Advani in Karachi

Two articles by M J Akbar


Sunday, June 12, 2005
Jinnah


Byline by M.J.Akbar: Jinnah

Ambition and frustration are two reasons commonly suggested in India, but they are not enough to create a new nation. Jinnah made the demand for Pakistan only in 1940, after repeated attempts to obtain constitutional safeguards for Muslims and attempts at power-sharing had failed. What happened, for instance, to the Constitution that the Congress was meant to draft in 1928? On the other hand, Congress leaders felt that commitments on the basis of any community would lead to extortion from every community. The only exception made was for Dalits, then called Harijans.



``Well, young man. I will have nothing to do with this pseudo-religious approach to politics. I part company with Congress and Gandhi. I do not believe in working up mob hysteria.``

The young man was a journalist, Durga Das. The older man was Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The reference is from Durga Das’ classic book, India from Curzon to Nehru and After. Jinnah said this after the 1920 Nagpur session, where Gandhi’s non-cooperation resolution was passed almost unanimously.

On 1 October 1906, 35 Muslims of ``noble birth, wealth and power`` called on the fourth earl of Minto, Curzon’s successor as Viceroy of India. They were led by the Aga Khan and used for the first time a phrase that would dominate the history of the subcontinent in the 20th century: the ``national interests`` of Indian Muslims. They wanted help against an ``unsympathetic`` Hindu majority. They asked, very politely, for proportional representation in jobs and separate seats in councils, municipalities, university syndicates and high court benches. Lord Minto was happy to oblige. The Muslim League was born in December that year at Dhaka, chaired by Nawab Salimullah Khan, who had been too ill to join the 35 in October. The Aga Khan was its first president.

The Aga Khan wrote later that it was ``freakishly ironic`` that ``our doughtiest opponent in 1906`` was Jinnah, who ``came out in bitter hostility toward all that I and my friends had done… He was the only well-known Muslim to take this attitude… He said that our principle of separate electorates was dividing the nation against itself``.

On precisely the same dates that the League was formed in Dhaka, Jinnah was in nearby Calcutta with 44 other Muslims and roughly 1,500 Hindus, Christians and Parsis, serving as secretary to Dadabhai Naoroji, president of the Indian National Congress. Dadabhai was too ill to give his address, which had been partially drafted by Jinnah and was read out by Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

Sarojini Naidu, who met the 30-year-old Jinnah for the first time here, remembered him as a symbol of ``virile patriotism``. Her description is arguably the best there is: ``Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emancipation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s attenuated form is a deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance. Somewhat formal and fastidious, and a little aloof and imperious of manner, the calm hauteur of his accustomed reserve but masks, for those who know him, a naïve and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman’s, a humour gay and winning as child’s … a shy and splendid idealism which is of the very essence of the man.``

Jinnah entered the central legislative council in Calcutta (the capital of British India then) on 25 January 1910, along with Gokhale, Surendranath Banerjea and Motilal Nehru. Lord Minto expected the council to rubber stamp ``any measures we may deem right to introduce``. Jinnah’s maiden speech shattered such pompousness. He rose to defend another Gujarati working for his people in another colony across the seas, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Jinnah expressed ``the highest pitch of indignation and horror at the harsh and cruel treatment that is meted out to Indians in South Africa``. Minto objected to a term such as ``cruel treatment``. Jinnah responded at once: ``My Lord! I should feel much inclined to use much stronger language.`` Lord Minto kept quiet.

On March 7, 1911 Jinnah introduced what was to become the first non-official Act in British Indian history, the Wakf Validating Bill, reversing an 1894 decision on wakf gifts. Muslims across the Indian empire were grateful.

Jinnah attended his first meeting of the League in Bankipur in 1912, but did not become a member. He was in Bankipur to attend the Congress session. When he went to Lucknow a few months later as a special guest of the League (it was not an annual session), Sarojini Naidu was on the platform with him. The bitterness that divided India did not exist then. Dr M.A. Ansari, Maulana Azad and Hakim Ajmal Khan attended the League session of 1914, and in 1915, the League tent had a truly unlikely guest list: Madan Mohan Malviya, Surendranath Banerjea, Annie Besant, B.G. Horniman, Sarojini Naidu and Mahatma Gandhi. When Jinnah did join the League in 1913, he insisted on a condition, set out in immaculate English, that his ``loyalty to the Muslim League and the Muslim interest would in no way and at no time imply even the shadow of disloyalty to the larger national cause to which his life was dedicated`` (Jinnah: His Speeches and Writings, 1912-1917, edited by Sarojini Naidu). Gokhale that year honoured Jinnah with a phrase that has travelled through time: it is ``freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him (Jinnah) the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity``. In the spring of 1914 Jinnah chaired a Congress delegation to London to lobby Whitehall on a proposed Council of India Bill.

When Gandhi landed in India in 1915, Jinnah, as president of the Gujarat Society (the mahatmas of both India and Pakistan were Gujaratis), spoke at a garden party to welcome the hero of South Africa. Jinnah was the star of 1915. At the Congress and League sessions, held in Mumbai at the same time, he worked tirelessly with Congress president Satyendra Sinha and Mazharul Haque (a Congressman who presided over the Muslim League that year) for a joint platform of resolutions. Haque and Jinnah were heckled so badly at the League session by mullahs that the meeting had to be adjourned. It reconvened the next day in the safer milieu of the Taj Mahal Hotel. The next year Jinnah became president of the League for the first time, at Lucknow.

Motilal Nehru, in the meantime, worked closely with Jinnah in the council. When the munificent Motilal convened a meeting of fellow-legislators at his handsome mansion in Allahabad in April, he considered Jinnah ``as keen a nationalist as any of us. He is showing his community the way to Hindu-Muslim unity``. It was from this meeting in Allahabad that Jinnah went for a vacation to Darjeeling and the summer home of his friend Sir Dinshaw Manockjee Petit (French merchants had nicknamed Dinshaw’s small-built grandfather petit and it stuck) and met 16-year-old Ruttie. I suppose a glorious view of the Everest encouraged romance. When Ruttie became 18 she eloped and on 19 April 1918 they were married. Ruttie’s Parsi family disowned her, she separated from Jinnah a decade later. (The wedding ring was a gift from the Raja of Mahmudabad.)

