Advani in Karachi
Beena Sarwar June 5, 2005
#469 Posted by southasian on June 12, 2005 1:41:28 am
Can someone educate me on this. Who actually gave the ``Direct Action`` call. What was Jinnah`s role in it. Did he do anything substantial to prevent the mayhem? Looks like he was manipulated on this one.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#470 Posted by MantoLives on June 12, 2005 6:33:11 am
Re: # 469
I know the words ``direct action`` are demonised in India but world over it simply means a civil disobedience strike. In fact Martin Luther King used it on several occasions. Jinnah himself took the words from Nehru`s statement in which he had said that league doesn`t have the imagination or the will for direct action.
Jinnah too had a peaceful civil disobedience in mind(he said so clearly in his statement of 14th August 1946 and it remained so all over India except Calcutta where the mob went wild on both sides). In fact according to Lord Wavell and Sardar Patel 3 times more Muslims died in the Calcutta violence than the Hindus. (Transfer of Power Papers Volume 9 page 879). In a letter to Pethick Lawrence, Lord Wavell, who hated Jinnah mind you, ruled out any possibility of Muslim League`s culpability. Nor is the motive that clear... ML which had a cross communal ministry was set to lose the most from violence and ofcourse it was this violence that led to ``motheaten truncated`` Pakistan, which the league didn`t want. Jinnah condemned the violence and demanded a report from M A Isphahani on Suhrawardy`s role... though favorable, it was decided nevertheless to replace Suhrawardy with Khawaja Nazimuddin, an honest man untainted with violence.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/06/12/letted.htm#2
Advani on Jinnah
THERE has been quite an uproar over Mr L. K. Advani’s statements while in Pakistan about Mr M. A. Jinnah’s secular outlook. I wonder if what I had witnessed in Karachi during the riots in the first week of January 1948 would throw some light on the subject.
I forget the exact date — Jan 6 or 10, l948 — when riots broke out in Karachi and Hindus were at the receiving end. They were being killed and their houses looted. This went on for three days. Three attempts were made on us at our first floor house in Trikona (Triangular) Park area near Artillery Maidan. A nawab family on the second floor, who had migrated from Lucknow protected by their Hindu neighbours, saved us.
On the fourth day and not a day too soon, I was passing the Eidgah Maidan when I found Jinnah Sahib addressing the crowds. He had passionately spoken for about 10 to 15 minutes. He had his famous “Jinnah cap” in his hands upside down, extended towards the crowds, imploring them to desist from bloodshed and not to make Hindus the target of their wrath. His unforgettable words spoken in Urdu, which ring in my ears even today, were about Pakistan not having been created for the massacre of Hindus who had an equal right to live with Muslims and others in this “pak” (pure) land not to be made “napak” (impure) by killing them.
He desired the crowds to return and help in returning all the loot to their area police stations. He had sternly warned the masses that shoot-at-sight orders were being given to deal with offenders. And that did have a salutary effect as under the direct orders of the then military chief, the military did open fire a few times on the miscreants and riots came to a halt much to the relief of everyone including our family. It was a pleasant surprise to find the crowds returning the “loot” which piled up at Eidgah Maidan to form a mini hillock.
That was the only time I had seen and heard the creator of Pakistan. I owe my life to him and to my Muslim neighbours, the migrants from India.
HIRA GULRAJANI
Mumbai, India.
I know the words ``direct action`` are demonised in India but world over it simply means a civil disobedience strike. In fact Martin Luther King used it on several occasions. Jinnah himself took the words from Nehru`s statement in which he had said that league doesn`t have the imagination or the will for direct action.
Jinnah too had a peaceful civil disobedience in mind(he said so clearly in his statement of 14th August 1946 and it remained so all over India except Calcutta where the mob went wild on both sides). In fact according to Lord Wavell and Sardar Patel 3 times more Muslims died in the Calcutta violence than the Hindus. (Transfer of Power Papers Volume 9 page 879). In a letter to Pethick Lawrence, Lord Wavell, who hated Jinnah mind you, ruled out any possibility of Muslim League`s culpability. Nor is the motive that clear... ML which had a cross communal ministry was set to lose the most from violence and ofcourse it was this violence that led to ``motheaten truncated`` Pakistan, which the league didn`t want. Jinnah condemned the violence and demanded a report from M A Isphahani on Suhrawardy`s role... though favorable, it was decided nevertheless to replace Suhrawardy with Khawaja Nazimuddin, an honest man untainted with violence.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/06/12/letted.htm#2
Advani on Jinnah
THERE has been quite an uproar over Mr L. K. Advani’s statements while in Pakistan about Mr M. A. Jinnah’s secular outlook. I wonder if what I had witnessed in Karachi during the riots in the first week of January 1948 would throw some light on the subject.
I forget the exact date — Jan 6 or 10, l948 — when riots broke out in Karachi and Hindus were at the receiving end. They were being killed and their houses looted. This went on for three days. Three attempts were made on us at our first floor house in Trikona (Triangular) Park area near Artillery Maidan. A nawab family on the second floor, who had migrated from Lucknow protected by their Hindu neighbours, saved us.
On the fourth day and not a day too soon, I was passing the Eidgah Maidan when I found Jinnah Sahib addressing the crowds. He had passionately spoken for about 10 to 15 minutes. He had his famous “Jinnah cap” in his hands upside down, extended towards the crowds, imploring them to desist from bloodshed and not to make Hindus the target of their wrath. His unforgettable words spoken in Urdu, which ring in my ears even today, were about Pakistan not having been created for the massacre of Hindus who had an equal right to live with Muslims and others in this “pak” (pure) land not to be made “napak” (impure) by killing them.
He desired the crowds to return and help in returning all the loot to their area police stations. He had sternly warned the masses that shoot-at-sight orders were being given to deal with offenders. And that did have a salutary effect as under the direct orders of the then military chief, the military did open fire a few times on the miscreants and riots came to a halt much to the relief of everyone including our family. It was a pleasant surprise to find the crowds returning the “loot” which piled up at Eidgah Maidan to form a mini hillock.
