I am not a Marxist of any kind. Far from it. However I have the greatest respect for Marx and his singular contribution to humanity. I also respect Lenin and the architects of the Bolshevik Revolution.
The greatest legacy Marxism bestowed upon humanity was the principle of dialectical analysis. It does not go for the simplest definition and certainly does not accept Occam’s Razor as a valid answer. Consequently, Marxism has produced the kind of historical analysis that can hold its own without any ideological pretensions. The hallmark of this analysis is intellectual honesty. When translated into action of the activist kind, this becomes an honesty of purpose. This is why regardless of what nation state to one belongs, the patriotism of a true Marxist-Leninist will never be suspect. You will never find a Faiz or a Jalib or a Sibt-e-Hassan betraying their homeland or their people. The story of this group’s contribution to Pakistan’s history starting right from the Pakistan movement is one of self less sacrifice without recognition or reward.
Unfortunately, however, it seems that there is a breed of Marxists – Trotskyites mostly it seems – who have broken completely from tradition. Tariq Ali is one (I am preparing a whole series of articles on his fallacies). This- their inability to deploy dialectical marxist techniques, makes them ready for business, handy tools in the hands of those smart Western Capitalists who exploit them as they please. This is why Trotskyites are well received in the capitalist west. Gifted writers like Orwell have written allegories like Animal Farm and 1984 justifying the Trotskyite point of view.
Yet this is not what I want to waste this space writing about. I have not been much for sectarian debates really. My concern is with a particular cabal of self styled Marxist (Trotskyite) intellectuals who have left no stone unturned to oppose the people of Pakistan and their legitimate interests. While most of Pakistani left (and indeed even some Trotskyite groups like Labour Party etc) walked hand in hand with the people during the Lawyers’ Movement, these special kind of intellectuals were firmly in bed with Comrades Musharraf, Zardari and Taseerm who planning on how to crush the people’s long march. When the people won and the Chief Justice was restored through what was probably the largest secular movement for human rights in the last decade, these protectors of Zardarist people’s revolution, these comrades of Yusuf Raza Gillani – the progressive marxist PPP prime minister and one of South Punjab’s largest landowners- and these champions of the socialist governor of Punjab who also owns one of the largest media and technology groups in that province, started singing a new mantra- the Chief Justice is not progressive. And when Indian courts gave the momentous decision on homosexuality, a genius many of you are familiar with wrote:
Justice Murlidharan, has not received any “Harvard Medal of Freedom” unlike our honourable Chief Justice, but his decision is truly revolutionary. Our great chief justice despite having received “Harvard Medal of Freedom” has not written a single decision which could bring freedom to Pakistani Ahmedis, homosexuals, Dalits [Musalli of Punjab] or Balochs
Let us forget that our Chief Justice is bound by the constitution given by PPP and the second amendment to that constitution – passed at the behest of our very own Nehruvian Socialist Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto- which made Ahmedis non-Muslim. What? It was not the Muslim League or any other such party that did that. Infact the reactionary and communalist prime minister of the Muslim League, Nazimuddin refused to acquiesce to the Islamist demands and thereby lost his premiership. Not so for the flamboyant Nehru-like third world hero. While Nehru had his Somnath and Shaikh Abdullah moments, Bhutto gave us the Pakistani constitution which closes all doors on positive progress. That takes care of the Ahmadis, Musalis (whose quota was canceled by Bhutto government I believe) and homosexuals. As for the Baloch, the PPP government bombed the hell out of them in the 1970s.
The genius goes on to write:
While writing this decision Justice Murlidharn quoted Jawaherlal Nehru’s vision of equality and secularism which he put forward in “objective resolution” of 1946. One “objective resolution” was passed in Pakistan too by Muhammed Ali Jinnah’s prime minister “Nawabzada” Liaqat Ali Khan, in which state of Pakistan was for ever declared subservient to Quran and Sunnah
Ofcourse the fact that Jinnah’s Prime Minister did not dare even bring it up when Jinnah was alive is inconvenient to the genius’ over all push. But the truth is that Objectives Resolution – even with its reference to enabling Muslims to live their lives according to the Quran and Sunnah- was not a substantive document and was not enforceable in a court of law. Nor did it make the state of Pakistan subservient to Quran and Sunnah. That happened through the great socialist constitution of 1973, but we shall come to it in a minute.
Suffice to say that while the honorable Indian Justice Murlidharn found it expedient to quote Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision, if and when Pakistani judges decide to live up to Jinnah’s vision of a secular and egalitarian Pakistan, they will find much more to echo in Jinnah than Indian judges do so in Nehru. But this is a debate that has gone on for a while.
A true Marxist scholar would instead analyze why Muslim-majority states – in the post colonial phase- have all been seduced in varying degrees by religious revival. A true Marxist would find causes of Indian acceptance of secularism in the nature of its majority’s cultural life. This would require an analysis of the lopsided economic and political development within these communities and the resultant dischord between the two contending bourgeoisie classes. Ascribing India’s success to Nehru or Pakistan’s failure to Jinnah (who unlike Nehru died within 13 months) is not analysis of any kind. It is hogwash presented as analysis. It is also the kind of analysis in vogue amongst nationalist myth-makers.
The genius writes further:
Well done Aitzaz Ahsan , Tahirah Abdullah Civil Society and Jinnah worshiping secular clowns who marched with Jamate Islami and PML-N. Those who became hysteric on Governor Taseer’s take over. Crying for “good governance” of Shahbaz Sharif.
As you can imagine the “Jinnah worshiping secular clowns” is a reference to me. One can almost feel the pain and feeling of overpowering jealousy in which this part was written. While the Secular clowns like me were rejoicing and the vanguard of Zardarist Revolution were peeing in their pants but we came to their rescue. Immediately on restoration of the Chief Justice, Aitzaz Ahsan, Tahira Abdullah, Civil Society and the Jinnah worshiping secular clowns like me all went home thus outflanking the Jamaat-e-Islami and Hameed Gul types. Where is the “opportunistic” Aitzaz now?Has he used his great victory to de-stabilize Zardari or enrich himself? Has any of the others? We did it for the people and for Pakistan.
Not that we marched with the goons of the Jamaat-e-Islami- atleast this Jinnah-worshipping secular clown did not- but what about Nehru and Gandhi and all those other progressive and liberal freedom fighters who marched arm in arm with the forerunners of the Taliban in the name of Indian independence? And what of the president’s late wife- the martyred Benazir Bhutto – who sat in the government with them and presided over the fertilization and germination of the Taliban?
One clown i encountered on blogosphere was declaring Shahbaz Sharif “greatest administrator” of Punjab since Maharaja Ranjeet Singh
Once again this is me. Despite the fact that I’ve always opposed the Sharif brothers, no one can deny that Shahbaz Sharif is a good administrator.
One man populist-authoritarian” model of governance as “good governance”. They also consider “bureaucratization” and “centralization” key to “good governance”. In the age of de-centralization and de-regulation , distribution of responsibility and power this man restored the British Colonial model of administration.
Here it would be too cruel to point out that this might as well describe Jawarharlal Nehru. In fact the key point which sowed the seeds of partition was the refusal of Congress to accept provincial domain over residuary powers. But for 17 years Nehru ruled India with an iron fist. And while both Pakistan and India were forced to bring their provinces in line, it was Nehru who argued for and retained section 93 of the Government of India Act – something which Jinnah – who is often accused by the author in question of having authoritarian tendencies for his treatment of NWFP’s Khan ministry- had gotten abrogated. Jawaharlal Nehru ruled India like a Mughal Emperor imprisoning at will even his closest friends and loyal toadies like Shaikh Abdullah, sometimes a philosopher, sometimes a statesman, always a tyrant. He was the strongest Prime Minister in the history of South Asia and the most autocratic inhabitant of the throne of Delhi since Aurangzeb Alamgir. According to one commentator from India, Nehru knew the only way to run India was like the British. No wonder consummate aristocrat- first in the line of many aristocratic “socialists” that this subcontinent has had to bear- Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, son of Sir Motilal Nehru of the Order of the British Empire, liked to think of himself as the last Englishman to rule India (this after criticizing day in and day out the very self made and middle class Jinnah for being a “Bond Street” gentleman). Of course this would be far too inconvenient to discuss lest someone point out the obvious about Nehru.
So let us come then to mere mortals- Comrade Zardari and the Party whose revolution the author in question so jealously guards. Now those who have read what I have had to say know that I am a big proponent of the municipal government, provincial autonomy and decentralization. Of course this would not be obvious to someone who is just making an argument for sophistry. It is now known that PPP’s government has no plans of allowing the local government system to continue. These socialist democrats of Bhutto-Zardari order would rather prefer rule of district commissioner. It is true that Shahbaz Sharif and his brother suffer from the same illness but then no “Jinnah-worshiping secular clown” ever had the brief for the Sharif brothers. Can we spell hypocrisy?
He then goes on to quote a story about the Punjab government under Sharif being involved with the Khatm-e-Nabuwat group- a KKK-style lynch mob active against Ahmadis. Ironically though he forgets to mention that he stole the story from this very same “Jinnah-worshiping Secular clown” who he now condemns for having compared Shahbaz Sharif to Ranjit Singh, if only in one aspect. He also forgets (at the cost of being repetitive) to mention that there is no legal recourse against such an action unfortunately thanks to great socialist constitution of 1973 prepared by the grand Marxist party i.e. Pakistan People’s Party which has decreed in a very progressive fashion that Quran and Sunnah are supreme in Pakistan (no it wasn’t the Objectives Resolution that did that – in a very legal sense it was the Constitution of 1973) or the second amendment which declared that Ahmadis were non-Muslim.
