The Naked Fakir
Hiren K Bose October 3, 2005
#166 Posted by MantoLives on October 5, 2005 1:52:30 am
Anil...
To bolster that ``weak`` argument...
Jinnah told his sister something to the effect that the English voters discriminated against Dadabhoy because of the color of his skin... then he proceeded to tell his sister that color of the skin was not all but race for after all if ``Dadabhoy Naoroji was a darkie than I was darker, how could I not be moved to support him``
Compare this to Gandhi`s statements given between 70-120 interacts.
The problem Anil here is the nature of argument which is suspect. Gandhi made horrible racist statements calling Black people subhuman. You are trying to create a moral equivalence by saying that Jinnah made no statements either way... that he should have. Please forgive me for thinking that you are stretching all limits in your argument.
At the end of the day what matter is whether a person maintained his dignity or not... did Jinnah make any statements remotely akin to Gandhi`s views?
To bolster that ``weak`` argument...
Jinnah told his sister something to the effect that the English voters discriminated against Dadabhoy because of the color of his skin... then he proceeded to tell his sister that color of the skin was not all but race for after all if ``Dadabhoy Naoroji was a darkie than I was darker, how could I not be moved to support him``
Compare this to Gandhi`s statements given between 70-120 interacts.
The problem Anil here is the nature of argument which is suspect. Gandhi made horrible racist statements calling Black people subhuman. You are trying to create a moral equivalence by saying that Jinnah made no statements either way... that he should have. Please forgive me for thinking that you are stretching all limits in your argument.
At the end of the day what matter is whether a person maintained his dignity or not... did Jinnah make any statements remotely akin to Gandhi`s views?
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#165 Posted by anil on October 5, 2005 1:38:04 am
Re: # 161
Dear yasser:
I am not making any arguments against Jinnah. In my previous post I have made it clear that he is an abandoned Indian hero, and needs to be restored. I hate the thought that Advani of all Indians had taken the lead. I am merely saying that his silence cannot be interpreted and his involvement and involvement of many other Indian students of the time, with Dadabhoy Naoroji cannot be interepreted in one and only one way. If that is the case then you must accept that it is a weak arugment, plausible, but weak. Another, plausible argument I have presented.
Anil Kapuria
Dear yasser:
I am not making any arguments against Jinnah. In my previous post I have made it clear that he is an abandoned Indian hero, and needs to be restored. I hate the thought that Advani of all Indians had taken the lead. I am merely saying that his silence cannot be interpreted and his involvement and involvement of many other Indian students of the time, with Dadabhoy Naoroji cannot be interepreted in one and only one way. If that is the case then you must accept that it is a weak arugment, plausible, but weak. Another, plausible argument I have presented.
Anil Kapuria
#164 Posted by anil on October 5, 2005 1:32:43 am
Re: # 40
Dear Yasser:
``I am afraid you are wrong on this one- Gandhi`s racist views did not reflect the views of his contemporaries and certainly not Mahomed Ali Jinnah.
I never hesitate to learn, but I tried to find the specific words that Jinnah spoke or wrote on African colonialism and racism against Africans.
I am sorry for missing out your question earlier... I would have loved to pounce on it if you forgive it... ironic that now you are claiming that the fact Jinnah never made any such statements despite your digging them is also indicative... but the fact is that Jinnah denounced racism in clear terms... (and this was not the only unpopular position he took- Jinnah alarmed people by supporting women`s right to vote- something to which Gandhi remained hostile till much later. )
There is nothing ironic about my desire, I honestly did not find Jinnah`s owns words spooken or written.
[Why did Jinnah support Dadabhoy Naoroji and on what agenda. If you read what Jinnah told his sister... he spoke about English racism and how it was sickening that English did not consider other races as their equals... which is why he supported Dadabhoy Naoroji.]
This deduction is not fool proof. There can be more corollaries to it. Dadabhoy Naoroji was a very senior leader, and a guiding light to the Indian students who went to study there. I have seen the Indian YMCA (in 70s it was still called Indian YMCA), where Indian students studying in London had been staying eversince. W. C. (?) Banerjee, Dadabhoy Naoroji, Madam Cama, and Hume (?) founded indian national congress. It was not unnatural for Indian students to bond together for the national cause. Even Bertrand Russell had written about these Indian students being so nationalistic.
[You forget that Jinnah was not a product of casteism per se but Islam`s history no doubt instilled a deep sense of racial equality in him. But it was not just Islam and its first muezin...]
but also British legal tradition which had stood against slavery a 100 years before America stood against slavery... unlike Gandhi, Jinnah derived his morality completely from this tradition.
