Advani in Karachi

Sorry about the typo.

The question is:

WHY WAS THAT ``EQUIPOISE`` NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR MUSLIMS IN UNDIVIDED INDIA, ACCORDING TO JINNAH, IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR HINDUS IN NEWBORN PAKISTAN?

Re: # 647

There was no ``equipoise`` in India. It was unfettered majority rule. If the Congress had been willing to give an equipoise, there wouldn`t have been a partition. Please read Azad`s book ``India wins freedom``. Despite being hostile to the Muslim League, Azad points to two places where an equipoise would have worked ... 1937 and 1946... Very straight answer.

In 1937 the Muslim League`s demand was simple: coalition ministries in UP and Bombay. It was when the Congress rejected this very reasonable demand... that Muslim League had to look for a federal alternative (which the league could given contigious muslim majority areas). In Pakistan Jinnah gave the Law ministry to the Hindus... and put a Hindu (and I believe a Congress one to boot) on the constitutional committee. The equipoise had been established.

RE: #644 by Mantolives


Okay, I`ll take one more shot at getting a straight answer.


[...and he gave the equipoise to the Hindus by making sure they were well represented both on the constitutional committee and in the Law department whose head was a Hindu. ]

Muslims in India got that ``equipoise`` as well. And BETTER.

WHAY WAS THAT ``EQUIPOISE`` NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR MUSLIMS IN UNDIVIDED INDIA, ACCORDING TO JINNAH, IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR HINDUS IN NEWBORN PAKISTAN?


Can I get an answer to this straight question?

Re: Miscellaneous by Mantolives

I give up.

You are pretty slippery, I`ll give you that.

Every time I corner you to try to get you to answer pointed questions, you come back with an essay-type post filled with vague generalizations.

Sometimes it`s some rambling about Gandhi being a racist, sometimes it`s something bad about Nehru. Sometimes it`s a quote from ``M C Rajah, the leader of the scheduled castes`` declaring that Jinnah has been sent by God himself (kind of like a Messiah). At other times, its equally obtuse logic gleaned from quotes attributed to various other characters.


But always dancing around the actual points.


If and when you become a lawyer, your clients would be best served if you are arguing in front of a jury (preferably a Pakistani/Muslim one) who would be easily confounded by your vague and convoluted ramblings.

A judge, who is used to thinking logically, and to the point, would not be fooled so easily.

In any case, good luck to your future clients. They are going to need it. Unless you practice in the US where there is a jury system.

Re: # 643

Rest assure I have been very straight with you on this subject. You don`t have any arguments. Please feel to rebut my arguments... no need for personal attacks as is your wont. You are deliberately confusing the issue... about Gandhi and Nehru ... they are irrelevant to this discussion... I have already quoted Gandhi`s own works on the subject.

Your claim, based on little knowledge, was that Jinnah did not provide the same safeguards to the Hindus that he fought for the Muslims in India. I showed you that Jinnah`s equipoise solution for India was what he wanted for Pakistan as well... and he gave the equipoise to the Hindus by making sure they were well represented both on the constitutional committee and in the Law department whose head was a Hindu. Then you wanted the exact shape and form of the ML`s demands on an all-India level... I showed you that Pakistan was already a federal state but that federalism meant didly squat for equipoise in Pakistan. Then you wondered about new demarcations ... which I showed would make no sense given that the Congress had already gotten contiguous non-Muslim regions of Punjab and Bengal separated and made part of the Indian Union.

Now... you are talking of logic... when nothing in your posts is logical. You are talking of ``judges`` when you would be laughed out of any court in Pakistan, India or the UK.... Please don`t try and go beyond yourself.

Sincerely

YLH

Sorry I meant ``in the Dawn on this subject``.

I think Irfan Hussain`s article in the Dawn on very nicely sums up this issue. I suspect Adwani has done this region a great favour and intentionally too!

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm

Re # 639

So if masses did not not believe in equipoise and all those bookish terms and
concpets, what was told to them that they were convinced to vote for Pakistan, I am
talking to about Muslim masses who voted for Pakistan.
Or all Mr. Jinnah said to Muslim League leaders and masses, trust me, I know what
I am doing.

Re: # 640

The masses and the league leadership trusted Mr Jinnah... which is why when Jinnah accepted Cabinet Mission Plan ... the Muslims, with the exception of a few zealots, put their faith in the Cabinet Mission Plan completely and totally...

