Remembering H.M. Seervai (1906-1996)

Dost Mitter # 61

I don`t think that I have mis-stated any historical fact. However, we may differ on our perceptions of those facts. I urge you to ask yourself this question: Had Congress accepted the ML demand for a constitutional parity on June 2, 1947, would the partition still be announced on June 3? I think not. And I think you would agree. The underlying reason for the Congress`s hardline stance was their miscalculation that even if partition goes through, the state of Pakistan would not last more than six months. They thought that ML leadership, in six months, would come crawling back to them begging them to allow them to rejoin the union. This is not just my perception but that is an idea expressed by many in Congress leadership.

On the question of Parity, I think I agree with your position. The ML demands for parity were more than just having a Mulsim personal law etc. but to an extent of having a fixed representation in the government.

Ideologically generated history is no more a source of enlightenment than are religious texts. Just as interpretationists butcher texts, Congress-sponsored Indian historians like Romila Thapar have butchered Indian history, as have BJP right wingers. Various Pakistani versions may also not be altogether authentic.

Questions like who the greatest visionary was or who had the best plan are inherently irrelevant since their answers depend on what one considers good or bad, risky or safe, acceptable or unacceptable. That meeting of minds will occur only when more people develop shared definitions of desirable and undesirable, and are mature enough to apply objective and consistent criteria to evaluate theories, beliefs, and figures across the board.

Until then all historical debates will be deliberately never ending - never-ending because people are looking to reach different destinations.

Hindvi #various: Interesting posts........

I think how poeple view the Partition, is based on a couple of factors:

- Whether they are in India or in Pakistan
- Whether they actually believe that Hindus and Muslims, within the context of the Sub-Continent, are one nation or two nations
- How much faith they have in, ``secular Constitutions`` solving such societies problems, all on their own, without a major social change

Indian Muslims will view Jinnah`s actions in a different manner than Pakistani Muslims. The former were affected negatively by them. The later were affected positively. At least that is what each will probably say, if surveyed.

The creation of Pakistan was one of the most non-secular events of the 20th century. Along with the creation of Israel. Though it is correct that Pakistan was not created for, ``Islam,`` it certainly was created for Muslims, in which other minorities could live, if they wanted. The main thrust was to have a Muslim majority state. Anyone who supports secularism, as the end-all of politics, and the utopia, has to, on principal, oppose the creation of Pakistan; regardless of whether they are Pakistani or Indian. Interestingly, the only Pakstani individual on this site, whom I have seen do that, is NazarHayatKhan.

However, those of us (like me), who think that Constitutional secularism is basically theory. And that, realpolitik and social issues, i.e. the end result of any political system - like security, economic growth opportunities, human rights etc. take precedence over everything, would consider the creation of Pakistan a legitimate event; at least for the Pakstani Muslims.

Jinnah did not have a magic wand, through which he could, ``communalise`` everyone. I could try as hard as I want, but I doubt I could, ``communalise`` Muslims in Canada. But perhaps one could have some success in communalising large Muslim populations in some other countries. Muslims in India had legitimate fears, of living as a minority in a majority Hindu state. This maybe why the initial Pakistani movement supporters were in UP and Bengal. The Muslims in geographically Pakistani areas, where they were a majority, felt more secure. Hence they did not come on board, till the mid-40s.

Muslims did not feel that a secular Constitution and legal system, was enough to gurantee economic progress, human rights, security etc. for them. It is possible for communal parties, even violent ones (like BJP) to prosper in such a system, also. They can be secular at the Constitutional level and still be communally violent at the social level. This fear is really what created Pakistan. Did Jinnah create this fear, unnecessarily? Or did he just take the responsibility of leadership, because the fearful individuals needed a leader?

In this whole situation, the large number of Muslims left in India ended up in a weaker position. Other than that, barring the direct affectees of the immediate violence of the Partitition, I think, an overwhelming majority of South Asians benefited (assuming Kashmir situation had not developed). Why do I say that? I think despite all the anti-Partition arguments put up by our Indian colleagues, on this site, I doubt too many Indian Hindus would want another 150 million Muslims living amongst them. And I can certainly say that Pakistani Muslims do not want to live in a South Asian country, where they are minority amongst Hindus. This may sound politically incorrect, but I think it is the factual........

However, I don`t think Jinnah ever visualized a conflict amongst India and Pakistan. I believe he had kept most of his financial assets in India, even after Partition. I read somewhere that he was thinking of buying more land in India (Simla or somewhere). He could not have foreseen the Kashmir problem. Even after Partition, over 50% of Paksitan`s trade was with India (until Nehru cut it off).