Intellectual dishonesty cannot and should not be passed off as ‘left politics”. Young Marxists, leftists and socialists must not be taken in by horrible simplifications in the name of Marx. The left has a distinct and important role to play in Pakistan. We would like to see stronger communist and socialist parties which can keep the right in check. These parties have always been organic to this land. Faiz was, Jalib was, Major Ishaq was, Hassan Nasir was. Lal Band is. It means that they would have to choose the people every time the people come into conflict with the entrenched forces of status quo.
And finally, Pakistan’s only hope lies in faithfully following the vision of its founding father Mahomed Ali Jinnah, who wanted a strong, secular, democratic and federal Pakistan based on rule of law and equality of all citizens and where religion was a personal matter and all choices were personal so long as these choices did not infringe on others’ personal matters and choices. It is this Pakistan that we fought for when we – the Jinnah-worshiping secular clowns- marched for in that glorious Ides of March which brought down tyranny like never in history. In due course of time we shall succeed in achieving Jinnah’s Pakistan.
73 Comments
July 15, 2009 at 3:24 am
This is an amazing peace to reflects the intellectual confusion of the ‘left overs’ of ‘left’. In 90’s some ‘left’ groups decided to support Nawaz Sharif. When asked the reason from a ‘communist’, ‘he is an industrialist who will replace the feudal’, was the answer. That is fine, you have to go by rules. But has you honestly and clearly analysed that he represents the industrialist class?
The left continued to support that blend of corrupt oppertunist and crafted industrialist regime which was a blend of Mullah, black marketers and feudal until the gang decided to become Amir ul Momeneen with Osama Bin Ladens funds. Then ‘left’ jumped on bandwagon of Imran Khan. A fine middle class cricketer launched by Hameed Gul as a Taliban back up team. The reason for supporting him was him being middle class and a sportsman. One mistake is never enough, the bandwagon was abandoned soon!
What is wrong? Is it really a class struggle, in which environment you have to make a decision or it is something else? The jihad project was started since 1970’s to contain Soviet Union. Thus changing the dynamics of struggle in region. The issue of classes became irrelevant as there began a game for survival between those liberal and religious fanatics. That not only continue today but has became intense.
For left it is important to decide carefully who to side. Whoever feels threatened by the religious fanatics is your natural ally. Once you are past that stage, you may part your ways and go ahead with your own rule.
July 15, 2009 at 4:35 am
This is certainly one of your better article. I will not say the best because I think best is yet to come. I don’t agree with some of your assertions about Bhutto. I think that is mere generalization, but I am not in to making him an avatar either. His real mistakes lie somewhere else.
July 15, 2009 at 4:58 am
I got some time, so let me go ahead.
1. Yousaf Raza is not the biggest land owner in South Punjab. Merely a missconeption, he never was but he owns few acres of land in fact which puts him a middle class farmer at the best. Though he might gather a lot of stake in industry or lands in present regime and become whatever he wants to.
2. Shahbaz Sharif is a good administrator?
What the term ‘administrator’ do mean! A planner who has a vision, clearly defined goals and the ‘key’ is to be backed by a ‘team of individuals’ which can achieve these goals. Having Khushamdi, mujawer of Aba ji’s grave, the con men, top gangsters, land grabbers of Punjab …as ticket holders … This is the team you are assembling to achieve these goal of being ‘good administrator’? At the best you can call him a ’strict executor’, who is trying to portray as a ‘good administrator to fool public for support.
3. Why right rallied behind good judge?
There were 3 goals, i)to weaken Musharaf who has turned on Taliban to stay in power. ii) the top good judge has sympathies with right wing, and thirdly to be part of a popular movement. After being convicted Nawaz has only one option to come back in politics that was through judiciary.
Left’s decision to be part of movement was not bad either, they have benefited from a popular movement. But ultimately the right wing is going to benefit from that struggle.
4. What Municipal government?
In theory you are right. But what happens in practice? Putting a feudal or a gangster the in charge of police, administration and development? You need to be in some rural district of South Punjab or Sindh and experience the real democracy.
There are many other points which are not realistic although might correct theoratically.
July 15, 2009 at 5:42 am
The analysis.
What amazes me to great extent is the vengeance of our highly educated lot. This comes to me as another disappointment of us, the Pakistanis, to co exist respecting the ideas of each other, no matter however crude, they may seem.
Pak tea house, in its very healthy literary tradition, was never this harsh.
July 15, 2009 at 5:52 am
Dear Yasser,
Your article is interesting and there is much in it to absorb and comment upon. That will have to wait for later. I want to jot down a few hurried comments that come to mind.
I usually enjoy reading your views about our history and being a guest on the PTH, I try not to comment too much against them(even when I disagree with you over minor points) Thus while I have debated Nehru’s legacy with people like Hayyer, I have let Pakistani friends have their viewpoint about Indian leaders especially in the context of the partition. However I am however baffled that you find ways and means to attack Nehru’s post partition record as well, even when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand such as the current discussion about the struggle among the leftists inside Pakistan.
While I feel Nehru is a giant too tall to be impaired in any way by any academic criticism of his legacy, I think you may be doing your own self a disfavor by insisting on misrepresenting him.
Let me explain. That you are a secular, rational, democratic humanist who stands for the rule of law is not at all a secret. It is for this that I admire you above all else. It may come as a surprise to you that it is precisely for these very qualities that I, (along with countless others), admire Nehru as well.
Consider this. Nehru’s legacy has been under attack for some time in India by none other than the Hindutva brigade. In an insane moment someone from their ranks even proposed banning his book ‘Discovery of India’. If nothing else this fact by itself should be an endorsement enough of his legacy for us who I hope can best be described as the liberal and humanist face of South Asia.
I am not out to white wash his failures. He presided over a socialist economy and a party that was monolithic at times. Both these led to massive corruption we see in India today. He was completely out of his league against the Chinese leadership and he messed up the Kashmir issue. No one questions these facts.
Yet he did not rule as a tyrant; in fact his biggest threat to his party men was that he would quit if they did not listen to him. He was a modernist who encouraged primary and higher education for as many deserving students as could be helped by his poor country.
Your truly is one such person who studied on a scholarship in a world class school started by his blessing. The numerous IITs and the two Post graduate institutes of medical education set up under him have turned out world class alumni.
It may not appear extraordinary today but in his time, establishing a nation and a democracy in India was considered to be an impossible undertaking by many of his peers from around the world. Yet Nehru’s refusal to give up, his stubborn emphases on free speech, the eradication of poverty and the rule of law offer a model to the aspiring democracies even today. Above all, it was his fierce defense of secular ideals which prevented India from ending up as a Hindu equivalent of a Taliban’s dream of a Pakistan.
He internalized Gandhi’s message of ‘Means being as important as the ends itself’ and made it a part of his creed in office. He once wrote about his ideology as a leader in the following words:
“It is more important to adopt the right way, to pursue the right means, than even to have the right objectives, important as that is. No method and no way which is bound up with the creation of hatred and conflict and which bases itself on violence, can ever yield right results, however good the motives, however good the objective.”
Which other 20th century contemporary of his can you imagine who would place such a stringent self restrictions?
Not Nasser, not Mao, certainly not Stalin.
That he called himself the ‘last Englishman to rule India’ was not at all a claim of superiority but rather a self deprecating admission of how much removed from the real India he himself unfortunately was.
India without Nehru may still have become India that it is today but it could just as easily have become a Uganda, an Iraq or even a Hindu Zia’s Pakistan.
We must remember what India under Nehru finally did end up as; A country that is ruled by a constitution that hold it a common home for all its sons and daughters, regardless of their caste, color, race or religion.
That a Babri Masjid or a Godhara killings occurred in India at all is not because of him but in spite of him. Our savage nation often fails its great son’s vision from time to time. It still has so much to learn.
At the end of the day Nehru had hoped that his legacy would be “400 million people capable of governing themselves.” Four decades after Nehru’s death, Indians have learned the habits of democracy well; and has defied all odds to become a nation.
I sincerely hope that some day you your self (or someone like you) can lead your own beloved nation in such distinguished manner.
July 15, 2009 at 6:48 am
Yasser,
You are an erudite scholar. I agree with everything you say.
-Shoaib
pakteahouse2.wordpress.com
July 15, 2009 at 6:52 am
I have my own disagreements with Sherry about his views on the Lawyers movement. I would like to add that LPP was not the only “Trotksyist” group that supported the the Long March.
But I must differ with your characterization of Marxism, or some genuine Marxism (by which I assume you mean the variety acceptable as an ally in a popular front), as an inherently patrotic or at the very least not-unpatrotic philosophy.
“Marxism” is not one coherent “school”, “closed system” or “ideology”. Rather, it is a methodology of analysis as you have correctly pointed out. But the one categorical imperative of Marxism, truly the ONLY categorical imperative uttered by Marx, was “workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains”…. Read more
Read with his claim that “the workers of the world have no country”, this is a decidedly anti-nationalistic and arguably anti-patriotic world view. Outside the paradigm of the ideology of and apology it cannot be understood otherwise.
However, despite my own support for the Lawyers movement for a number of reasons, I do think there is something to be said about an alternative Marxian analysis of it.