---

South Asian ... a great article...

Battle for Pakistan’s soul




By Irfan Husain

A FASCINATING debate on Jinnah’s political beliefs has opened up on both sides of the Indo-Pakistan border. Triggered by L.K. Advani’s praise for the Quaid’s secular credentials, this assessment has been attacked by BJP hardliners in India as well as mullahs in Pakistan.

There is an irony here: religious extremists in both countries are on the same side of this debate. The militantly Hindu RSS has stridently rejected Jinnah’s secular stance, while our religious parties have always maintained that Pakistan’s founder had fought for, and won, an Islamic state.

For any objective student of recent Indian history, Jinnah’s secularism is not a subject for debate. Anybody reading his famous and oft-quoted speech to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, (“You are free; you are free to go to your temples... You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state...”) will conclude that this is as clear an enunciation of the secular ideal as found anywhere.

But despite the unambiguous message contained in this speech, there are many in Pakistan today who insist that Jinnah had always intended to create an Islamic state. The sophisticated among them quote from selected speeches made to justify a separate state for the Muslims, while the less educated simply ask: “If the Quaid did not want an Islamic state, why did he demand the partition of India?”

Indeed, this is a difficult argument to rebut. If he had wanted a secular Pakistan, what was wrong with Muslims and Hindus living together in a secular and united India? Nearly sixty years after the event, it is easy to forget that Jinnah had often spoken of ‘a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent’, and never an Islamic state. But this subtle difference is not easy to sell to the religious right.

The fact that Jinnah’s vision is still being debated on both sides of the border indicates that the question of the nature of the Pakistani state has not yet been settled. And while the religious parties have made significant gains since Zia’s dark period, pushing the national agenda far to the right, secular forces are still fighting a rearguard action.

In a recent talk show on a private TV channel, the subject under discussion was whether Jinnah was secular or not. During the show, Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy raised an interesting point.

He said our mullahs were against secularism in Pakistan, but wanted secularism in India and the West. This is very true. In ideologically organized states, minorities would have few religious freedoms, just as they don’t in Pakistan. So while fundamentalist Muslims insist on asserting their religious identity in the West, they deny this right to the minorities in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

But why should Hindu extremists in India be so concerned about Jinnah’s secularism? Clearly, in their world view, partition only makes sense if the demand for Pakistan came from Islamic ideologues. The RSS has consistently branded Pakistan a fundamentalist state responsible for much of India’s woes. So if its founder is upheld to be a secularist by its BJP partner, L.K. Advani, this requires a major U-turn in Hindu nationalist thinking.

For their own reasons, the RSS’s Muslim counterparts in Pakistan require Jinnah to be one of theirs if they are to sell the concept of a pure and unalloyed Islamic state. After all, if they concede that Jinnah never wanted or visualized a theocracy, their demand to transform Pakistan into ‘a laboratory of Islam’ is severely compromised. So not only has Jinnah to be posthumously transformed into a pious, orthodox Muslim, he must also be projected as the founder of an Islamic state.

The reality of Jinnah was very different from the image religious elements have tried to create. Stanley Wolpert’s readable and well-researched biography paints a picture of a very human Jinnah whose faith was anything but orthodox. Indeed, Wolpert’s passing reference to Jinnah’s dietary preferences caused the book to be banned in Pakistan during Zia’s rule.

The fact that Jinnah remained on the fringes of Indian politics during the Khilafat movement in the 1920s clearly indicates that he did not wish to mix religion with politics. Nevertheless, being a shrewd politician, he actively sought the support of Deobandis and Barelvis alike in his quest for Muslim unity. In the 1937 elections, the Muslim League cultivated the pirs of Punjab and Sindh to use their influence with their millions of mureeds.

In this duality lies much of the confusion about Jinnah’s secularism. Before different audiences, he used different languages. Now, over five decades after his death, people with differing political agendas are able to find different texts to support their views. Like theologians poring over ancient religious texts to underpin their beliefs, modern-day fundamentalists and secularists clutch at Jinnah’s words to support their vision of Pakistan. But as in ancient scriptures, there is much ambiguity in Jinnah’s writings and speeches. Both sides can find texts to justify their respective views.

Perhaps one clear clue to the reality of Jinnah’s political views lies in the fact that before Pakistan became a reality, Muslim parties were almost unanimously opposed to partition.