As president Jinnah engineered the famous Lucknow Pact with Congress president A.C. Mazumdar. In his presidential speech Jinnah rejoiced that the new spirit of patriotism had ``brought Hindus and Muslims together … for the common cause``. Mazumdar announced that all differences had been settled, and Hindus and Muslims would make a ``joint demand for a Representative Government in India``.

Enter Gandhi, who never entered a legislature, and believed passionately that freedom could only be won by a non-violent struggle for which he would have to prepare the masses.

In 1915 Gokhale advised Gandhi to keep ``his ears open and his mouth shut`` for a year, and see India. Gandhi stopped in Calcutta on his way to Rangoon and spoke to students. Politics, he said, should never be divorced from religion. The signal was picked by Muslims planning to marry politics with religion in their first great campaign against the British empire, the Khilafat movement.

Over the next three years Gandhi prepared the ground for his version of the freedom struggle: a shift from the legislatures to the street; a deliberate use of religious imagery to reach the illiterate masses through symbols most familiar to them (Ram Rajya for the Hindus, Khilafat for the Muslims); and an unwavering commitment to the poor peasantry, for whom Champaran became a miracle. The massacre at Jallianwala Bagh in 1919 provided a perfect opportunity; Indian anger reached critical mass. Gandhi led the Congress towards its first mass struggle, the Non-Cooperation Movement of 1921.

The constitutionalist in Jinnah found mass politics ambitious, and the liberal in him rejected the invasion of religion in politics. When he rose to speak at the Nagpur session in 1920, where Gandhi moved the non-cooperation resolution, Jinnah was the only delegate to dissent till the end among some 50,000 ``surging`` Hindus and Muslims. He had two principal objections. The resolution, he said, was a de facto declaration of swaraj, or complete independence, and although he agreed completely with Lala Lajpat Rai’s indictment of the British government he did not think the Congress had, as yet, the means to achieve this end; as he put it, ``it is not the right step to take at this moment … you are committing the Indian National Congress to a programme which you will not be able to carry out``. (Gandhi, after promising swaraj within a year, withdrew the Non-Cooperation Movement in the wake of communal riots in Kerala and of course the famous Chauri Chaura incident in 1922. Congress formally adopted full independence as its goal only in 1931.) His second objection was that non-violence would not succeed. In this Jinnah was wrong.

There is a remarkable sub-text in this speech, which has never been commented upon, at least to my knowledge. When Jinnah first referred to Gandhi, he called him ``Mr Gandhi``. There were instant cries of ``Mahatma Gandhi``. Without a moment’s hesitation, Jinnah switched to ``Mahatma Gandhi``. Later, he referred to Mr Mohammad Ali, the more flamboyant of the two Ali Brothers, both popularly referred to as Maulana. There were angry cries of ``Maulana``. Jinnah ignored them. He referred at least five times more to Ali, but each time called him only Mr Mohammad Ali.

Let us leave the last word to Gandhi. Writing in Harijan of 8 June 1940, Gandhi said, ``Quaid-e-Azam himself was a great Congressman. It was only after the non-cooperation that he, like many other Congressmen belonging to several communities, left. Their defection was purely political.`` In other words, it was not communal. It could not be, for almost every Muslim was with Gandhi when Jinnah left the Congress.

History might be better understood if we did not treat it as a heroes-and-villains movie. Life is more complex than that. The heroes of our national struggle changed sometimes with circumstances. The reasons for the three instances I cite are very different; their implications radically at variance. I am not making any comparisons, but only noting that leaders change their tactics. Non-violent Gandhi, who broke the empire three decades later, received the Kaiser-I-Hind medal on 3 June 1915 (Tagore was knighted the same day) for recruiting soldiers for the war effort. Subhas Bose, ardently Gandhian in 1920, put on uniform and led the Indian National Army with support from Fascists. Jinnah, the ambassador of unity, became a partitionist.

The question that should intrigue us is why. Ambition and frustration are two reasons commonly suggested in India, but they are not enough to create a new nation. Jinnah made the demand for Pakistan only in 1940, after repeated attempts to obtain constitutional safeguards for Muslims and attempts at power-sharing had failed. What happened, for instance, to the Constitution that the Congress was meant to draft in 1928? On the other hand, Congress leaders felt that commitments on the basis of any community would lead to extortion from every community. The only exception made was for Dalits, then called Harijans.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who remained opposed to partition even after Nehru and Patel had accepted it as inevitable, places one finger on the failed negotiations in United Provinces after the 1936-37 elections, and a second on the inexplicable collapse of the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 which would have kept India united - inexplicable because both the Congress and the Muslim League had accepted it. The plan did not survive a press conference given by Nehru. Jinnah responded with the unbridled use of the communal card, and there was no turning back.

A deeply saddened Gandhi spurned 15 August 1947 as a false dawn (to quote Faiz). He spent the day not in celebrations in Delhi but in fasting at Calcutta. Thanks to Gandhi - and H.S. Suhrawardy - there were no communal riots in Calcutta in 1947.


Man of Irony

Could President Pervez Musharraf ever have imagined, when he asked us to think out of the box, that a BJP leader like Lal Krishna Advani would leap out of the box and land at the doorstep of Mohammad Ali Jinnah? Peace has its compulsions no less dramatic than war.

When irony invites paradox for dinner, you can be certain it will be a riotous feast. We underestimate the subtlety of irony if we see no further than the obvious. L.K. Advani’s epiphany on the road to Pakistan is not ironic. It is an evolutionary, well-conceived step designed to serve more than one purpose.

An immediate objective is evident. By going to Pakistan, and praising Jinnah’s famous speech at the Constituent Assembly, Advani stimulated the bipartisan peace process. It was proof that you do not have to be in power to contribute to policy. As Advani notes, peace is built on trust, and you cannot gain a Pakistani’s trust by demonising the father of that nation. But the episode is much more than a diplomatic gesture. Consciously or otherwise, Advani has also sought to exorcise demons from a discourse that has punished the subcontinent with war, and condemned Indian Muslims to trauma and riots.