If democracy is predicated on the rule of law, what is the rule of law predicated upon? A Marxian would say, Material conditions. Ergo, it may be argued it is those material conditions we must aim to achieve. (However, to me this is not a sufficient reason to oppose or even not endorse the LM)
July 15, 2009 at 7:04 am
Gorkiji A very well written piece.While the greatest achievement of Nehru was democracy,Educational institutions such as IITs,his insistance on self reliance and building huge industrial undertakings such as steel mills defence producttion units refineries Research Institutions such as National Laboratories etc., Dams his failiures apart from Kashmir were lack of Infrastructure Development and neglect of villages.He did a lot in his 17 years one can say 15 because he was just a shadow of himself after the Chinese invasion in I think 1961.
July 15, 2009 at 7:06 am
Dear Gorki sb, no one denies that what Nehru did was necessary for India. . He was the embodiment of what Bose had hoped for when he wrote that India needs a secular dictator who would rule India and stamp secularismon it.
July 15, 2009 at 7:18 am
Two more things however :
1. Nehru called himself the last Englishman in a letter to the Mountbattens I believe. It was very much in the spirit of frustration with Indians and not like Gorki sb put it.
Secondly for someone who was so concerned with “means”, Nehru certainly used whatever means necessary to get what he wanted. Kashmir is a case in point.
July 15, 2009 at 7:23 am
Khawer mian, I am not a fan of what passes for nationalism either.
My point was that I don’t see Marxists betraying. Their own people.
You are right about an alternative critique and what is law except a mmeans to safeguard. Property from the mob? However the Lawyers movement was qualitatively different.
Glad to see that you are unlike those who arefashionably marxist.
July 15, 2009 at 8:16 am
“the workers of the world have no country”, this is a decidedly anti-nationalistic and arguably anti-patriotic world view”
I don’t know how you got to this simplistic conclusion from the above statement. The statement does not imply in any way that the workers are suppose to bring down the national boundaries or create some kind of a world government. It simply meant that workers share identical issues world wide. The concept of workers having no country is entirely different than the “ummah” concept promoted by Islam.
Nationalism is a necessary part of the political discourse. But not at the cost of healthy internationalism where people are linked in more than one way including the class interests. Marxist accept and promote different paths to socialism, taking the relative conditions of a country in to consideration.
In Pakistan supporting the Taliban in any guise amounts to supporting the most reactionary forces of the society to the detriment of the country and the people.
Recently I was involved in a discussion with some hard core leftist. The issue was Iran and the unreasonable support by the left to the Mullah in Iran. The basis for that support is Mullah’s anti-Americanism. If we look at the whole picture, we have to ask the left whether the Mullah’s anti-Americanism is good enough for the left’s support? Imo, it is not. The left needs to pay attention to the mullah’s economic and the social policies in Iran too. The Mullah in Iran is promoting the worst kind of feudalism, denying women whatever little rights they have plus there have not been any real reforms in the system. In fact the whole effort is to blackmail the west in to getting some concessions.
The Taliban too as YHL mentioned don’t offer anything except for some medieval tribalism. Coincidently, Hoodbhoy too has picked up this theme( he must have read my arguments:) ).
Zmag has his recent article published today. Where he too has argued, what I argued on the leftist site.
Here is the link for Hoodbhoy’s article.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21982
The lawyers movement has accomplished something tangible and it cannot be brushed aside. Movements like that help people understand the democratic process and increase their commitment to the democratic norms. The success of the movement-no matter what the behind the scenes shenanigans were- has helped Pakistan and we will see the impact of this movement on over all struggle for democracy in Pakistan.
The Taliban may be fighting the US but from Pakistani point of view, they have become instrumental in helping the state to curb democracy in Pakistan. They provide the opportunity to the undemocratic forces to regain the lost ground.
So we have to ask the same question: is the Taliban’s anti-Americanism good enough, or is it worth losing the struggle for democracy in Pakistan?
July 15, 2009 at 9:37 am
Yasser, Vijay:
Thanks for quick responses. I guess we all agree on major aspects of Nehru’s legacy after all.
I found the following passage quoting Nehru on a Hindutva oriented site and thought I should share it with the PTH since what is considered to have been his flaws in the eyes of the Hindutva brigade were perhaps his biggest strengths.
“In August 1947, Dr Rajendra Prasad, who was the chairman of the Constituent Assembly wrote to Nehru about cow slaughter and the fact that a majority of Hindu sentiments run high against the cow slaughter.
Jawaharlal Nehru responded that he is well aware of the Hindu sentimentality and, yet he would much rather resign from the prime ministerial position than bow before it.
The man who can derive pleasure from the weakening and fragmenting of the Hindu society can hardly be a Hindu himself. Disclaiming his Hindu
identity, Nehru declared that by education he was an Englishman, by culture a Muslim and by accident of birth, a Hindu. It is a mere throw of the dice that he was born to a Hindu couple, otherwise he had no undertaking with the Hindus”.
Such a man is hard not to admire; flaws or no flaws. (YLH, do you recognise someone, perhaps a Rutgers educated lawyer who may have similar views? )
Regards.
July 15, 2009 at 9:38 am
Hassan Miraj mian,
What … you don’t want us “Jinnah-worshiping Secular clowns” to respond to unsolicited and intemperate attacks thinly guised in an ideology that has nothing to do with it?
Sorry to disappoint you… but since I know how old you are, I can safely say that you have no first hand knowledge to say: Pak tea house, in its very healthy literary tradition, was never this harsh
The real PakTeaHouse was the scene of the fiercest ideological battles and much harsher and unparliamentary utterances were recorded there. I have not – in the least- responded in kind to the personal attacks that the Mullah in question resorted to in his ridiculously unintellectual pieces.
July 15, 2009 at 10:14 am
Dear Gorki sb,
You will no doubt appreciate that I did not attack those parts of Nehruvian legacy that you hold dear. All of what you say is true.
You write:
“It is a mere throw of the dice that he was born to a Hindu couple, otherwise he had no undertaking with the Hindus”.”
It is this throw of dice that accorded Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru the opportunity to become the prime minister of India. It is this throw of dice that denied all such opportunities to another such man who held very similar views if not stronger on the issue of religion and society … it was this throw of dice that gave Gandhi the confidence to declare the same man was a member of the minority community even though the only thing “Muslim” about him was his name which in any event he had abbreviated to M A Jinnah. Let us not undermine the throw of the dice.
“Such a man is hard not to admire; flaws or no flaws. (YLH, do you recognise someone, perhaps a Rutgers educated lawyer who may have similar views? )”
Congruence of some views is not reason enough. The Rutgers educated lawyer is inpired by the original and not shadows… the Rutgers educated lawyer unfortunately does not have the luxury of playing “socialist socialist” without having to work a single day in his life by virtue of birth… the Rutgers educated lawyer was not born to Sir so and so … There is no question that there is a lot to admire Nehru for … but my inspiration lies elsewhere. Indeed this is the problem Shaheryar has as well. Unfortunately he doesn’t understand what is at stake. You said that had there been no Nehru, India still had a chance it would become what it is now… in our case, if we don’t revive Jinnah, there is no chance we will ever be anything but what we are right now. That my friend is not good for anyone… I don’t know people like Shaheryar would want to stab us in the back… simply because of a different or a competing source of inspiration? Have we not given enough of a cogent reason for our inspiraton?
Was the Lawyers’ Movement not a mass movement for human rights, equality, justice etc? For all the claims that it would be hijacked by the religious right… it wasn’t. We ensured that much.
In another such spurious argument the rebuttal to which did not merit inclusion in my article, the same author declared that had it not been partition Pakistani homosexuals would have been the beneficiaries of the recent Indian court decision… this is ofcourse a highly debatable what-if .. but even if we accept such a preposterous statement as logical… it is equally logical to suggest that all of Indian gays would have been free to be gay a long time ago, had there been no “independence”.
July 15, 2009 at 11:06 am
Gorki sb,
He presided over a socialist economy and a party that was monolithic at times. Both these led to massive corruption we see in India today. He was completely out of his league against the Chinese leadership and he messed up the Kashmir issue. No one questions these facts.
So, JLN messed up India’s economy, lost a war against China and got involved India in a needless mess in Kashmir. But he was a giant, nonetheless.
This reminds me of Jai’s immortal description of Veeru in Sholay “He is a gamester, drunkard, totally broke, visits brothel ocassionally and I dont know whose son he. But otherwise he is a very nice man”
Regards
July 15, 2009 at 11:07 am
Was the Lawyers’ Movement not a mass movement for human rights, equality, justice etc?
……………………………………..
Of course it was and it was also the single most heart warming story to come out of Pakistan.
I must add that although it ended peacefully, it was not a foregone conclusion; it very well could have led to bloodshed and loss of life thus the courage of those marchers is in no way less than those who marched for freedom elsewhere; whether it was in Soweto or in Alabama or in Dandi.
No one can deny that when people marched for the restoration of justice, fairness and the rule of law in Pakistan they marched not as partisans of this or that group but as Pakistanis. It is this kind of commitment to the rule of law and fairness which forges the spirits of nations.
Thus my defense of Nehruvian legacy above should in no way be read as in conflict with the above. If anything, I believe the single most important feature of his legacy for us is the building and strenthening of the institutions of a functioning democracy. I wish nothing less for my neighbor, Pakistan.
As I have mentioned elsewhere before I believe I understand your personal mission to revive MAJ’s legacy is a part of a larger pattern in the battle for the restoration of a truly secular and democratic nation. In this I can have nothing but best wishes for you.
The only thing I may add is this; I agree JLN got where he got by the accident of his birth. No one can replicate that; however, once there he was on his own; and he did well perhaps because he had spent a life time perparing for that role.
Similarly one must not forget that the hand of fate often works mysteriously and sometimes one can be called to lead in the most unexpected circumstances.
With that in mind one should prepare tirelessly; just in case the hand of fate stopped on ones shoulder when the time came.