I have read alos invetigate much about the British hypocracy on abolition of slavery. It was a joke, at the very best. African slaves in the West Indies, Indian indentured labor in Africa speaks volume about the 100 years of punctured lead on the abolition of slavery on the British Islands. Do you know they had banned slavery only Liverpool first, and then they confined it to the port of Liverpool so that ships with African slaves would not touch the British soil. Bermuda and other British owned Islands in Atlantic were more convenient ports for ships to embark and disembark. Do you know that the biggest supporter of South African trade, and South Rodhesia were British as late as 1960s? American businesses were not the largest investors in these two countries where apartheid survived the longest. As late as, Margaret Thatcher`s time, she had insulted senior leaders from then independent African countries in Common Wealth conferences. Do you know that it was only because of England`s insistance, all white South African cricket team could survive thumbing their noses to Pakistan, India and the West Indies. I remember it quite well. I was an avid cricket fan by then, and it was 60 and 70s.
It is quite easy to glorify or beat down things on emotional basis. I always believed that if my views on relgion can be compared to Jinnah or Gandhi. I would stand up and say that they are closer to Jinnah`s. However, when you say ``Islam`s histroy``. I get as much chuckle as when some hindutvawadi says ``Hindu history of fair play`` they forget that India`s worst nightmare - the caste system, needs to be dismantle.
As a liberal thinker you may have to see it thru non-muslim eyes too. I am sure Jinnah must have done that, before deciding to against its tenats to start eating pork etc. Just as many others had to do with Hinduism, before they defined their own space and role of religion in it. Even the written history of Islam by the most liberal of the non-muslim does not say that Islam as practiced was (or is) egalitarian or democratic. After all african slavery was first started by Arabs, and that too from Islamic West Africa.
I have read Jinnah`s involvement with Dadabhoy Naoroji and Madam Cama. But there is nothing in it that I found where he spoke about Africans, or Africa or African racism.
BTW, the Gandhi had also spoken against English racism. You are beating Gandhi with his spoken and written words about his views on Africans, Africa and racism aganst Africans. To be fair you must written or spoken words of Jinnah as well, otherwise you cannot isolate Gandhi and beat him.
Other than Karl Marx, I can assure you no one spoke against racism against Africans. I have some interesting write up in my libarary of dispatches of Karl Marx on this subject as a correspondent of New York paper, wihle he was in exile and living in London. He also wrote against exploitation of Indian peasants in Bihar, Zamindari and forced Neel plantaton and Trade. No one before that ever spoke against this subject. If Jinnah had himself said something contemporaneous to Marx or shortly thereafter Marx, I am very interested in bringing in my library.
In those days one has to be that far to the left to see it. This is and was my conclusion, during my students days in England when I was your age, some 30 years ago, when I had studied it. The leaders of South African movements - Desmond Tutu, Rodhesian movement, Bishop Muzorewa (?) , and leaders of Mozambique`s, and Angola`s freedom movement were frequent lunch speakers on English University circuit.
The issue of racism against African - American (first) and African - African (later) came to the front and center only in 1960s through Dr. King, and above mentioned African leaders. Kwame Nkruma, the Ghanian Leader, and Patrice Lubumba (Congo) were others. Patrice Lubumba was killed by Belgian and CIA.
[It must be remembered that Jinnah`s criticism in Viceroy`s council of South Africa was not limited to South Africa`s treatment of Indians but also of Africans... an irony given that Gandhi`s south africa connection today is unfairly and unjustly portrayed so much.]
As I recall, South Africa issue in Indian politics was first brought by Gandhi himeself. Can you please show me his spoken or written words on Africans? Jinnah was present, and if my memory sevres right he introduced Gandhi as the speaker, in that Congress meeting. I am unable to find Jinnah`s speech in that Congress, whether Jinnah spoke anything or not about racism against Africans, or he limited himself the issues and problems faced by Indians in South Africa, as Gandhi did.
[One must give credit where its due...]
Not just credit, I would work to with you to bring out Jinnah`s views on racism. I have always held the belief that he is an abandoned Indian hero.
Anil Kapuria
Dear Yasser:
``I am afraid you are wrong on this one- Gandhi`s racist views did not reflect the views of his contemporaries and certainly not Mahomed Ali Jinnah.
I never hesitate to learn, but I tried to find the specific words that Jinnah spoke or wrote on African colonialism and racism against Africans.
I am sorry for missing out your question earlier... I would have loved to pounce on it if you forgive it... ironic that now you are claiming that the fact Jinnah never made any such statements despite your digging them is also indicative... but the fact is that Jinnah denounced racism in clear terms... (and this was not the only unpopular position he took- Jinnah alarmed people by supporting women`s right to vote- something to which Gandhi remained hostile till much later. )
There is nothing ironic about my desire, I honestly did not find Jinnah`s owns words spooken or written.
[Why did Jinnah support Dadabhoy Naoroji and on what agenda. If you read what Jinnah told his sister... he spoke about English racism and how it was sickening that English did not consider other races as their equals... which is why he supported Dadabhoy Naoroji.]