Some of them adopted this stance because they genuinely thought (and they were not far wrong) that the creation of a Muslim state in the Muslim-majority areas would mean abandoning Muslims in Hindu-majority provinces. But most ulema opposed Jinnah because they saw him as a westernized, secular politician whose faith was not as rigid as theirs. Indeed, when asked whether he was a Shia or a Sunni, Jinnah is supposed to have replied: “I am neither Shia nor Sunni. I am a simple Musalman.” For zealots, a state created by such a person could only be secular.

It is unlikely that logic or scholarship will decide this debate. Both clearly indicate that Jinnah was one of the most secular politicians of his generation. Nevertheless, we are left with the undisputed fact that Pakistan was carved up in the name of religion, and it is now difficult to argue that the new state was never intended to be the hotbed of fanaticism it has become, whatever its founder’s real intentions.

Many younger readers might find this entire subject academic and irrelevant. But in reality, this ongoing debate is nothing short of a battle for the soul of Pakistan. Indeed, its outcome will determine what kind of country future generations will grow up in.

Re: #637 by shishapa

Exactly.

:-)

The great Jinnah JUST KNEW that the Hindu majority would NEEEEEEVER treat the Muslim minority well, NOOOOWHERE CLOSE to how WELL the Muslim majority has treated the Hindu minority in Pakiland and Bangladesh (erstwhile Pakiland). And of course for the hundreds of years during Muslim rule when Muslims had the upper hand.

He just KNEW it. A GRRRRRRREAT MAN, IF I MAY SAY SO. A TRUE VISIONARY.

He KNEW this from the very NATURE of the EVIL Hindus with their EVIL caste system.

As compared to the peaceful and COMPLEEEEEETELY INNOCENT Muslims (just ask the Zoroastrians of erstwhile Persia).


Question is, was he thinking INSIDE the box, or OUTSIDE the box?


:-)

This is amazing. So all this technical jargon, nuances, and intricate legal language such as equipoise was understood perfectly by not only Mr. Jinnah but all the Muslim League leaders and the masses and folks who voted for Pakistan and then they got down to the
business of building a nation by applying those concepts right away.
And those foolish Congress leaders and all the Indians who were against the concept of Pakistan never understood these concepts or chose to ignore them on purpose and got down to the business of imposing the will of majority on the hapless minorities just as
was predicted by...

Re: # 637

Shishapa... Jinnah was forced to keep his cards close to his chest... no doubt the masses didn`t believe in the equipoise.... but they trusted Jinnah`s judgement.


Ajeya,

Once again: The Pakistan demand was based on existing federating units. The federating units were partitioned on the demand of the Congress.

Jinnah expressed very clearly what his idea of Pakistan was ... a) democratic b) federal
c)equality of all creeds, faiths, castes and gender.

Now... let me put this very clearly ... Jinnah died in 13 months. Whether he would have demarcated new provinces or not... is another issue. However demarcation of new provinces was impossible since there were NO Hindu contigious units... they were given to India after Congress forcibly partitioned Punjab and Bengal.

Jinnah did the best he could under the GOIA 1935 which was the constitution as long as he was in power.... he did make sure that the Hindus had an equipoise in the constitution making to help evolve a common Pakistani nationality... the kind he was hoping to build in a United India. To do this he specifically made a Hindu the law minister of the country... and chose a Hindu to write the National Anthem of Pakistan (Recall that Muslims` objection in United India was to the anti-Muslim content of Bande Mataram)...

Now you can go on twisting and turning ... but the fact is that you don`t have an argument.. atleast not one that would hold up in court... to do that you would have to prove that 13 months were an adequate time to frame a new constitution... keeping in mind that India didn`t form a new constitution till 1950.

-YLH

PS: I am travelling for the next two days... I hope you won`t announce victory prematurely.

#634 by Mantolives


[First of all I want to ask you not to rephrase my ``sentences`` because given your limited comprehension skills you distort their meanings. Please simply cut and paste my arguments and respond to them. ]


Quoting you “out of context”, eh?


How about this quote from your Post# 628:

[Provincial autonomy (Along existing lines) in United India would have provided Muslims with an equipoise. The equipoise in Pakistan would require out of the box thinking.]