Regards.
July 15, 2009 at 11:24 am
Yasser mian/Gorki sb,
YLH’s description of Nehru is very apt. Jinnah was a first class lawyer, he earned his own wealth fair and square with his own efforts. He created a political movement and later a nation. JLN did neither. Both his wealth and his political stature were inherited from his father, Motilal.
The secular, democratic constitution that Gorki sb and all of us Indians are proud of is not JLN’s creation but of the founding fathers of India as a whole, incl esp BRA.
Yet he did not rule as a tyrant; in fact his biggest threat to his party men was that he would quit if they did not listen to him.
You dont have to drive a tank over your opponents to be a tyrant. Emotional blackmail is equally a potent weapon. Moreover after Patel’s death, INC leaders feared that without JLN at helm the party wud break up. And on the one ocassion that any izzatdaar man wud have quit- after being licked in the China War- he clung onto the seat like a limpet.
Besides, his democratic legacy itself is highly questionable. During his liftime 1947-64 there were only two inconvenient govts – Kerala and Kashmir- and both were dismissed. Shyama babu died in questionable circumstances.
His secularism didnt prevent him from having Feroze Khan renamed as Feroze “Gandhi” b4 he cud marry his daughter. Unlike our beloved Qaid (pbuh) who never disowned his daughter for marrying a Parsi gentleman.
As far as IITs are concerned, they were a need of the times. If someone else was the PM, surely engg colleges wud have been built. The Brits needed to build the Upper Ganges Canal so they built Roorkee Engg College a century before IITs were created. Do we credit the GG of India of the time as a giant?
Let me sum up by quoting a gentleman who writes under the name Dost Mitter on chowk on Nehru’s legacy. I quote:
“The first charismatic leader who disappointed me was Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India. I was a little kid when India became independent and Nehru became its uncrowned king. We would deck ourselves in our finest attires on November 14, his birthday, which was celebrated throughout India as Children’s Day. When Nehru took over from the British, India had the most developed legal, administrative and economic infrastructure of all Asian countries, with the exception of Japan: it had one of the best Railways network in the world, its universities produced graduates in humanities, sciences and engineering; it had a science institute which had produced eminent scientists, including Nobel Prize winner, C.V. Raman; it had an efficient administrative service and a legal system; its cities like Calcutta and Bombay were thought to be the most cosmopolitan east of London; its factories were producing many industrial products, including steel; it had a healthy reserve of foreign exchange and the Indian Rupee was the legal tender in gulf countries and accepted as far as Hong Kong and Singapore.
After ruling over India as an unchallenged democratic dictator for seventeen years, Nehru left India in shambles when he died; its literacy rate was among the lowest in Asia and the poverty rate one of the highest; the foreign exchange situation was so precarious that one had to seek permission of the central bank to even get a passport and, if one got permission, one was allowed a foreign exchange of eight dollars – a Bollywood producer made a film titled “Around the world in eight dollars��? – and a country of entrepreneurial people was spending all its entrepreneurial skills on how to obtain licenses for quotas and permits, which they could then sell in the black market without wasting all their energies on fighting and bribing the bureaucrats to actually produce anything. He inherited an Indian army from the British whose courage, bravery and prowess was acknowledged by friends and foes alike in the second world war when its soldiers won numerous medals and Victoria crosses; the same army, when confronted by the Chinese army in 1962, faced a humiliating defeat, with its commander, B.N. Kaul – a cousin of Nehru- fleeing the battlefield as soon as the first shot was fired. It was left to the dull and boring leaders like Narsimha Rao, Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh to get the country out of the morass into which Nehru and his charismatic daughter, Indira Gandhi, had pushed into.”
Regards
July 15, 2009 at 11:25 am
Yasser Pai,
it is equally logical to suggest that all of Indian gays would have been free to be gay a long time ago, had there been no “independence”.
Well, there was a time when Indian gays were free to be gays. You can visit Khajuraho for evidence.
Regards
July 15, 2009 at 4:00 pm
hossp,
Thank you for kind words of encouragement.
July 15, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Well, Yasser Bhai, one thing agreed, Mullah is not required. To me the lethal combination of Religion and state is nothing but a disaster.
About age.. well, I might be wrong, but my readings of literati of that time tells me that it was an open space with free speech and nobody got hurt.
I am not telling you to drop the guard, but just tone it down.
It might me because I have not read the contributions labeling you Jinn`s clown.
Whatever it was, an ugly haste, an unwanted child, a confessional state or whatever now the pseudo intellectual prefers calling it, Jinnah sb fathered it and we own it. About Nehru, his devotion to the cause and his people might have been fanatic, but there is a class in India which still believe that Vallah Bhai n Nehru collaborated, what Nathuram godse executed on that Jan mornin`48.
Good article….despite the CARTHIGINIAN VENGEANCE as i can glorify it for u
July 15, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Confused Intellectual sb,
1. You are wrong. Your attempt to spin off the Gilanis of Multan as “middle class” makes me wonder.
2. I am not a supporter of the PML-N. I voted for the PPP in the last two elections and my parents had been voting for the PPP since 1970… though I can assure you that I will never make this mistake again and rather waste my vote in the future than vote for either the PPP or the PML-N. I am not crazy. And yet I will tell you -as anyone who is familiar with Punjab’s adminstrative history that everytime Shahbaz comes around, traffic signals work, hospitals are cleaned up, public parks are actually public parks and traffic suddenly becomes orderly. While I still won’t vote for Shahbaz, I am not intellectually dishonest like you to deny that he is a good adminstrator.
3. Well where is the “right” now? Did it manage to hijack the Lawyers’ Movement? No. So this is a pointless discussion. And while your feudal dominated “left” government was busy inking deals with Sufi Muhammad, the Chief Judge was taking suo motu action against the perpetrators of public floggings in Swat.
4. You support Military rule as well then do you? Unless you let a system work, you can’t expect it to fix everything overnight.
Now coming to your earlier post… the left that supported Sharif in the 1990s was mistaken. However all you are making the same mistake the British left did when it was foolish enough to turn a blind eye to Margaret Thatcher’s appeal in the middle class and working class. The right wing under Thatcher pulled rug from under the left in England… the result is that Thatcherites dominate even the so called new left … the new labour in England.
Unless and until the remnants of the left movement learn to respect the popular will, it will be similarly swept away in a thatcherite flood mutatis mutandis.
July 16, 2009 at 12:05 am
Dear Majumdar:
Although your comments present an opposing view about JLN to that of mine, they are still welcome since public figures of Nehru’s stature by definition have multiple dimensions and can never be described either as totally black or entirely white.
As I mentioned before, it is my firm belief that Nehru as a leader is tall enough to stand the scrutiny of history on his own and does not need unknown Indians like me to make a case for him.
In an effort to present a more unbiased view of him however, I am posting below a book review about a recent Shahi Tharoor biography of JLN.
It is expected that the review comments, would be more neutral about the subject himself. (I do not by any means endorse the book one way or the other.)
So here it goes:
“Nehru, the charismatic leader and nationalist who played a major role in India’s struggle for independence and then went on to lead the country through its initial tumultuous years, has in recent times been the subject of intense criticism. There is much debate on his economic policies, his political indecisiveness (especially over Kashmir) and his governing polity such as excessive state control and interference, that set in the corruption, red tape and inefficiency that plagues India today. In addition, the rise of the right wing Hindutva brigade has also meant that the Nehruvian brand of secular politics is under considerable threat; indeed there are reports of some militant and vociferous elements demanding a ban on his brilliantly authored The Discovery of India. Nehru-bashing has become so commonplace that his role in the freedom struggle and in nurturing the initial stages of the Indian democracy is in the danger of being completely forgotten. Jawaharlal Nehru was therefore in the need of being rediscovered by his own countrymen, especially those born after Nehru’s death in 1964; this is the raison d’etre of Tharoor’s work.
Tharoor presents Nehru with his strengths and weaknesses. He stuck to principle even when personal freedom was at risk. In spite of his patrician upbringing, he was able to connect with the masses. However radical Nehru was in his social, political, and economic views, he always put “party loyalty above private conviction.” Sometimes this led to Hamlet-like ambivalence on his part. He was given to too much theorizing, sacrificing decisive action. He had a mercurial temperament but was also charming, warm, and courteous.
According to Tharoor, Nehru left an indelible mark on India by building a formidable industrial and intellectual infrastructure, and ushering India into the era of nuclear and space technology, all under the rubric of democracy. The IITs that Nehru nurtured in his time are producing some of the most sought-after technologists in the world.
The four pillars upon which Nehru’s legacy to India rested are, according to Tharoor, “democratic institution building, staunch pan-Indian secularism, socialist economics at home, and a foreign policy of non-alignment.” Of these, only the first pillar still stands. Secularism is giving way increasingly to communalism in the divisive doctrine of “Hindutva,” Nehru’s socialist economics turned out to be a total failure. The state-owned industries and agencies bred the worst form of inefficiency, and stifled economic growth, leading to what was derisively referred to in economic circles as “the Hindu rate of growth.” C. Rajagopalachari called the regulation-ridden economic policy “the license-permit-quota Raj.” Nehru’s foreign policy was also a failure. With his deep mistrust of the West, he did not warm up to President John F. Kennedy when Nehru visited the U.S. in 1961. The Kashmir issue was not settled bilaterally but taken to the UN at Nehru’s insistence. His romantic vision of Sino-Indian friendship clouded his judgment of China’s intentions, and he was caught flat-footed when China annexed Tibet in 1962, and invaded India’s northern borders along the McMahon Line, flouting Nehru’s principle of Panch Sheel. Non-alignment had outlived its usefulness in foreign policy.