The reaction within the BJP, which has milked belligerence against both Pakistan and Indian Muslims, confirms the power of the Advani swivel. Advani is not a traitor to his cause. He believes that it is time his cause grew up and acquired a more mature rationale for existence. The dialectic of conflict can take you only so far, and the BJP has reached that point. It must now seek a dialectic of inclusion. This fits in with a larger conviction that the only way forward for the subcontinent is within the secular space. He was also reminding Pakistan of the Jinnah that many Pakistanis prefer to forget, the Jinnah who wanted a democratic, secular Republic of Pakistan.

The irony lies not in the action, but in the reaction.

Let us examine the worst. Praveen Togadia, whose face boils over with hatred at less provocation, decided that Advani had become a ``traitor``. Acharya Giriraj Kishore, whose beard camouflages his feelings but whose eyes are a giveaway, was livid that Jinnah had been called secular.

Ours is a free country. We even allow the freedom to hate, though not the freedom to be violent. Such reactions from these eminences were predictable. What was interesting was how the term ``secular`` had become, almost surreptitiously, a positive word in their terminology. How? They hated the thought that Advani had praised Jinnah as secular; ergo, ``secular`` was a positive attribute which they wanted to deny Jinnah.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the one thing that the Togadias and Kishores hated was ``secularism``, that Gandhian concoction under which Muslims had been made free and equal citizens of a Hindu-majority India. ``Secularism``, a sort of Leftist-Congress disease, was, in their lexicon, a synonym for hypocrisy, anti-Indian and anti-Hindu behaviour. It was reassuring therefore to learn that Togadia and Kishore considered secularism a virtue, and did not want to extend the compliment to their favourite bogey, Jinnah.

Their compatriot in the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Mahant Avichaldasji, has decided to launch a movement demanding the resignation of Advani from the Lok Sabha because he has ``deceived`` the Hindus. He is also upset that Advani called the day of the destruction of the Babri Masjid the saddest day of his life, and claims that the voters do not want Advani anymore.

Advani was elected from Gandhinagar, capital of Gujarat. What greater irony could there be than the fact that a city named after Gandhi, a Gujarati, should seek to reject Advani because he spoke a language that Gandhi would have understood? Gandhinagar has become a measure of Gujarat’s betrayal of Gandhi. The parallel irony of course is that Advani helped create such a voter, and now is being asked to pay the price of his own past.

Which, neatly, brings us to the next irony: Advani, who sparked the revival of the BJP in the second half of the Eighties with the Ram Mandir movement, had become to Pakistanis what Jinnah was to Indians, the object of a hate-cult. The role reversal has a particular piquancy. One can sense the depth of shock within the BJP. They had barely managed to digest the liberalism of Atal Behari Vajpayee, and now they were being confronted with a recast Advani. Who can remain stable when the world totters at both the North Pole and the South Pole?

The poles shook similarly when Jinnah made his speech on 11 August 1947: after having created a nation for Muslims, he rejected the idea of a Muslim nation in the sense of a theocratic state. Pakistan, he said, would become a great nation only if every citizen had ``equal rights, privileges and obligations``. He continued: ``You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan… You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the State… We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State…``

But of course the debate that Advani has started over Jinnah, is not a debate about Pakistan but a debate about India, which takes irony to unprecedented heights. It is a debate with many contours around a central question: was Jinnah solely responsible for the partition of India? Who destroyed the Cabinet Mission plan of 1946, often called the last chance for Indian unity? How much did newly-elected Congress president Jawaharlal Nehru’s press conference in Mumbai on 10 July 1946, where he withdrew from the Congress commitment, affect the unity of India? (Azad was deeply upset by Nehru’s remarks and Sardar Patel wrote to D.P. Mishra on 29 July that Jawaharlal’s ``emotional insanity`` had wrecked everything.) How justified was Nehru in his conviction that to provide guarantees to one community would open a Pandora’s box from which India might never recover. Was the Plan itself too fragile to last? These might seem, after all these years, questions of detail, the trees preventing us from seeing the wood. But there is a basic question we cannot escape: how did a man who never believed in communal politics deliver a nation for a community? Did he change? Was he driven into that corner? Such questions will never be answered satisfactorily as long as the politics of bias shapes our ``facts``.

A politician with an inclusive attitude often rejects certain facts for the larger good. Dr B.R. Ambedkar has become an icon to Dalits. Will any leader of an Indian political party, with any sense, seek to hurt the Dalits by picking on some elements of Ambedkar’s politics, like cooperation with the British, or will he woo Dalit sentiment by recalling the extraordinary contribution Ambedkar made to the psychological uplift of his people?

The debate has a second hinge: is our future best protected by a secular, inclusive spirit, or by separatist urges? This question is relevant internally, for all nations of the subcontinent are divided by competing identities, as well as externally, for only a common commitment to a secular spirit will enable India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to cooperate as politically sovereign and economically inter-dependent nations. So far, the separatist urge has controlled our fortunes, literally: ``fortune`` is a word of economics.

It is a question that Advani has addressed to his own party much more than to others, and legitimately so. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh, predecessor of the BJP, belongs to the third phase of the Hindutva movement. The first phase was a search for renaissance and reform, and came to an end with the death of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. The second saw the institutionalisation of this search. In 1907, a year after the Muslim League was created, the United Bengal Hindu Movement and the Punjab Hindu Sabha were born. At the Lahore Congress session of 1909 the Hindu Sabha was formally recognised as a Congress forum. The RSS replaced the Sabha as the institutional force after its formation in 1926. The third phase began after the tears of partition, with the birth of the Jana Sangh in 1952. It was a mirror-image of the Pakistan demand, for it sought power for Hindus in India in the way that Muslims had established their base in Pakistan. Five decades later the president of the BJP is telling his party to move away from the 20th century and into the 21st.

It is a debate that will be welcomed by Indian Muslims, who have long been burdened by the ``guilt`` of partition. The Congress, paradoxically rather than ironically, has been as insistent upon demanding this price as the Hindutva parties, creating a tribe of ``Congress Muslims`` whose rise to power has often been in direct proportion to their ability to pour venom upon Jinnah. Once again, it is time to move on.

I have been wondering which is the greater irony: that both Jinnah and Gandhi were Gujaratis, or that both Jinnah and Advani were from Karachi. Whatever the answer, of this I am certain. The BJP’s Man of Iron has become India’s Man of Irony.