That was the only time I had seen and heard the creator of Pakistan. I owe my life to him and to my Muslim neighbours, the migrants from India.
HIRA GULRAJANI
Mumbai, India.
#468 Posted by ajeya on June 12, 2005 1:31:07 am
Re: #460 by Romair
[Your previous comments clearly indicate your bigotry towards Muslims. I have quoted some at the end of this reply. In most neighborhoods, these would come under the category of reliigous bigotry........ ]
Nope.
Not good enough.
Just quoting my statements won’t do.
Regardless of which neighbourhood considers them what.
You have to ANALYZE each statement, PROVE that they are WRONG, and THEN bring up charges of bigotry.
Until that time, it’s just ad-hominem.
By definition.
[This is why Pakistan was created. There was a genuine concern that individuals with your line of thought would someday take over India, or gain a lot of influence in India.]
Yes, and even after half a century of brahmins like me in all kinds of influential positions, the percentage of Muslims in India keeps on INCREASING.
And the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan keeps on DECREASING.
Quit lying to yourself.
Because nobody with a logical mind is buying this line of typical Pakistani propaganda BS.
[Your previous comments clearly indicate your bigotry towards Muslims. I have quoted some at the end of this reply. In most neighborhoods, these would come under the category of reliigous bigotry........ ]
Nope.
Not good enough.
Just quoting my statements won’t do.
Regardless of which neighbourhood considers them what.
You have to ANALYZE each statement, PROVE that they are WRONG, and THEN bring up charges of bigotry.
Until that time, it’s just ad-hominem.
By definition.
[This is why Pakistan was created. There was a genuine concern that individuals with your line of thought would someday take over India, or gain a lot of influence in India.]
Yes, and even after half a century of brahmins like me in all kinds of influential positions, the percentage of Muslims in India keeps on INCREASING.
And the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan keeps on DECREASING.
Quit lying to yourself.
Because nobody with a logical mind is buying this line of typical Pakistani propaganda BS.
#466 Posted by Romair on June 12, 2005 1:08:50 am
Shishapa #461: ``Wow, what a visionary leader. And Pakistanis promptly made sure almost (all) Hindus and Sikhs are exterminated from entire Pakistan so that they do not pollute and threaten anybody in the Pak land.``
Jinnah was, no doubt, visionary. Way ahead of his times. Even his Federated Cabinet Mission solution was generations ahead of his time. And I have a feeling in a few decades, South Asia will again revert to look like a version of that.........
I do not know how many Hindus were, ``exterminated`` from Pakistan, and how many Muslims were, ``exterminated`` from India. I will have to do more research.
As for Sikhs, I don`t think they were exterminated. It was, in fact, the Sikhs who insisted on the Punjab being divided. Jinnah definitely did not want it divided. He wanted all of it in Pakistan, and was ready to accept all the Sikhs in Pakistan, as a united community. He tried pretty hard to get the Sikhs to accept. But they did not.
In fact, Jinnah was ready to offer them autonomy. Something they did not accept and then later tried for in 1984. There is still a strong Khalistan movement going on the Internet. And if you read their sites, the indication seems to be that they agree they should have accepted Jinnah`s offer........All the Sikhs I meet in Canada, seem to be more loyal to Punjab, then to Pakistan or India. I go to a lot of Sikh weddings, and all the speeches seem to exclusively mention Punjab and Punjab alone...........
If you objectively think about the Partition, there are really only two parts of India that were divided: Punjab and Bengal. And that is where the violence was. The rest remained intact (other than Kashmir, where a plebescite would have kept it intact also, i.e. it was a forced division).
Lets set Bengal aside, since that is now Bangladesh. This means, within the context of Pakistan, the cultural and civilizational division came only across Punjab. And it is was not due to Jinnah. It was due to the Sikh leadership that wanted it partitioned.......
Having said that, it was the Sikhs` choice. And I accept it. As do nearly all Pakistanis. As I said, it is the job of the majority to make the minority feel safe. And Jinnah and Pakistanis could not make the Sikhs feel safe in Pakistan. So the Sikhs` partitioned Punjab. Fine. That is the same argument I use for the creation of Pakistan............
This indicates clearly that Pakistanis did not exterminate Sikhs. In fact, Pakistanis tried their very best to get them to be a part of their country..........to the point of agreeing to give them autonomy.........After the partition of Punjab, violence occured, in which both Sikhs and Muslims killed each other........One could, theoretically, make a strong argument that had the Sikhs decided to join Pakistan (or accept autonomy), Punjab would not have been parititioned, and violence would not have occured. But again, it was their option. But, then, you cannot simply blame Pakistan for exterminating Sikhs.........They, themselves, did not want to be in Pakistan and opted to leave...........
`` wish Mr. Jinnah had such visions to create separate lands for Ahmadiyas and Shias as well for similar reasons.``
Jinnah could not have figured out where Pakistan would and would not be in 50 years. The Ahmedi issue didn`t even become official till Bhutto`s govt. in the 70s. Before than, Ahmedis were officially Muslims, in Pakistan. However, I will deal with each issue, separately, here:
Shias in Pakistan are very well integrated into the country. There are no Shia-Sunni problems in Pakistan, at a social or govt. level. Jinnah, the founder of the country, was a Shia. As was historically the country`s most populist politician (albeit for mostly the wrong reasons), Z.A. Bhutto. As is the country`s current most populist poltician (albeit for all the wrong reasons), Benazir. There are Shia Generals, burecrats, businessmen, ministers, religious leaders etc. at all levels.
Pakistan, in fact, has the second highest Shia population in the world, after Iran. It is one of the only two countries in the world, which has large Shia and Sunni populations. The other is Iraq, and you can see what is happening there. Compare the condition of Sunnis in Iraq, to Pakistan, and you will see how secure Shias are in Pakistan.......