Even after the Cabinet Mission failure, had there not been the Kashmir issue, I think people would have actually gone back and forth between India and Pakistan, much like they do in the EU. The practical results would have been like the Cabinet Mission Plan..............Even today, I am convinced that if these issues are handled, the above will happen...........

What would Jinnah have done had he known that the Kashmir problem would occur and India and Pakistan would end up in 55 years of cold and hot wars. Only God knows? And only Jinnah knows? But when assessing his actions, one has to assume that he had no idea of events that would occur after the fact. Nor did anyone else..........

hindvi various,
good posts..only problem i see is the amount of faith on electoral politics of that era. from what i gather, the electoral politics as a barometer of public sentiment is incorrect. the institutions were very weak (they are a lot stronger now, but still weak). so, the congress or league street-politics is more dominant. in the end, it was politics of those who could afford it. overall, 150 odd years of british arrival, relative loss of muslim elite power vis-a-vis mcauley`s children hindu middle class played the largest role. all the weavers of benares and malegaon had no bones to contend and most illiterate hindus thought that gandhi is a saint, and wanted to touch his feet!

most interesting fact is hindu middle class hardly ever thought that the congress govt was any good..it was percieved as a seriously corrupt body and they moslty prefered the english governance.

Manto, hindvi:

As you know, Jinnah was not the only one who talked about two nations; many hindu nationalists, such as Savarkar and Lala Lajpat Rai did, too. Has either of you read anything about what was their stance on the resolution of the communal divide as they saw it? The more we read about Jinnah, the more it seems that he had less problems dealing at a personal level with hindu nationalists, such as Tilak than he did with Congress secularists. One wonders, therefore, what the future of India would have been if the Hindus were led by communal nationalists instead of secularists? In all probablility, they would have less problem accepting Jinnah as a spokesperson of Muslims then did Nehru. Would they have been able to arrive at a historic compact between the two communities that Jinnah was seeking?


Manto:
Have you seen any reference to Nehru opposing his daughter`s marriage and, if so, on religious grounds? I haven`t. My understanding is that the rift between Indira and her husband became serious when she decided to move to Prime Minister`s house to look after her father and he refused to follow her and become a ghar-damaad. Nehru continued to treat him kindly and gave him a Congress ticket to Parliament. I believe he served as a member of Parliament until his death.

kaalchakra#65:
``Are you sure?``

Depends upon how much reliability you place on the Internet. Shahnawaz is supposed to be his maternal grandfather. His family house is still in the historic qissakhwani bazaar area of Peshawar and he has visited it too.

Did mr. Gandhi`s muslim son migrated to Pakistan and did his wife and children followed him ? His children are now living in Pakistan. I have never heard about them in Karachi. ( They may be following MQM). QAMA Jinnah`s daughter`s and family and their money is in India what about Gandhi`s son ?

Masses rallied in the name of Pakistan should be infront of 1939-1943

Re: # 77

Here I must disagree with you... on several counts.

I don`t think Jinnah was as historically unaware as you make him out to be. Your claim would be true if you indeed believed that Jinnah was after only the Muslim Majority Areas. Quite clearly, you don`t believe that... as per your analysis in 73. I I Chundrigar explaining the Lahore Resolution to H V Hodson said that the aim was not create Ulsters but to weld togehter the two people in the governance of their motherland.

Secondly... I am not sure how loosely you are using the term ``feudal``... I divide the Muslim League History (December 1906-December 1948) into the following periods...


1) 1906-1913: Ashraf Class of Muslims, former rulers, taluqdars, nawabs etc form a party to protect their interests and is loyal to the British.

2) 1913-1919: Begins inducting Muslim intelligentsia like Jinnah. Closely allied to the Congress Party. Takes up the cause of self rule.

3) 1919-1924: Oblivion beaten by Khilafat Movement and Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind.

4)1924-1930: Divided Pro-British Shafi League ... Pro-Congress Jinnah League.

5)1930-1935: A platform for notable Muslims including Punjabi feudals. Sir Fazli forms the Unionist Party.

6)1935-1937: Organisation representing UP muslim interests in main. Closely follows the Congress Manifesto. Led by Jinnah and Khaliquzzaman.

7)1937-1939: Reorganisation to rely on ``inherent strength`` in response to Nehru`s rebuff. Movement away from the rest of the Muslim parties. Masses rallied in the name of Pakistan.

8)1939-1943: Extracting maximum mileage for help in the war effort.

9) 1943-1946: Emerges as authoritatively the most representative Muslim party.

10) 1946-1948: Unionist Feudals jump in to join the league in great numbers.