This deduction is not fool proof. There can be more corollaries to it. Dadabhoy Naoroji was a very senior leader, and a guiding light to the Indian students who went to study there. I have seen the Indian YMCA (in 70s it was still called Indian YMCA), where Indian students studying in London had been staying eversince. W. C. (?) Banerjee, Dadabhoy Naoroji, Madam Cama, and Hume (?) founded indian national congress. It was not unnatural for Indian students to bond together for the national cause. Even Bertrand Russell had written about these Indian students being so nationalistic.
[You forget that Jinnah was not a product of casteism per se but Islam`s history no doubt instilled a deep sense of racial equality in him. But it was not just Islam and its first muezin...]
but also British legal tradition which had stood against slavery a 100 years before America stood against slavery... unlike Gandhi, Jinnah derived his morality completely from this tradition.
I have read alos invetigate much about the British hypocracy on abolition of slavery. It was a joke, at the very best. African slaves in the West Indies, Indian indentured labor in Africa speaks volume about the 100 years of punctured lead on the abolition of slavery on the British Islands. Do you know they had banned slavery only Liverpool first, and then they confined it to the port of Liverpool so that ships with African slaves would not touch the British soil. Bermuda and other British owned Islands in Atlantic were more convenient ports for ships to embark and disembark. Do you know that the biggest supporter of South African trade, and South Rodhesia were British as late as 1960s? American businesses were not the largest investors in these two countries where apartheid survived the longest. As late as, Margaret Thatcher`s time, she had insulted senior leaders from then independent African countries in Common Wealth conferences. Do you know that it was only because of England`s insistance, all white South African cricket team could survive thumbing their noses to Pakistan, India and the West Indies. I remember it quite well. I was an avid cricket fan by then, and it was 60 and 70s.
It is quite easy to glorify or beat down things on emotional basis. I always believed that if my views on relgion can be compared to Jinnah or Gandhi. I would stand up and say that they are closer to Jinnah`s. However, when you say ``Islam`s histroy``. I get as much chuckle as when some hindutvawadi says ``Hindu history of fair play`` they forget that India`s worst nightmare - the caste system, needs to be dismantle.
As a liberal thinker you may have to see it thru non-muslim eyes too. I am sure Jinnah must have done that, before deciding to against its tenats to start eating pork etc. Just as many others had to do with Hinduism, before they defined their own space and role of religion in it. Even the written history of Islam by the most liberal of the non-muslim does not say that Islam as practiced was (or is) egalitarian or democratic. After all african slavery was first started by Arabs, and that too from Islamic West Africa.
I have read Jinnah`s involvement with Dadabhoy Naoroji and Madam Cama. But there is nothing in it that I found where he spoke about Africans, or Africa or African racism.
BTW, the Gandhi had also spoken against English racism. You are beating Gandhi with his spoken and written words about his views on Africans, Africa and racism aganst Africans. To be fair you must written or spoken words of Jinnah as well, otherwise you cannot isolate Gandhi and beat him.
Other than Karl Marx, I can assure you no one spoke against racism against Africans. I have some interesting write up in my libarary of dispatches of Karl Marx on this subject as a correspondent of New York paper, wihle he was in exile and living in London. He also wrote against exploitation of Indian peasants in Bihar, Zamindari and forced Neel plantaton and Trade. No one before that ever spoke against this subject. If Jinnah had himself said something contemporaneous to Marx or shortly thereafter Marx, I am very interested in bringing in my library.
In those days one has to be that far to the left to see it. This is and was my conclusion, during my students days in England when I was your age, some 30 years ago, when I had studied it. The leaders of South African movements - Desmond Tutu, Rodhesian movement, Bishop Muzorewa (?) , and leaders of Mozambique`s, and Angola`s freedom movement were frequent lunch speakers on English University circuit.
The issue of racism against African - American (first) and African - African (later) came to the front and center only in 1960s through Dr. King, and above mentioned African leaders. Kwame Nkruma, the Ghanian Leader, and Patrice Lubumba (Congo) were others. Patrice Lubumba was killed by Belgian and CIA.
[It must be remembered that Jinnah`s criticism in Viceroy`s council of South Africa was not limited to South Africa`s treatment of Indians but also of Africans... an irony given that Gandhi`s south africa connection today is unfairly and unjustly portrayed so much.]
As I recall, South Africa issue in Indian politics was first brought by Gandhi himeself. Can you please show me his spoken or written words on Africans? Jinnah was present, and if my memory sevres right he introduced Gandhi as the speaker, in that Congress meeting. I am unable to find Jinnah`s speech in that Congress, whether Jinnah spoke anything or not about racism against Africans, or he limited himself the issues and problems faced by Indians in South Africa, as Gandhi did.
[One must give credit where its due...]
Not just credit, I would work to with you to bring out Jinnah`s views on racism. I have always held the belief that he is an abandoned Indian hero.