The only problem for Shias is a tiny, but very lethal, sectarian terrorist organization, which is targeting them. It is on the govts.` hit list. However, even such terrorism never causes any Shia Sunni riots in Pakistan. The only Shia-Sunni rioting, and that too at very small levels, have been the recent ones in Gilgit...........
However, if the Shias, someday, did feel threatened and the majority Sunnis could not look after them, then they would have a right to their own country. What other option would they have?
The Ahmedis are discriminated against, from all directions: social, govt. religious etc. They are the only community in Pakistan that falls into that category. They actually should have their own region, if they want one. They certainly qualify under all levels, other than the fact that they are not militantly targeted. However, they are a very small group, and to the best of my knowledge do not want their own country. They just want a certain injunction on their being non-Muslim removed. An injunction, which ironically, was put in by a Shia, named Bhutto..............
Jinnah was, no doubt, visionary. Way ahead of his times. Even his Federated Cabinet Mission solution was generations ahead of his time. And I have a feeling in a few decades, South Asia will again revert to look like a version of that.........
I do not know how many Hindus were, ``exterminated`` from Pakistan, and how many Muslims were, ``exterminated`` from India. I will have to do more research.
As for Sikhs, I don`t think they were exterminated. It was, in fact, the Sikhs who insisted on the Punjab being divided. Jinnah definitely did not want it divided. He wanted all of it in Pakistan, and was ready to accept all the Sikhs in Pakistan, as a united community. He tried pretty hard to get the Sikhs to accept. But they did not.
In fact, Jinnah was ready to offer them autonomy. Something they did not accept and then later tried for in 1984. There is still a strong Khalistan movement going on the Internet. And if you read their sites, the indication seems to be that they agree they should have accepted Jinnah`s offer........All the Sikhs I meet in Canada, seem to be more loyal to Punjab, then to Pakistan or India. I go to a lot of Sikh weddings, and all the speeches seem to exclusively mention Punjab and Punjab alone...........
If you objectively think about the Partition, there are really only two parts of India that were divided: Punjab and Bengal. And that is where the violence was. The rest remained intact (other than Kashmir, where a plebescite would have kept it intact also, i.e. it was a forced division).
Lets set Bengal aside, since that is now Bangladesh. This means, within the context of Pakistan, the cultural and civilizational division came only across Punjab. And it is was not due to Jinnah. It was due to the Sikh leadership that wanted it partitioned.......
Having said that, it was the Sikhs` choice. And I accept it. As do nearly all Pakistanis. As I said, it is the job of the majority to make the minority feel safe. And Jinnah and Pakistanis could not make the Sikhs feel safe in Pakistan. So the Sikhs` partitioned Punjab. Fine. That is the same argument I use for the creation of Pakistan............
This indicates clearly that Pakistanis did not exterminate Sikhs. In fact, Pakistanis tried their very best to get them to be a part of their country..........to the point of agreeing to give them autonomy.........After the partition of Punjab, violence occured, in which both Sikhs and Muslims killed each other........One could, theoretically, make a strong argument that had the Sikhs decided to join Pakistan (or accept autonomy), Punjab would not have been parititioned, and violence would not have occured. But again, it was their option. But, then, you cannot simply blame Pakistan for exterminating Sikhs.........They, themselves, did not want to be in Pakistan and opted to leave...........
`` wish Mr. Jinnah had such visions to create separate lands for Ahmadiyas and Shias as well for similar reasons.``
Jinnah could not have figured out where Pakistan would and would not be in 50 years. The Ahmedi issue didn`t even become official till Bhutto`s govt. in the 70s. Before than, Ahmedis were officially Muslims, in Pakistan. However, I will deal with each issue, separately, here:
Shias in Pakistan are very well integrated into the country. There are no Shia-Sunni problems in Pakistan, at a social or govt. level. Jinnah, the founder of the country, was a Shia. As was historically the country`s most populist politician (albeit for mostly the wrong reasons), Z.A. Bhutto. As is the country`s current most populist poltician (albeit for all the wrong reasons), Benazir. There are Shia Generals, burecrats, businessmen, ministers, religious leaders etc. at all levels.
Pakistan, in fact, has the second highest Shia population in the world, after Iran. It is one of the only two countries in the world, which has large Shia and Sunni populations. The other is Iraq, and you can see what is happening there. Compare the condition of Sunnis in Iraq, to Pakistan, and you will see how secure Shias are in Pakistan.......
The only problem for Shias is a tiny, but very lethal, sectarian terrorist organization, which is targeting them. It is on the govts.` hit list. However, even such terrorism never causes any Shia Sunni riots in Pakistan. The only Shia-Sunni rioting, and that too at very small levels, have been the recent ones in Gilgit...........
However, if the Shias, someday, did feel threatened and the majority Sunnis could not look after them, then they would have a right to their own country. What other option would they have?
The Ahmedis are discriminated against, from all directions: social, govt. religious etc. They are the only community in Pakistan that falls into that category. They actually should have their own region, if they want one. They certainly qualify under all levels, other than the fact that they are not militantly targeted. However, they are a very small group, and to the best of my knowledge do not want their own country. They just want a certain injunction on their being non-Muslim removed. An injunction, which ironically, was put in by a Shia, named Bhutto..............
#465 Posted by dionysus on June 12, 2005 12:41:30 am
Re: # 417 southasian ``We deify our leaders especially those who led us to or through freedom. Mr. Jinnnah is the father of Pakistani nation. Yet I heard a weeping Pakistani who was returning back after meeting his relatives in India, aboard the same train as I was, curse Mr. Jinnah for separating him from his relatives.``
This story of yours sounds like bullshit to me. Jinnah didn`t force him to leave his home in India, and no one is forcing him to stay away from it now.
#435 ``3) Who am I to tell you of your heritage. However, you seem to limit yourself to your Punjabi heritage ``
Why shouldn`t he limit himself to his Punjabi heritage? What other heritage does he have? Do you want him to take on the Outer Mongolian heritage or the Kalahari Bushman heritage??