ARE YOU, or ARE YOU NOT saying here that Jinnah DID NOT WANT TO DO “OUT OF THE BOX” THINKING.

LET’S HAVE THE ANSWER.

IF YOU SAY:

JINNAH DID NOT WANT TO DO “OUT OF THE BOX” THINKING.

MY QUESTION TO YOU WILL BE:

What do you mean by “out of the box thinking”? And why did he not want to do it?

Did he suddenly develop a headache?
Was he tired of thinking?
Did he lose his mind?
Did he suddenly develop hemorrhoids?



[Now you say:

1) Splitting India was ``thinking inside the box``

Answer:

a) You assume that Muslim League wanted to split India. H M Seervai`s book ``Partition of India : Legend and Reality`` shows a different story. ]


Well, they actually did. If Jinnah wanted, India would be undivided today.

(although I am glad that he did. Otherwise today India would be the nerve-center for worldwide terrorism, instead of Pakistan.)



[b) Even if we accept your assumption that League wanted to split India, it was based on a very constitutional method of federating units opting out wholely. Out of the box solution was when the Congress insisted on partitioning federating units. ]

This is pretty lame. Not wanting to think “out of the box” is a pretty useless excuse for depriving the Hindu minority of what he himself thought was SO valuable for the Muslim minority in undivided India.




[2) But splitting India was ok for new demarkations

Answer: Splitting India was not a new ``demarcation``. It was existing federating Units opting out as shown above. The new demarcation was done at Congress` behest. ]

Splitting India and creating a new country called Pakistan was not a new demarcation?

Talk to the cartographers of the world. And see what they have to say.

This is a pretty idiotic statement.



[``3) Jinnah would have, but the partition of Bengal and Punjab were done SOOOO AWWWWFULLY by the BAAAAAD Congress that he couldn`t do it. (No doubt you are going to explain this one now. Let`s see what you come up with). ``

It is a fact that the partition of Bengal and Punjab stripped Pakistan of Huge chunks of Non-Muslim minorities. It is possible that the Pakistan Constituent Assembly would have created a new province or a new federal equipoise ... as is obvious from the offer made to the Sikhs of an autonomous state within the Pakistani Union.]


“It is possible that the Pakistan Constituent Assembly would have created a new province or a new federal equipoise”

Then why the @$*! didn’t they do it?

What the *%*# stopped them?

Carry on we are watching.

Re: misc. by Mantolives

Actually, although it seems that we are not making progress, we ARE making progress.

You have been forced to think of REASONS why Jinnah did what he did.

And you came up with the following absolute EXCUSES for an argument:


1) Jinnah didn`t want to ``think out of the box``. (Splitting India was ``thinking inside the box``)

2) Jinnah didn`t want ``new demarcations``. (But splitting India was ok for new demarkations)

3) Jinnah would have, but the partition of Bengal and Punjab were done SOOOO AWWWWFULLY by the BAAAAAD Congress that he couldn`t do it. (No doubt you are going to explain this one now. Let`s see what you come up with).




So we are making progress.

Everyone who`s watching can make out who`s trying to rationalize here.

Re: # 632

Mr Ajeya,

First of all I want to ask you not to rephrase my ``sentences`` because given your limited comprehension skills you distort their meanings. Please simply cut and paste my arguments and respond to them.

Now you say:

1) Splitting India was ``thinking inside the box``

Answer:

a) You assume that Muslim League wanted to split India. H M Seervai`s book ``Partition of India : Legend and Reality`` shows a different story.

b) Even if we accept your assumption that League wanted to split India, it was based on a very constitutional method of federating units opting out wholely. Out of the box solution was when the Congress insisted on partitioning federating units.


2) But splitting India was ok for new demarkations

Answer: Splitting India was not a new ``demarcation``. It was existing federating Units opting out as shown above. The new demarcation was done at Congress` behest.



``3) Jinnah would have, but the partition of Bengal and Punjab were done SOOOO AWWWWFULLY by the BAAAAAD Congress that he couldn`t do it. (No doubt you are going to explain this one now. Let`s see what you come up with). ``

It is a fact that the partition of Bengal and Punjab stripped Pakistan of Huge chunks of Non-Muslim minorities. It is possible that the Pakistan Constituent Assembly would have created a new province or a new federal equipoise ... as is obvious from the offer made to the Sikhs of an autonomous state within the Pakistani Union.


-YLH