Re: # 598

Dear Ajeya,

I am still waiting for you to back up your assertions which you have failed to.Ofcourse now ``lefty intellectuals`` are evil too. Its alright... myth-shattering is painful. As for making Jinnah exclusively responsible for partition... I blame the nationalist mythology you were taught in schools.

-YLH

Re: #597 by Mantolives

It is no wonder that M.N.Roy was a premier leftist, and the founder of the C.P.I. in India – the people who have brought the once glorious state of West Bengal to its knees with their hypocritical ideology.

And it is no coincidence that lefty “intellectuals” like Harish Nambiar today toe his line.


[Therefore, I for one do not believe that he really wanted partition of the country. Like a gambler, over-confident of his wits, he staked high, believing that other party would compromise on his terms.]

What he “believed” is not relevent. Other people “believe” otherwise.

Only the facts are relevent.

Jinnah’s “gambling” with a million souls at stake was the most disastrous thing to hit the subcontinent for a long time.


[That would have been for the best of all concerned.]

That was HIS opinion. Not the opinion of everybody.

The great Radical Humanist Manabendra Nath Roy was in my estimate the greatest visionary produced by the subcontinent.... I had no idea ofcourse reading about his life in a few months ago that he too had identical views on Mr Jinnah.


Mohammed Ali Jinnah

By M N Roy

WILL PAKISTAN SURVIVE ITS FOUNDER ? While one cannot be very certain in this respect, either way, it is an irresistible feeling that anxiety on that account must have been haunting Mohammed Ali Jinnah ever since he won the victory which he most probably did not expect, or might not even have wanted. One may go to the extent of wondering if that anxiety did not hasten his death.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah was the most maligned and misunderstood man. That experience made him bitter and it was very largely out of spitefulness that he persued an object , the attainment of which placed him in the most difficult position. Jinnah was not an idealist in the sense of being a visionary; he was a practical man possessed of great shrewdness as well as of more than average intelligence. Such a man could not be blind to the difficulty which was to follow his highly problematic success. During the latter part of his career, politics was a gamble for him; having played a game of poker with high stakes, he could not pull out. He had to go to the bitter end, so to say. Bitter, because he must have been frightened by the spectre of success when it came within the reach of his possibility. But then it was too late to retreat. It was a case of a man getting in-extricably entangled in power-politics without having begun with the lust for political power. Few would agree; yet, that is a fact which will win the recognition of impartial and dispassionate historians.

Jinnah was certainly not an angel; but he was temperamentally not a professional politician. He began as a liberal for whom politics was a holiday pastime. Being a man of outstanding merit, he could not remain a back-bencher. Unfortunately, his coming to the front rank of politics synchronized with the desecularization of nationalism, which doubtful development introduced communalism in politics. The responsibility for that fateful turn in the political life of the country must be judged by history. But ever since then, politics began a game of wits for Jinnah. Successful in that game, thanks to his own cleverness, he won the opprobrium of being a henchman of imperialism. The fact, however, is that, if distrust and hatred of the British were the hall-mark of patriotism, Jinnah was always as staunch a patriot as any other Indian. The more that fact was wilfully ignored by his opponents and he was maligned and misrepresented deliberately, the more Jinnah was naturally embittered, and spitefulness became the motive of his politics. But even then his ambition was not to gain political power, but to avenge the wrong which he believed had been done to him. Once India was divided, he would sit back in his chair with sardonic pleasure of having outwitted his opponents. There was something Mephistophelian in Jinnah’s politics. In the League General Council Meeting held in the Imperial Hotel of New Delhi to endorse the plan of partition, Jinnah concluded his speech by declaring, “I have won Pakistan for you; now do what you can with it.” Was he going to retire to his Persian rugs, having played out the game of politics as a successful sportsman ? That certainly would have been the most fitting denouement of a Mephistophelian political career.

But few mortal men can escape being prisoners of their creation. Pakistan was Jinnah’s creation, and he had to hold the baby. There was no competent nurse; at least that must have been his feeling. It would have been superhuman to act otherwise, and Jinnah was not an angel. But he was not the devil of the drama, as he was made out to be. He is no more with us. Let justice be done to his memory.

Jinnah did not survive his triumph. He had been a sick man for the last year of his life; and grave anxiety must have been the cause of the sickness. The establishment of the “largest Muslim State” meant leaving many millions of Muslims in the lurch. Having been fighters for Pakistan, the millions of Muslims left in the Indian Union are in the most difficult position. Most of them feel betrayed. Jinnah was fully conscious of that tragedy, which must have haunted his last days. Indeed, the homeland for Indian Muslims was a Utopia; any territorial division was bound to leave many millions of them out, in a very delicate position of being regarded as aliens, suspected of disloyalty to the land they must live in. An intelligent man like Jinnah must have foreseen this tragic consequence of what he demanded. Therefore, I for one do not believe that he really wanted partition of the country. Like a gambler, over-confident of his wits, he staked high, believing that other
party would compromise on his terms. That would have been for the best of all concerned. But the latter having taken up the attitude of all or nothing, Jinnah was driven to the bitter end –of gaining a victory he himself dreaded and which he did not survive.

Re: # 595

Dear Ajeya,

Just because you are left with no arguments, now you are resorting to personal insults?

I pity your condition. Rest assure I have no desire to expose Gandhi on this board. You brought up Gandhi when you were unable to logically argue on Jinnah... reference your post to Mohar. Then in your previous post addressed to me you asked for specific instances from Gandhi`s life... I provided you with that. So please don`t try to be all self righteous. You are the one who brought in Gandhi and now you are bringing in Muhammad.

As for responding to you about the Prophet, I see him as a historical figure who lived 14 centuries ago. I don`t see why I should be asked to defend his actions nor do I wish to waste my time on that issue. If anything you willingness to abuse a man who is revered by hundreds of millions of your own countrymen is a proof of why Muslims felt insecure generally... since Hinduism`s mythological and real figures are not much better.

The fact is that you had no point at all at any time during the discussion and your very presence proves Pakistan`s existence right and justified.

Back to Jinnah... the fact remains that every historian of repute who studied him and every person who knew him maintained the opinion that I have quoted... and I`ll quote for your benefit again:

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


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

Now we know that H V Hodson was no real fan of Jinnah`s but look this was the general view that every honest person took of Mr Jinnah.