``Please note that even that extends across borders.``
The extension of his heritage goes only as far as Ambala and covers only 2% of India`s area and population. It does not connect him to Biharis, Gujratis and Tamils.
This story of yours sounds like bullshit to me. Jinnah didn`t force him to leave his home in India, and no one is forcing him to stay away from it now.
#435 ``3) Who am I to tell you of your heritage. However, you seem to limit yourself to your Punjabi heritage ``
Why shouldn`t he limit himself to his Punjabi heritage? What other heritage does he have? Do you want him to take on the Outer Mongolian heritage or the Kalahari Bushman heritage??
``Please note that even that extends across borders.``
The extension of his heritage goes only as far as Ambala and covers only 2% of India`s area and population. It does not connect him to Biharis, Gujratis and Tamils.
#467 Posted by southasian on June 12, 2005 1:09:10 am
Re: # 465 I guess he (Mantolives) has a better sense of history and connectedness than you and I joined together. He will also know that the heritage we belong to does flow from Bihar, Gujarat and yes Mongolia. I don`t need to tell you how.
As for the train story, its only human. Don`t take it personally. Partition was a big human tragedy. This person`s knowledge of history was obviously inferior to chowkies. If he knew Jinnah was for a united India, maybe he wouldn`t have said all that. Yet the story is true. It happened around many years ago before Kargil. I am sure he was a proud and patriotic Pakistani. So leaving Pakistan wouldn`t be an honourable action.
As for the train story, its only human. Don`t take it personally. Partition was a big human tragedy. This person`s knowledge of history was obviously inferior to chowkies. If he knew Jinnah was for a united India, maybe he wouldn`t have said all that. Yet the story is true. It happened around many years ago before Kargil. I am sure he was a proud and patriotic Pakistani. So leaving Pakistan wouldn`t be an honourable action.
#463 Posted by MantoLives on June 12, 2005 12:27:11 am
Shishapa,
You have displayed your ignorance of history before as well but this is just remarkable. As someone whose father is an Ahmadi and mother a Shia, I ask you not to shed crocodile tears for Ahmadis and Shias. Further more Jinnah himself was a Shia and Zafrullah Khan, the author of Pakistan resolution, was an Ahmadi... just to add to your rather lacking general knowledge.
South Asian,
It lends credence to the view that Jinnah, now evident from history, wanted a solution within United India. While his final strategy was flawed, his vision was not. He made the enormous error in calculation by assuming that Gandhi and Nehru would do all that they can to stop partition and come to an agreement with him. He was wrong... Gandhi and Nehru were patriots perhaps but not to the extent that he imagined...
-YLH
#461 Posted by shishapa on June 11, 2005 11:53:02 pm
``There was a genuine concern that individuals with your line of thought would someday take over India``
Wow, what a visionary leader. And Pakistanis promptly made sure almost (all) Hindus and Sikhs are exterminated from entire Pakistan so that they do not pollute and threaten anybody in the Pak land.
I wish Mr. Jinnah had such visions to create separate lands for Ahmadiyas and Shias as well for similar reasons.
#460 Posted by Romair on June 11, 2005 10:35:04 pm
Ajeya #454: ``Ad hominems won’t do you any good. .....If I am bigoted, all you have to do is show me how..........You still haven’t answered the question – protect them from what?``
I answered it quite straightforwardly. To protect them from people like yourself. I stated this quite seriously. I am surprised you find this odd. Your previous comments clearly indicate your bigotry towards Muslims. I have quoted some at the end of this reply. In most neighborhoods, these would come under the category of reliigous bigotry........
At the same time, it is not a necessity for a minority to, ``prove`` bigotry to a majority. The majority may never agree. We could keep debating that, forever, and you may not agree that you are a bigot. However, it is a necessity, for those on the receiving end of such bigotry, to secure themselves against it. If they don`t, they could end up in a vulnerable position. They do not need permission from the majority to do that..........
It`s better to be safe, then to be sorry...........
This is why Pakistan was created. There was a genuine concern that individuals with your line of thought would someday take over India, or gain a lot of influence in India. Which they did end up gaining. However, I can now debate this with you confidently, because I know I am secure. There is nothing such views can do to me, even if they end up in a majority, in India, again and again. I don`t think I would have been so confident had I not had the security of Pakistan protecting me..........
Hence my regard for Jinnah. And hence every Pakistani`s regard for Jinnah............
I think most Indians, themselves, who do not believe in your line of thinking would describe this as racism and religious bigotry. I doubt you could get these printed in any newspaper............I don`t have any issues with you hating Islam and/or Muslims. But at least have the courage to accept the fact that you hold bigoted views about this subject........
``And the reason why, at the end of the day, all people across the great Land of the Pure revere this odious character, is because they are all united by one common thread – Islam – the religion created by a Pedophile.``
``One after another, the states in the north-east will become irreversibly muslim majority, and then the usual “reduction” of minorities as a percentage of the population will ensue.``
``Otherwise, India would be crawling with Jehadis today, and the communal problems would be MUCH worse.``
``and eventually the entire North-East will merge under the umbrella of that glorious religion started by that wonderful man. ``
``ALL the oppression UNTIL THAT DATE had been done by MUSLIMS on HINDUS. ``
I answered it quite straightforwardly. To protect them from people like yourself. I stated this quite seriously. I am surprised you find this odd. Your previous comments clearly indicate your bigotry towards Muslims. I have quoted some at the end of this reply. In most neighborhoods, these would come under the category of reliigous bigotry........
At the same time, it is not a necessity for a minority to, ``prove`` bigotry to a majority. The majority may never agree. We could keep debating that, forever, and you may not agree that you are a bigot. However, it is a necessity, for those on the receiving end of such bigotry, to secure themselves against it. If they don`t, they could end up in a vulnerable position. They do not need permission from the majority to do that..........
It`s better to be safe, then to be sorry...........
