Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango

call her hypocrite if you want, but at least farzana had the guts to produce the entire letter, and not some chowkie with multiple nicks who takes bits and pieces and gives it his own spin.

i don`t agree with farzana`s definition of refugees when it comes to the kashmiri pandits, but you know, i do agree with her on this. she has written about this subject before here on chowk, it is NOT new news. and it is NOT a response to this article. and guess what? most everyone`s opinions on this thread have been the usual name-calling and sarcasm because their views are already ``colored`` by farzana`s previous articles.

i`m not defending her, as she is perfectly capable of defending herself. i`m just observing that as the usual, people are more than happy to call her names rather than try to understand where she`s coming from. if you believe it`s just a yawn and believe that a man in a powerful position such as advani is incapable of being manipulative for his own good and the good of his party, more so than anyone else then so be it. but calling her a hypocrite is rather rich coming from some of you, and especially from the multiple nicked suhailqazi.

ana-ji : `` i`m just observing that as the usual, people are more than happy to call her names rather than try to understand where she`s coming from.``

Ana-ji , I know perfectly well where Ms.Versey is coming from. And that is the sole purpose of me mentioning her stand on the Kashmiri Pandit situation. To explain to her readers where she is coming from.

Thank you for your comment.

Re: # 83 kaura

Interesting insight from Dr Kirpal Singh, ``an eminent historian``. Now let`s see how YLH responds to that - he is big time into all kinds of historians.

If past is any indicator - YLH is going to run down this historian as a stooge or something.

Jinnah was forced to make secular speech: Kirpal Singh
Sarbjit Dhaliiwal
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 21
It is often said that there is a story behind every big story. What forced Pakistan’s founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, to make a speech, the recent quoting of which by BJP supremo L.K. Advani during his visit to Pakistan created political turmoil in the country, in the Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947?

Communal riots involving Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims were at the peak in August, 1947, in various parts of Punjab.

Lord Ismay, Chief of Staff of the then Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten, called Jinnah and told him categorically to issue a statement assuring all communities, including the Sikhs and the Hindus, that Pakistan was not only for the Muslims but for all the communities. It was required to check the communal violence that had been spreading fast.

Jinnah followed the advice of Lord Ismay, who had been obviously asked by Lord Mountbatten to direct the Muslim leader to do so to curb the bloodshed. In his speech in 1947, Jinnah had stated “you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship... you may belong to any religion, caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of state.. you will find that in the course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense,... but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

This fact, that Jinnah was told to make such a statement, was told by Lord Ismay to Dr Kirpal Singh, an eminent historian, who has written several books on Partition during the past 50 years.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Kirpal Singh, former Professor and Head of the Department, Punjab Historical Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala, told TNS today that he had interviewed Lord Ismay on August 17, 1964, at his residence in England.

Had Mr Advani read Dr Kirpal Singh’s book, he, perhaps, would have been more careful while quoting Jinnah’s Assembly speech. But experts say that there is also a story behind the description of Jinnah as a secular and great man. Obviously, Mr Advani not only projected himself as a liberal and secular democrat in Pakistan but also attempted to send a political message to 15 crore Indian Muslims about the BJP’s departure from the “Hindu-only” approach to widen its constituency.

Dr Kirpal Singh has published the full text of that interview in his book, “Select Documents on Partition of Punjab-1947 (India and Pakistan),” published in 1990. The text of the interview is on page 740 of the book. Dr Kirpal Singh visited England thrice — first in 1964, then in 1966 and again in 1986. His first two visits were sponsored by the Punjab Government and the Indian Council of Historical Research. In fact, Dr Kirpal Singh had the privilege of interviewing top British authorities associated with Partition.

His book includes interviews with Lord Attlee, who was the Prime Minister of England in 1947, with Sir Francis Mudie, the then Governor of West Punjab, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, Chairman of the then Punjab Boundary Commission.

Dr Kirpal Singh says that Jinnah was not a secular man. Jinnah on several occasions expressed the view that the exchange of populations was essential along with the Partition of India. Dr Kirpal Singh cited Jinnah’s speeches made on December 10, 1945, November 15, 1946, and on other occasions regarding the exchange of populations. “If Jinnah had been secular, he would never have talked about the exchange of populations”, said Dr Kirpal Singh.

And then Lord Attlee sent his confidant, Prof Moris John, to India in May, 1947 to persuade Jinnah to keep the existing Army units intact for the joint defence of India and Pakistan, which were to be two sovereign nations. However, Jinnah did not agree. The British authorities, who had raised the Indian Army at that time, were of the opinion that it was one of the best defence forces in the world and to divide it into two would be the worse thing to happen in the subcontinent.

Dr Kirpal Singh says that no Indian from the North- West region, who has suffered the trauma of Partition can agree with Mr Advani’s inference that Jinnah was a secular man.