Nehru was a dreamer, a visionary. To him “India was a world in itself, a culture and a civilization which gave shape to all things … Some kind of a dream of unity has occupied the mind of India since the dawn of civilization.” In dreams begin possibilities. His most important contribution to Indian democracy, according to Tharoor, is the discovery of the notion of “Indianness,” for the first time in 1947, which transcended geography, religion, and culture.”
Regards.
July 16, 2009 at 10:24 am
This reminds me of Jai’s immortal description of Veeru in Sholay “He is a gamester, drunkard, totally broke, visits brothel ocassionally and I dont know whose son he. But otherwise he is a very nice man”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Majumdar Da:
You forgot the part about Jai saying that Veeru coulld only gamble off and on because he was sometimes in a lock up.
Equally important is what Jai did not say that Veeru was and could do.
Thus he left out the part that Veeru was a also a fearless ruffian who could out fight, outshoot, out ride the entire Gabbar gang, and that only he could rescue Basanti in a crunch. Moreover a good friend of Veeru’s would have mentioned that he knew the script and that Veeru was destined to wipe out the entire gang of dacoits singlehandedly before the end.
Thus Mausi would have made an informed choice in that if shehad wanted a son-in-law to run for the post of the local pope then clearly Veeru was not a good candidate but given the circumstances, I can not think of a better husband for Dhannoo oops!! Basanti.
On a serious note, I have already conceded Nehru’s faults. But in its formative years, what India needed first and foremost was a committed visionary, a thoroughly secular leader who was credible with the masses. Only such a leader could heal the wounds of partition, protect the minorities in India and set her on the path of a secular democracy.
Nehru may not have been the only leader but he certainly was the most obvious man for the job at hand.
I think he did admirably in that regard.
Regards.
July 16, 2009 at 11:35 am
Majumdar Da:
I read the original article by Dost Mittar on the Chowk. I thinkMr. DM writes well but this was not his best piece. The article was written on the premise that he would not vote for Obama but will for McCain for one and only one reason; that Obama had charisma and DM did not think men with charisma were good leaders!!
I am serious; that was the entire premise.
He quoted three examples (Nehru was one) where charisma put him off and boring uncharismatic leaders were better. .
So if this wise man is to be believed not only should the Americans not have voted the Obama who made the Cairo speech but should have voted for McCain instead (of the bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and the 100 years in Iraq fame)!!
So then why stop here, let us extend this excellent argument to judge leadership elsewhere: using this then the entire group of the US founding fathers; Washington, Jefferson, Franklin were misfits and the British should have kept Atlee instead of Churchill (you get the drift of the argument)
Anyway he wrote : When Nehru took over from the British, India had the most developed legal, administrative and economic infrastructure ……its factories were producing many industrial products, including steel.
He concluded: Nehru left India in shambles………………
First of all I have already conceded that economy was never Nehru’s strong point. Still a complete rebuttal to DM’s arguments is available but will take a lot more space therefore let us take only two examples about the economy under Nehru.
1. Steel:
The modernization of the two private sector leaders and the program of public sector investment together raised Indian steel output from about one million tons a year in the 1940s to three million tons in 1960, then to six million tons only four years later. Pig iron output rose by an even greater margin, from 1.6 million tons in 1950 to nearly 5 million tons in 1961…
(From the steel authority of India website.)
2. Agriculture:
First a local story of East Punjab:
In 1947 there was no university in the entire state. First University was set up in 1956 (Punjab University Chandigarh.)
Nehru personally insisted on founding another university the Punjab Agriculture University that was set up in 1962. It pioneered the hybrid qualities of seed. Winner of several international awards, it is labeled the best agriculture university in Asia. Credited with ushering in the green revolution. Bhakhra dam built in 1963 and powered Punjabi tube wells. These two decisions led to Punjab (a very small state by then) becoming a net contributor of grain (up to 70 %) to the central pool.
Now story of all India Agriculture:
Food-grain production increased from 50.8 million tons in fiscal year 1950 to 176.3 million tons in FY 1990. The compound growth rate from FY 1949 to FY 1987 was 2.7 percent per annum. Overall, wheat was the best performer, with production increasing more than eightfold in forty years. Wheat was followed by rice, which had a production increase of more than 350 percent.
The per capita availability of a number of food items increased significantly in the post independence period despite a population increase from 361 million in 1951 to 846 million in 1991. Per capita availability of cereals went up from 334 grams per day in 1951 to 470 grams per day in 1990. Availability of edible oils increased significantly, from 3.2 kilograms per year per capita in FY 1960 to 5.4 kilograms in FY 1990. Similarly, the availability of sugar per capita increased from 4.7 to 12.5 kilograms per year during the same period…..
You also mentioned that any one else would have set up IITs too so no big deal. Right?
Let us see. In the Silicon Valley that is home to the best and the brightest from the entire universe, the IIT graduates alone stand as a breed apart and are the most sought after group. The combined wealth of IIT graduates alone is estimated to be worth of hundred billion dollars. Most of these men started out as middle and lower middle class kids.
Now that I have taken up enough bandwidth already I will stop; I can however provide more information offline if needed.
Regards.
July 16, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Gorki sb,
Sure, Bhakra Dam was built but are you implying that dams wudn’t have been built had Nehru not been around? Pakistan didn’t have a Nehru (fortunately) but that didn’t prevent them from building Tarbela which I believe is bigger than Bhakra.
As far as growth in agri productivity goes, surely you wud be aware that bulk of this growth came from mid-1960s (Green Revolution) onwards after JLN was dead.
The IITs are unquestionably a success story but are you implying that without Nehru no good engg colleges wud have been built. They may have had diff names and acronyms (Bharati College of Engg for eg) but built they wud have been.
Ultimately there is no question that India grew from 1947-64 and then onto 1991. But did it grow as fast as required? Did it grow as fast as peer group in East/SE Asia? And as Yasser Pai wud tell you, the regions which constituted Pak today had no industry while parts of India were already industrialised (by those days standards) and yet today the mfg GDP/head may not be all that diff for Pak and India (I’m sure YLH or Raza Rumi or Riaz Haq sb can pull out the numbers)
Regards
July 16, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I am not sure that YLH’s point on traitors who are marxists is uncontestable. Just think of all those Oxbridge members of the British establishment who sold out to the USSR in the 30s; or Ethel and Julian Rosenberg, or even our Indian communists who put the USSR and China before India every time.
Nehru was no dictator. He had his way most of the time because the party could not do without him. Patel was dead, Rajendra Prasad kicked upstairs and Purushottam Das Tandon neutralized.
Nehru’s legacy is the paraphernalia of a free democratic society in India. Without him it could not have happened. Nehru was no aristocrat. I don’t know why YLH falls for that old chestnut. Nehru never claimed to be an aristocrat but he never discouraged others thinking of him as one.Just as he never discouraged people from calling him Panditji. It was a public image that he must have cultivated. I don’t know how authentic that Feroze Khan Gandhi story is. Nehru may just have been protecting his political future.
Nehru was a disaster on foreign policy and on the economic front.His problem was the tyranny of what Deepak Lal has called India’s literary castes.
Nehru did not like being inferior to the big money bags. Economic control over big business through the license raj and over the states through the Planning Commission were his real failings.
Nehru creeps in to these debates because of the internal dialectic in Pakistan. Comparison is unavoidable I suppose but there is nothing to compare. Jinnah was a sick man on Pakistan’s creation. He needed at least 10 years. And a dedicated cadre to fight for his legacy. Finally what about the salariat that is supposed to have been behind the Pakistan movement? Were they secular or a mixed bag? How far did the TNT translate post independence into an ideology perpetuating rivalry.
July 16, 2009 at 3:37 pm
If Nehru was not an aristocrat could you either point out
1. Source of his funds?
or
2. His employment/work history?
I think the truth is closer to what Majumdar writes … though no one is completely without redeeming qualities and Nehru had his.
July 16, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Btw… I love it. If Nehru does something he was merely protecting his “political future”…. ! If he uses “Pandit jee” it is just clever politics… and when he calls himself the Last Englishman it means something quite different.
Nehru is not important to internal dialectic of Pakistan… even for comparisons (unless the comparison is with Bhutto… a similar aristocratic “socialist” who made a mess of things in Pakistan)….
These great founders of political dynasties who claim to be democrats must be looked at very carefuly, in my view.
July 16, 2009 at 4:53 pm
An aristocrat I always understood to be one of the nobility, or of hereditary ruling class. Living off your fathers money does not put you into that category.
In whatever way Nehru comes up on this site it is usually in some comparitive or clarificatory way. Jinnah, as I said earlier, is not comparable being deceased pretty soon.If you want to compare him to Bhutto you may do so but the capabilities or achievements of the two are hardly in the same class.
Indian politics is increasingly dynastic, but Nehru never did push his daughter into that role except briefly as Congress President in 1958. If Lal Bahadur Shastri had not died prematurely I doubt she would have had a political future. Indira Gandhi like her grandfather, who had the instincts of a dynast.
July 16, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Hayyer mian,
Nehru did not like being inferior to the big money bags.
That is understandable. Having never made any honest living for himself naturally he wud have felt inferior to the likes of Birlas and the Bajajs. Plus as you say the disdain of the literary castes (Read Brahmin) for the mercantile professions.
If only the Ismaili Gujju Bania had been born in a Hindoo household…. sigh….
Regards
July 16, 2009 at 10:21 pm
aristocrat: Of high birth or social position: blue-blooded, elite, highborn, highbred, noble, patrician, thoroughbred, upper-class, wellborn. Informal upper-crust. Privileged.