This is why Pakistan was created. There was a genuine concern that individuals with your line of thought would someday take over India, or gain a lot of influence in India. Which they did end up gaining. However, I can now debate this with you confidently, because I know I am secure. There is nothing such views can do to me, even if they end up in a majority, in India, again and again. I don`t think I would have been so confident had I not had the security of Pakistan protecting me..........
Hence my regard for Jinnah. And hence every Pakistani`s regard for Jinnah............
I think most Indians, themselves, who do not believe in your line of thinking would describe this as racism and religious bigotry. I doubt you could get these printed in any newspaper............I don`t have any issues with you hating Islam and/or Muslims. But at least have the courage to accept the fact that you hold bigoted views about this subject........
``And the reason why, at the end of the day, all people across the great Land of the Pure revere this odious character, is because they are all united by one common thread – Islam – the religion created by a Pedophile.``
``One after another, the states in the north-east will become irreversibly muslim majority, and then the usual “reduction” of minorities as a percentage of the population will ensue.``
``Otherwise, India would be crawling with Jehadis today, and the communal problems would be MUCH worse.``
``and eventually the entire North-East will merge under the umbrella of that glorious religion started by that wonderful man. ``
``ALL the oppression UNTIL THAT DATE had been done by MUSLIMS on HINDUS. ``
#462 Posted by southasian on June 11, 2005 11:53:51 pm
Re: # 460 Were Muslims in minority in the states that constitute Pakistan of today? They were not. So the logic of minority community does not apply to them. For the rest, India has more muslims even today than Pakistan has. They must have felt secure or else why would they have stayed in India. They have also done reasonably well for themselves. But thats another story altogether.
#457 Posted by MantoLives on June 11, 2005 9:16:40 pm
Romair,
I don`t know about NHK but I know for a fact that Sameerjb has a deeper appreciation of Mahomed Ali Jinnah than you do. So lets not make blatantly wrong claims.
Also ... just for the record... Maulana Fazlurrahman, that bigoted fanatic, hates Jinnah and never makes any comments in favor of him. His father also hated and opposed Jinnah. Recently a party member from his JUI-F refused to call Jinnah Quaid-e-Azam in the National Assembly.
Ajeya,
Jinnah NEVER used the words ``Islamic`` state. The name of Pakistan under him was the Dominion of Pakistan and he saw no need to ``Islamise`` it as he thought that an ordinary modern democratic state was perfectly compatible with Islam. It is just like some Muslim scholars in America say that USA is the most Islamic country in the world because of its egalitarian system.
Jinnah shot down that resolution (Quran and Sunnah) several times. Jinnah papers bear witnessto it. Romair doesn`t know history and is always wrong on his views. Pakistan became an Islamic Republic years after his death.
Jinnah did say that the Pakistan as it stood under the government of India act 1935 was not incompatible with Islam. This was a simple way of saying that a secular state is compatible with Islam.
It is abundantly clear, whether you or Romair like to believe it or not, that Jinnah wanted a state along the following lines:
1) Equality for all citizens regardless of religion caste or creed.
2) State`s impartiality towards all religions.
3) A Pakistan that would not be a theocracy run by priests with a divine mission.
4) A parliamentary democracy fashioned after the 1946 fourth? French Republic constitution.
5) A modern state with sovereignty resting with the people regardless of religion caste or creed.
To ensure this he went to an extraordinary length and specifically appointed a Hindu Law Minister in Pakistan i.e. Jogindranath Mandal. Even the remnants of Indian National Congress in Pakistan affirmed on several occasions that Jinnah wanted a secular state.
This was the state espoused by Mahomed Ali Jinnah and you can go quoting any article from likeminded fanatics against him but the truth has come out ... and what I have been saying all along has been vindicated.
In Sunday`s Dawn (Which has not been uploaded so far but will be soon) there is a letter from one Hira Gulrajani from Bombay which speaks of how Jinnah saved the life of many Hindus personally in Jan 1948.
``... I found Jinnah sahib addressing the crowds. He had passionately spoken for about 10 to 15 minutes. He had his famous ``Jinnah cap`` in his hands upside down, extended towards the crowds imploring them to desist from bloodshed and not to make Hindus the target of their wrath. His unforgettable words spoken in urdu, which ring in my ears even today, were about Pakistan not being created for those the massacre of Hindus who had an equal right to live with Muslims and others in this``Pak`` land not to be made napak by killing them.
He desired the crowds to return and help in returning all the loot to their police stations. He had sternly warned the masses that shoot-at-sight orders were being given to deal with offenders. And that did have a salutary effect as under the direct orders of the then military chief, the military did open fire a few times on the miscreants and riots came to a half much to the relief of everyone including our family. It was a pleasant surprise to find the crowds returning the loot which piled up at the Eidgah maidan to form a mini hillock.
That was the only time I had seen and heard the creator of Pakistan. I owe my life to him and to my Muslim neighbours, the migrants from India.``
Hira Gulrajani
Mumbai
This was not the first time or the last time ... Jinnah stopped violence in Lahore as well in October .... ofcourse unlike Gandhiji, he did not take a brigade of foreign reporters with him but there are enough pictures of him in Hindu refugee camps and neighborhoods calming down violence.
-YLH
I don`t know about NHK but I know for a fact that Sameerjb has a deeper appreciation of Mahomed Ali Jinnah than you do. So lets not make blatantly wrong claims.
Also ... just for the record... Maulana Fazlurrahman, that bigoted fanatic, hates Jinnah and never makes any comments in favor of him. His father also hated and opposed Jinnah. Recently a party member from his JUI-F refused to call Jinnah Quaid-e-Azam in the National Assembly.
Ajeya,
Jinnah NEVER used the words ``Islamic`` state. The name of Pakistan under him was the Dominion of Pakistan and he saw no need to ``Islamise`` it as he thought that an ordinary modern democratic state was perfectly compatible with Islam. It is just like some Muslim scholars in America say that USA is the most Islamic country in the world because of its egalitarian system.
