory. Anything that makes you happy!
[However I will continue this as long as it takes... till you are taken to mad peoples` assylum.]
First of all its ``asylum`` and not ``assylum``. I think the letters I mark in bold are playing on your mind.
[There is no exit or retreat for you now.]
Ha! Ha! Ha! Come on. Prove that Jinnah issued a statment calling for restraint from the Muslim goons. You have the opportunity to shut me up forever. But wait! Jinnah never did such a thing. So how are you going to tie me up? Looks like at the end of this, you will be headed to the ``assylum``. But then, isn`t that your home?
#190 Posted by MantoLives on May 3, 2005 2:33:58 am
Re: # 189
Below is the complete article... it is the ``Ayesha Jalal view of history``.... the ``H M Seervai view of History``... and also my view of history...
Our intellectual dilemma
SHAHZAD MIRZA
Our intellectual dilemma is steeped in our major cultural traditions, which forbids freethinking and independent inquiry of truth. The intellectual tradition emanating from Islamic civilization and theology was quintessentially set to produce mere scholastic thinkers, commentators and teachers instead of genuine philosophers in the technical sense of the term. The initial traces of any intellectual movement in Islam are found in the two famous schools of thoughts, which are intrinsically fall in the domain of pure theology and in true sense do not qualify to become pure philosophical traditions; I am referring to Ash’arism and Mu’tazalism. In the later period, starting from 19th century, Al-Kindi (803-873 AD) and almost culminating in Ibn-e-Rushd (1126-1196 AD), roughly spanning over six centuries. Among these, only the names of Al-Ghazali and Abu Bakr Al-Razi stand out to claim for novelty and originality, the rest are either commentator or appear under the overwhelming influence of Greek philosophy or more precisely the neo-platonic philosophic tradition in one way or the other. Therefore, it can be safely pronounced that Islamic intellectual tradition is bereft of a genuine philosopher in technical sense of the term.
In Islamic tradition, a thinker is allowed to interpret the contemporary intellectual development of his time within already circumvented parameters of truth and absolute reality revealed in Holy Scripture. The fact that religion and philosophy make two very distinct realms with nearly an unbridgeable chasm between them, albeit, it is fanciful to harmonize or reconcile them and this penchant to ceremonies their mismatch marriage has been prevailed in the whole generations of Muslim scholars in entire history of Islam and Iqbal is no exception to that. In the preface of “Reconstruction”, Allama Iqbal pronounces, “I have, tried to meet, even though partially, this urgent demand by attempting to reconstruct Muslim religious philosophy with due regard to the philosophical traditions of Islam and the more recent developments in the various domains of human knowledge”. This tendency has been the most inhibitive factor, which has contributed the most in crippling the genuine and original development of intellect in Muslim Societies and culture.
Dr Pervez Hoodboy, in his book, “Muslims and Science”, has made an in depth study of the past and present state of Science in Islamic civilization dilating on the subject in a very realistic, scholarly, and vivacious manner. He also tried to grapple with this difficult question why scientific revolution occurred only in western civilization and not in Islamic, Chinese etc who were also ripe at that period of history for similar transformations. He attributed the reason to the peculiar ingredients of Muslim civilisation enmeshed in religion, which prevented this to happen. He argues that in the whole history of Muslim education, it was taught to the students that Allah has revealed every thing in his Book.
All knowledge of this worldly life and the life hereafter in contained in Quran. Then the only task is left for a researcher to discover that ‘concealed’ or ‘hidden’ truth’ and not to invent new thing or idea. The emphasis remained on rote and cramming, though it was imperative in the sphere of religious education for obvious reasons, but because of the non-separation of religious education from the so called worldly education, this approach had gradually congealed into the basic trait in education philosophy of Islam which caused it a colossal damage for centuries. This phenomenon had infected nearly all Muslim countries now existing on the globe.
Apart from all these blemishes, however, the serious one is the lack of human resource development – a vital factor to make politico-economic headway in the comity of nations. Absence of trained and skilled labor force which serves as sinews in the body economic of a country. Non-availability of genuine researchers, scientists and thinkers which lead the nation from the front on spheres of intellect and knowledge. Absence of budding, nurturing and sustaining of any tradition of mature political, religious or literary dialogue within the social fabric of the society through enlightenment and strengthening of social society.