84,

It doesn`t matter; YLH is blind in his Jinnah worshiping. I think as a former Ahmedi he is trying to prove his patriotism with antics.

The actions of muslims/leaders, PML, mullas, Jinnah were anti human and hate filled. So, it matters little why he made the speech.

I judge people by their actions and not their empty words a la Jinnah.

There was a minority of muslims who were humans...and did not heed the hate filled call. God bless them and their generations to come.

85,

I also posted an article on UP on Gandhi.

The liars cannot suffocate the truth anymore. Indo/paki govts forcefed lies....and wanted us to belive and worship the false gods like YLH does.

Thanks to the web.......there is questioning to the heap of lies they piled on the populace.

kauray...tell me , was internet available during Shri.Nathuram Godse`s times ? He saw through the lies , didn`t he...

Re # 85

``There was a minority of muslims who were humans...and did not heed the hate filled call. God bless them and their generations to come.``

I hope they multiply and prosper in India.

#81 by ana on June 21, 2005 2:24pm PT


call her hypocrite if you want,


She`s not a hypocrite....she`s made her pro-jihadi leanings very clear...Some of us actually read past the headings of articles like ``They shoot kashmiri pandits, don`t they``...


but at least farzana had the guts to produce the entire letter


Give me a break....her posting that letter after parts of it were already posted here is more than a bit disingenuous...it`s like the military government of Pakistan ``releasing`` the HRC report after India today had let the cat out of the bag....

arjun:

if farzana would not have posted that letter here, then i would have asked suhailqazi a.k.a gujjubania, a. k. a prashant123 a. k. a avenger123, the child to reproduce the letter, because yes, farzana`s article has been hashed, thrashed and rehashed right here on chowk time and time again, with some of you suggesting that she was calling for the murder of kashmiri pandits when that is not the case. and because just like you all contest farzana on the veracity or the validity of her opinions in regards to everything, i appreciated seeing the letter rather than the child`s explanation of the letter. capische?

farzana was not obligated to share that letter here, when she`s already written an article about it. so i disagree. it was not disingenuous. she brought it here for us to see THE WHOLE THING. as for you referring to her pro-jihadi leanings for the bezillionth gazillionth time, i don`t think you and i can have a discussion on this issue, because what i understand of what i have read of most of farzana`s articles is clearly different from yours, and most who come here just to throw eggs. like i said i have problems with her definition of a refugee. but you know something, when you can stop discrediting each and every pakistani as a jihadi, then perhaps we can talk about these issues. (and i guess that ain`t about to happen anytime soon)

suhailqazi a. k. a various:

luckily some of us know how to tell the men from the boys.

Again, what we need is a consistent yardstick by which to measure a person`s alleged religious fanaticism, Advani`s, Jinnah`s, or anyone else`s.

Each of us needs to ask ourselves: what kind of views should place a person beyond the pale of civilization? And if a person resides in those distant moral domains, how much value should we place on their words, no matter how beautifully formulated?

Secularism is meaningless if it serves to merely protect bigots.

My dear Mohar11,

All I have to say to Kaurasach`s eminent historian ``Kirpal Singh`` is ``Ha ha``. The article offers no proof whatsoever, except Kirpal Singh`s claim. It is ironic that this ``Kirpal Singh`` is suddenly an eminent historian (makes sense since Kaura is also a sikh) but Irfan Habib, Ajeet Javed, Rajmohan Gandhi and H M Seervai are liars.

Tell me was Lord Ismay there for Jinnah`s first 30 years in Politics? And how would Lord Ismay in anyway be influential after the creation of Pakistan... and why did Jinnah repeat the same statement several times during the next one year... It is ironic that while Lord Ismay and Mountbatten could not terrify Jinnah, they were able to terrify him into submission when he had become a Governor General ?

I find it ironic that Lord Mountbatten could not get Jinnah to agree to his Common Governor General proposal but was able to force him into making this speech via Ismay.

Kauray...

I am not blinded by anything. You are the one who is blind i.e. by education, by hate, by lies... who can`t see through a blatant lie like that of ``Kirpal Singh``.

Please answer this: Why was every Mullah and His Mother-in-law against the creation of Pakistan if what you say is true? Lets not forget how your community went crazy in blood frenzy ... in East Punjab.

-YLH

And now to a more balanced rendering of history:

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=73037

The lost chances of history



COLIN GONSALVES


Posted online: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 0000 hours IST



Author of Constitutional law of India and former attorney general, the late H.M. Seervai, has provided an interesting account of Jinnah’s role in Partition. According to him, the picture painted of Jinnah as being the one who brought about Partition on account of ambition, vanity and intransigence is contrary to historical evidence. He describes Nehru as appearing imperious and shows Gandhi as being indifferent to Muslim demands. He suggests it was Gandhi who introduced religion into politics with disastrous consequences.