Jinnah shot down that resolution (Quran and Sunnah) several times. Jinnah papers bear witnessto it. Romair doesn`t know history and is always wrong on his views. Pakistan became an Islamic Republic years after his death.
Jinnah did say that the Pakistan as it stood under the government of India act 1935 was not incompatible with Islam. This was a simple way of saying that a secular state is compatible with Islam.
It is abundantly clear, whether you or Romair like to believe it or not, that Jinnah wanted a state along the following lines:
1) Equality for all citizens regardless of religion caste or creed.
2) State`s impartiality towards all religions.
3) A Pakistan that would not be a theocracy run by priests with a divine mission.
4) A parliamentary democracy fashioned after the 1946 fourth? French Republic constitution.
5) A modern state with sovereignty resting with the people regardless of religion caste or creed.
To ensure this he went to an extraordinary length and specifically appointed a Hindu Law Minister in Pakistan i.e. Jogindranath Mandal. Even the remnants of Indian National Congress in Pakistan affirmed on several occasions that Jinnah wanted a secular state.
This was the state espoused by Mahomed Ali Jinnah and you can go quoting any article from likeminded fanatics against him but the truth has come out ... and what I have been saying all along has been vindicated.
In Sunday`s Dawn (Which has not been uploaded so far but will be soon) there is a letter from one Hira Gulrajani from Bombay which speaks of how Jinnah saved the life of many Hindus personally in Jan 1948.
``... I found Jinnah sahib addressing the crowds. He had passionately spoken for about 10 to 15 minutes. He had his famous ``Jinnah cap`` in his hands upside down, extended towards the crowds imploring them to desist from bloodshed and not to make Hindus the target of their wrath. His unforgettable words spoken in urdu, which ring in my ears even today, were about Pakistan not being created for those the massacre of Hindus who had an equal right to live with Muslims and others in this``Pak`` land not to be made napak by killing them.
He desired the crowds to return and help in returning all the loot to their police stations. He had sternly warned the masses that shoot-at-sight orders were being given to deal with offenders. And that did have a salutary effect as under the direct orders of the then military chief, the military did open fire a few times on the miscreants and riots came to a half much to the relief of everyone including our family. It was a pleasant surprise to find the crowds returning the loot which piled up at the Eidgah maidan to form a mini hillock.
That was the only time I had seen and heard the creator of Pakistan. I owe my life to him and to my Muslim neighbours, the migrants from India.``
Hira Gulrajani
Mumbai
This was not the first time or the last time ... Jinnah stopped violence in Lahore as well in October .... ofcourse unlike Gandhiji, he did not take a brigade of foreign reporters with him but there are enough pictures of him in Hindu refugee camps and neighborhoods calming down violence.
-YLH
#458 Posted by MantoLives on June 11, 2005 9:30:57 pm
Re: # 457
However Romair is perfectly on the dot about the fact that Jinnah wanted a solution with in a federal or confederal India, which answers his question in the previous years ... if Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan why didn`t he stay within India. The answer is now clear that he was willing to bend over backwards at any political risk (including two assassination bids by Khaksar fanatics) to keep India united ... In this context, after getting Pakistan his enunciation of Pakistan in purely western constitutional framework makes perfect sense.
Arjunm,
I am not going to argue with you about H M Seervai. You can go on believing what you want. It is your loss... but every law student in India reads his book ``Constitutional law`` which is the prescribed text in most law colleges of your country.
-YLH
However Romair is perfectly on the dot about the fact that Jinnah wanted a solution with in a federal or confederal India, which answers his question in the previous years ... if Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan why didn`t he stay within India. The answer is now clear that he was willing to bend over backwards at any political risk (including two assassination bids by Khaksar fanatics) to keep India united ... In this context, after getting Pakistan his enunciation of Pakistan in purely western constitutional framework makes perfect sense.
Arjunm,
I am not going to argue with you about H M Seervai. You can go on believing what you want. It is your loss... but every law student in India reads his book ``Constitutional law`` which is the prescribed text in most law colleges of your country.
-YLH
#459 Posted by MantoLives on June 11, 2005 9:58:29 pm
Re: # 458
http://www.asianage.com/main.asp?layout=2&cat1=1&cat2=139&newsid=163105
Jinnah
- By M.J. Akbar
``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 naďve 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.
Facts are humbling. They prevent you from jumping to conclusions.
http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=612
New Delhi - Mahatma Gandhi wanted that India should get independence as a united nation. The then Cabinet mission issued a statement on 16 May that the British were preparing the complete withdrawal of their authority from India.
They recommended a united India, with one federal government to deal with foreign affairs, defence and communications, as per the wishes of Mahatma Gandhi.
The Muslim League decided to withdraw its formal acceptance of the mission`s proposals and decided to take direct action. Jinnah was not in favor of the direct action. But the Muslim League was adamant and disregarded his view.
As a result, the Viceroy Lord Wavell thought afresh and formed an interim Government as a trial before coming to a final go. Jinnah was, however, opposed to that type of government, he wanted the firm decision once for all to avoid riots on the name of Hindus and Muslims ignited by certain fanatics on both sides.
An Interim Government was formed headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, who took charge on 2 Sep. 1946. It was a day of great significance for Mahatma Gandhi. He wrote to Nehru, ``Abolish the salt tax; remember the Dandi March; unite Hindus and Muslims; remove untouchability; take to khadi.``
Jinnah never wanted any riots, he fought for the freedom of the country jointly. He had been suffering from some serious disease for a long time, he simply wanted peaceful results in the interest of peace at both ends.
The Muslim League, however, took undue advantage of the announcement of formation of the Interim Government against the wishes of Mohd. Ali Jinnah.
Some unscrupulous leaders of the Muslim League organized Hindu Muslim riots to kill Hindus on one side and to loot their property on the other. Some of the undesirable local Muslim elements were jealous of Hindus, who were comparatively richer in worldly possession. In the riots, the majority of Hindus was massacred.