We are told that on 14 August 1947, a country named Pakistan took birth very similar to that of a child but nations do not come into being in this way. Therefore, a serious dilemma confronted our so-called intelligentsia pertaining to the historical roots and genesis of the country. Consequently they were compelled to invent a logically flawed, politically controversial and philosophically weak theory known as ‘Two-Nation’ theory, the debate on which has been a recurring and undying feature in this country.
Instead of unraveling the cascade of political events, forces and personalities that were intertwined and at work during the long phase of the history of struggle for independence because a heap of material is already existing on that. On the other hand, we make an attempt to analyze this theory in a pure logical method, and try to find out whether the basic ingredients or premises of theory make a valid argument or not. We take our first premise, “ The Indian Subcontinent was inhabited by two widely distinct nations i.e., Muslims and Hindu who were dissimilar with each other in every facet of life with no common grounds whatsoever”. Suppose this is proposition P. Now we move to the next premise, “ It is, therefore, perfectly natural that the Muslims of India get entitled to a separate state as their homeland”. This is our proposition Q. Can any one logically prove that proposition Q validly flows from proposition P invoking any causal connection. By simply putting, “does P implies Q”, is intrinsically an invalid conclusion from the standpoint of logic.
The universally popular and common slogans reflect upon the collective thinking of a people. The most popular slogan during the struggle of independence used to be “Pakistan ka Matlab Kia; La Ilaha Ilallah”. Again we reduce the contents into propositions and see whether any logical nexus emerges out of them. Our first proposition P reads, “What is the meaning of Pakistan or more precisely what is the raison d’être of Pakistan”. And the second proposition Q reads, “There is no God but Allah”. Does P necessarily flow into Q. It is simply baffling for common sense even. Then a question arises as a natural corollary that how could the struggle for an independent state and emergence of Pakistan be explained and the perennial question of the rationality of the creation of country be justified.
In my humble view, it was quintessentially the struggle for the achievement of a tract of land on modern nation-state theoretical concepts. Please recall the words of Allama Iqbal who is considered the dreamer of Pakistan. In his famous Allahabad Address delivered in 1930, he extensively dealt with the constitutional question of India and summed up his analysis in the end and quoted in verbatim.
“ I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Balochistan amalgamated into a single state, self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire” ... “The formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the last final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West of India”
Suggesting that the whole focus of our struggle of independence remained on getting a geographically, I repeat geographically contiguous tract of land because within its proposed territorial boundaries, a single community was inhabiting with numerical majority. For that reason, at best, it could be termed as movement for right of self determination waged only for northern part of British India. Prima facie, it was the communal solution to the constitutional problem of India, but essentially it ended up in a matter of territorial re-adjustments. It would be more relevant, correct and clear interpretation of this phenomenon for the students of modern politics, if we want to explain the ideology of Pakistan on modern political notions of nation-state rather than on the ambiguous props of Two Nation theory. It is then perfectly justified that there is a dire need to re-write our history with a view to eliminating its truncated and mutilated parts entrenched in our textbooks.
We have to turn to people like Dr Mubarik Ali an indefatigable warrior in his war to challenge the vested interests wantonly propagating false notions and ideology particularly in the field of writing history. He has created ripples in the otherwise stagnant waters of sluggish set of beliefs of our so called historians and pedagogues. In one of his many books, “Tareekh Aur Nisabi Kutb”, he has also made critical analysis of the distorted textbooks of history taught in India and Pakistan. Although, many of his ideas may be debated upon, not agreed to, yet his poignant narrations of some aspects of our taken-for-granted beliefs about history are real eye-opener.
The book in hand has it that an impression was imbedded in young generations of Pakistan that it was created for Islam. By taking advantage of this, many a time different elements raised demands to implement Shariat or Nizam-e-Mustafa, due to which political consciousness of the society was put on the backburner caving into religious intolerance and extremism”. Therefore we were bequeathed with a regimented society bereft of any spirit of free and liberal thinking.