Ironically apart from Azad who was genuinely happy, the other man who was happy and relieved on the day the Congress ``provisonally`` agreed to the cabinet mission plan was Sardar Patel !!! and we have both of their reactions in writing as proof.

azad went far because he knew how disastorous partition would be to muslims in muslim minority provinces, because he was attached to india`s history and culture to a greater degre than the historically unaware jinnah and looked upon all of India and its history as muslim heritage, not just the muslim majority parts, and because azad was a commited socialist who knew that the congress was the best tool for obrtaining social justice and not the feudal dominated league. he also personally trusted gandhi and nehru and other congress leaders and knew that secularism was the only way peace could survive on a diverse and multi religous India in which hindu and muslim lived in every village and town.

One more thing it is not useful to analyse partion by studying the cabinet mision plan. to understand partition it is imperative to look at the 100 years of Indian history prior to 1947. it was the result of complex factors some endemic to india and some universal.

Re: # 73

Well said and completely agreed. As for collusion between Jinnah and Azad... well that was just an idea... I didn`t say it happened... but that if it comes out I wouldn`t be surprised.. It is remarkable how far Azad went in meeting Jinnah in the middle... except that Gandhi and Nehru pulled the rug from under him.

Thanks for pointing out that Cabinet Mission Plan did not give Muslims communal parity... as some people have been alleging and others have been eating up that hogwash without critical thinking...

The muslim league not only used the fear of a culturally resurgent hindubourgeoise in the muslim minority provences but also used the fear of center/congress/hindu domination which the muslim majorityy provences had, for in the muslim majority province congress had never been very popular and the parties in power had been regionall parties which jinnah slowly absorbed into the muslim league intially by proposing to be their spokesman/negotiator at the center and then as he communalised politics as the sole spokesman. initially the base of the muslim league had been in the muslim minority provences just like the hindus of punjab had been more communal than the Muslims because of their being a minority. so what happened was a universal phenomenon and can only be properly be analysed if one thinks of man irrespective of wether he is hindiu, sikh or muslim as suffering from the same hopes and fears and by putting one self in the other parties shoes after a detailed reading of the historical material from all perspectives, which I havent done yet but several academics have.

a lot of people here are either misinformed or havent studied the event from diverse sources or are looking at it through tinted glasses. Many of urstruly innaccuracies have been pointed out by Dost mittar. muslims never got equipose after independence. The cabinet mission plan also was not giving muslims parity as Manto pointed out. What the plan set out to do was give muslim majority areas the largest possible measure of self governance. And put a veto on their communal affairs. The interesting things is Jinnah wasnt looking for parity either he though was looking for a very high degree of of concessions without giving the water tight guarantee that the muslim majority areas would not break away 10 years later, there were other ways too in which he could have allayed congress fears. And in order to get his way he was playing a very destructive game of communalising politics, of not allowing governance in the coalition govt by throwing the spanner constantly in the works in order to convince the british and the congress which was inturn increasingly frustrating the congress, and as dost mittar pointed out was insisting that the muslim league was the only representative of indian muslims, but this was an inevitable outcome of seperate electorates which institutionalised polarisation, and he himself had strongly opposed them when the congress ditched him and the mahasabha opposed the deal.

there was no collusion between azad and Jinnah, though azad understood the demands of the muslim upper and middle class which constituted the league`s core supporters, and like nehru also knew that their interests were not the same as that of the half islamised/half hindu muslim masses which toiled under feudalism through out india. Patel who is percived as a great villan was actually in favor of a united India with a greater commitment than Nehru, he was under duress williong to give muslim majorityy areas autonomy under a federal/confederal arrangement. nehru on the other hand wanted a centralsed India badly for his socialist command economy and land reforms. The rest of the congres was highly nationalistic and wanted a strong centre with most of the provincial govts being congress they could have their way, the south might have provided some resistance but its politics was decided by upper class brahmins whose point of view was different from the masses, as was that of bengal.

The congress thus did not favor the cabinet missio plan even though they grudgingly acknowledged it under the guise of their ``own interpretation``. They had a majority in parliament and Jinnah didnt rightly trust them given the nature of their pronouncements but Jinnah himself deserves the greater blame he at no point from the mid fourties onwards gave the congress water tight guarantees or any guartees at all that India would remain united, though in his defence it must be said that given the negotiating strategy he took it couldnt have been any other way. At the end there was no trust between the parties and more importantly the institutional arrangement of seperate electorates made this end very likely given the communal nature of both hindu and muslim politics in india and given the fact that the country had a large minority of muslims who were educationally and economically not to mention politically weak and a culturally and nationalistically resurgent hindu middle and upper class. and also given the fact that earlier, prior to 1939, the imperative of keeping the congress in check and then 1939 onwards during the second world war keeping the congress under control made the british prop up a muslim league, whose influence was disproportionate to its support, which Jinnah strategically utilised.