Dr B R Ambedkar wrote:

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

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



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

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


and your own Mahatma Gandhi:

``Jinnah is incorruptible and brave`` (Interview with Louis Fischer)

Re: #593 by Mantolives

[Dear Ajeya,

Your desperation is indeed pitiful and painful. Those shattered myths must really have brought down the entire edifice of your belief system. ]

I think you need to refrain from making asinine comments like these if you want to continue this conversation.

Many times in the past, when we were talking about Mohammed, for example, you had no answer for my arguments, and just side-stepped them.

THAT shows desperation.

I have not side-stepped any of your arguments that you made against my arguments.

If I have, show me ONE.

[Please don`t make grandiose claims. No historian who has honestly studied Jinnah`s life will agree with your claims about him.]

This is an IDIOTIC statement.

Why?

Because you qualified it with “honestly studied”. Which, of course, is your judgement.

It would be better if you stuck to facts.


[Calling Ambedkar a bastard shows your narrowmindedness... ]

I REFERRED TO THE BRITISH WHO WERE IN CHARGE OF INDIA THEN AS “BASTARDS”, YOU IDIOT. READ WHAT I WROTE AGAIN.



[and your patronisation of him as the ``lowest of low`` caste is indicative of the fact that Ambedkar was right. . Ambedkar`s ``Gandhi or Gandhiism`` documents Gandhi`s crimes against humanity. ]

It is not patronization, you MORON. He was FACTUALLY from a caste that was referred to as “untouchables”. Go look up a hundred websites. Regardless of whether I consider him to be untouchable or not.

I really should stop arguing with a complete fathead like yourself.



[While you rant and rave against Muhammad (a man who lived in the 7th century), your refusal to confront Gandhi`s flaws (Gandhi who is considered the icon of the 20th century) ...is just funny: ]

Giving logical arguments against a pedophile, serial rapist and a mass murderer is “ranting and raving”?

Only a pedophile-follower such as yourself could say such a thing.

And we are not analyzing Gandhi’s personality here. The issue in question is whether Jinnah was responsible for the riots on Direct Action Day, and whether he was instrumental in causing the Partition.

If you want to discuss Gandhi’s personality, and his biases or lack thereof, START A SEPARATE THREAD, BONEHEAD!

Let me tell you this, Yasser. I do NOT appreciate ad-hominem attacks. If you do not stick to the point in the future, I am not going to get involved in discussing anything with you any more.

As it is, this is a site infested with half-wits that just come here to throw in their penny or two and disppear.

So once again, what are all the things that Congress and leadership of congress did against Muslims that set Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah on a tangent to demand separate homeland for Muslims where they would be rulers and would not do things the way Congress and its leadership envisaged the united India? Can someone give a list of things that Congress did against Muslims?

Re: # 592

Dear Ajeya,

Your desperation is indeed pitiful and painful. Those shattered myths must really have brought down the entire edifice of your belief system.

Please don`t make grandiose claims. No historian who has honestly studied Jinnah`s life will agree with your claims about him. Forget every dozen... other than a few biased pro-gandhi journalists here and there, you can`t even produce half a doze in total. Even Louis Fischer who hated Jinnah held him to be completely incorruptible. Read his book on Gandhi. As for those who died at partition... I am afraid only someone completely brainwashed by history would blame it on Jinnah exclusively and completely. It was Nehru
and Patel who insisted on partitioning Bengal and Punjab not Jinnah Calling Ambedkar a bastard shows your narrowmindedness... and your patronisation of him as the ``lowest of low`` caste is indicative of the fact that Ambedkar was right. . Ambedkar`s ``Gandhi or Gandhiism`` documents Gandhi`s crimes against humanity.

While you rant and rave against Muhammad (a man who lived in the 7th century), your refusal to confront Gandhi`s flaws (Gandhi who is considered the icon of the 20th century) ...is just funny:

Please read the following Indian article which documents Gandhi`s great qualities very well...



http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305995


In South Africa, Gandhi first came into regular contact with Blacks. Instead of accepting this as a natural byproduct of going to a predominantly Black country, he recoiled from this contact with the Kaffir (an offensive term for Black Africans). The contrast of Gandhi`s views towards Whites is like night and day. From early on in his South Africa stay, Gandhi came to have a dislike of the native Blacks, especially concerning the fact that Indians were being compared to them:


A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir. [1]
In one of Gandhi`s first petitions written in South Africa, Gandhi complained about laws treating Indian`s akin to native Blacks:


If the whole objection to the Indian proceeds from sanitary grounds, the following restrictions are entirely unintelligible:

1. The Indians, like the Kaffirs, cannot become owners of fixed property.
2. The Indians must be registered, the fee being 3 pounds 10S.
3. In passing through the Republic, like the Natives, they must be able to produce passes unless they have the registration ticket.
4. They cannot travel first or second-class on the railways. They are huddled together in the same compartment with the Natives.

So far as the feeling has been expressed, it is to degrade the Indian to the position of the Kaffir.[2]
At the turn of the century, during one of Gandhi`s trips to India, he complained about the position of Indians in South Africa, referring to Blacks with a cruelty and bitterness that he never used to describe committers of violent acts:


Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of a raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.[3]
Part of Gandhi`s attitude stemmed from his belief in the Aryan Invasion Theory, that of the superior White race from the Steppes subjugating darker races all across Eurasia. Gandhi snobbishly refused to accept classification with `aboriginal` looking `savages`:


...A reference to Hunter`s `Indian Empire`, chapters 3 and 4, would show at a glance who are aborigines and who are not. The matter is put so plainly that there can be no mistake about the distinction between the two. It will be seen at once from the book that the Indians in South Africa belong to the Indo-Germanic stock or, more properly speaking, the Aryan stock. [4]
Gandhi not only believed in the superiority of his stock, but also wanted to bring the so-called Aryan characteristics – non-physical, of course – to the African Blacks. He believed that White rule in South Africa – with the help of a reduction in Asiatic immigration – was necessary for civilizing the Blacks with these characteristics:


We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words `gentle compulsion` in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children. [5]
As the above 1903 Indian Opinion article he wrote implies, Gandhi was a firm believer in White settlement and rule in South Africa. More explicitly, he would write that the White race deserved to be the dominant race in historically Black South Africa:


What the British Indians pray for is very little. They ask for no political power. They admit the British race should be the dominant race in South Africa. All they ask for is freedom for those that are now settled and those that may be allowed to come in future to trade, to move about, and to hold landed property without any hindrance save the ordinary legal requirements. [6]
Along with the dominance of the White race in South Africa, Gandhi also held dear the idea of racial purity:


We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.[7]
Commenting on a petition opposing interactions between Whites and Coloureds, Gandhi wrote:


...The petition dwells upon ``the co-mingling of the Coloured and white races``. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all? [8]
Gandhi`s desire for Indians to be segregated from Blacks was so strong that he went to Johannesburg in late August of 1904 to protest the placing of Blacks in the Indian section of the city:


Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension. ...Of course, under my suggestion, The Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly.[9]
While it is understandable to be upset over a sudden movement of people into one`s area, reading Gandhi`s article, it becomes clear that Gandhi was more upset that the Blacks would be living in close proximity with Indians. It is unlikely that he would have minded a sudden influx of Whites into the Indian location. For instance, during the same period of Black movement into the Indian location, Gandhi would argue vehemently that Indian interaction with Whites surely was not harming the Whites:


The last reason given by the Public Health Committee is the miserable plea of social intercourse between the poorer whites and the poorer Indians. In the first instance, there is absolutely no social intercourse between the two and, in the second, we would very much like to know in what way the presence of the Indian has contributed to the social deterioration of the white man; what is the particular vice of the Indian community which the white man has contracted during the last seventeen years. And the phenomenon of the two classes living side by side is by no means particular to Johannesburg... [10]
Gandhi also hated being forced to register as an `uncivilized race`, like Blacks were made to do:


It is one thing to register Natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing and most insulting to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered... [11]
Perhaps the reason some of the Natives were not working was because they were planning and acting out a revolt against foreign rule. When rebellion broke out, Gandhi choose to side strongly with the British, hoping to prove to the British that the Indians were subservient. A true Kshatriya would have held out support unless offers were made for it. But Gandhi felt the need to once more prove his loyalty to the Empire, as he wrote in a letter to the secretary of Lord Elgin:


The chief reason for his having organized the Indian Ambulance Corps at the time of the Boer War and the Indian Stretcher Corps at the time of the Native Rebellion, was to bring about such [re]conciliation, by showing that British Indians were not unworthy to be citizens of the Empire and were capable of recognizing their obligations if they also insisted on their rights. [12]
Even the Black revolt against British rule could not shake Gandhi`s opinion of them being lazy and easy to manipulate. A couple years later, in 1908, Gandhi would complain that the `Kaffirs` were easy to please via little gifts, and that the British were doing the same to the Indians; again, the British were treating Indians like `Kaffirs`:


The whole affair is as much a disgrace to the Indian community as it is to the British Empire. The British rulers take us to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets.[13]
Previously, in 1906, Gandhi had started agitating for better rights -- still within the Empire -- for Indians in South Africa. Of course, Indian `secularists` and Gandhi-lovers never present the dark side to his argument:


...His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of `coloured person` on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult. [14]
In September of the same year, in a famous meeting in South Africa where Gandhi launched the Satyagraha campaign, Resolution II passed at the meeting contained a reference to the same `insult`, this time occurring in the recently passed Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance:


It reduces British Indians to a status lower than that of the aboriginal races of South Africa and the Coloured people. [15]
In December of 1906 Gandhi took the drastic step of approaching prominent Englishmen to gain support for his contention that Indians should not be considered equal to the `Kaffirs`:


The last week has been very busy. We have not had a moment`s leisure. We saw Mr. Theodore Morison of Aligarh and the well-known Mr. Stead of the Review of Reviews. Mr. Stead has boldly come out to give us all the help he can. He was therefore requested to write to the same Boer leaders that they should not consider Indians as being on the same level as Kaffirs. [16]
When Gandhi began the Satyagraha movement in 1906, he continually emphasized that suffering – more so the enjoyment of the suffering -- and jail time were completely necessary for the movement to succeed. One would naturally expect Gandhi to have had no qualms at all about his jail time. But that was not the case, and Gandhi`s issues with the jail stemmed from his close proximity to the `Kaffirs`:


CLASSIFICATION OF ASIATICS WITH NATIVES

The cell was situated in the Native quarters and we were housed in one that was labeled `For Coloured Debtors`. It was this experience for which we were perhaps all unprepared. We had fondly imagined that we would have suitable quarters apart from the Natives. As it was, perhaps, just as well that we were classed with Natives. We would now be able to study the life of Native prisoners, their customs and manners. ...Degradation underlay the classing of Indians with natives. The Asiatic Act seemed to me to be the summit of our degradation. It did appear to me, as I think it would appear to any unprejudiced reader, that it would have been simple humanity if we were given special quarters. ...the Governor of the gaol tried to make us as comfortable as he could...But he was powerless to accommodate us beyond the horrible din and the yells of the Native prisoners throughout the day and partly at night also. Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought amongst themselves in their cells. [17]
It`s quite clear from the above Indian Opinion article that Gandhi was not pleased with his stay in the jail. Perhaps Gandhi could only enjoy suffering when Blacks were not present! In another article in that day`s Indian Opinion, Gandhi further elaborated his views on `Kaffirs`:


...We were then marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs.

INDIANS ON PAR WITH KAFFIRS

There, our garments were stamped with the letter `N`, which meant that we were being classed with the Natives. We were all prepared for hardships, but not quite for this experience. We could understand not being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives seemed too much to put up with. I then felt that Indians had launched on passive resistance too soon. Here was further proof that the obnoxious law was intended to emasculate the Indians.

It was, however, as well that we were classified with the Natives. It was a welcome opportunity to study the treatment meted out to the Natives, their conditions [of life in the gaol] and their habits. ...We were given a separate ward because we were sentenced to simple imprisonment; otherwise we would have been in the same ward [with the Kaffirs]. Indians sentenced to hard labour are in fact kept with the Kaffirs.

Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized -- the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company! [18]
Gandhi has just proclaimed an entire race to be uncivilized. Such a myopic statement from the Mahatma, supposedly one of the greatest men of the 20th century, if one were to believe media hype. Note he is not talking merely about the convicts.