Anil Kapuria
#163 Posted by MantoLives on October 5, 2005 1:31:55 am
Dear Harishhyd
I am afraid I disagree with your post in entirety and I think enough of this has been discussed including Jinnah`s conversion to Muslim separatism... on my previous articles i.e. 1) South Asia`s Clarence Darrow 2) Remembering H M Seervai ... I think a balanced perspective would strike a very different note from the one sided blame that you are putting on the man.
That said, let us for a moment say that it exactly how you say it is.. well then how does it have anything to do with Mahatma Gandhi`s racism and casteism, of which he is NOT accused by any Pakistanis... let me make your mind absolutely clear. Gandhi is largely viewed as a great leader by Pakistanis... 3 days Pakistan Radio played nothing but songs about Gandhi, when Gandhi was shot dead... Pakistan had official mourning... this was under Jinnah... Gandhi is accused of being all that-racist, casteist- by the one man who I think can be credited for South Asia`s greatest success a secular Indian constitution ... Dr B R Ambedkar.
Please refer to post 34 to see where this discussion about Gandhi`s racism started.
I am afraid I disagree with your post in entirety and I think enough of this has been discussed including Jinnah`s conversion to Muslim separatism... on my previous articles i.e. 1) South Asia`s Clarence Darrow 2) Remembering H M Seervai ... I think a balanced perspective would strike a very different note from the one sided blame that you are putting on the man.
That said, let us for a moment say that it exactly how you say it is.. well then how does it have anything to do with Mahatma Gandhi`s racism and casteism, of which he is NOT accused by any Pakistanis... let me make your mind absolutely clear. Gandhi is largely viewed as a great leader by Pakistanis... 3 days Pakistan Radio played nothing but songs about Gandhi, when Gandhi was shot dead... Pakistan had official mourning... this was under Jinnah... Gandhi is accused of being all that-racist, casteist- by the one man who I think can be credited for South Asia`s greatest success a secular Indian constitution ... Dr B R Ambedkar.
Please refer to post 34 to see where this discussion about Gandhi`s racism started.
#162 Posted by harish_hyd on October 5, 2005 12:26:50 am
#158 by Mantolives
[1) Saying Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations (something that he had fought against and reluctantly accepted at age 65 after trying most of his life to deny it) is not the same as saying that Black people are savages and subhuman...]
But it is racism, isn`t it? Please note that the operating word here is ``WAS``. Gandhi was a racist and Jinnah wasn`t. But both transformed into what they were not to begin with. Only, Jinnah changed for the worse.
If Gandhi could clean his and other`s toilets and eat with untouchables and yet remain a racist in your definition, why shouldn`t Jinnah be called a racist despite having been the ``best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity`` at one time?
[2) This article is about Gandhi not Jinnah... by attacking Jinnah as you guys are you are proving that there is no argument to defend Gandhi.]
You are welcome to your beliefs, but please note that no single person`s life can be studied in isolation. I remember even when we were discussing Jinnah on other boards, Gandhi inevitably crept in.
[why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here?]
I`m not sure who started this Jinnah vs. Gandhi thing but I`m asking this question because it is YOU (even Urstruly posted an excellent interact) who started posting stuff about Gandhi`s racism when the fact is that your hero is not free of it as well. Gandhi`s life and later conduct amply prove that though he WAS racist in his earlier days, he outgrew it. Sadly, the same cannot be said about Jinnah, who may have started off as the best thing to have happened to the subcontinent, but transformed into a megalomaniac who was out to divide India to crown himself the monarch of Pakistan. In the processs, he was responsible for the murder of millions of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs because he believed in the bogus hypothesis that Hindus and Muslims couldn`t live together. If the past 60-odd years of independent India are any indication, barring the odd riots, Hindus and Muslims have more than co-existed peacefully, contributing to and enriching each others` lives, and that is more than what can be said about Jinnah`s Pakistan.
[1) Saying Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations (something that he had fought against and reluctantly accepted at age 65 after trying most of his life to deny it) is not the same as saying that Black people are savages and subhuman...]
But it is racism, isn`t it? Please note that the operating word here is ``WAS``. Gandhi was a racist and Jinnah wasn`t. But both transformed into what they were not to begin with. Only, Jinnah changed for the worse.
If Gandhi could clean his and other`s toilets and eat with untouchables and yet remain a racist in your definition, why shouldn`t Jinnah be called a racist despite having been the ``best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity`` at one time?
[2) This article is about Gandhi not Jinnah... by attacking Jinnah as you guys are you are proving that there is no argument to defend Gandhi.]
You are welcome to your beliefs, but please note that no single person`s life can be studied in isolation. I remember even when we were discussing Jinnah on other boards, Gandhi inevitably crept in.
[why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here?]