In response to Romair`s post

Was Jinnah a greater visionary than Nehru?

No.

I don`t agree with the comment that Jinnah was necessarily a greater visionary than Nehru ... Infact as a younger Man, Nehru`s idealism clearly outshone Jinnah`s. Nehru`s idealism was Jinnah`s liberalism plus a touch of Lenin. Jinnah`s secularism was pragmatic and steeped in necessity... Nehru`s secularism was idealistic... Jinnah was a tactician and a lawyer but Nehru was a great strategist... yet despite all this I don`t admire Nehru... as I admire Jinnah.

My support, admiration and loyalty to Jinnah stems from his commitment to justice, his commitment to fairness for all, his ability to take up an unpopular cause and fight a good fight, his realism etc ... my obsession with bringing him up again, stems from the fact that deliberately a certain crowd of Pinko-Liberals in cahoots with a certain group of Mullahs has deliberately maligned him and tried to make out of him something he was not... He set out to do a job... to get a better share for his client... and ended up with Pakistan.. and then he gave his opinion on what the best possible route was for a nation state to take.

Re: # 70

Myths about Jinnah

Romair,

The only thing I agree with you is that a person`s personal life is his personal life.

However, I am as usual astounded that you claim to speak with such authority as if he came and told you... I am afraid we can only operate on the following :

1) Jinnah Papers

2) Accounts of his contemporaries

3) Accounts of his biographers

By your own admission, the only book you`ve read on Jinnah in your life is ``Jinnah of Pakistan``. You`ve not gone through the Jinnah Papers... The only book you`ve read on Gandhi is ``Gandhi`s Passion``. You probably didn`t even bother to read anything on Nehru.
Neither of the two books claim what you are claiming... except the Mrs Wadia bit. Nor do you know even a little bit about Nehru`s personal life, his wife`s early death to Tuberculosis. Or his numerous affairs Ruttie died of Cancer by the way. Yes... thats what you call depression.

Ironic... he disowned Dina and yet played with grandchildren... and asked her to come to Pakistan, which she didn`t because Neville`s business Empire i.e. Bombay Dyeing was in Bombay... Ironic he disowned her and yet Dina celebrated Independence Day on August 15 by waving a Pakistani flag. Ironic... that he disowned her and yet Nusli was especially summoned by grand-aunt Fatima Jinnah in the 1955 to Karachi... As for disowning her... it is quite different to express your anger by using the name ``Mrs Wadia`` instead of Dina or my daughter... and disowning her. Please feel free to produce any legal document where Jinnah says in clear terms that has disowned her?

As a lawyer I`ll tell you.. things are not as crystal clear as you try to make them... infact evidence suggests to the contrary... I`ll tell you that as a Lawyer I have more faith in Indian courts than Pakistani courts.. This matter was in litigation in India in 1980s... the Indian Courts after a lot of deliberation decided that there was no real evidence on Jinnah`s part of disowning his daughter as the matter ... and that a lot of over zealous Pakistanis had clouded the matter by claiming as such.

The subject of Jinnah`s personal life has also been in litigation in Pakistani courts.. where despite signed affidavits by both Fatima Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan saying that Jinnah was a Khoja Shiite Mohammeden... a court in your favorite Zia-ul-Haq`s time declared that Jinnah followed the Sunni faith. Today it comes as a surprise to most people that he was a Shia.


Other such wonderful myths...

Jinnah knew how to speak English only... and knew no native tongue...

In his book on Jinnah ``Roses in December`` (bet you didn`t know it existed) Justice M C Chagla of India, Jinnah`s pupil in Law, wrote that while English was a language he mastered, the languages he spoke even better were Gujrati and Cutchie

Another myth that is perpetuated... Jinnah refused to call Gandhi Mahatma... heck even Wolpert claims this.

Infact the speech if one reads it is very clear: Jinnah refers to Gandhi as Mahatma Gandhi .. again and again... but when he refers to Maulana Muhammad Ali, he says ``Mr Muhammad Ali`` ... and the crowds ... Maulana Muhammad Ali... but Jinnah refuses to be cowed down and says Mr Muhammad Ali.

This little bit of information was brought to public recently by a great Indian journalist M J Akbar ... who is also Nehru`s biographer...


So instead of making such claims ``That would be a complete distortion of facts`` ... please take a look at yourself... your entire existence is a complete distortion of facts... with all due respect.