Before the actual formation of the Interim Government, they declared 16 August 1946 as Direct Action Day followed by mass massacres of the Hindus in Calcutta than Muslims, and it spread in other parts of Bengal and Bihar.
When the riots broke out, Mahatma Gandhi rushed to East Bengal where he stayed and walked barefooted from village to village including Noakhali and Tippera. Wherever Gandhiji went, both Hindus and Muslims paid proper regards to him which showed that there were no ill-will between the two communities but it was the game of a few fanatics.
In March 1947, Gandhiji moved to Bihar where he developed proper environ for the spirit of communal harmony and national unity. The people also realized the language of National Integration for the first time.
Before Clement Attlee, the then British Prime Minister, announced the plan of India`s partition officially, he sent an advance feeler to Mahatma Gandhi and Mohd. Ali Jinnah. This disturbed Gandhiji.
Mahatma Gandhi urged Jinnah that he should not support the Partition of the country, but Jinnah declined.
Jinnah said in words to the effect: ``It is in the interest of the Indian people to get rid of the riots once for all``. He gave a solid reason that heroes of Muslims are enemies of Hindus and vice versa. ``Their culture clash with each other. Just a tinge of differences in ideology works like a bomb.``
In these circumstances, Mohd. Ali Jinnah who fought for India`s struggle for freedom cannot be blamed with black blanket allegation of being non-secular. He was a great leader of pre-partition of India and a great supporter of his religion. In short jinnah can be placed under the category of part secularism. Advani did not commit any mistake by analyzing Jinnah as secular.
http://www.asianage.com/main.asp?layout=2&cat1=1&cat2=139&newsid=163105
Jinnah
- By M.J. Akbar
``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 naďve 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.
Facts are humbling. They prevent you from jumping to conclusions.
http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=612
New Delhi - Mahatma Gandhi wanted that India should get independence as a united nation. The then Cabinet mission issued a statement on 16 May that the British were preparing the complete withdrawal of their authority from India.
They recommended a united India, with one federal government to deal with foreign affairs, defence and communications, as per the wishes of Mahatma Gandhi.
The Muslim League decided to withdraw its formal acceptance of the mission`s proposals and decided to take direct action. Jinnah was not in favor of the direct action. But the Muslim League was adamant and disregarded his view.
As a result, the Viceroy Lord Wavell thought afresh and formed an interim Government as a trial before coming to a final go. Jinnah was, however, opposed to that type of government, he wanted the firm decision once for all to avoid riots on the name of Hindus and Muslims ignited by certain fanatics on both sides.
An Interim Government was formed headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, who took charge on 2 Sep. 1946. It was a day of great significance for Mahatma Gandhi. He wrote to Nehru, ``Abolish the salt tax; remember the Dandi March; unite Hindus and Muslims; remove untouchability; take to khadi.``
Jinnah never wanted any riots, he fought for the freedom of the country jointly. He had been suffering from some serious disease for a long time, he simply wanted peaceful results in the interest of peace at both ends.
The Muslim League, however, took undue advantage of the announcement of formation of the Interim Government against the wishes of Mohd. Ali Jinnah.
Some unscrupulous leaders of the Muslim League organized Hindu Muslim riots to kill Hindus on one side and to loot their property on the other. Some of the undesirable local Muslim elements were jealous of Hindus, who were comparatively richer in worldly possession. In the riots, the majority of Hindus was massacred.
Before the actual formation of the Interim Government, they declared 16 August 1946 as Direct Action Day followed by mass massacres of the Hindus in Calcutta than Muslims, and it spread in other parts of Bengal and Bihar.
When the riots broke out, Mahatma Gandhi rushed to East Bengal where he stayed and walked barefooted from village to village including Noakhali and Tippera. Wherever Gandhiji went, both Hindus and Muslims paid proper regards to him which showed that there were no ill-will between the two communities but it was the game of a few fanatics.
In March 1947, Gandhiji moved to Bihar where he developed proper environ for the spirit of communal harmony and national unity. The people also realized the language of National Integration for the first time.
Before Clement Attlee, the then British Prime Minister, announced the plan of India`s partition officially, he sent an advance feeler to Mahatma Gandhi and Mohd. Ali Jinnah. This disturbed Gandhiji.
Mahatma Gandhi urged Jinnah that he should not support the Partition of the country, but Jinnah declined.
Jinnah said in words to the effect: ``It is in the interest of the Indian people to get rid of the riots once for all``. He gave a solid reason that heroes of Muslims are enemies of Hindus and vice versa. ``Their culture clash with each other. Just a tinge of differences in ideology works like a bomb.``
In these circumstances, Mohd. Ali Jinnah who fought for India`s struggle for freedom cannot be blamed with black blanket allegation of being non-secular. He was a great leader of pre-partition of India and a great supporter of his religion. In short jinnah can be placed under the category of part secularism. Advani did not commit any mistake by analyzing Jinnah as secular.
#456 Posted by echoboom on June 11, 2005 8:28:06 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#455 Posted by ajeya on June 11, 2005 3:49:57 pm
Re: #453 by Romair
And another thing.
You yourself admitted that Jinnah did not intend to create a SECULAR state.
So EXACTLY WHAT KIND of state did he intend to create?
(By the way, let me warn you in advance. Progressing along this line of rationalization is fraught with a million problems and contradictions, as you will soon see if you go down this path.)
And another thing.
You yourself admitted that Jinnah did not intend to create a SECULAR state.
So EXACTLY WHAT KIND of state did he intend to create?
(By the way, let me warn you in advance. Progressing along this line of rationalization is fraught with a million problems and contradictions, as you will soon see if you go down this path.)