I think in terms of achievement Bhutto’s achievements were considerable and so was his ability… whatever one’s criticism of him. So I think, people should be honored I am comparing Nehru to Bhutto.
July 16, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Nehru would have preferred to be crucified before he agreed to have a constitution label discriminating Ahmedyias from other citizens.
Regards.
July 16, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Is it true that Bhutto threeatened to “break the legs of any PPP member who attended the National Assembly” after the 1970 elections in which the Awami League won?
Regards
July 16, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Gorki sb,
The only person in the entire subcontinent had the moral courage to stand against the Mullahs on the Ahmadi issue was Jinnah who refused to bow to their pressure through out the 1940s. He alone had the courage and the honesty of purpose to tell the Mullahs to go to hell.
I am well aware of Nehru’s statements in the 1930s and Iqbal’s umbrage but Nehru could make those statements because he was not a Muslim. Had he been in Bhutto’s place in 1974 he would have done exactly the same. Surely you’ve read enough of Nehru to know that he often backed out of ideals and principles.
Bhutto was the same way… Through his election campaign he mocked the Mullahs for being ignorant to raise the demand of Ahmadi-excommunication. Through out he pointed out that Jinnah himself had appointed Zafrullah as the foreign minister and refused to entertain any demands for Ahmadi-excommunication.
And then in 1974 Bhutto’s National Assembly did the exact opposite. How and why did Bhutto come to this point and whether Nehru would have acted differently…you know my answers.
The only person who could have acted differently had died on September 11, 1948.
July 17, 2009 at 6:49 pm
YLH. I was addressing the dictionary meaning not the thesaurus.
If you think comparing Bhutto to Nehru does the latter a favour I have nothing to add. As no great admirer of Nehru myself I find your approach polemical rather than analytical. Nehru for all his faults created and sustained the modern, democratic even secular India of today, and the centralized state (which I oppose). It was a considerable achievement, carried through in the teeth of right wing Hindu opposition, not least from within his own Congress.
But this is not the topic of discussion and we are not getting anywhere with this line of argument.
July 17, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Well, I am not fond of either ZAB or JLN. Both of them were bad apples if you ask me. But still if you ask me YLH’s comparison of ZAB to JLN irritates me,… all said and done JLN is our sob
Regards
July 17, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Dear Hayyer,
May I suggest that we compare Bhutto and Nehru on a plane of success alone as the latter’s secularism is more of a comment on the maturity of the Hindu bourgeoisie and the former’s resort to Islamic populism is indicative of the backwardness of Muslim bourgeoisie.
Bhutto created the PPP out of scratch… Nehru inherited the Congress… Bhutto’s PPP survived and strengthened itself against enormous odds namely a very hostile and brutal military dictatorship… Congress has on the other hand failed to keep its constituency at times despite having all control.
Bhutto successfully managed to bring the Islamic world and China closer to Pakistan…Nehru failed on these counts. Bhutto’s development projects were as many if not more than Nehru… I think there are many reasons why Bhutto would win hands down against Nehru in a comparison not predicated on secularism angle.
July 17, 2009 at 11:38 pm
YLH,
Bhutto was the same way
I must say I find this parallel you’re drawing between Bhutto and Nehru rather interesting and, it must be said, your POV isn’t all that easy to refute.
Majumdar,
Sure, Bhakra Dam was built but are you implying that dams wudn’t have been built had Nehru not been around? Pakistan didn’t have a Nehru (fortunately) but that didn’t prevent them from building Tarbela which I believe is bigger than Bhakra
Quite correct. I have to agree with you that at the end of the day there really isn’t much that Nehru did for India, especially when you compare India to other countries at the time.
But, IMO, there is an exception. His achievements as far as secularism are concerned do stand up to scrutiny. After the June 3rd plan, things could have been a lot worse for India’s Muslims if someone like Nehru hadn’t been at the helm; after all, we all know what was done to (East and West) Pakistan’s Hindus and Sikhs.
Also, Nehru did stand up to the loonies from his own religion too, I guess. He could have, like Bhutto, gone with the flow and not passed the Hindu Code Bills, for example.
July 18, 2009 at 12:10 am
No one can dispute that about Nehru ie secularism. The credit for his success however goes to unique set of conditions and the Hindu community’s acceptance of secularism as a whole.
In Pakistan we needed someone to play this role in addition to Jinnah…maybe had Liaqat Ali Khan had not been assassinated…he would have created ultimately a situation of sort. Bhutto was the only chance Pakistan had afterwards but he did or could not play that role and maybe Benazir but she too died.
The failure of Pakistan to throw up such a person however has more to do with the backwardness of Muslim community… than anything else.
July 18, 2009 at 12:48 am
YLH,
The credit for his success however goes to unique set of conditions and the Hindu community’s acceptance of secularism as a whole.
Hmmm…maybe, but this explanation does raise a few problems of its own. If the Hindu was, as a whole, more secular/liberal than his Muslim counterpart, I would find extremely odd that a Jinnah led the latter and a Gandhi the former.
Also, for the most part, there isn’t too much to choose between India and Pakistan as far as developmental parameters are concerned (unless you too, have been taken in by “India Shining”). So, in spite of that, what do you think accounts for such a large gulf between the Hindu and the Muslim as far as secularism is concerned?
July 18, 2009 at 3:42 am
Bhakra Dam was built but are you implying that dams wudn’t have been built had Nehru not been around? Pakistan didn’t have a Nehru (fortunately) but that didn’t prevent them from building Tarbela which I believe is bigger than Bhakra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think you guys are missing my point.
Bhakra was one component (and a far smaller one) of the reason why I think the Green revolution succeeded in India; especially in Punjab.
I had mentioned it in passing (as an adjunct) to the founding of Punjab Agricultural University that I think was one of the main reasons for it because in the story of development, it is not the brick and mortar structures but the development of human capital that is critical to rapid progress.
The PAU is one of the few truly world class (perhaps the only one) institutions present in Punjab today. Its impact goes way beyond anything else put up in Northern India then.
Soon after its founding the University pioneered the hybrid varieties of grains that led to several fold higher yields per acre. Not only that, it reached out to the farmers of the area; many of them illiterate and then educated them about the modern ideas of agriculture.
One may not realize the true magnitude of this till you looks at the map to see that Punjab makes up only 1.6 percent of the land area and 2.39 percent of the population of the country yet it started contributing 70% of the grain to the central pool by the early 1970s. This would be a remarkable feat by itself; except Punjab has a soil that is a semi desert; much less productive than the Gangetic plain.
At the height of the cold war, when India was viewed suspiciously by the Americans, a US ambassador remarked that India was able to do what neither communist China or the Soviet Union was doing then; feed all its own people all by itself!
This was not always so. It is the same country that used to have famines with dreadful regularity. Some people have compared the famines under the British to genocide; millions used to die, and that was in the days when the population of India was far far smaller!!
I understand there is a strong reluctance here to give Nehru any credit for any success but he is never the less criticized for all that went wrong with the economy under him.
Let it be so. I think it is silly of me trying to defend him in this way. Knowing him, I think he would be far less concerned with who got the credit but much more so with what was happening to India.
The credit can go to your favorite hero so take your pick: Gandhi, MAJ, Patel, the British, the courage of the RSS or the timidity of the Hindus; even Lord Hanuman, I don’t care.
But let us see what did happen to India?
1. Post 1947 about half the Muslim population stayed back; and became as Indian as anyone else.
It did not get kicked out.
It did not become second class citizens like the Arabs in Israel and it was not segregated into Bantustans like the blacks in South Africa. Its religion was not asked for or defined by the state like that of the Ahmedyas in Pakistan and it did not need a civil rights movement like the Blacks in USA to have equal schooling for its children.
2. In spite of strong suspicion of fissiparous tendencies India accepted its diversity; its currency today has some 18 major languages proclaiming its worth, local people everywhere (South India, East, the Punjab) by and large enjoy local cultures without any interference from the center.
3. Elections were held regulsrly (and more importantly the results were honored) by everyone.
No politician was hanged on trumped up charges, but I have a strong suspicion that if a Nehru was hanged in India, the ‘timid Hindus’ would have created a firestorm on the streets that no army in the world would have been able to put out.
I honestly don’t know the history of Pakistan well enough to say who it was who rejected (or did not reject) the outcome of elections in which Mujib won (and led to the formation of Bangladesh) but do know enough of Indian history that even Indira Gandhi (who was perhaps less that 5 % as democratic as Nehru was and 500% more cynical) accepted the people’s verdict when she was voted out.
5. Also consider what did not happen. We did not enjoy the fruits of the ‘great leap forward’ that ‘Chacha Mao’ had his nation live through (20-40 million dead in the famines). We did not have a Gulag archipelego written about us. (Only an 18 month emergency that taught the politicians to never mess with the Indian electorate ever again)
6. Although every one on the PTH has said at one time or another that India is not one nation and it was never a nation in history, India did not break up like the USSR or the Yugoslav republic once a strong leader was gone.
In fact it actually feels and thinks as one nation like never before in history even though there is no one thing (not religion, nor race, not culture and certainly not any one language) common to the entire country.
How do you forge something out of nothing? I don’t know but someone did it for sure!
7. Finally our problem is not that of say a Soviet Union or an East Germany trying to keep its people from leaving; it is trying to keep them out, the Bangladeshis in this instance.
So atleast some people in this world are betting on this impoverished nation (or a non-nation) and even accept being a minority in it yet keep voting for it with their feet.