Finally I would suggest that in a bid to break the intellectual stagnancy of our society, we have to rewrite our entire syllabi in the first place equipping with an iconoclastic zeal and anti-dogmatic approach. Secondly we have to establish model universities in line with Ali Garh, Al-Azhar, Oxford, Harvard, Cambridge. Lastly in order to bring about a genuine revolution in the intellectual domain, the separation of state from the religion is a necessary imperative. It became possible for West only after the Reformation and Protestant movements beside rise of science and industrial revolution to produce genuine philosophical tradition otherwise, they too would have been groping in the dark.
Below is the complete article... it is the ``Ayesha Jalal view of history``.... the ``H M Seervai view of History``... and also my view of history...
Our intellectual dilemma
SHAHZAD MIRZA
Our intellectual dilemma is steeped in our major cultural traditions, which forbids freethinking and independent inquiry of truth. The intellectual tradition emanating from Islamic civilization and theology was quintessentially set to produce mere scholastic thinkers, commentators and teachers instead of genuine philosophers in the technical sense of the term. The initial traces of any intellectual movement in Islam are found in the two famous schools of thoughts, which are intrinsically fall in the domain of pure theology and in true sense do not qualify to become pure philosophical traditions; I am referring to Ash’arism and Mu’tazalism. In the later period, starting from 19th century, Al-Kindi (803-873 AD) and almost culminating in Ibn-e-Rushd (1126-1196 AD), roughly spanning over six centuries. Among these, only the names of Al-Ghazali and Abu Bakr Al-Razi stand out to claim for novelty and originality, the rest are either commentator or appear under the overwhelming influence of Greek philosophy or more precisely the neo-platonic philosophic tradition in one way or the other. Therefore, it can be safely pronounced that Islamic intellectual tradition is bereft of a genuine philosopher in technical sense of the term.
In Islamic tradition, a thinker is allowed to interpret the contemporary intellectual development of his time within already circumvented parameters of truth and absolute reality revealed in Holy Scripture. The fact that religion and philosophy make two very distinct realms with nearly an unbridgeable chasm between them, albeit, it is fanciful to harmonize or reconcile them and this penchant to ceremonies their mismatch marriage has been prevailed in the whole generations of Muslim scholars in entire history of Islam and Iqbal is no exception to that. In the preface of “Reconstruction”, Allama Iqbal pronounces, “I have, tried to meet, even though partially, this urgent demand by attempting to reconstruct Muslim religious philosophy with due regard to the philosophical traditions of Islam and the more recent developments in the various domains of human knowledge”. This tendency has been the most inhibitive factor, which has contributed the most in crippling the genuine and original development of intellect in Muslim Societies and culture.
Dr Pervez Hoodboy, in his book, “Muslims and Science”, has made an in depth study of the past and present state of Science in Islamic civilization dilating on the subject in a very realistic, scholarly, and vivacious manner. He also tried to grapple with this difficult question why scientific revolution occurred only in western civilization and not in Islamic, Chinese etc who were also ripe at that period of history for similar transformations. He attributed the reason to the peculiar ingredients of Muslim civilisation enmeshed in religion, which prevented this to happen. He argues that in the whole history of Muslim education, it was taught to the students that Allah has revealed every thing in his Book.
All knowledge of this worldly life and the life hereafter in contained in Quran. Then the only task is left for a researcher to discover that ‘concealed’ or ‘hidden’ truth’ and not to invent new thing or idea. The emphasis remained on rote and cramming, though it was imperative in the sphere of religious education for obvious reasons, but because of the non-separation of religious education from the so called worldly education, this approach had gradually congealed into the basic trait in education philosophy of Islam which caused it a colossal damage for centuries. This phenomenon had infected nearly all Muslim countries now existing on the globe.
Apart from all these blemishes, however, the serious one is the lack of human resource development – a vital factor to make politico-economic headway in the comity of nations. Absence of trained and skilled labor force which serves as sinews in the body economic of a country. Non-availability of genuine researchers, scientists and thinkers which lead the nation from the front on spheres of intellect and knowledge. Absence of budding, nurturing and sustaining of any tradition of mature political, religious or literary dialogue within the social fabric of the society through enlightenment and strengthening of social society.