#454 Posted by ajeya on June 11, 2005 3:14:49 pm
Re: #453 by Romair
[Ajeya #451: ``WHAT IS IT that prevented Jinnah from creating a “secular”, as opposed to an “Islamic” state?``
I don`t think Jinnah had the vision of creating a secular state in Pakistan. And he definitely did not have the intention of creating an, ``Islamic`` state. I don`t think he had any kind of vision of even creating the state to begin with. I think he wanted to negotiate within a Federal India. When that did not work, the state was created. After that, he did not live long enough to define a vision for the state. ]
“I don`t think Jinnah had the vision of creating a secular state in Pakistan.”
That’s exactly right.
“And he definitely did not have the intention of creating an, ``Islamic`` state.”
That is what HE HIMSELF called it. I’m not making it up.
HE IS THE ONE THAT CALLED IT AN ISLAMIC STATE. NOT A SECULAR STATE.
Sorry, this kind of excuse won’t wash.
[``If the tables were turned, and there was a Hindu temple in Pakistan that was rumored to have been built after destroying a mosque demarkating the birthplace of Mohammed, do you think that temple would have survived half a second?``
My honest answer is, ``I don`t know.``]
You don’t know?
Well, ask around. Go and ask the common man in Pakiland’s streets and ask them. Do not pose this as an infidel’s question, because then they WILL lie. Just ask as if YOU are curious. Then you will find out.
Of course, you won’t do that.
Because you know the truth better than me.
It would not survive beyond half a second. And there would be volunteers sent over from India by the “secular” Indian government on the taxpayer’s money.
[My aim here is not to prove the superiority of Muslims over Hindus or Pakistanis over Indians. Quite the contrary. I am trying to do exactly the opposite. I am trying to point out that to be a useless excercise....... ]
This is a VERY useful exercise. And exactly to the point.
[Having said that, I certainly would not support it bearing torn down. I doubt Jinnah would have either (which is why Jinnah and Advani are different). And it would be an immoral act, if anyone religious shrine was brought down, regardless of where it had been built..........It was immoral of Babar to do so, if he did. And it is immoral for Advani to do so, now........ ]
Don’t draw a comparison between rotten barbaric garbage like Babar and Aurangezeb and the thousand other barbarians that destroyed thousands of temples and pillaged and ransacked and murdered and raped and looted with wild abandon, with Advani or any other right-wing politician, however opportunistic they might be.
[``Protect a minority from WHAT?``
From individuals like yourself.......... I am surprised you don`t see the bigoted comments you are making about Muslims, specifically those in your own country, i.e. India..........And at the same time, don`t understand why Pakistanis are such big fans of Jinnah........]
Ad hominems won’t do you any good.
If I am bigoted, all you have to do is show me how.
You still haven’t answered the question – protect them from what?
And you have also failed miserably at answering the other two questions.
Your answers to my other two questions are:
Oh, Jinnah didn’t MEAN to. He only INNOOOOCENTLY named Pakiland as an ISLAMIC state. He is compleeeeeetely innocent, and had nooooooooo idea what ISLAMIC state means…
and,
I don’t THINK so.
Not good enough. Not good enough by half.
[Ajeya #451: ``WHAT IS IT that prevented Jinnah from creating a “secular”, as opposed to an “Islamic” state?``
I don`t think Jinnah had the vision of creating a secular state in Pakistan. And he definitely did not have the intention of creating an, ``Islamic`` state. I don`t think he had any kind of vision of even creating the state to begin with. I think he wanted to negotiate within a Federal India. When that did not work, the state was created. After that, he did not live long enough to define a vision for the state. ]
“I don`t think Jinnah had the vision of creating a secular state in Pakistan.”
That’s exactly right.
“And he definitely did not have the intention of creating an, ``Islamic`` state.”
That is what HE HIMSELF called it. I’m not making it up.
HE IS THE ONE THAT CALLED IT AN ISLAMIC STATE. NOT A SECULAR STATE.
Sorry, this kind of excuse won’t wash.
[``If the tables were turned, and there was a Hindu temple in Pakistan that was rumored to have been built after destroying a mosque demarkating the birthplace of Mohammed, do you think that temple would have survived half a second?``
My honest answer is, ``I don`t know.``]
You don’t know?
Well, ask around. Go and ask the common man in Pakiland’s streets and ask them. Do not pose this as an infidel’s question, because then they WILL lie. Just ask as if YOU are curious. Then you will find out.
Of course, you won’t do that.
Because you know the truth better than me.
It would not survive beyond half a second. And there would be volunteers sent over from India by the “secular” Indian government on the taxpayer’s money.
[My aim here is not to prove the superiority of Muslims over Hindus or Pakistanis over Indians. Quite the contrary. I am trying to do exactly the opposite. I am trying to point out that to be a useless excercise....... ]
This is a VERY useful exercise. And exactly to the point.
[Having said that, I certainly would not support it bearing torn down. I doubt Jinnah would have either (which is why Jinnah and Advani are different). And it would be an immoral act, if anyone religious shrine was brought down, regardless of where it had been built..........It was immoral of Babar to do so, if he did. And it is immoral for Advani to do so, now........ ]
Don’t draw a comparison between rotten barbaric garbage like Babar and Aurangezeb and the thousand other barbarians that destroyed thousands of temples and pillaged and ransacked and murdered and raped and looted with wild abandon, with Advani or any other right-wing politician, however opportunistic they might be.
[``Protect a minority from WHAT?``
From individuals like yourself.......... I am surprised you don`t see the bigoted comments you are making about Muslims, specifically those in your own country, i.e. India..........And at the same time, don`t understand why Pakistanis are such big fans of Jinnah........]
Ad hominems won’t do you any good.
If I am bigoted, all you have to do is show me how.
You still haven’t answered the question – protect them from what?
And you have also failed miserably at answering the other two questions.
Your answers to my other two questions are:
Oh, Jinnah didn’t MEAN to. He only INNOOOOCENTLY named Pakiland as an ISLAMIC state. He is compleeeeeetely innocent, and had nooooooooo idea what ISLAMIC state means…
and,
I don’t THINK so.
Not good enough. Not good enough by half.