So go ahead give the credit or discredit for this difficult to describe entity to anyone you want to. In the lives of nations; individual personalties are unimportant; the people are not.
India is still a work in progress and there are miles to go. It will take a long time to make this country the kind of place Nehru dreamed of when he wrote the Discovery of India.
For those of us who don’t like what he did to India (or South Asia) here is the opportunity; we can make it into whatever we all want to see; for we all are alive today and he is long gone.
For me; I remember the words spoken by him on the founding of the PAU that are etched in stone on the East entrance of the University:
” There is a time to work and a time to play, but today is the time to work; for this generation of ours is condemned to hard labor for the sake of a better tomorrow”.
Regards.
Regards.
July 18, 2009 at 10:02 am
Gorki,
I agree with your summing up in #1-#7 of India’s comparative success. But it is highly debatable if any of this was Nehru’s doing and would not have happened had say Patel or Rajaji or Rajendra babu been the first PM. #1 (esp Bengal and Delhi) was more of Gandhi’s doing, if anything.
While most of India’s failures- socialist economy, messing up Kashmir, our alliance with the Commie block, our failure to come to an accomodation with China can largely be put directly at Nehru’s door.
Finally our problem is not that of say a Soviet Union or an East Germany trying to keep its people from leaving
Except of course, Kashmir.
it is trying to keep them out, the Bangladeshis in this instance.
This again is largely Nehru’s legacy. The Liaqat-Nehru Pact of 1951. And of course as and when these people are in a majority in their particular corner, we will again have to face the problem of people wanting to leave (with a piece of land, of course)
Regards
July 18, 2009 at 10:07 am
Karaya mian,
I would find extremely odd that a Jinnah led the latter and a Gandhi the former.
Yes, it is a dichotomy. Perhaps it would have been better if Jinnah sahib had been born in a Hindoo Gujju bania or a UP Brahmin household, and Gandhi in a Punjabi/Hindustani Sunni household. Their views wud have found a more fertile ground.
Regards
July 18, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Gorki sb,
1. Is historically inaccurate. The Muslims left behind in India were not 50 percent of the total South Asian Muslims. They were around 30 percent even out of which a significant population moved West.
There is no way you could have forced all Muslims out of India …short of genocide of the worst kind in humanity but let’s not forget that things did get as bad as they could.
This might impress people as a soundbyte but honestly this cannot be credited to Nehru …
The rest of the points are all debatable especially well in comparison with Pakistan. Pakistan too has several languages and cultures and centre interferes only as much as India does.. The issue of Mujib’s election and its rejection cannot be compared to anything in India …so on that count as well I am afraid you are not making yourself clear.
I don’t know what you mean by “timid hindus” per se but the fact is that the Hindu bourgeoisie was much more better developed, organized, educated and worldly wise than the nascent bourgoeisie that the Muslim community had. Let me try and explain it in different terms this time around.
I can assure you- and I hope you read into this as much as possible- that had India stayed United, our grand United Army would have hanged Nehru instead of Bhutto. So if you really want to understand why Pakistan and India has acted differently don’t look to Nehru’s statesmanship… Look instead at the way the British ruled the provinces that made erstwhile west Pakistan and the provinces that made up India. Indeed this also the reason why Bangladesh went its own way- because like the provinces that made up modern India, Bengal too was de-regulated and center of economic and political growth.
if this is the measure of your success -relative and marginal as it maybe- then this has nothing to do with the greatness of Nehru. It is a question of conditions. Pakistan too will succeed one day … on all counts that you’ve mentioned.
July 18, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Karaya, Educationally South Asian Muslims are still far behind Hindus… Though. The rigors of running their own state certainly helped bridge the gap. Somewhat..m.
Also the general nature of Hinduism and Islam as. Faiths are different… Islam is very centrally depednent on Quran for example. Hence Islam can be more easily theocratic.
July 18, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Btw in his famous 8/11 speech Jinnah said that division was in his view the only solution to India’s constitutional problem. I leave it for people to decide whether homosexuals in India would have gotten their freedom had Muslims of Punjab, NWFP, Sindh and Balochistan. Been part of the fedeeration?
July 18, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Much is made of the Punjab style of British administration. The Punjab Police in Indian Punjab is only one example. The redeeming power of reason and intellect is underated. Even the unruly Pathans under the Khan brothers did try self sacrifice for a while.
Now before YLH in one of his sweeping dismissals he should pause and give it
thought. Homosexuals in India are grateful not to the Government but to the courts. All religious communities in India are uniformly opposed to the innovation introduced by the judiciary but it makes no difference. In my opinion it was not something the judiciary could have done but there it is. With this set up and a united India there is nothing that religious interests can do, except agitate.
July 18, 2009 at 9:22 pm
The Indian courts are subject to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian constitution which Ambedkar got passed because of there was no opposition to it. The 5 Muslim majority provinces allied with Kashmir and the Indian Muslim minority of today would have had an antagonistic relationship. Without Jinnah-type leadership (and that leadership would fade away because weak Muslim bourgeoisie would die a natural death in India), Muslims would be led by Deobandi types who would ensure that whatever constitution in India is made makes the same kind of compromises with religion as Bhutto and the PPP made.
In the meantime a Muslim or a Sikh Army chief would lead the United Indian Army to overthrow the Congress government and hang Jawaharlal Nehru circa 1959…and then use Islamic Northwest against the Soviet Empire. This post coup India would be the biggest military dictatorship in history allied with the US…meanwhile the Deobandis would be directly patronized by the state and rule of Aurangzeb would be re-enacted.
Also you keep bringing up the Khan brothers but are sadly completely unaware of their history. You have some weird notions which when I asked last time you failed to provide references for. Whatever canonization they’ve gone through in India, the reality is very different. I just hope that you do one day read history for what it is instead of repeating myths imbibed as an Indian child growing up in Nehruvian India.
July 18, 2009 at 9:49 pm
1. “The 5 Muslim majority provinces allied with Kashmir and the Indian Muslim minority of today would have had an antagonistic relationship”
2. “In the meantime a Muslim or a Sikh Army chief would lead the United Indian Army to overthrow the Congress government”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yasser Bhai: Do you realize that while we all visit the PTH trying to strengthen the forces of secularism in entire South Asia, the hypothetical statements such as the two above do nothing for it except feed into the paranoid and fascist tendencies of the Far right brigade inside India?
From the outside the Indian state may appear strong and secular but to those who follow the developments in India closely know that the battle is far from over; secularism in India is still very fragile.
We Indians still need to be constantly vigilant and proactive. We also need our well wishers to be careful not to inadverdently support those who are opposed to a secular South Asia.
Regards.
July 18, 2009 at 10:05 pm
In my opinion there is no chance of this being used…
A narrative that realizes that Pakistan’s creation has helped the cause of Indian secular democracy – imperfect and theoretical as it is-can only help secularism in South Asia.
July 18, 2009 at 10:22 pm
YLH,
Btw in his famous 8/11 speech Jinnah said that division was in his view the only solution to India’s constitutional problem. I leave it for people to decide whether homosexuals in India would have gotten their freedom had Muslims of Punjab, NWFP, Sindh and Balochistan. Been part of the fedeeration?
You’ll be pleased to know that this particular view of yours has some backing in India.
Girilal Jain, an editor of the Times of India during the 80s; somewhat of a right-wing, Hindu-revivalist intellectual and a staunch backer of the BJP during the party’s initial days had once described Jinnah with the following words:
“Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the greatest benefactor of Hindus in modern times, if he was not a Hindu in disguise.”
July 18, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Karaya,
The question you asked… what is your own view on it?
July 18, 2009 at 10:45 pm
ie that was on the other board btw
July 19, 2009 at 11:10 am
YLH,
Is historically inaccurate. The Muslims left behind in India were not 50 percent of the total South Asian Muslims. They were around 30 percent even out of which a significant population moved West.
I think Gorki’s figure is a bit more accurate here, actually.
These are the figures for Muslims according to the 1941 Census:
India: 95 mln Muslims – (1)
United Bengal: 33 mln – (2)
United Punjab: 16 mln – (3)
Sind: 3 mln – (4)
NWFP: 0.75 mln – (5)
Baluchistan: 0.5 mln – (6)
Now, I dunno what was the Muslim population of W Bengal at the time (1947) so let’s extrapolate backwards, shall we? Today, W Bengal has about 19 mln Muslims and Bangladesh has about 130 mln. So in other words, W Bengal contains about 13% of United Bengal’s Muslims. Now, let’s apply this figure of 13% to 1947 (it maybe higher if we consider the explosive growth in Bangladesh’s pop but let’s assume that 13% is correct for simplicity).
So that would mean E Bengal, at the time of Independence, had approx 28 mln Muslims. – (7)
Let’s assume the Muslims population of W Punjab to be equal to the M pop of U Punjab. Not a bad assumption considering that there aren’t almost any Punjabi Ms in India today.
Thus using, (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), Pakistan’s Muslim population at Partition would be:
Pak (Muslims)= 28 + 16 + 3 + .75 + 0.5 = 48.25
Which comes out to be 50.8% of United India’s M population.
Of course, in this calculation we have ignored the Mohajirs which isn’t altogether incorrect because at the time of Partition there were no Mohajirs in Pakistan. But even so, for theory’s sake, let us include them.
Today they constitute about 7% of W Pakistan’s population. We again extrapolate back, and using (3), (4), (5) and (6) the Mohajir population comes out to 1.5 mln. – (8)
Thus, using (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), Pakistan’s Muslim population (including the Mohajir) at Partition would be:
PM= 28 + 16 + 3 + .75 + 0.5 + 1.5 = 49.75
Which comes out to be 52.4% of United India’s M population.