We are told that on 14 August 1947, a country named Pakistan took birth very similar to that of a child but nations do not come into being in this way. Therefore, a serious dilemma confronted our so-called intelligentsia pertaining to the historical roots and genesis of the country. Consequently they were compelled to invent a logically flawed, politically controversial and philosophically weak theory known as ‘Two-Nation’ theory, the debate on which has been a recurring and undying feature in this country.
Instead of unraveling the cascade of political events, forces and personalities that were intertwined and at work during the long phase of the history of struggle for independence because a heap of material is already existing on that. On the other hand, we make an attempt to analyze this theory in a pure logical method, and try to find out whether the basic ingredients or premises of theory make a valid argument or not. We take our first premise, “ The Indian Subcontinent was inhabited by two widely distinct nations i.e., Muslims and Hindu who were dissimilar with each other in every facet of life with no common grounds whatsoever”. Suppose this is proposition P. Now we move to the next premise, “ It is, therefore, perfectly natural that the Muslims of India get entitled to a separate state as their homeland”. This is our proposition Q. Can any one logically prove that proposition Q validly flows from proposition P invoking any causal connection. By simply putting, “does P implies Q”, is intrinsically an invalid conclusion from the standpoint of logic.
The universally popular and common slogans reflect upon the collective thinking of a people. The most popular slogan during the struggle of independence used to be “Pakistan ka Matlab Kia; La Ilaha Ilallah”. Again we reduce the contents into propositions and see whether any logical nexus emerges out of them. Our first proposition P reads, “What is the meaning of Pakistan or more precisely what is the raison d’être of Pakistan”. And the second proposition Q reads, “There is no God but Allah”. Does P necessarily flow into Q. It is simply baffling for common sense even. Then a question arises as a natural corollary that how could the struggle for an independent state and emergence of Pakistan be explained and the perennial question of the rationality of the creation of country be justified.
In my humble view, it was quintessentially the struggle for the achievement of a tract of land on modern nation-state theoretical concepts. Please recall the words of Allama Iqbal who is considered the dreamer of Pakistan. In his famous Allahabad Address delivered in 1930, he extensively dealt with the constitutional question of India and summed up his analysis in the end and quoted in verbatim.
“ I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Balochistan amalgamated into a single state, self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire” ... “The formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the last final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West of India”
Suggesting that the whole focus of our struggle of independence remained on getting a geographically, I repeat geographically contiguous tract of land because within its proposed territorial boundaries, a single community was inhabiting with numerical majority. For that reason, at best, it could be termed as movement for right of self determination waged only for northern part of British India. Prima facie, it was the communal solution to the constitutional problem of India, but essentially it ended up in a matter of territorial re-adjustments. It would be more relevant, correct and clear interpretation of this phenomenon for the students of modern politics, if we want to explain the ideology of Pakistan on modern political notions of nation-state rather than on the ambiguous props of Two Nation theory. It is then perfectly justified that there is a dire need to re-write our history with a view to eliminating its truncated and mutilated parts entrenched in our textbooks.
We have to turn to people like Dr Mubarik Ali an indefatigable warrior in his war to challenge the vested interests wantonly propagating false notions and ideology particularly in the field of writing history. He has created ripples in the otherwise stagnant waters of sluggish set of beliefs of our so called historians and pedagogues. In one of his many books, “Tareekh Aur Nisabi Kutb”, he has also made critical analysis of the distorted textbooks of history taught in India and Pakistan. Although, many of his ideas may be debated upon, not agreed to, yet his poignant narrations of some aspects of our taken-for-granted beliefs about history are real eye-opener.
The book in hand has it that an impression was imbedded in young generations of Pakistan that it was created for Islam. By taking advantage of this, many a time different elements raised demands to implement Shariat or Nizam-e-Mustafa, due to which political consciousness of the society was put on the backburner caving into religious intolerance and extremism”. Therefore we were bequeathed with a regimented society bereft of any spirit of free and liberal thinking.