I`m not sure who started this Jinnah vs. Gandhi thing but I`m asking this question because it is YOU (even Urstruly posted an excellent interact) who started posting stuff about Gandhi`s racism when the fact is that your hero is not free of it as well. Gandhi`s life and later conduct amply prove that though he WAS racist in his earlier days, he outgrew it. Sadly, the same cannot be said about Jinnah, who may have started off as the best thing to have happened to the subcontinent, but transformed into a megalomaniac who was out to divide India to crown himself the monarch of Pakistan. In the processs, he was responsible for the murder of millions of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs because he believed in the bogus hypothesis that Hindus and Muslims couldn`t live together. If the past 60-odd years of independent India are any indication, barring the odd riots, Hindus and Muslims have more than co-existed peacefully, contributing to and enriching each others` lives, and that is more than what can be said about Jinnah`s Pakistan.
#161 Posted by MantoLives on October 4, 2005 11:24:41 pm
Anil,
Let us recap here. I told you that Jinnah was a product of British Liberalism ala Morley... there is no chance of him being racist. Also his support for Dadabhoy... he did condemn very clearly the politics of color being used against Dadabhoy...
Now let me for now accept that Jinnah did not make any statement at all. He was completely silent. Are you telling me that you are going to infer that Jinnah, a product of British Liberalism ala Morley and as a Muslim (especially when the Moorish Science Temple had already emerged) might have had the same views as Gandhi because Jinnah was silent?
Do you see how bankrupt that argument is... especially when JINNAH is NOT the topic of discussion..
Let me ask you this: why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here?
Sadna,
You are the most dishonest person I have come across and you just seem to prove it every single day. You are denying history.
Read both my posts again... I have not disowned Jinnah`s own words. I am giving you the context. Pick up the Jinnah papers ``Pakistan Struggling against all odds`` volume and look at it.
Jinnah DIDNOT own the Muslim League. He had furthered the thesis of having a Pakistan League and there are letters after letters, some from such respectable people as Suhrawardy, speaking against the dissolution of the Muslim League. On December 17th the All India Muslim League met for the last time. Jinnah dissolved the All India Muslim League. Instead two new parties were formed : Pakistan Muslim League and Indian Union Muslim League. Jinnah refused to become a member of the Pakistan Muslim League stating that as the governor general he could not be part of a purely Muslim organisation. The decision not to go ahead with the Pakistan League plan was his.. he abandoned his earlier idea in wake of opposition... which is why he said that public opinion is not ready for it.
I am sure Jinnah`s decision to quit the Muslim League and that quote that you put up is in your fantasy world as bad as Gandhi saying that Black people were subhuman but to normal people it is just laughable.
-YLH
Let us recap here. I told you that Jinnah was a product of British Liberalism ala Morley... there is no chance of him being racist. Also his support for Dadabhoy... he did condemn very clearly the politics of color being used against Dadabhoy...
Now let me for now accept that Jinnah did not make any statement at all. He was completely silent. Are you telling me that you are going to infer that Jinnah, a product of British Liberalism ala Morley and as a Muslim (especially when the Moorish Science Temple had already emerged) might have had the same views as Gandhi because Jinnah was silent?
Do you see how bankrupt that argument is... especially when JINNAH is NOT the topic of discussion..
Let me ask you this: why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here?
Sadna,
You are the most dishonest person I have come across and you just seem to prove it every single day. You are denying history.
Read both my posts again... I have not disowned Jinnah`s own words. I am giving you the context. Pick up the Jinnah papers ``Pakistan Struggling against all odds`` volume and look at it.
Jinnah DIDNOT own the Muslim League. He had furthered the thesis of having a Pakistan League and there are letters after letters, some from such respectable people as Suhrawardy, speaking against the dissolution of the Muslim League. On December 17th the All India Muslim League met for the last time. Jinnah dissolved the All India Muslim League. Instead two new parties were formed : Pakistan Muslim League and Indian Union Muslim League. Jinnah refused to become a member of the Pakistan Muslim League stating that as the governor general he could not be part of a purely Muslim organisation. The decision not to go ahead with the Pakistan League plan was his.. he abandoned his earlier idea in wake of opposition... which is why he said that public opinion is not ready for it.
I am sure Jinnah`s decision to quit the Muslim League and that quote that you put up is in your fantasy world as bad as Gandhi saying that Black people were subhuman but to normal people it is just laughable.
-YLH
#160 Posted by anil on October 4, 2005 11:08:02 pm
Re: # 51
Dear Yasser:
Truly, I would really like to purchase or have a copy of in my library every literature that you have found, where Jinnah has expressed his views on racism, and his dealings with Africans, and Africa. My email address is: anilkapuria@yahoo.com .
If you will agree then I will make these available to Chowk readers to review and debate too. If in reality there was such a contrast in Jinnah views on race and he has articulated them, with his eloquency, I want people to know it, even ig they are made from the elitist England. Mind you in England after Liverpool in 1849, slavery and slave trade was abolished. I am looking for some he spoke, and wrote rather than deductions, and interpretations.
Anil Kapuria
Anil
Dear Yasser:
Truly, I would really like to purchase or have a copy of in my library every literature that you have found, where Jinnah has expressed his views on racism, and his dealings with Africans, and Africa. My email address is: anilkapuria@yahoo.com .