Complaining about the situation in the jails, when going to the jail had been one of Gandhi`s goals in his suffering campaigns, is the height of irony. Taking it a step further the next year, 1909, Gandhi started an agitation solely for the purpose of separating Indian prisoners from `Kaffir` prisoners!


I have, though, resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are not lodged with Kaffirs or others. When I arrived at the place, there were about 15 Indian prisoners. Except for three, all of them were satyagrahis. The three were charged with other offences. These prisoners were generally lodged with kaffirs. When I reached there, the chief warder issued an order that all of us should be lodged in a separate room. I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to the Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life. Moreover, those who wish to sleep in the same room have ulterior motives for doing so. Obviously, we ought to abandon such notions if we want to make progress. [19]
What an absurd situation Gandhi wanted in South Africa. On the one hand, he wanted Indians to go to jail and suffer so that they can get better laws. Yet the great sufferer Mohandas Gandhi could not stomach the fact that he had to live with Black prisoners, and so of all the absurdities, he starts an agitation. This leads directly to the point that Gandhi should be considered a segregationist, someone who -- while secretly worshipping white men and imitating most of their world views -- still could understand being segregated from them, and desired segregation from the Blacks, even in prison. His writings clearly show that he had no objection to being placed below the whites, as long as Indians were viewed as superior to Blacks. He was opposed to interaction with the `lower` Blacks, yet defended the interactions of Indians with `higher` Whites, all the while maintaining his belief in purity of type. Is this not similar to a caste system?

Hence we come to modern South Africa, where Indians are once again stuck in the middle, this time with Blacks in power; being hated by Blacks for their century long political positions – starting with Gandhi`s Congress -- against blacks, previously hated by whites for skin color. Of course one cannot say that Gandhi`s views were contrary to the opinion at large of his community, or that he is solely to blame for hostilities between the two communities. However, he did nothing to change attitudes or relations between the two, instead creating a terrible political precedent – for South African Indians and for himself -- by being openly hostile to the majority community and being subservient to a powerful and vocal minority.

Gandhi`s views of Blacks gives the lavish praise of him by Black South African leaders – including Nelson Mandela -- a touch of irony. But more ironic was Gandhi`s use of the term `Kaffir`, which Whites in Africa had actually picked up from Muslims; Kaffir being the Koranic term for unbelievers, who are not viewed kindly in the Koran, to say the least. Gandhi, of course, was officially a Hindu, a set of people whom the term Kaffir is most applicable – or perhaps, punishable -- according to the Muslim world-view.

References:

[1] Collected works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 1, pg 150-151

[2]. Petition to Lord Ripon, CWOMG, Vol. 1, pg 199-200

[3] Address in Bombay, CWOMG, Vol. 2, pg 74

[4] Notes on Test Case, CWOMG, Vol. 3, pg 8

[5] Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360

[6] Petition to Natal Legislature, CWOMG, vol3, pg 330

[7] Indian Opinion 24-9-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 453

[8] The Transvaal Chambers and British Indians, Indian Opinion 24-12-03, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 89

[9] Indian Opinion, 10-4-04, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 130-131

[10] Indian Opinion 8-10-1904, CWOMG Vol. 4 pg 276

[11] What is a Coolie, Indian Opinion 2151904, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 193

[12] Letter to Private Secretary to Lord Elgin, CWOMG Vol. 6, pg 198

[13] Indian Opinion, 29-2-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 105

[14] Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178

[15] Indian Opinion 15-9-1906, CWOMG Vol. 5, pg 419-423

[16] Indian Opinion, 15-12-1906, CWOMG Vol. 6, pg 183

[17] Indian Opinion 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 120

[18] Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135

[19] Indian Opinion, 6-1-1909, CWOMG Vol. 9, pg 149

Re: #589 by Mantolives

For every B.R. Ambedkar, M.C. Rajah and H.V. Hodson you can quote, I can quote a dozen who say EXCATLY THE OPPOSITE about Mr. Jinnah.

B.R. Ambedkar and M.C. Rajah were VERY antagonistic towards traditional Hindu culture. The fact that B.R. Ambetkar, belonging to the lowest of the castes, got to contribute towards creating the Indian constitution only goes to show the egalitarian nature of the country that Gandhi helped create.

The British had aided and abetted the Muslim League to act as a counterbalance against the Congress. I would not take those bastards` words for ANYTHING.


About Gandhi being a ``racist bigot``:

Here`s a quote from www.ambetkar.org:

``MAHATMA GANDHI was not so much the Father of the Nation as the mother of all debates regarding its future. All his life he fought in a friendly spirit with compatriots whose views on this or that topic diverged sharply from his. He disagreed with Communists and the bhadralok on the efficacy and morality of violence as a political strategy. He fought with radical Muslims on the one side and with radical Hindus on the other, both of whom sought to build a state on theological principles. He argued with Nehru and other scientists on whether economic development in a free India should centre on the village or the factory. And with that other giant, Rabindranath Tagore, he disputed the merits of such varied affiliations as the English language, nationalism, and the spinning wheel.

In some ways the most intense, interesting and long-running of these debates was between Gandhi and Ambedkar. Gandhi wished to save Hinduism by abolishing untouchability, whereas Ambedkar saw a solution for his people outside the fold of the dominant religion of the Indian people. Gandhi was a rural romantic, who wished to make the self-governing village the bedrock of free India; Ambedkar an admirer of city life and modern technology who dismissed the Indian village as a den of iniquity. Gandhi was a crypto-anarchist who favoured non-violent protest while being suspicious of the state; Ambedkar a steadfast constitutionalist, who worked within the state and sought solutions to social problems with the aid of the state.``

Re: #589 by Mantolives

[No my friend... it is like this. If you read Gandhi`s collected works you are all of a sudden face to face with a horrible racist bigot (read his letters and articles in South Africa where he considered Black people savages)]

Why don`t you quote those letters for us? Instead of insinuating?


[and a Hindu fanatic (I am a Hindu therefore a true Indian). Talk about inconsistencies.]

That is completely consistent. Hinduism is not a religion in the traditional sense of the word. It is more cultural than dogmatic. For thousands of years, Hinduism has defined India`s culture. So he was ABSOLUTELY right.