Incredibly, even considering a scenario where Jinnah managed to get all of Bengal and Punjab inside Pakistan even then Pakistan’s M pop would only be 56% of United India’s M population. (Using 1 – 6).
These figures point to an important reason as to why Jinnah was so desperately against a partition of India and why the Menon Plan, announced by Mountbattem on 3rd June, was disaster for him and his constituents.
—————————
The question you asked… what is your own view on it?
Which one? The Munir Report one?
July 19, 2009 at 12:03 pm
YLH: Your scenario for a united India with even a Sikh or Muslim chief would not have worked. The only time there was a rumour of a coup (completely unfounded) was in 1959 when Thimmaya offered to resign over his differences with Krishna Menon and it was turned down by Nehru.
Coups are easier in Pak because you have allowed your army to grow larger than Pakistan. Punjab is more than half of Pakistan, population wise, and the Army is largely Punjabi. Your elites are all or nearly all army connected. Not so in India.
Just as the Sikhs lost the high quota of recruitment after 47, so would have the Punjabi Muslims. Chiefs would have been by seniority and that does not mean necessarily a Muslim chief.
About the Khan brothers; let me get hold of the references which are now lost in the recesses of the net.
July 19, 2009 at 12:19 pm
With all due respect to your extrapolations sir, the historical fact is that as many 67-70 percent Muslims became citizens of Pakistan. This is something I have seen and as soon as I recall where I saw it I’ll share it.
Since you are using reverse extrapolation, let us remember that Pakistan has a population of around 170 million out of which a safe estimate would be that 160 million are Muslim. Bangladesh also has 130 million. Indian Muslims are about 148 million.
It is my view that the Indian Muslim population growth rate is either equal or more than corresponding rates in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
So logically if those left in India were 44 percent or 38 percent, that number should have been maintained.
Now 146/433 million is equal to 33 percent. This corresponds to my point of view
July 19, 2009 at 12:34 pm
YLH,
Ha ha, yes these numerical methods are fraught with danger.
And it is for precisely this sort of situation that I had mentioned that even assuming a scenario where all of Punjab and Bengal went to Pakistan, even then Pakistan’s M pop would only be 56% of United India’s M population.
I think we can safely assume, without resorting to any sort of numerical gymnastics, that therefore the proportion of Muslims in Pak relative to the all India could not be more than 56%.
July 19, 2009 at 12:36 pm
that therefore the proportion of Muslims in Pak relative to the all India could not be more than 56%.
Should read:
that therefore the proportion of Muslims in Pak relative to the all India figure could not be more than 56%.
July 19, 2009 at 1:03 pm
No I am afraid I can’t agree with that.
Unless the Indian census has underreported Muslim figures by 50 million or so… or there has been a dramatic decrease in indian Muslim population growth rate (western levels almost) given the current numbers, there is no way your 56 percent East and West can be logical.
The numbers correspond neatly to 70 in both wings and 30 in India.
July 19, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Hayyer mian,
You’ve not gotten the point as usual and I am not going to go in circles.
The Elites you talk of would have played an important role in post British India and this is why Sir Sikandar Hayat and Khizer Hayat Tiwana were so averse to the idea of partition.
And if there wouldn’t have been a Muslim chief simply because he was Muslim, then that just proves all other claims by the Congress hollow.
The truth is that the reason why India has made the progress it has is because of partition and a future historian will recognize this. And the fact that Pakistan today has a semblance of economy and a middle class …which no matter what you say is becoming a factor in politics…is because of partition.
A united India, even with safeguards, would have forever pit Muslim majority provinces against the center…and the result would be a veto on the progress of both Hindu-majority areas and Muslim majority areas.
The only alternative to partition was having two secular federations- one Muslim majority and one Hindu majority- in a confederation. Had there been no Kashmir issue, Pakistan and India would have evolved towards each other instead of away from each other. The plan would have worked perfectly and I assure you that if and when Pakistanis and Indians resolve all bilateral issues, the true benefits of this partition will become obvious to everyone.
July 19, 2009 at 1:17 pm
YLH,
No I am afraid I can’t agree with that.
As far as the 56% figure goes, there is nothing to agree or disgaree with. These are figures from the 1941 Census. I don’t think we would be able to get hold of a more accurate data source.
You can contest the other two figures (50.8%, 52.8%), though.
July 19, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Karaya,
On the other issue- yes the issue of Munir Report’s interpretation Jinnah’s 8/11.
July 19, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Btw, the figures I quote have been mentioned in The Sole Spokeman too, if I’m not wrong. If you have the book, you can have a quick look.
If you can provide alternate sources to back your 30% figure at the time of Partition, those would be more than welcome.
July 19, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Karaya,
Be that as it may, do you see the obvious issue with the sudden fall in Indian Muslim numbers from 44 percent in 1947 to 33 percent in 2009. This means that either Pakistan and Bangladesh just went crazy with reproductive rates, rapidly improved their health care systems, or Indian population control worked remarkably well on Muslims and the whole issue of Muslims having the highest growth rate in Indian communities is a lie or Muslims are converting emasse to Hinduism in India or are being killed off…. Or Indian census authorities are under reporting the figures by atleast 50 million or if we take 50.8 percent up to 70 milllion.
I will look into it but I think you are miscalculating somewhere.
July 19, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Also you are under-reporting the Mohajir population. At partition around 8 million-10 million were uprooted…out of which the significant majority was Muslims. London Times’ figure quoted in “Formative phase” is 5.5 million Muslims. I think the number was in the range of 7 million Muslims who settled in Pakistan in 1947 and 1948.
July 19, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I have had a quick look through “Sole Spokesman” and it doesn’t seem to have any table which shows the figures you’ve referred to. If you can perhaps point me to a page number?
July 19, 2009 at 5:08 pm
We are not getting into an argument about the benefits of partition I hope.
We were talking of a hypothetical situation of a united India. There can be competing hypothesis. Suppose we go back to the one before 1937. You get one set of results; and with different break points different outcomes. In this attempt at political fiction, anything can be imagined. I do not see a united India funtioning on a feudal basis as Pakistan continued to.
If your break point is the CMP acceptance by both sides God knows what the outcome could have been in the hands of a clever politician like Jinnah or even Bhutto. No one made an effort to socialize in Pakistan because you did not have a political party with such a program. Who knows but the Congress socialists may have gained ground in Punjab. Did not Bhutto win over Punjab. Everything is possible.
July 19, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Hayyer,
No.
At best Jinnah would do would be play the bridge between the Congress and Punjabi Muslim politicians and nothing else…
You need to see how Bhutto (who may I remind you was Establishment’s blue-eyed boy and a feudal) won Punjab in light of the 1965 war as well as the general economic transition of the state.
You also tend to see the world in black and white. Pakistan has not proceeded on feudalism… it is a society in transition. That transition has been made possible by the unique circumstances that this region was plunged into … leading extraordinary industrialization of a hitherto feudal society.
In a united India.. it would remain feudal… it would remain the agricultural backwater at best… no matter what Nehru at the center would want. United India was in the interest of feudals …which is why they inevitably came out on that side.
My suggestion to everyone is to study the economic, industrial and agricultural, trends before shooting off on the basis of poorly formed historical analysis and half-baked ideas.
July 25, 2009 at 5:17 pm
YLH,
These figures are mentioned in the introduction to the book. And it’s not in the form of the table, as far as I can remember, it’s a part of the footnotes. I don’t have the book with me right now, but if you still can’t find the page, do tell and I’ll try and do something.
Also you are under-reporting the Mohajir population
Maybe. But I don’t see how a large Mohajir population could actually make the 3rd June Pakistan a more viable state from the POV of Jinnah and his constituents. I don’t think at any point of time did Jinnah envisage massive transfers of population and that these transfers did happen is an unfortunate side-effect and it certainly was not one of the factors that drove Jinnah to accept the Menon Plan announced by Mountbatten on 3rd June.
And, I’m sure, you don’t need me to tell you the circumstances under which these Mohajirs were forced to leave UP, Bihar, Delhi etc.
July 25, 2009 at 5:35 pm
The discussion between myself and Gorki sb is not centered around Jinnah’s calculations about Pakistan but about around 50% Muslims staying back and not being harmed both of which are not true. All said and then, 67-70 percent of Muslims of South Asia became the citizens of Pakistan (East and West) … including Mohajirs. Your assumption that 1.5 million alone moved to Pakistan is not based on fact.
Given the current population numbers, your calculations seem illogical… now I haven’t found the numbers in the book yet but I would look at it again.
I feel though that we are arguing about different things… you are trying to make a point about Jinnah’s reluctance about June 3rd Plan which I agree with … my discussion as explained above is with Gorki sb’s points
July 25, 2009 at 5:51 pm
YLH,
Okay, sorry about getting the background of this discussion wrong.
Please see that given the current population numbers, your calculations seem illogical.
It’s not a “my calculation”, good sir. It’s data from a census. This was the situation in 1941 and is the best approximation that we can get of the situation leading upto Partition, that’s all I say.
As to how many Muslims were driven out of India after the Menon Plan announced by Mountbatten on 3rd June was accepted, I do not have any numbers for that. Maybe you could enlighten us on the matter?
July 25, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Dear Karaya,
Again the issue is of the number of Muslims driven out of India … and I believe that the estimates for that are between 5.5 million to 8 million.
In my view I think even if your figures for 1941 census are true and I am taking your word for it, my point vis a vis Gorki sb stands.
However… in so far as your conclusions keeping only indigenous Muslim numbers… I might agree with you on a lot more than you imagine.