If you will agree then I will make these available to Chowk readers to review and debate too. If in reality there was such a contrast in Jinnah views on race and he has articulated them, with his eloquency, I want people to know it, even ig they are made from the elitist England. Mind you in England after Liverpool in 1849, slavery and slave trade was abolished. I am looking for some he spoke, and wrote rather than deductions, and interpretations.
Anil Kapuria
Anil
#159 Posted by sadna on October 4, 2005 11:07:01 pm
Mantolives #157
Get a grip. Earlier you were disowning my post quoting Durga Das on Gandhi and Bhagat Singh though Durga Das was present in the Central Assembly when Bhagat Singh carried out an attack and was arrested. How do you know better than an actual witness to the event?
Now you are disowning Jinnah`s own words. He does not state a fact about Muslim League`s decision made in opposition to his own views, he takes ownership of not including other communities and explains that there can be no such national organization at that time until certain other things happen. How many million nonMuslims were in Pakistan at that time is my question. Oh well.
Get a grip. Earlier you were disowning my post quoting Durga Das on Gandhi and Bhagat Singh though Durga Das was present in the Central Assembly when Bhagat Singh carried out an attack and was arrested. How do you know better than an actual witness to the event?
Now you are disowning Jinnah`s own words. He does not state a fact about Muslim League`s decision made in opposition to his own views, he takes ownership of not including other communities and explains that there can be no such national organization at that time until certain other things happen. How many million nonMuslims were in Pakistan at that time is my question. Oh well.
#158 Posted by MantoLives on October 4, 2005 10:58:29 pm
Harish Hyd,
You know why not...
Two points:
1) Saying Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations (something that he had fought against and reluctantly accepted at age 65 after trying most of his life to deny it) is not the same as saying that Black people are savages and subhuman...
2) This article is about Gandhi not Jinnah... by attacking Jinnah as you guys are you are proving that there is no argument to defend Gandhi.
Let me ask the question :
why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here?
You know why not...
Two points:
1) Saying Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations (something that he had fought against and reluctantly accepted at age 65 after trying most of his life to deny it) is not the same as saying that Black people are savages and subhuman...
2) This article is about Gandhi not Jinnah... by attacking Jinnah as you guys are you are proving that there is no argument to defend Gandhi.
Let me ask the question :
why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here?
#157 Posted by MantoLives on October 4, 2005 10:54:06 pm
Yes- thanks for quoting it... and making a fool out of yourself.
As usual it does not prove what you are saying Sadna. Your claim was that he was suspicious. Infact this is exact
Refer to ``Sadna`s fradulent tricks`` post again
``But the decision to form a purely Muslim organization in Pakistan is not irrevocable. It may be altered as and when necessary to suit changing conditions. Nothing is static in politics. It all depends upon what progress we make and further developments that may take place``
The facts you missed out:
1) By December 19th Jinnah had ALREADY resigned from the Muslim League leadership stating that he could not continue at the head of an avowedly communal organisation and be the governor general at the same time.
2) That he was responding to a question as to why Jinnah had not turned the Muslim League into a non-communal secular organisation called the Pakistan League as he had himself hinted through his papers Dawn and Pakistan Times...
Your claim was that he stopped non-muslims from entering the ``Muslim`` League... infact he had himself left the Muslim League because he saw that the Muslim League was unable to transform itself into a national body.
-YLH
As usual it does not prove what you are saying Sadna. Your claim was that he was suspicious. Infact this is exact
Refer to ``Sadna`s fradulent tricks`` post again
``But the decision to form a purely Muslim organization in Pakistan is not irrevocable. It may be altered as and when necessary to suit changing conditions. Nothing is static in politics. It all depends upon what progress we make and further developments that may take place``
The facts you missed out:
1) By December 19th Jinnah had ALREADY resigned from the Muslim League leadership stating that he could not continue at the head of an avowedly communal organisation and be the governor general at the same time.
2) That he was responding to a question as to why Jinnah had not turned the Muslim League into a non-communal secular organisation called the Pakistan League as he had himself hinted through his papers Dawn and Pakistan Times...
Your claim was that he stopped non-muslims from entering the ``Muslim`` League... infact he had himself left the Muslim League because he saw that the Muslim League was unable to transform itself into a national body.
-YLH
#156 Posted by harish_hyd on October 4, 2005 10:48:44 pm
Yasser,
Why is Gandhi (when he was between 30-40 years of age) who called blacks sub-human a racist, and why is Jinnah (when he was over 50), who said Hindus and Muslims were two different nations who could never live together and gave his insidious idea a physical shape in the form of Pakistan (over the bodies of millions of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs), not a racist and a murderer?
Why is Gandhi (when he was between 30-40 years of age) who called blacks sub-human a racist, and why is Jinnah (when he was over 50), who said Hindus and Muslims were two different nations who could never live together and gave his insidious idea a physical shape in the form of Pakistan (over the bodies of millions of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs), not a racist and a murderer?