Finally I would suggest that in a bid to break the intellectual stagnancy of our society, we have to rewrite our entire syllabi in the first place equipping with an iconoclastic zeal and anti-dogmatic approach. Secondly we have to establish model universities in line with Ali Garh, Al-Azhar, Oxford, Harvard, Cambridge. Lastly in order to bring about a genuine revolution in the intellectual domain, the separation of state from the religion is a necessary imperative. It became possible for West only after the Reformation and Protestant movements beside rise of science and industrial revolution to produce genuine philosophical tradition otherwise, they too would have been groping in the dark.
#189 Posted by MantoLives on May 3, 2005 2:30:03 am
Re: # 188
So this article is your substitute for logic... Quite the contrary to your assertion I`ve been arguing that Pakistan cannot be based on the two nation theory which is why Jinnah declared it to be a secular state. This article proves my point not yours. This shows that your mental acumen is not very high.
Now read Jinnah a Corrective reading of Indian History which proves that Jinnah didn`t even want a partition... and it is by an Indian Hindu writer...
So this article is your substitute for logic... Quite the contrary to your assertion I`ve been arguing that Pakistan cannot be based on the two nation theory which is why Jinnah declared it to be a secular state. This article proves my point not yours. This shows that your mental acumen is not very high.
Now read Jinnah a Corrective reading of Indian History which proves that Jinnah didn`t even want a partition... and it is by an Indian Hindu writer...
#188 Posted by harish_hyd on May 3, 2005 2:25:36 am
At least some Pakis have begun to see beyond the hoax that the TNT was. Maybe Yasser will need to learn from a different set of textbooks the next time he goes to school.
Our intellectual dilemma
Excerpts:
``We are told that on 14 August 1947, a country named Pakistan took birth very similar to that of a child but nations do not come into being in this way. Therefore, a serious dilemma confronted our so-called intelligentsia pertaining to the historical roots and genesis of the country. Consequently they were compelled to invent a logically flawed, politically controversial and philosophically weak theory known as ‘Two-Nation’ theory, the debate on which has been a recurring and undying feature in this country.
``Instead of unraveling the cascade of political events, forces and personalities that were intertwined and at work during the long phase of the history of struggle for independence because a heap of material is already existing on that. On the other hand, we make an attempt to analyze this theory in a pure logical method, and try to find out whether the basic ingredients or premises of theory make a valid argument or not. We take our first premise, “ The Indian Subcontinent was inhabited by two widely distinct nations i.e., Muslims and Hindu who were dissimilar with each other in every facet of life with no common grounds whatsoever”. Suppose this is proposition P. Now we move to the next premise, “ It is, therefore, perfectly natural that the Muslims of India get entitled to a separate state as their homeland”. This is our proposition Q. Can any one logically prove that proposition Q validly flows from proposition P invoking any causal connection. By simply putting, “does P implies Q”, is intrinsically an invalid conclusion from the standpoint of logic.
``The universally popular and common slogans reflect upon the collective thinking of a people. The most popular slogan during the struggle of independence used to be “Pakistan ka Matlab Kia; La Ilaha Ilallah”. Again we reduce the contents into propositions and see whether any logical nexus emerges out of them. Our first proposition P reads, “What is the meaning of Pakistan or more precisely what is the raison d’être of Pakistan”. And the second proposition Q reads, “There is no God but Allah”. Does P necessarily flow into Q. It is simply baffling for common sense even. Then a question arises as a natural corollary that how could the struggle for an independent state and emergence of Pakistan be explained and the perennial question of the rationality of the creation of country be justified.
In my humble view, it was quintessentially the struggle for the achievement of a tract of land on modern nation-state theoretical concepts. Please recall the words of Allama Iqbal who is considered the dreamer of Pakistan. In his famous Allahabad Address delivered in 1930, he extensively dealt with the constitutional question of India and summed up his analysis in the end and quoted in verbatim.