If you change your name to end with ``ikht``, ``ukht`` or ``ullah``, and speak in bastardised hindi (called Urdu), and try to be as arab as possible in your culture, you are NOT reflecting Indian tradition.


[The points against Jinnah are marginal compared to the points against Gandhi]

Right. Starting a communal riot in which millions of people died is ``marginal``.

Spoken like a true fanatic.



Let me put it in perspective for you:

Because of Gandhi, a whole subcontinent was freed from British oppression. And people the world over got a new and non-violent way to protest against their governments.

Because of Jinnah, millions of people died. And the people the world over got a new and violent monster to fight against. Called Pakistan. Reviled and loathed the world over.

Gandhi will ALWAYS be respected THROUGHOUT the world. In spite of him declaring himself a Hindu.

Jinnah will always remain in disgraced obscurity. Which is where he belongs.

Re: # 589

Ok... ajeya... maybe 90% is too harsh even for Gandhi... lets say 65% ?

Re: # 588

Ajeya,

No my friend... it is like this. If you read Gandhi`s collected works you are all of a sudden face to face with a horrible racist bigot (read his letters and articles in South Africa where he considered Black people savages) and a Hindu fanatic (I am a Hindu therefore a true Indian). Talk about inconsistencies. Gandhi is not a little bad. I am saying admit that if you admit that Gandhi is 90% bad, I`ll admit that Jinnah had his flaws too though no way as humongous Mr Gandhi.

The points against Jinnah are marginal compared to the points against Gandhi who described as a Hindu fanatic by none other than Dr B R Ambedkar the guy who wrote your constitution ... the guy who you owe your secular democracy to... and a ``Medieval Hindu Fascist`` by M N Roy, the greatest secular humanist produced by South Asia.


My dear Mohar,

Like I said your view is coloured by the blinkered view of history that was taught to you in school. Every historian who has studied Jinnah and every person, even the most bigoted opponent has been forced to concede that Jinnah was a man of towering integrity and more than average consistency for a politician.

I know your reply would be ... that these fine men I am about quote are also ``blind``... but my dear friend I have asked you on several occasions to produce something from anyone to back up your view. Are you telling me that you are passng a judgement on a man who died long before you were born and discrediting those who actually knew him?


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


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

Now we know that H V Hodson was no real fan of Jinnah`s but look this was the general view that every honest person took of Mr Jinnah.


Dr B R Ambedkar wrote:

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

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



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

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


What I wish to do is take off these blinkers from your eyes... the truth my friend does come out... and I see that it has had a rather burning effect on you.

Ciao

YLH

YLH

Logic is all I have given you. But you don`t listen to nobody, you don`t see the obvious. ``Logic`` is all around you - you are part of the logic. You are the living proof the monstrosity, you are the legacy of the man who had no vision, no integrity, no consistency. A man who flipped and flopped, took advantage of situation without any consideration towards the consquences.

That legacy lives on. 60 years down the line - Jinnah`s children still don`t know what he stood for - where was he going - what was his vision. They are all over the place - each one of them has a speech to prove his version of Jinnah was the real one. They are pulling in all directions and going nowhere. The result is a failed state, full of terrorists and militants, a veritable breeding ground for all sorts of exclusivist ideologies.

That`s the living proof of the man`s legacy. That`s logical conclusion of what he started in 1940s. It couldn`t have ended any other way.

Re: #584 by Mohar11

Mohar11,

I think it would be best to give up on Yasser.

His problem is a common one afflicting many Muslims. If you point out to them something bad about their pedophile-created religion, for example, their reaction typically is, “Yes, maybe our religion is bad, but we will continue to follow a pedophile-created religion, because YOUR religion is bad as well. SO THERE!!”. If you tell them that Jinnah was not such a great guy, they’ll say, “Oh, but Gandhi was bad, too”.

Remember Yasser’s typical response when he said something to the effect of - “I’ll leave my religion if you leave yours”?

It’s the same way with Gandhi and Jinnah - I’ll say Jinnah is little bit bad, if you say Gandhi was a little bit bad, too.

If you tell him that because of the Direct Action Day call the Muslims started the riots, he will say – okay I’ll admit that the call was given by Jinnah, IF you admit that the riots were ACTUALLY started by the Hindus on that day.

If you tell him that Muslims worldwide are involved in violence, terrorism and Jehad, he’ll say, okay I’ll admit that as long as you admit that VHP and RSS are EQUALLY bad.

If you say that Islam is inherently intolerant towards other faiths he’ll say – maybe, but Hinduism is EQUALLY intolerant.

If you tell him Muslims have oppressed Hindus for centuries, destroyed their temples, built mosques out of their temple stones, he’ll say – Well Hindus WOULD HAVE done those same things, but they never got the chance, thanks to the great Jinnah. Forget about all the facts about the 150 million Muslims living in India, and the fast-dwindling number of hindu and other minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

It is obvious that dear Yasser has not yet outgrown this pre-pubescent “I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours” mentality.

It’s really no point arguing with him. He’ll never overcome his 50-50 blame mentality. Despite the overwhelming historical evidence in India and around the world.

So I think he’s best left alone.

Re: # 584
My dear Mohar11,

The only thing I am saying is that you hold this view because you have read a history that is actually mythology.

The correction here is that I don`t quote ``some historians`` but all historians who have studied the life of Mr Jinnah don`t agree with your ``darkside`` assessment. To compare Patrick French, H M Seervai, Asiananda, Irfan Habib, Rajmohan Gandhi, B R Ambedkar, H V Hodson or any other historian or author who has studied Jinnah`s life to Fox News is indicative of your narrowmindedness.

So instead of making these grandiose comments, try and argue logically. The fact is that you have in the last 3 years brought to the table no logical arguments. You actually don`t believe in your own claim. You are extremely hurt that your historical fallacies have been brutally exposed... the childhood brainwashing which made you believe in Gandhi Rama and Jinnah Ravana analogies are slowly being shattered...

The need for disclaimers usually emerges when people like you, who are in essence part of the status quo and worshippers of official state sponsored mythologies, want to draw a distinction between yourselves and others simply to sound neutral.

-YLH

correction - Just because Fox news doesn`t say it, doesnt mean that iraq war is NOT a disaster.