#155 Posted by sadna on October 4, 2005 10:39:26 pm
er, statement by Jinnah himself.
Interview to Robert Stimson, Correspondent of BBC, Karachi, Dec 19 1947
``Pakistan League
Asked whether the Muslim League of Pakistan would eventually transform itself into a national organization open to members of all religious communities, the Quaid-i-Azam said the time had not yet come for a national organization of that kind. Public opinion among Muslims of Pakistan is not yet ready for it. We must not be dazzled by democratic slogans that have no foundation in reality.
The Muslims have only just won their own Muslim homeland, and they still have to build a structure that will suit conditions and developments that will take place. But the decision to form a purely Muslim organization in Pakistan is not irrevocable. It may be altered as and when necessary to suit changing conditions. Nothing is static in politics. It all depends upon what progress we make and further developments that may take place..``
`Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid e Azam`, ed Khurshid Yusufi
Interview to Robert Stimson, Correspondent of BBC, Karachi, Dec 19 1947
``Pakistan League
Asked whether the Muslim League of Pakistan would eventually transform itself into a national organization open to members of all religious communities, the Quaid-i-Azam said the time had not yet come for a national organization of that kind. Public opinion among Muslims of Pakistan is not yet ready for it. We must not be dazzled by democratic slogans that have no foundation in reality.
The Muslims have only just won their own Muslim homeland, and they still have to build a structure that will suit conditions and developments that will take place. But the decision to form a purely Muslim organization in Pakistan is not irrevocable. It may be altered as and when necessary to suit changing conditions. Nothing is static in politics. It all depends upon what progress we make and further developments that may take place..``
`Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid e Azam`, ed Khurshid Yusufi
#154 Posted by MantoLives on October 4, 2005 10:13:47 pm
Sadna`s Fradulent tricks
153 is the first post by Sadna which can be considered objective...however it is her attempt to run away after claiming nonsense. I think we are not fooled by her late acceptance of the facts... the truth is that Gandhi did not inspire much confidence ... not just Ambedkar but several other people were apprehensive. However thats not even the issue.
Its her old style. Sadna takes a nugget of fact out of context- and adds to it her own interpretation of the events surrounding it, usually false in toto. Then she claims it to be history - look at my ilogs she says. Her ilogs are speculations that don`t stand the test of history and she was made to eat her words on the CMP debate. She might fool the naive... and those who are willing to believe her, but with reasonable men and women her stock is exceptionally low.
Now... let me give you example... Sadna comes up with information that Muslim League did not open its doors to Non-Muslims after partition. So she claims, no doubt some Indian polemicist was at the back of her claim as she is never original, that Jinnah stopped them... She omits the fact that the whole idea of transforming the Muslim League into Pakistan League was originally Jinnah`s, that there was opposition to this idea within the party, that Jinnah quit the Muslim League on 17th December 1947 stating that he could not continue as the head of avowedly communal organisation and be an impartial head of state as well, that Jinnah had appointed a Hindu on a Muslim League seat even when his strategy rested completely on the two nation theory and that Jinnah appointed a Hindu as the law minister... but no ... she operates with that first nugget and claims a whole lot of nonsense.
You see... the term half truth is no where more fittingly applied than on our dear Sadna... except in her case half truth is really a small 1% of the truth... Her entire case rests on this... and when she is called for her lies she retreats from her position. She had famously and falsely claimed that Cabinet Mission Plan was bad because it gave Muslims 50 50 parity with the Hindus which was undemocratic... when shown otherwise she claimed that the problem with the Cabinet Mission plan was that it allowed communal vote on communal matters and then when asked how that could be an issue for the majority... she came up with a hair brained scheme that Foreign Affairs were a communal issue...
We are used to this nonsense from her... but why here and now on an article about Gandhi? My stated objective in 34 was to present the otherside of Gandhi as he is an icon of humanity... we are all in agreement that Gandhi is celebrated world over as a great world icon... and that we should investigate his life from that angle... that whether he stood the test of modernity, racial equality, women`s rights etc.
Instead of dealing with Gandhi, Sadna has attacked Jinnah- who all here, self-included, accept that is a forgotten figure but in my opinion a figure to whom a great deal is falsely attributed- but a forgotten figure nevertheless... why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here? Why?... that his allegedly communal positions become all of a sudden the reason to acquit Gandhi of his flaws?
So let us frame the issues again:
1) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s racism
2) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s social conservatism
3) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s bigotry against Muslims and untouchables.
4) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s role in supporting/perpetuating British imperialism
Sincerely
YLH
153 is the first post by Sadna which can be considered objective...however it is her attempt to run away after claiming nonsense. I think we are not fooled by her late acceptance of the facts... the truth is that Gandhi did not inspire much confidence ... not just Ambedkar but several other people were apprehensive. However thats not even the issue.