“ I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Balochistan amalgamated into a single state, self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire” ... “The formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the last final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West of India”
Suggesting that the whole focus of our struggle of independence remained on getting a geographically, I repeat geographically contiguous tract of land because within its proposed territorial boundaries, a single community was inhabiting with numerical majority. For that reason, at best, it could be termed as movement for right of self determination waged only for northern part of British India. Prima facie, it was the communal solution to the constitutional problem of India, but essentially it ended up in a matter of territorial re-adjustments. It would be more relevant, correct and clear interpretation of this phenomenon for the students of modern politics, if we want to explain the ideology of Pakistan on modern political notions of nation-state rather than on the ambiguous props of Two Nation theory. It is then perfectly justified that there is a dire need to re-write our history with a view to eliminating its truncated and mutilated parts entrenched in our textbooks.``
Our intellectual dilemma
Excerpts:
``We are told that on 14 August 1947, a country named Pakistan took birth very similar to that of a child but nations do not come into being in this way. Therefore, a serious dilemma confronted our so-called intelligentsia pertaining to the historical roots and genesis of the country. Consequently they were compelled to invent a logically flawed, politically controversial and philosophically weak theory known as ‘Two-Nation’ theory, the debate on which has been a recurring and undying feature in this country.
``Instead of unraveling the cascade of political events, forces and personalities that were intertwined and at work during the long phase of the history of struggle for independence because a heap of material is already existing on that. On the other hand, we make an attempt to analyze this theory in a pure logical method, and try to find out whether the basic ingredients or premises of theory make a valid argument or not. We take our first premise, “ The Indian Subcontinent was inhabited by two widely distinct nations i.e., Muslims and Hindu who were dissimilar with each other in every facet of life with no common grounds whatsoever”. Suppose this is proposition P. Now we move to the next premise, “ It is, therefore, perfectly natural that the Muslims of India get entitled to a separate state as their homeland”. This is our proposition Q. Can any one logically prove that proposition Q validly flows from proposition P invoking any causal connection. By simply putting, “does P implies Q”, is intrinsically an invalid conclusion from the standpoint of logic.
``The universally popular and common slogans reflect upon the collective thinking of a people. The most popular slogan during the struggle of independence used to be “Pakistan ka Matlab Kia; La Ilaha Ilallah”. Again we reduce the contents into propositions and see whether any logical nexus emerges out of them. Our first proposition P reads, “What is the meaning of Pakistan or more precisely what is the raison d’être of Pakistan”. And the second proposition Q reads, “There is no God but Allah”. Does P necessarily flow into Q. It is simply baffling for common sense even. Then a question arises as a natural corollary that how could the struggle for an independent state and emergence of Pakistan be explained and the perennial question of the rationality of the creation of country be justified.
In my humble view, it was quintessentially the struggle for the achievement of a tract of land on modern nation-state theoretical concepts. Please recall the words of Allama Iqbal who is considered the dreamer of Pakistan. In his famous Allahabad Address delivered in 1930, he extensively dealt with the constitutional question of India and summed up his analysis in the end and quoted in verbatim.
“ I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Balochistan amalgamated into a single state, self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire” ... “The formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the last final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West of India”
Suggesting that the whole focus of our struggle of independence remained on getting a geographically, I repeat geographically contiguous tract of land because within its proposed territorial boundaries, a single community was inhabiting with numerical majority. For that reason, at best, it could be termed as movement for right of self determination waged only for northern part of British India. Prima facie, it was the communal solution to the constitutional problem of India, but essentially it ended up in a matter of territorial re-adjustments. It would be more relevant, correct and clear interpretation of this phenomenon for the students of modern politics, if we want to explain the ideology of Pakistan on modern political notions of nation-state rather than on the ambiguous props of Two Nation theory. It is then perfectly justified that there is a dire need to re-write our history with a view to eliminating its truncated and mutilated parts entrenched in our textbooks.``
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nb: Too many points at... They Will Seal The
- majumdar: Kaal bhai, Now or Never... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- nkg: Re: # 133 Special provision... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- majumdar: Nkg moshai, What is wrong... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- nkg: Re: # 128 Dinaric... RSS is... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- nkg: Re: # 120 HP... The core... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- nkg: Re: # 98 hamidm2... " what... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- pinku: add to #133 Posted... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