M.A. Jinnah joined the Congress in 1906. He was hailed as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity after the 1916 Lucknow Pact, when the Muslim League (ML) and the Congress agreed to jointly fight the British. When, in 1914, Annie Besant started the Home Rule League, the president of its Bombay branch was Jinnah. In 1920, Gandhi became League president but Besant resigned over politics becoming ‘intertwined with religion’. Gandhi had begun to subtly introduce religion into politics as his ascetic image had begun to appeal to Hindu religious sentiment. This approach to arouse political consciousness was understandable, but it came at a price. His support for the Khilafat movement saw Jinnah cautioning him against it.



In 1925, the All Party Conference appointed a committee headed by Nehru to frame the Constitution. The Nehru Report rejected separate electorates. The ML had wanted this and had also demanded residuary powers be given to the provinces. Jinnah pleaded these amendments be accepted to avoid “civil war”. They were rejected. “This is a parting of ways,” Jinnah told a friend.

Then, when the British announced the Communal Award providing for separate electorates and reservation for both Muslims and depressed classes, Gandhi announced a fast unto death. It was withdrawn after B.R. Ambedkar intervened and the Poona Pact was arrived at under which there were reservations for depressed classes but with joint electorates. In the polls to provincial legislatures under the Government of India Act, 1935, out of 485 Muslim seats the ML won only 108. Congress ministries were formed in eight provinces. Then Congress made the disastrous move of not forming a coalition with Muslims. In the United Province, it contested 9 out of 66 Muslim seats and lost all. The backlash had begun.

In his autobiography, India Wins Freedom, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad wrote “if the League’s offer of cooperation was accepted the Muslim League would have merged with the Congress.” But Azad’s recommendation was rejected by Nehru who said that no Muslim should be admitted into the Cabinet unless he joins the Congress. He wanted the Cabinet to be homogeneous. In March 1937, Nehru remarked “there are only two forces in India today, British imperialism and Indian nationalism.” Jinnah was quick to retort, “No, there is a third party, the Mussalman.” History was to bear him out. Yet, even as late as 1937, according to Shiva Rao, Jinnah was not considering a separate state.

Congress then began a search for a solution. The Desai-Liaquat Ali Pact and the Sapru Committee suggested the formation of coalition ministries at the Centre. This was turned down. In 1945, Azad suggested to Gandhi that the Constitution be federal, units be given the right to secede, that there be joint electorates with reservation of seats and parity between Muslims and Hindus in the legislature and Central Executive “until communal suspicion disappears”. Gandhi differed. Bhulabhai Desai and Tej Bahadur Sapru, prominent lawyers, also pleaded in vain. As a result, in the 1945 Central Legislature Assembly elections, the ML won every Muslim seat and Congress Muslims lost every seat. It overlooked the fact that though 200 million Hindus were not equal to 90 million Muslims in terms of numbers, while framing a constitution some sort of meaningful parity has to be worked out. Gandhi made no practical attempt to find a solution. Even after the ML call for direct action the Calcutta killings and the boycott of the Constituent Assembly in 1946, Gandhi did not budge.

The rest is history. Lord Wavell who, according to Seervai, tried repeatedly to get the Congress to accommodate the ML for a unified India, was sacked. The Congress began planning for Partition. Gandhi, who had previously said that Partition would come to India over his dead body, advised that circumstances had arisen which made Partition unavoidable. Jinnah left India with an appeal to both Hindus and Muslims to bury the past. The next day Patel said at Delhi “The poison has been removed from the body of India. We are now one and indivisible.”


The writer is a Supreme Court advocate

<<#2:
#2:
Satire, could you please point out the “issue-based” politics of the BJP? Even this current drama was issueless.

There is a rainbow in my sky, so I know the world is not black and white, but be kind enough to tell that to your RSS-BJP buddies.

...

>>


Farzana, thanks for making my point for me on ``issue`` based versus ``party`` based dialogue. As you see disagreeing with you automatically makes me a red carpet member of certain parties.

Satire

PS: Ajeya, Shishapa and Nakhok group,

Your band was to quick to declare victory on the other board only because I was absent for 10 or so hours from the internet. Looks like you fellas are fresh to the Chowk boards. Please feel free to visit the other board now.

This is the most important piece of legislature to come out of India in recent times.Now, i assume, indians can access state records and documents when researching the past to dispel rumors, and myths propogated by self serving individuals and institutions....


Kalam gives go-ahead to Information Bill

---

NDTV Correspondent

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 (New Delhi):


President A P J Abdul Kalam has given his assent to Right to Information Bill.

This Bill will provide for people to secure access to information under the control of public authorities.

In order to promote transparency and accountability, it also recommends the constitution of a central information commission.

www.ndtv.com