Its her old style. Sadna takes a nugget of fact out of context- and adds to it her own interpretation of the events surrounding it, usually false in toto. Then she claims it to be history - look at my ilogs she says. Her ilogs are speculations that don`t stand the test of history and she was made to eat her words on the CMP debate. She might fool the naive... and those who are willing to believe her, but with reasonable men and women her stock is exceptionally low.
Now... let me give you example... Sadna comes up with information that Muslim League did not open its doors to Non-Muslims after partition. So she claims, no doubt some Indian polemicist was at the back of her claim as she is never original, that Jinnah stopped them... She omits the fact that the whole idea of transforming the Muslim League into Pakistan League was originally Jinnah`s, that there was opposition to this idea within the party, that Jinnah quit the Muslim League on 17th December 1947 stating that he could not continue as the head of avowedly communal organisation and be an impartial head of state as well, that Jinnah had appointed a Hindu on a Muslim League seat even when his strategy rested completely on the two nation theory and that Jinnah appointed a Hindu as the law minister... but no ... she operates with that first nugget and claims a whole lot of nonsense.
You see... the term half truth is no where more fittingly applied than on our dear Sadna... except in her case half truth is really a small 1% of the truth... Her entire case rests on this... and when she is called for her lies she retreats from her position. She had famously and falsely claimed that Cabinet Mission Plan was bad because it gave Muslims 50 50 parity with the Hindus which was undemocratic... when shown otherwise she claimed that the problem with the Cabinet Mission plan was that it allowed communal vote on communal matters and then when asked how that could be an issue for the majority... she came up with a hair brained scheme that Foreign Affairs were a communal issue...
We are used to this nonsense from her... but why here and now on an article about Gandhi? My stated objective in 34 was to present the otherside of Gandhi as he is an icon of humanity... we are all in agreement that Gandhi is celebrated world over as a great world icon... and that we should investigate his life from that angle... that whether he stood the test of modernity, racial equality, women`s rights etc.
Instead of dealing with Gandhi, Sadna has attacked Jinnah- who all here, self-included, accept that is a forgotten figure but in my opinion a figure to whom a great deal is falsely attributed- but a forgotten figure nevertheless... why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here? Why?... that his allegedly communal positions become all of a sudden the reason to acquit Gandhi of his flaws?
So let us frame the issues again:
1) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s racism
2) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s social conservatism
3) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s bigotry against Muslims and untouchables.
4) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s role in supporting/perpetuating British imperialism
Sincerely
YLH
#153 Posted by sadna on October 4, 2005 8:33:09 pm
harimau #150
Despite my retorts on this board, I think value judgements get in the way of understanding.
Let me point out that at that time there was no way for anyone to predict much less depend or bet on what Hindus and Muslims (and the British) would actually end up doing in succeeding years. Jinnah was not the only sceptical one about future treatment by Hindus, Dr Ambedkar was another such skeptic. But Dr. Ambedkar in contrast didn`t (1)gratuitously villify his political opponents (2)demand an extra larger disproportionate share of pie as `safeguard`. Jinnah did because the British were willing to listen.
Despite my retorts on this board, I think value judgements get in the way of understanding.
Let me point out that at that time there was no way for anyone to predict much less depend or bet on what Hindus and Muslims (and the British) would actually end up doing in succeeding years. Jinnah was not the only sceptical one about future treatment by Hindus, Dr Ambedkar was another such skeptic. But Dr. Ambedkar in contrast didn`t (1)gratuitously villify his political opponents (2)demand an extra larger disproportionate share of pie as `safeguard`. Jinnah did because the British were willing to listen.
#152 Posted by Behram1 on October 4, 2005 8:22:11 pm
Re: # 129
Dear Yasser,
I have high regards of your knowledge and understanding on these (Jinnah/Gandhi) debates. And that is why I would like to read your thoughts on why the Jews were so vehemently against Gandhi.
Some years ago, when the movie Gandhi came out in the US, one of my co-workers, a Jewish person, got me some reading materials (almost 23 pages long) that was totally anti-Gandhi. Today, I do not remember all the details of that article.
I remain curious to know the reasons behind this almost universal hatred of the Jews towards Gandhi.
Respectfully submitted,
Behram B. Atashband
#151 Posted by KaalChakra on October 4, 2005 8:11:08 pm
The only racist in today`s America speaks -
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104994/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104994/
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- quin: Re: # 2 MatloobZaman, Thank... Honor Killings in Babakot
- quin: Honour killings and women... There is no ‘honour’
- tahmed32: #47 hamidm: sigh..re-read #27.... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: tahmed, .... are these judges... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: Re: # 45 faruk mian, ....... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: Re: # 48 allah mian, ...... US Commando Strike in
- wiseguyin: Re: # 30 [[[ ...if... US Commando Strike in
- wiseguyin: Re: # 47 [[[ #40... US Commando Strike in
